Enneagram Article Series

Originally Posted by timeless

Enneagram is chiefly existential in nature while Jung/MBTI/Socionics is not.

i disagree. at least, i think i disagree. i am confused; what does "existential" mean in this context? pervasive? depressively sobering?

Originally Posted by aestrivex

i disagree. at least, i think i disagree. i am confused; what does "existential" mean in this context? pervasive? depressively sobering?

In this context, it refers to the basic nature of a human being (this is why it's called a "psychospiritual" system) while Jung/MBTI/Socionics is more concerned with information processing.

Originally Posted by timeless

In this context, it refers to the basic nature of a human being (this is why it's called a "psychospiritual" system) while Jung/MBTI/Socionics is more concerned with information processing.

i think i understand what you are saying. what i think you said -- translated in a way that makes sense to me, at any rate -- is that the enneagram measures or purports to measure a different thing than MBTI; MBTI measures trait scales or cognitive filters and socionics measures something very similar in the context of information filters, whereas the enneagram measures motivational structures and ego fixations. if this is substantially not the same idea as what you said, correct me.

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.

Determining that particular combinations are implausible is counter-productive because it colors the interpretation of people who appear to be an implausible combination.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by aestrivex

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 think you'll find that it's impossible to verify someone's type in either MBTI or Enneagram because it relies inherently on the subjective input of the individual. There's no scientific test for these things. Regardless, I explicitly used generic terminology to reinforce the concept that each type combination doesn't look like X, but rather, they look along the lines of 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.

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. Ultimately, MBTI and Enneagram are systems of personal development and anything that hinders that development runs contrary to the purpose of the systems.

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.

I didn't have any members of this site in mind when I stated that.

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.

Originally Posted by timeless

I think you'll find that it's impossible to verify someone's type in either MBTI or Enneagram because it relies inherently on the subjective input of the individual. There's no scientific test for these things. Regardless, I explicitly used generic terminology to reinforce the concept that each type combination doesn't look like X, but rather, they look along the lines of X.

of course; all of my typings are absolutely my own and entirely subjective. my conclusions that i do not realistically see the combinations you describe in your descriptions are also based on my observations and typings and are no less subjective. but if not in a somewhat subjective standpoint of describing these personality languages to one another we would have no basis for comparison of our interpretations of the models whatsoever.

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, and i don't think that has anything to do with the broader point i am making here.

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 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.

Originally Posted by aestrivex

of course; all of my typings are absolutely my own and entirely subjective. my conclusions that i do not realistically see the combinations you describe in your descriptions are also based on my observations and typings and are no less subjective. but if not in a somewhat subjective standpoint of describing these personality languages to one another we would have no basis for comparison of our interpretations of the models whatsoever.

i totally agree, and i don't think that has anything to do with the broader point i am making here.

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.

The ultimate question is, why do you find ENFP 5 to be an implausible combination?

Originally Posted by timeless

The ultimate question is, why do you find ENFP 5 to be an implausible combination?

great; we are getting to the meat here. i will stop to say that this is only a case study, but a perfectly reasonable and well afforded one since these are both common types that i suspect are commonly mistyped together.

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.

Originally Posted by aestrivex

great; we are getting to the meat here. i will stop to say that this is only a case study, but a perfectly reasonable and well afforded one since these are both common types that i suspect are commonly mistyped together.

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.

Your description of Five sounds like an unhealthy Five. Keep in mind that Fives integrate to Eight, and Eight is a type that is instinctively at home in the outside world. Fives are associated with fear/anxiety (as are all the head types) and that anxiety comes from their interactions with the outside world, which they cannot avoid. An extroverted Five would definitely be obvious in their growth arrow of Eight, where they are assertive and interested in the affairs of the outside world. Five also disintegrates to Seven, which is extroverted and scattered. So Five does not stand alone. Additionally, Having an extroverted perceiving function (Ne or Se) would make sense in that Five relies on information collecting. The auxiliary function can process it, which would be Fi in ENFPs and Ti in ENTPs. If certain combinations are indeed rarer than others, then I would say that ExxP would be far more common than ExxJ, the latter of which does not have a perceiving function as their first.

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.

Originally Posted by timeless

Your description of Five sounds like an unhealthy Five. Keep in mind that Fives integrate to Eight, and Eight is a type that is instinctively at home in the outside world. Fives are associated with fear/anxiety (as are all the head types) and that anxiety comes from their interactions with the outside world, which they cannot avoid. An extroverted Five would definitely be obvious in their growth arrow of Eight, where they are assertive and interested in the affairs of the outside world. Five also disintegrates to Seven, which is extroverted and scattered. So Five does not stand alone.

by resorting to growth and stress arrows to make your point you are completely missing the point as well as the purpose of those connections in a type 5 mindset and now i am completely unimpressed with your understanding of type five.

Originally Posted by aestrivex

by resorting to growth and stress arrows to make your point you are completely missing the point as well as the purpose of those connections in a type 5 mindset and now i am completely unimpressed with your understanding of type five.

You can't ignore the parts of the enneagram that you don't like. Like it or not, growth and stress arrows exist and they are part of a type. Not to mention the several other points in my post that you disregarded. In a way, this is a great example of a problem with personality theory, people come in wanting to see what they want to see and they will disregard anything that contradicts it - even if it's an integral part of the theory like growth and stress arrows. The growth arrow to Eight directly contradicts your view of Five.