# Why is Enneagram structured the way it is?



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

enneagram is "astronomical"


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

delphi367 said:


> Perhaps not, but I do see some interesting alignments...
> 
> Air = Intuition
> Earth = Sensing
> ...


I would only suggest equating Air to mind and Fire to will, as opposed to intuition and thinking.



> Actually, in that sense, I can almost see why Enneagram lacks a fourth center. It's looking at humanity from the perspective of that fourth center... "the spirit." If Heart is Feeling, Body is Sensing, and Mind is Thinking... then Spirit would be Intuition, the glue that holds them all together. Without that, you'd just have three independent units floating around in disharmony.


Esoterically speaking, heart and spirit are generally synonymous. 

Spirit(heart) is associated with intuition, emotion, compassion, dissolution, the sacred feminine; Semiramis.
Mind is associated with logic, will, virile energy (not simply sexual), generation, the sacred masculine; Nimrod. 

You can think of it as a kind of left-brain, right-brain dichotomy. 

With that said, I don't think the Enneagram is describing this _particular_ view regarding mind and spirit. 
Rather, I think what the Enneagram fundamentally describes is how adept, or inclined, one is at "using" the 3 centers of intelligence.


----------



## DoubleDare (May 15, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> I mean, there's the physical, there's the mental, and there's the emotional... but what about the symbolic, the patterns, the connections? That doesn't merit a separate category?


Personally, I think that what we call "Intuition" relies on a more abstract processing of inputs, but I haven't delved into that very much. I think there could be a more literal processing and a more abstract processing of input gathered from each of the intelligence centers. Seeing connections is just a different way of processing what one experiences. You could use any/all of the centers for that processing.



> No, they did in fact relate to personalities. Sanguine, Melancholy, Phlegmatic, and Choleric are fairly commonly used.


Kind of. But the basis of the humours seems to be entirely physiological. The idea was that, if the humours in the body were out of balance, those "temperaments" would manifest in one's behavior. Again, no expert, but that's my understanding.



> Perhaps not, but I do see some interesting alignments...
> 
> Air = Intuition
> Earth = Sensing
> ...


No idea, honestly, but that actually has given me something to think about regarding another mystery I've been trying to solve, lol. So thanks!



> I think that's the problem. Our minds are set up to understand things in terms of oppositions. Light and Darkness, Heat and Cold... concepts that don't oppose each other in some way have no real meaning, and hard to hold in our consciousness. Enneagram is purely additive, and never subtracts anything, never has genuine oppositions. Thus, it seems messy and arbitrary in a way that's hard to accept.


Maybe that's where and why the Enneagram is hard to grasp but yet powerful? It looks at things as a whole without opposition? I mean, there is no "opposition" to human consciousness that we could ever experience. Human consciousness is the *only* thing we can experience. To me, looking for that kind of structure strikes me as being a bit too "heady" about the Enneagram. The Enneagram isn't about that, for me. It operates more, for lack of a better term, "energetically" than cognitively. (Not "energy" in the New Age woo sense, either).



> I don't know my type either, but I think that's because my nature is not adequately captured by a simple 9 archetype system. I think I'm a far more complex being than that.


My advice? Forget the archetypes. No one really even agrees on what they are/should be, so it's best to not pay much attention to them. They are distractions. No one is an archetype, and using the Enneagram to figure out your archetype is a waste of time and valuable wisdom, IMO. Many people do use the Enneagram in that kind of reductionist way, but I don't think it accomplishes anything other than making the Enneagram into a fun little mental game...



> Actually, in that sense, I can almost see why Enneagram lacks a fourth center. It's looking at humanity from the perspective of that fourth center... "the spirit." If Heart is Feeling, Body is Sensing, and Mind is Thinking... then Spirit would be Intuition, the glue that holds them all together. Without that, you'd just have three independent units floating around in disharmony.


None of the centers are independent. They can't be. However, using all of them together and more powerfully may open up what could be considered "the spirit." But I don't think humans use a "spirit" intelligence as part of their consciousness. Intution is just as fallible as Sensing, for example, so I don't think it works as powerfully as what most would consider "Spirit." Perhaps "spiritual insight" can be better accomplished with three well-developed intelligence centers rather than a whole separate part of the consciousness.



