# Enneagram Clusters and Opposites



## Inguz

mimesis said:


> Your 'grow up' remark I consider as projection.
> 
> As for security (or certainty, confidence, faith), you seem to cling to a system for a reason don't you? It gives you a map to understand people. And ultimately steer clear from harm. Why the need to type people so quick and dirty? Why not go deeper into what drives people, or an individual?


No, I don't cling on to systems or stay clear of harm. Are you even reading? I'm replying to the "herpdiderp I am this type because the stereotype fits me yet in all the other ways it doesn't"-mentality. I am going derper into what drives individuals, that's my sole point.


----------



## mimesis

Inguz said:


> No, I don't cling on to systems or stay clear of harm. Are you even reading? I'm replying to the "herpdiderp I am this type because the stereotype fits me yet in all the other ways it doesn't"-mentality. I am going derper into what drives individuals, that's my sole point.


You cling to the mapping of harmonic styles, and you give an example of typical behavior, which means you attribute the behavior to triad and type and type to person, where it's often situational. (or personal, like does this person do this with everyone or only with me?). So likewise the harmonic style, how we handle conflict can be different in different situations. Still over time one of them is more dominant or prevalent. The same with the other triads. The example you give could be applied to other types. 

Meaning if you single out the situation, you could explain the same behavior in different ways. What the true motivation or drive is, that is something a person himself knows best (assumingly), and for others to guess or speculate on, or perhaps suggest. 

Look if it was this simple, it would mean we were able to predict and anticipate people's behavior flawlessly.


----------



## Inguz

mimesis said:


> You cling to the mapping of harmonic styles, and you give an example of typical behavior, which means you attribute the behavior to triad and type and type to person, where it's often situational. (or personal, like does this person do this with everyone or only with me?). So likewise the harmonic style, how we handle conflict can be different in different situations. Still over time one of them is more dominant or prevalent. The same with the other triads. The example you give could be applied to other types.
> 
> Meaning if you single out the situation, you could explain the same behavior in different ways. What the true motivation or drive is, that is something a person himself knows best (assumingly), and for others to guess or speculate on, or perhaps suggest.
> 
> Look if it was this simple, it would mean we were able to predict and anticipate people's behavior flawlessly.


Give all the examples.

And yet again, no, I am not clinging on to something. The idea isn't to predict but rather to backtrack behaviour to a motivation.


----------



## mimesis

Inguz said:


> Give all the examples.
> 
> And yet again, no, I am not clinging on to something. The idea isn't to predict but rather to backtrack behaviour to a motivation.



You really mean the example of behavior you gave is only to be explained by type 8 and related triads? 

How about an overbearing mother type 2? Mind you, not that all mothers are type 2. How about a 4 disintegrating to 2? Or a type 6 sibling? 

I'm not giving you all the examples because my point is that the triads are not exclusive, but 'dominant' or prevalent behavior. You said yourself there is no scientific proof, which means it's a question of 'faith'. You just act as if you apply logic. 

If you reason 'if he is not reactive he is not an eight' that's biased perception and cognitive distortion, comparable with in-group bias. Cue Loyalist.


----------



## Inguz

mimesis said:


> You really mean the example of behavior you gave is only to be explained by type 8 and related triads?
> 
> How about an overbearing mother type 2? Mind you, not that all mothers are type 2. How about a 4 disintegrating to 2? Or a type 6 sibling?
> 
> I'm not giving you all the examples because my point is that the triads are not exclusive, but 'dominant' or prevalent behavior. You said yourself there is no scientific proof, which means it's a question of 'faith'. You just act as if you apply logic.
> 
> If you reason 'if he is not reactive he is not an eight' that's biased perception and cognitive distortion, comparable with in-group bias. Cue Loyalist.


The overbearing 2 mother would also belong to the rejection triad, she feels entitled to receive appreciation for her acts.

Also science is a 6 thing, Naranjo wrote so himself.


----------



## mimesis

Inguz said:


> The overbearing 2 mother would also belong to the rejection triad, she feels entitled to receive appreciation for her acts.
> 
> Also science is a 6 thing, Naranjo wrote so himself.


What has that got to do with the harmonic triad?


