Re: CHAT: the enneagram

And Rosta <a-rosta@...> wrote:

>I recognize the sensation of reading a description and recognizing
>oneself (and not recognizing oneself in the description of other
>types), so I definitely feel that the classification of
>personality is a valid and insightful activity. What I (and others)
>balk at, though, is the idea that we can meaningfully be grouped
>into 9 or 16 types. Far better to define a multidimensional
>personality space. I was mildly interested by the free mini
>enneagram diagnoser because though it was feeble in itself, it
>presents results by showing the relative strengths of the
>nine types in, if not one's own make-up, then one's responses.
True, no simple classificational system can do justice to the
true range of human personality.  But at the same time, studying
the enneagram has led me to the strong suspicion that personality
traits are not completely random either.  Personalities are not
arbitrary jumbles of this and that, nor do they usually change
very much from day to day.  There are definite, discernable,
consistent patterns, and if they tend to change at all, it is
only over very long periods of time.  In enneagram theory, it is
held that the basic type never changes, though one's "level
of development" can vary across the years.


>> I recommend Riso's _Personality Types_ if you are interested
>> in studying the system a bit more.  The only disagreement
>> I have with that book is the author's one-to-one correlations
>> between the enneagram types and the Jungian types, which
>> I flatly reject.  Other than that, it's a superb book.
>
>Can you recommend something along the lines of what I am
>after: something that defines not so much a small set of types
>but rather the principal parameters of variation?
Well, a book containing several sections of a more theoretical
nature is _Understanding the Enneagram_ by Riso.  A third book
by Riso is _Wisdom of the Enneagram_.  I have to say all books
contain material that is both redundant and nonredundant.  I might
suggest you browse them at a large bookstore chain, if that is
possible for you.

As far as the principal parameters of variation, there are
several ways to group the nine types into groups of three:

Primary Emotional Triads
- Instinctual: 8, 9, 1. (I prefer to call this the "will-power
triad" to distinguish it from the instinctual drives which are
entirely different.)
- Feeling: 2, 3, 4. (I prefer to call this the "self-awareness
triad" to distinguish it from Jung's feeling function which is
entirely different.)
- Thinking: 5, 6, 7.  (I prefer to call this "environment-
awareness" triad to distinguish it from Jung's thinking function
which is entirely different.)

Harmonic Groups
- Positive Outlook Group: 7, 9, 2 (I am tempted to call them
"suppressed").
- Competency Group: 1, 3, 5 (I prefer to call them "detatched").
- Reactive Group: 4, 6, 8 ("reactive" is a suitable word--
"negative outlook" would work too.).

Social Style (Hornevian) Groups
- withdrawn: 9, 4, 5 (a suitable word)
- assertive: 3, 7, 8 (a suitable word)
- compliant: 6, 1, 2 ("responsible" might be a better word).

Dominant Affect Groups
- Attached: 9, 3, 6.
- Frustration: 1, 4, 7.
- Rejection: 8, 2, 5.

These groupings form three-way symmetries on the enneagram
circle, and all, except the last, are centered on 3, 6, and 9.
If I have more time I will go into further detail on what these
terms mean.  They all have some arguable validity.  You'll
notice that we only require two groupings to specify 9 types.
The fact that we can identify four groupings and that not all
permutations of groupings are permissable possibly suggests
the non-randomness of personality that I had alluded to earlier.


>> Well in view of the fact that about a dozen other folks have
>> announced their types with no apparent ill effects, perhaps
>> you will reconsider :-)
>
>I'll succumb to your invitation with unseemly readiness!
>
>The free enneagram test had me split almost equally on all
>types with troughs at 3 and 8, which are at the least the types
>most inapplicable. Reading the online descriptions it would be
>5 or perhaps 4, though reading descriptions elsewhere, 5 fits
>better.
According to Riso, most folks will exhibit a "wing" which must
be adjacent to the main type.  You may be a 5 with a 4 wing.
A very interesting type, I think, considering I am one myself!


>Doing Myers-Briggs tests before, I always come out as IN, but
>with any of the other four combos, perhaps with INTP as the
>most pronounced. Doing the online test other people have been
>doing gives INTP (78, 56, 56, 33). As Roger said in his message,
>the description by Joe Butt (http://typelogic.com/intp.html)
>elicits much recognition:
It seems that MBTI fluctuation is common for some folks.  I
myself have been a dyed-in-the-wool INTP for years.  Of the four
scales, my N/S is the closest to even.  My I and P and quite
pronounced.  I have generally scored perfect or nearly perfect
scores for T, I am somewhat loath to admit.


>  "INTPs are pensive, analytical folks. They may venture so
>  deeply into thought as to seem detached, and often actually
>  are oblivious to the world around them.
>    Precise about their descriptions, INTPs will often correct
>  others (or be sorely tempted to) if the shade of meaning is
>  a bit off. While annoying to the less concise, this fine
>  discrimination ability gives INTPs so inclined a natural
>  advantage as, for example, grammarians and linguists.
>    INTPs are relatively easy-going and amenable to most
>  anything until their principles are violated, about which
>  they may become outspoken and inflexible. They prefer to
>  return, however, to a reserved albeit benign ambiance, not
>  wishing to make spectacles of themselves.
>    A major concern for INTPs is the haunting sense of impending
>  failure. [...]"
It's indeed an apt description.


>I like that last sentence. One suspicious thing about these
>popular expositions of personality type is that they harp on
>their good points, so one is invited to bask in the pleasure
>of being told about one's virtues and talents. I am far more
>convinced by a description that accurately describes my
>vices, weaknesses and defects. So, if some test tells me:
You are absolutely right.  We love to be flattered, don't we?
I might mention that the enneagram evolved from a view of the
soul in which a person's central vice was the most salient
characteristic.  In fact, the enneagram was originally based
on the Seven Deadly Sins, 1=anger, 2=pride, 4=envy, 5=avarice,
7=gluttony, 8=lust, 9=sloth, augmented by two additions:
3=deceit and 6=fear.  The idea of determining your type was to
determine what virtue you most urgently needed to foster, IIRC:
1=serenity, 2=humility, 3=honesty, 4=equinimity, 5=generosity,
6=faith, 7=moderation, 8=forbearance, 9=action.

In addition, you'll find thorough descriptions of the unhealthy
variations of the types (along side the healthy and average
variations) in Riso's _PT_.  The unhealthy descriptions are
far from flattering, and, at the same time, disconcertingly
close to home (occasionally, at least for me).


>  "You are unlikely to lead a life conspicuous for positively
>  improving the material wellbeing of the general population.
>  Your are prone to self-indulgence, addiction and
>  procrastination. You are stingy with time/money. You feel
>  the world outside you is more your oppressor than your ally,
>  that it is to be retreated from, held at bay; you feel
>  imprisoned and often paralysed. What talents you have are
>  squandered on you. None of your good fortune is really
>  earnt, except in close personal relationships. Your
>  risk-aversion, fatalism and pessimism renders you supine in
>  resisting the prison that your personality makes of the world
>  for you."
>
>then I'll be very impressed with its perspicacity!
>
>--And.
That paragraph made me flinch!  Can you please tell me the source?


Regards

Reply