> The kind of spirituality I was talking about with Enneagram, though is that there's all this talk about "subjective experience," "inner work," "holy ideas," and things like that. I mostly mean it sounds like voodoo or hokum. I'm referring more to superstition than true spirituality, I guess.


Holy ideas can come off "spiritual." I opine that the use of the term "Holy" is to distinguish it the concepts at a universal, objective level, rather than as a concept subject to a limited human viewpoint. Subject experience and inner work, though, are ubiquitous terms in psychotherapy, however, so I don't know that I would classify them as reflecting superstition.



> Yeah, but all you really said was that a lot of common sense ideas happen to line up with Enneagram, and that the structure is simple.You didn't really demonstrate that those ideas are accurate, or that the simplicity of the structure means it's true. It's "simple" to divide kids into goths, jocks, preppies, and nerds. But that doesn't mean that's the most accurate way of describing who they are. You get what I mean?


I have not seen any evidence that three categories of intelligence is *not* true. Again, I haven't come across any other description of human "being." The other two assertions seemed to be logical given the basis, but may not be as rooted in "truth" as the first assertion. But it seems there is a pretty strong argument for the other two, knowing what I know of intelligence and human behavior. It's not "one way" of categorizing human consciousness - it seems to be "the way", unless I can find evidence to the contrary (the humours and the zodiac signs are not attempting to circumscribe human consciousness, as far as I can tell).

However, I totally agree with you that using the Enneagram to "divide kids into goths, jocks, preppies, and nerds" is fallible at best, and, again, limiting and destructive at worst. I don't think that is what the Enneagram is most useful for. That's all ego reinforcement, but wise people can use the Enneagram to transcend their ego limitations rather than reinforce them.



> Well, what if their reasons for doing those things line up with more than one type?


I would argue that there really is one ultimate motivation for any given action. Sure, other motivations might lend support, but if one is faced with a choice, what motivation are they keeping and what are they giving up? That's the interesting question, to me.



> I mean, you can always write it off as a wing or a manifestation of tritype in most cases.


I haven't figured out the usefulness of tritype, but I think that wing theory points to an idea that the Enneagram is more than just Nine separate and distinct points. I tend to see the Enneagram configuration of personalities as more a color wheel. Looking at a color wheel, you can identify specific colors, like "blue" and "yellow" with "green" in-between, but there are thousands of blended colors, not just the primaries. To me, the Enneagram works similarly. YMMV.



> And then, what if there are more motivations and defense mechanisms than the 9 listed here? Those 9 might be the most common, but why couldn't there be more of them? I've certainly seen a greater number of mechanisms listed in psychology books. It just seems odd to insist that there are exactly 9, and that they must work according to these rules.


Eh, I have spent years talking with other people about how they operate, what motivates them to do what they do, how they see themselves, and what they fear. If I compiled a list of the core conversations at the heart of it all, it would be very short. And 90% of that list would be "I'm a screwup", "I'm bad/no good", "I'm unlovable", "I'm weak", "I'm untrustworthy", "I'm defective", "I'm a fraud". While a list of the very core conversations people have about themselves _seems_ like it would be exhaustive, it's not. Remember, we develop these views of ourselves/things we say when we are very, very young. Small children have access to only very simple language, and have very simple views of the world and themselves. You are not dealing with an adult conversation, so it's not surprising that the core conversations identified in the Enneagram are not very complex.



> That's another thing I'd agree with. I really don't want to identify with any enneagram types. They all seem like very primitive and childish perspectives on life.


'Cause that's where our brains were when those perspectives where put in place, lol… ;-)


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

DoubleDare said:


> Personally, I think that what we call "Intuition" relies on a more abstract processing of inputs, but I haven't delved into that very much. I think there could be a more literal processing and a more abstract processing of input gathered from each of the intelligence centers. Seeing connections is just a different way of processing what one experiences. You could use any/all of the centers for that processing.


I just don't see why there have to be exactly three centers. I really don't see myself primarily as a mind, body, or heart-centered person at all.





> Kind of. But the basis of the humours seems to be entirely physiological. The idea was that, if the humours in the body were out of balance, those "temperaments" would manifest in one's behavior. Again, no expert, but that's my understanding.


That seems like a very literal understanding of the concept, but let's just agree to disagree on that.



> No idea, honestly, but that actually has given me something to think about regarding another mystery I've been trying to solve, lol. So thanks!


You're welcome. I find that set of correlations often opens up doors for people, even if they end up not ultimately agreeing with it.