----------



## Inguz

mimesis said:


> What has that got to do with the harmonic triad?


What does science have to do with the enneagram? That's why I'm wondering what you are fuzzing so much about.


----------



## mimesis

Inguz said:


> What does science have to do with the enneagram? That's why I'm wondering what you are fuzzing so much about.


You know what, I'm bored.


----------



## Inguz

mimesis said:


> You know what, I'm bored.


It's not my fault that you can't present any good arguments or stay on topic.


----------



## mimesis

Inguz said:


> It's not my fault that you can't present any good arguments or stay on topic.


You mentioned Harmony triad. That's why I'm bored.


----------



## Inguz

mimesis said:


> You mentioned Harmony triad. That's why I'm bored.


Then why did you even respond?


----------



## mimesis

Inguz said:


> Then why did you even respond?


So you say 2 is also Rejection. But it's a different Harmony style right, so same behavior, slightly different motivation. You'd need to look into the head. And I think more than rejection triad only would say 'I was only trying to help you'.

Falsification of your generalization would mean you only need one example to disprove your claim.


----------



## Inguz

mimesis said:


> So you say 2 is also Rejection. But it's a different Harmony style right, so same behavior, slightly different motivation. You'd need to look into the head. And I think more than rejection triad only would say 'I was only trying to help you'.


I do say that 2 is part of rejection triad and... Woow, you really didn't get it, did you?


----------



## mimesis

Inguz said:


> I do say that 2 is part of rejection triad and... Woow, you really didn't get it, did you?


No, because an 8 can do thousands of things in a situation like that. It could choose not to help. With a motivation. What you do is circular reasoning. You proof zilch.


----------



## Inguz

mimesis said:


> No, because an 8 can do thousands of things in a situation like that. It could choose not to help. With a motivation. What you do is circular reasoning. You proof zilch.


And a bird could choose not to fly. The idea is the motivation behind it. Proposing that I suggested that only 8s can help someone else is absurd.


----------



## dfoster

I believe R&H only talk about the Harmonic Groups in Wisdom of the Enneagram. I didn't see any mentions of them in Personality Types. Personality Types is the predecessor of Wisdom of the Enneagram. The former is more academically oriented while the latter seems to aim at a broader, popular audience, some what lighter and a lot of added-on self help techniques and quick fixes. 

This is the only thing that was said in connection between the Harmonic Groups and Ennea Types:



> *We have also discovered* a third significant way to group the nine types that* we have named* the Harmonic Groups.


R&H named them, that's it, no more details on how they were named, not in any Appendix, no where.





> The Positive Outlook Group *is composed* of types Nine, Two, and Seven. *All three respond to conflict and difficulty by* adopting, as much as possible, a "positive attitude," reframing disappointment in some positive way...





> The Competency Group is composed of types Three, One, and Five. These people have learned to deal with difficulty by *putting aside their personal feelings and striving to be objective*, effective, and competent. They put their subjective needs and feelings on the back burner; they try to solve problems logically and expect others to do the same.





> The Reactive Group is composed of types Six, Four, and Eight. These types *react emotionally to conflicts* and problems and have difficulties knowing how much to trust other people: "I need yo to know how I feel about this." When problems arise, these types* look for an emotional response from others that mirrors *their concerns.



There are no "may be", "probably", "usually", "is a manifestation of" in the above, almost exclusive certainty that these types adopt these specific strategies when dealing with conflict.

Most people I know including myself don't adopt a single strategy most of the times. Some times, I'm reactive, some times I have a positive outlook, some times I use competency. Many times I'm like a machine, just get things done and run over people without any emotional responses. 

By stating such as the quoted above, R&H force the Enneagram students to put people into categories that don't reflect human nature. A person who reacts the same way to conflicts is a robot, thinking people behave this way is robotic, mechanical and against the goal of the Enneagram study; which aims to wake people up from their mechanical, sleep walking way of thinking and behaving.


----------



## mimesis

Inguz said:


> And a bird could choose not to fly. The idea is the motivation behind it. Proposing that I suggested that only 8s can help someone else is absurd.


