| || |
This is a discussion on What Is Your Enneagram Tri-Type? within the Enneagram Personality Theory Forum forums, part of the Personality Type Forums category; Originally Posted by Paradigm I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious as to your reasoning behind... several things. Do ...
3w2, 8w9, 6w5 (brought to you by @timeless' test, thanks dude.)
The Enneagram is interesting enough, although some type descriptions out there can be too 'fluffy' or abstract for my liking. It also demands more self-reflection than the MBTI does, which isn't always pleasant to be honest.
Pretty sure about this. I used to not believe in Enneagram because I always tested as a 5, and it didn't really fit. Then I learned about Type 9.
What does that have to do with anything? Or are you an NT (Rational) who likes to ask these kinds of questions? I am an NF (Idealist) who finds such things queries interesting.
That said, I've actually looked into DiSC, and I found the same thing. Some people act like your type is your type, and only a few will acknowledge that your type in DiSC might have something to do with your setting. I might test as a DI in one organization and an SC in another, all based on how I perceive my environment. I have also seen some literature that links up the Enneagram with Myers Briggs, that was interesting.
I will say too it depends on the Enneagram theorist you're reading. I've got less appreciation for Palmer's books than I do for Riso& Hudson, in part b/c it seems too much like a collection of stereotypes and less an in depth look that factors in the complexity of the human spirit.
Most of all though, I guess what would have more credibility with me is an actual exposition on specific weaknesses in the theory. I understand that there is some criticism as to the roots, but there is still an actual theory guiding this. So, what's the issue with the theory and its actual working components? I didn't see enough of that in this article. That's what I'm really curious about. Let's look at the theoretical foundations, rather than the history. :)