| || |
This is a discussion on Enneagram Article Series within the Articles forums, part of the Announcements category; Originally Posted by timeless Enneagram is chiefly existential in nature while Jung/MBTI/Socionics is not. i disagree. at least, i think ...
if i have correctly understood you, then we are on the same page, and in fact i said something to the effect that i do agree completely that these models fundamentally make different types of evaluations at different levels of the psyche and that in principle there is absolutely no reason why any combination of information filter and fixative/motivational style cannot go together. they can. end of thought; full stop.
there is another level of analysis, at which we begin to think about the personality structure of an individual as subsuming both informational filters and motivational styles. at this level, we will need to reconcile how the motivational styles flavor the informational filters and vice versa. it is a plausible hypothesis, just from the nature of our model, that some informational filters conflict with certain motivational styles. it is important to note that from the standpoint of evaluating the model in practice we are not making a causal assumption about why the model exists. that is to say, if we believe that motivational style is randomly selected and inborn, and informational filters are also randomly selected and inborn, and that the processes controlling these personological characteristics are independent or partly independent, then we have a clear reason to assume that all combinations of types from multiple systems can coexist. there is no reason to make these assumptions. when i am evaluating socionics types in practice, i do not know whether the types are inborn, or learned, or some combination of these two, or neither, and i do not need to know this to apply the model effectively. we can and do speculate about the internal mechanisms that underly the processes from our models, but at the end of the day we do not understand exactly why these models work the way that they do -- assuming they work at all (which presumably is an assumption we both accept, at least to see where it will lead us). at this level, when we do not assume that we know exactly which processes are responsible for what or how they interact with one another, it strikes me as a completely plausible, and even likely explanation that an orientation to an informational style and an orientation to a fixative/motivational style do interact and further each other, and that it is also possible that one or the other of these different processes causes the other, or overrides the other style if the other style is incompatible with the causal factor, or that some other factor directly or indirectly causes both of these personological measures. thinking of this as the most plausible explanation for interpreting personality structure as a whole, it is completely feasible to me that on a level of application and evaluating people's types in practice, some combinations might not go together, and it is also completely reasonable for me to analyze characteristics of which motivational styles and which informational filters seem to be generally in support of one another and which one seem discordant when put together.
referring to practice and not principle, i know people who i consider to be of all types in the enneagram and all types in socionics. there are many combinations i have not identified. as i stated, i have no problem whatsoever with the claim that all of these combinations *can* exist; and let me reiterate that i emphatically believe in evaluating the different assumptions of these models separately. where you lose me and make me shake my head skeptically is in the claim that not only *can* they exist, but that every combination verifiably *does* exist and that it looks like X.
i disagree. i believe that if the models are truly evaluated separately, this problem is completely not an issue; as i said, i believe emphatically that the "implausible combinations" that i have found do, in fact, exist.Determining that particular combinations are implausible is counter-productive because it colors the interpretation of people who appear to be an implausible combination.
i suspect that i would disagree with your assessments of these people's types, but then again i do not know them. i will say that there is at least one prominent member on this board who identifies as ENFP and 5 and i think that is EIE and probably a 3, but definitely not a 5.For example, I know a few ENFP 5s in person. I might have changed my perception of their type if I was predisposed to think it was implausible, but MBTI and Enneagram can coexist without conflict as long as the terms used in each are identified and given their appropriate limits.
This is still a problem, even if you believe that all the type combinations can exist.i disagree. i believe that if the models are truly evaluated separately, this problem is completely not an issue; as i said, i believe emphatically that the "implausible combinations" that i have found do, in fact, exist.
As I mentioned earlier, there's a spectrum of belief on this topic. Most people probably fall somewhere in the middle, holding the belief that certain combinations are incredibly rare but not necessarily impossible. The problem is introduced when people use that in typology. I've seen people say that they fit with MBTI Type A, and Enneagram Type B, but that's so rare that they simply must be something else. At that point, they're not typing themselves based on their personal characteristics but rather a notion of what's plausible and what's not. Ultimately, MBTI and Enneagram are systems of personal development and anything that hinders that development runs contrary to the purpose of the systems.
I didn't have any members of this site in mind when I stated that.i suspect that i would disagree with your assessments of these people's types, but then again i do not know them. i will say that there is at least one prominent member on this board who identifies as ENFP and 5 and i think that is EIE and probably a 3, but definitely not a 5.
Anyway, from a pragmatic perspective, it's best to assume that all enneagram type combinations are possible and practical because anything that's incorrect will be sorted out within the individual systems and not between them.
i totally agree, and i don't think that has anything to do with the broader point i am making here.This is still a problem, even if you believe that all the type combinations can exist.
As I mentioned earlier, there's a spectrum of belief on this topic. Most people probably fall somewhere in the middle, holding the belief that certain combinations are incredibly rare but not necessarily impossible. The problem is introduced when people use that in typology. I've seen people say that they fit with MBTI Type A, and Enneagram Type B, but that's so rare that they simply must be something else. At that point, they're not typing themselves based on their personal characteristics but rather a notion of what's plausible and what's not.
i totally agree with this from the perspective of model application, but one need not apply the same standards when applying the model as compared to evaluating the efficacy of the applied model; in fact, if one limited oneself to the assumptions of the model when evaluating it, it would severely compromise understanding the model limitations.Anyway, from a pragmatic perspective, it's best to assume that all enneagram type combinations are possible and practical because anything that's incorrect will be sorted out within the individual systems and not between them.
i will say also preemptively that my understanding of MBTI is somewhat underconfident, and i am much more comfortable working with socionics archetypes than MBTI ones -- i do have an archetypal concept of ENFPs and it is largely translated into the language of socionics EIEs, but i recognize also that i am making this translation and from my perspective it is not any better or worse than the typical twisting that is done to MBTI types anyway.
my idea of 5s is characterized by someone who is very inwardly focused and fairly unresponsive to the outside world (along with 4s). i use as an image of conceptualizing 5s the analogy of a guy huddled over a candle, desperately trying to prevent it from dying and effectively unaffected by any external exigiencies that would distract from the task of looking after the candle. the focus of 5s on external obligations is directed internally as something *necessary* in order to better tend the flame and therefore something in need of precious attention -- but the point here is that everything about 5s attention, and fears, and thought processes, and motivations, is directed inward.
ENFPs are quintessentially not directed inward. they are focused on external expression and external self-expression -- where 5s would not care about presenting or expressing themselves much -- easily distracted and drawn to different things (as opposed to the inwardly driven 5 who moves to different pursuits in the external world with relative apathy), and driven to present their visions, motivate others, etc., in the external world in a way that 5s would not be inclined to direct their energy at all.
this can be fleshed out in more depth, but fundamentally, the images of the inwardly-focused candle-holder and the idealistic, people-oriented visionary who lives for expressing himself and making discoveries in the outside world do not seem to go together. i am more than happy to be proven wrong, by actually finding an example of someone who does seem to express these contradictory elements.
That's pretty much the Jungian model of it. The other ENFP qualities you've described (self-expression, etc) are more in line with Type Four, which is a commonly claimed type for ENFPs. Many Type Four qualities are thought to be ENFP qualities, when they're not. Granted, an ENFP can certainly act that way, but I've met many "shy" extroverts, particularly ENFPs, who aren't as interested in self-expression. Even many extroverted ENFPs I've met are not fixated on that. There's a natural bleed-through of traits between MBTI and enneagram, but there's nothing in the Jungian model to suggest that all ENFPs must act like the stereotype.