> Maybe that's where and why the Enneagram is hard to grasp but yet powerful? It looks at things as a whole without opposition? I mean, there is no "opposition" to human consciousness that we could ever experience. Human consciousness is the *only* thing we can experience. To me, looking for that kind of structure strikes me as being a bit too "heady" about the Enneagram. The Enneagram isn't about that, for me. It operates more, for lack of a better term, "energetically" than cognitively. (Not "energy" in the New Age woo sense, either).


It really sounds like the "woo-woo" kind of energy, though. Because it doesn't use any oppositions, it seems to be an arbitrary strewing of types around a circle, connected by lines with no good reason.

I don't really see a lot of power in a symbol that can't be shown to have any relevance to reality. Ultimately, there's still the problem that it's making assertions about how human consciousness is set up without really justifying them in a way that I can accept.



> My advice? Forget the archetypes. No one really even agrees on what they are/should be, so it's best to not pay much attention to them. They are distractions. No one is an archetype, and using the Enneagram to figure out your archetype is a waste of time and valuable wisdom, IMO. Many people do use the Enneagram in that kind of reductionist way, but I don't think it accomplishes anything other than making the Enneagram into a fun little mental game...


How else would you use it? 




> None of the centers are independent. They can't be. However, using all of them together and more powerfully may open up what could be considered "the spirit." But I don't think humans use a "spirit" intelligence as part of their consciousness. Intution is just as fallible as Sensing, for example, so I don't think it works as powerfully as what most would consider "Spirit." Perhaps "spiritual insight" can be better accomplished with three well-developed intelligence centers rather than a whole separate part of the consciousness.


Again, that view is rooted in assumptions that I don't feel are justified. I have to accept that humans have three centers of intelligence, I have to accept that they use those centers in certain ways, and I have to accept that those uses of those centers manifest in certain ways. That's an awful lot to just accept.




> Holy ideas can come off "spiritual." I opine that the use of the term "Holy" is to distinguish it the concepts at a universal, objective level, rather than as a concept subject to a limited human viewpoint. Subject experience and inner work, though, are ubiquitous terms in psychotherapy, however, so I don't know that I would classify them as reflecting superstition.


I get the feeling that any practice, psychotherapy or otherwise, that relies on subjective experience and inner work... seems more like an attempt to convince people of something false for their own good. It seems like it appeals to people's need to believe in something that doesn't make sense, in order to feel grounded and confident in themselves, and thus able to justify acting on their desires without feelings of guilt or defense mechanisms being engaged. Enneagram is just yet another example of such a system, but there are countless examples of such systems.

They don't reflect the truth about how humans operate, so much as they reflect the fact that people often need to believe in things that don't make sense in order to feel justified and confident acting in the world or changing their behavior. I'm sure it has a use and has helped a lot of people... but just as many people swear that astrology or prayer has helped them deeply as well. They always cite that they are certain of the truth of something which doesn't make sense, because of their "experience," or the way it touches their "inner self." 


> I have not seen any evidence that three categories of intelligence is *not* true. Again, I haven't come across any other description of human "being." The other two assertions seemed to be logical given the basis, but may not be as rooted in "truth" as the first assertion. But it seems there is a pretty strong argument for the other two, knowing what I know of intelligence and human behavior. It's not "one way" of categorizing human consciousness - it seems to be "the way", unless I can find evidence to the contrary (the humours and the zodiac signs are not attempting to circumscribe human consciousness, as far as I can tell).


I don't see why I have to prove that it's not true, but you don't have to show that it is. 

You're just continuing to assert with boldness that this is THE way things work, that there couldn't possibly be another way of categorizing it. 

Because you said that, though, now I'm pretty much going to go_ out of my way _to find another way of categorizing it. xD



> However, I totally agree with you that using the Enneagram to "divide kids into goths, jocks, preppies, and nerds" is fallible at best, and, again, limiting and destructive at worst. I don't think that is what the Enneagram is most useful for. That's all ego reinforcement, but wise people can use the Enneagram to transcend their ego limitations rather than reinforce them.


Right. It does seem more useful for that purpose. I found a book on it recently, and this one takes a different approach. Rather than talking about it terms of a personality, it talks about how all the points are manifestations of the same thing... disconnectedness from Being, or something. It shows them all as a journey of trying and failing at different strategies, becoming cut off from different aspects of their essential selves in the process, rather than characterizing everyone as being stuck at one point.





