Re: CHAT: the enneagram

Stephen DeGrace <stevedegrace@...> wrote:

"Mike S." <mcslason@A...> wrote:
>
>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.
Good anecdote; this is exactly the sort of thing I was
talking about.  (Twos don't have any major issues with fear,
in the sense that type 6 does; they have issues with pride
and denying their own level of helpfulness, and neediness.)
What's bothersome about these muddled theorists is that the
more erroneous they are, the more they seem to relish
foisting their faulty reasoning on unexpecting neophytes.

>Of course, I'm not like that anymore, I'm nice now.
Yes, me too.  Though I have lapses. :-)



>> 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>
Judging from your mastery of the MBTI, I have a feeling that
if you pick up a copy of _PT_ by Riso, or _The Enneagram_
by Helen Palmer, you probably will have no need of me to
figure out your type :-)  Actually, the truth of the matter
is that the hints I have are, though salient, somewhat scant,
and I am not certain of my suspicions, and I'd rather not
chance misleading you.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

>Mike:
>> And Rosta <a-rosta@...> wrote:
>>
>
>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.
I would argue that the enneagram is at least as empirical as
the MBTI.



>> 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?
Well, unfortunely I don't know of anywhere on the web that
has good descriptions of wings, though relatively thorough
ones can be found in Riso's _PT_.  According to wing theory
(which is most emphasized by Riso) the wing may be very
pronounced or rather unpronounced; in a few cases both wings
might noticeably be in operation.  However, it is usually
maintained that the basic, or main type, crystalizes before
adolescence and stays constant throughout life.  Let me say
this though: if we describe one's average wing strength
over a long period of time by placing a point on the circle
between two cardinal types, it is tantamount to tautology
that the point has to be a bit closer to one cardinal point
or another; probabilistic laws dictate that the point will
not fall precisely on the midpoint, so in this way Riso is
right.  In light of this, my own view on personality is that
there is indeed a basic type, as asserted by most of the
authors, but in the cases of very strong wings, times and
circumstances may possibly compel a person to dwell for long
periods of time in the wing's realm.  Whether this means
a person's type changed for that period of time, I suppose,
can be debated.  Far more often than not, I think the most
people will be able, in the end, to identify a clear basic type.



>> 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.]
Perhaps "loath" was too strong of a word.  My "concern" comes
from some of the MBTI literature which suggests that less
extreme scores on the four scales indicate a more developed,
or balanced personality.

Part of the idea, as John Cowan was driving toward in his
post, and I only barely alluded to in mine, is that the
dominant function has a flip side, the inferior function,
which is the opposite of the dominant function on the same
scale (rational = judging functions: F vs. T; irrational =
perceiving functions: N vs. S).  John also mentioned that
the inferior function is available only to the unconscious;
another way to put this is that the inferior function is
"undifferentiated".

The upshot of this--from a certain view--is that a strong
thinker may well have difficulty understanding his own value
judgements, just as a strong feeler may have difficulty
explaining how he came to a logical conclusion.  The stronger
(more consciously exercised) the dominant function, the
weaker (less consciously exercised) the inferior function.
I guess what I feel uncomfortable with is the implication
that there are parts of my mind, specifically my judgement
process, which are beyond the scope of my consciousness.



>> 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.
LOL, a good guess.  It was supposed to be "equanimity".


>> 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.
Well, the traditional concept of sin is somewhat adopted to
fit in with the more modern concept of ego in psychology.

(The early religious forms of enneagram theory represent
a very interesting fusion of creeds which are ostensibly
incompatible.  Traditional Christianity insists that we need
to acknowledge that we are each an imperfect, fallen being,
and to strive through some combination of faith and works to
win Grace;  most forms of modern psychology practically
insist that we are "okay" just the way we are; if there is
something wrong with us, it is because of society, parents,
oppression, etc.--anything except our own faults;  indeed,
we are urged to reaffirm our "self-esteem".  This is a
breathtakingly vast difference of perspective.  I have very
often wondered why those who would defend Christianity have
thrown up such determined resistances to such utter
trivialities as the Theory of Evolution at the same time
they have almost completely ignored the rise of the modern
psychologist, who has, in modernity, totally muscled out
the holy man as preferred interpreter of our souls.)



>> >  "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.
Well, to speak enneagrammatically for a moment, most of the
traits described point to type Five, though there is a couple
items that would in addition apply to Four.  But aside from
the traits themselves, there is the whole act of self-relevation
inherent to consider.  A self-revelation of this sort, with
its brutal insistance on honesty, points directly towards
Four, insofar as Five is usually very given to secrecy.
(Fiveish secrecy can be abandoned under certain conditions
and venues.  You do indicate later that Conlang is such a
venue for you.  Still, I have to maintain that it would be
an extremely rare 5w6 who would write such a paragraph.
5w6's are usually not as introspective as 5w4's.)  Overall,
the paragraph points definitely to one of the 4/5 combinations.

I had believed for certain that this paragraph had been
lifted from some enneagram web page I had not seen.  Its
uncanniness as a description of the dark side of Five is
unmistakable and remarkable.  Indeed, "perspicacious" is
the right word.



>(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.]
I am not sure why anyone would regret reading your posts.
The way I interpret a carefully crafted and informative post
--if this is what you mean by egotism--is that it actually
is a token of respect towards others;  the board is
extremely busy, so when one makes a modicum of effort to put
one's thoughts in order and compose something worth reading
before clicking "send", it serves to minimize the waste of
others' time. If one incidentally derives some pride in that,
I feel it is well deserved.


Regards

---   Mike