Re: CHAT: the enneagram

Mike:
> 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.
First of all, various sources of information (an enneagram book
I borrowed from my mother, written by jesuits; your message; the
site Andy Canivet posted a recommendation to) have persuasively
shown me how the superficially arbitrary 9 types can be derived
nonarbitrarily from two three-way parameters, which are in
themselves insightful. If (as you believe) it then turns out to
be the case that in a personality space defined by many more
parameters (or parameter pairs), actual personalities are
distributed unevenly in clusters, this is even more interesting,
and incontrovertibly empirical.

[snip valuable exposition, which I may ask about in a later
message]

> >> 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!
When you first declared yourself to be one, I sought an online
description but couldn't find one. Is it possible to be a 5ish 4
and then during adolescence slowly turn into a 4ish 5?

> >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.
Why loath? [BTW, I retook the test, getting much higher scores,
with 100 on I and 90 on T. The discussions must have put me in
a very INTPish mood. But so far I only really grasp the
implications of the I/E parameter, despite your much-needed
exposition of the MBTI system.]

[...]
> >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,
another joyous typo, though I cannot work out what it should
mean, though horses should be involved somehow.

> 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).
My further readings have indeed revealed an encouraging
degree of unflatteringness. Unfortunately my upbringing has
not provided me with an adequate understanding of the
traditional christian doctrines, so I understand the sins
only in their everyday meanings, not in their proper theological
context.

> >  "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?
The source is the message by me that you were replying to. I tried
to describe myself as negatively as possible without straying
into dishonesty or inaccuracy. It is a warts-only self-portrait.
(In a way I find it rather flattering, given all the faults one
could have but I see myself as not having! -- and given the sorts
of human vice that I think truly inexcusable.) [I am aware that
anyone who has been reading my recent messages, and has regretted
doing so, would probably think I ought to have added "colossal
egotism" to the description, but I think that would be slightly
illusory in that the somewhat svelte bulk of my egotism is all
funnelled to these discussions on conlang lists, to the extent
that when next my parents, friends or colleagues endeavour to
interrogate me about myself I should, instead of drawing a
cipherlike blank, simply refer them to my messages in the Conlang
archives.]

--And.

Reply