--- In conlang@y..., "Mike S." <mcslason@A...> wrote:
> Stephen DeGrace <stevedegrace@Y...> wrote:
>
> >I have yet to see a Enneagram-MBTI correspondence
that
> >I don't find risible, unless expressed in terms of
> >likelihoods and trends.
>
> Perhaps I should adopt your attitude and laugh :-)
I find these
> correspondence theories positively irritating. They
are all
> *immediately* flawed on two grounds. First is the
_number_
> problem: there are _eight_ Jungian types and _nine_
enneagram
> types. It makes me have to ask, "Hello? Did you
consider
> the *blatantly* obvious fact that you can't have a
one-to-one
> mapping between sets of different sizes?" The other
issue
> is the _empirical_ evidence. The most cursory
examination of
> the facts reveals that every enneagram type shows
multiple
> MB type's and vice versa. I personally know Fives
who are INTP's,
> ISTP's, INTJ's, INFP's etc. None of this disputes
that there
> are trends of course. ESFJ type-5's, for example,
are vanishing
> rare, if they exist at all. The point is, you can't
correlate
> the two systems in any facile way. Nevertheless,
there are
> people who will not give it up. Even Riso won't.
LOL, I remember on the Yahoo INFP list, back when I
used to try and read it :P (something I can't say I
recommend <g>), there was one fella, real know-it-all
type, who latched on to one of these and said that all
INFPs were enneagram type 2, we were all driven by
Fear, and the upshot of it was that only he was wise
and learned enough, on account of having this theory
to be our guide or whatever (the last bit was unstated
but I think was rather present :P). Well, I tore into
that, pointing out a) we had a gazillion Enneatypes
represented on that list alone and b) where the hell
did Type 3 go anyway? Is the theory basically that
these people don't possess Myers-Briggs types? I
_also_ said right in public exactly what I thought all
this was really about. That shut him up :P.
Of course, I'm not like that anymore, I'm nice now.
> I should point out at this point for anyone on this
list whose
> curiosity has been piqued to be wary of learning
about the
> enneagram on the Internet.
[snips info]
Hey, thanks for the URLs!
> >I've found some of the "cycles" or whatever they're
> >called used to characterise and describe the
enneagram
> >types to be interesting and useful. The "what type
are
> >you" thing with the enneagram, though, that just
> >doesn't fly for me. I think if the enneagram's
model
> >or reality _does_ happen to fit you it would
probably
> >be rather useful, but like I've observed some
> >individuals make the MBTI go haywire, I seem to be
> >someone who makes the enneagram go haywire :P.
>
> I hope you don't mind me saying, but I am afraid
that you do
> not strike me as beyond enneagram typing :-) You
have a
> definite personality,
Thank goodness! I was worried there for a sec! ;) ;)
> as evidenced by your Idino satire (which,
> incidentally, had me quite literally doubled over in
a belly
> laugh :-)
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it :).
> There are numerous hints--enough for me to suspect
> but not enough to hazard a guess. So please don't
ask me to :-)
> If you wish to maintain your enneagram
non-typability, then
> I will respect that.
God damn you, you can't say a thing like that and not
tell me. Give! <weg>
Stephen
______________________________________________________________________
Movies, Music, Sports, Games! http://entertainment.yahoo.ca