If there is a motivation to help, there is also a motivation not to help. So you just give an example that confirms the theory. Aside from that you say 'if he isn't reactive it's not an 8', which could be confirmation bias, because you have no proof that all 8's are (always or 'mostly' as far as you can even measure this) reactive. Just like you chose to respond to the 2 example and left out 4 and 6. Confirmation.


----------



## Inguz

mimesis said:


> If there is a motivation to help, there is also a motivation not to help. So you just give an example that confirms the theory. Aside from that you say 'if he isn't reactive it's not an 8', which could be confirmation bias, because you have no proof that all 8's are (always or 'mostly' as far as you can even measure this) reactive. Just like you chose to respond to the 2 example and left out 4 and 6. Confirmation.


dfoster posted something in the post above yours, specifically the quotes he pointed out. Read that.


----------



## mimesis

Inguz said:


> dfoster posted something in the post above yours, specifically the quotes he pointed out. Read that.


So, what's your point? Is this in any way measurable? How stressful is a person? 

For instance you, you are such a cool person, right? Everything under control. Funny responses making the impression you are chill. Where's the emotional response? You also seem to want to make clear how competent you are. You must be 1, 3 or 5.


----------



## Inguz

mimesis said:


> So, what's your point? Is this in any way measurable? How stressful is a person?
> 
> For instance you, you are such a cool person, right? Everything under control. Funny responses making the impression you are chill. Where's the emotional response? You also seem to want to make clear how competent you are. You must be 1, 3 or 5.


But I made you agitated, didn't I?


----------



## mimesis

Inguz said:


> But I made you agitated, didn't I?


Nope, just a bit bored (at some point, and nothing personal more situational). When was I agitated?
Thanks for ducking that question.


----------



## Inguz

mimesis said:


> Nope, just a bit bored. When was I agitated?
> Thanks for ducking that question.


Annoyed then. It's the response that I was looking for in you so I triggered it. It was supposed to lead up to this statement, it was not a duck.


----------



## mimesis

Inguz said:


> Annoyed then. It's the response that I was looking for in you so I triggered it. It was supposed to lead up to this statement, it was not a duck.


I was annoyed by 'read that', yes. To be annoyed by imperative, what does that make me?


----------



## Inguz

mimesis said:


> I was annoyed by 'read that', yes. To be annoyed by imperative, what does that make me?


Unwilling to actually consider any 'proof' that doesn't fit your own preconceived notions. It was a perfect reference since you wouldn't be able to blame me for having a confirmation bias or some other absolutely ridiculous nonsense that you would come up with in order to protect your own "knowledge".


----------



## mimesis

Inguz said:


> Unwilling to actually consider any 'proof' that doesn't fit your own preconceived notions. It was a perfect reference since you wouldn't be able to blame me for having a confirmation bias or some other absolutely ridiculous nonsense that you would come up with in order to protect your own "knowledge".


I had already thanked that post, before your post. That's food for thought. I don't think the post is supporting your view much, but that's perhaps confirmation bias. Though, I suggest you read it again.

I just get annoyed when you talk in imperative. Very good 'trigger' of you! The first time I could laugh it away. But then I got bored and this clearly isn't going anywhere. It's a patience thing, I admit. Still don't see what that's got to do with it. Sorry it isn't endless, and I don't think I showed any annoyance, in my reply. You think only 3 types get annoyed, or something? Again, you proof nothing. End of this conversation, and eh...you still ducked the question.


----------



## Inguz

mimesis said:


> I had already thanked that post, before your post. That's food for thought.
> I just get annoyed when you talk in imperative. The first time I could laugh it away. But then I got bored and this clearly isn't going anywhere. It's a patience thing, I admit. Sorry it isn't endless. Again, you proof nothing. End of this conversation, and eh...you still ducked the question.


What more proof do you need than a source? If you say science or research, please show me any extensive research or science on the subject of the enneagram.


----------



## cudibloop

Yeah, I'm not feeling this. I can barely say I adopt a positive outlook under further stress.


----------



## mimesis

Inguz said:


> What more proof do you need than a source? If you say science or research, please show me any extensive research or science on the subject of the enneagram.


Let's just say I read @_dfoster_ 's post and I fully subscribe his viewpoint. Does that ring a bell? I suggest we leave it here.


----------



## SuperDevastation

Somehow I can't figure out which one opposes 5w4.


----------