> I would argue that there really is one ultimate motivation for any given action. Sure, other motivations might lend support, but if one is faced with a choice, what motivation are they keeping and what are they giving up? That's the interesting question, to me.


I'm not sure about that, but I'm willing to entertain that notion.




> I haven't figured out the usefulness of tritype, but I think that wing theory points to an idea that the Enneagram is more than just Nine separate and distinct points. I tend to see the Enneagram configuration of personalities as more a color wheel. Looking at a color wheel, you can identify specific colors, like "blue" and "yellow" with "green" in-between, but there are thousands of blended colors, not just the primaries. To me, the Enneagram works similarly. YMMV.


It definitely seems more interesting in context of the idea that each type is a "blend" of the type before it and the type after it.




> Eh, I have spent years talking with other people about how they operate, what motivates them to do what they do, how they see themselves, and what they fear. If I compiled a list of the core conversations at the heart of it all, it would be very short. And 90% of that list would be "I'm a screwup", "I'm bad/no good", "I'm unlovable", "I'm weak", "I'm untrustworthy", "I'm defective", "I'm a fraud". While a list of the very core conversations people have about themselves _seems_ like it would be exhaustive, it's not. Remember, we develop these views of ourselves/things we say when we are very, very young. Small children have access to only very simple language, and have very simple views of the world and themselves. You are not dealing with an adult conversation, so it's not surprising that the core conversations identified in the Enneagram are not very complex.


I learned to read at a very young age (around 2 or 3), so I didn't spend much time at a stage where I had a limited vocabulary. Maybe that's why my inner reality seems so much more complex than anything a single Enneagram point can describe. LOL.

I think it could be more a lack of ability to express their deep-seated issues in anything other than conventional language that makes these things seem so cut and dried, so short and simple. In other words, Enneagram could actually be a symbol expressing a popular concept of what people's problems are, and what the solutions should be... rather than truth regarding that. Who is to say the creator of the Enneagram itself didn't have his/her own delusions about the nature of reality? The things they were blind to might well be omitted from the symbol.



> Cause that's where our brains were when those perspectives where put in place, lol… ;-)


LOL. I like to think I've always had healthier perspectives on life than those 9 people. xD


----------



## HighClassSavage (Nov 29, 2012)

delphi367 said:


> Mind is obviously Thinking, Body is obviously Sensing, and Heart is obviously Feeling. Then Intuition is missing.


No, this is incorrect. 

Thinking in JCF/MBTI deals with categorizing according to logical principles. Feeling deals with categorizing according to values. Sensing deals with perceiving concrete information. Intuition deals with perceiving abstract information. These are simplified definitions however.

Mind deals with anxiety, authority, and planning. Body deals with anger and autonomy. Heart deals with self-image issues. Again, simplified.

You can't just correlate Mind with Thinking, Body with Sensing, and Heart with Feeling. They're not related.

As for the OP, it's a valid question and one which I'm not sure has an answer. All I know is that the 9 types seem to fairly reflect reality and my observations there of. Though how the Enneagram is structured could be arbitrary, that's good enough for me.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Gentleman Bastard said:


> No, this is incorrect.
> 
> Thinking in JCF/MBTI deals with categorizing according to logical principles. Feeling deals with categorizing according to values. Sensing deals with perceiving concrete information. Intuition deals with perceiving abstract information. These are simplified definitions however.
> 
> ...


Well, I did actually correlate them, but you've made a pretty good argument that I was incorrect to do so. 


> As for the OP, it's a valid question and one which I'm not sure has an answer. All I know is that the 9 types seem to fairly reflect reality and my observations there of. Though how the Enneagram is structured could be arbitrary, that's good enough for me.


That seems like a reasonable answer to me.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

in the people's types i've confirmed, i can see the movement from disintegration/integration points, in the way the enneagram lays out. (this was done after observation right? and then fitted to an older spiritual system--and not based upon some systematic/inner logic and then "found" in the environment?) it's not a system of "why" in its inner workings, but it may provide it by giving a "why" to the workings of people. 

if you buy into the current arrangement, it shows that we're not just one type but all three points on a triangle, with the core being what defines our particular movement (just based off the "fact"/observation i've seen in my own life of these states existing within a person); we move towards these types because we already are these types, which speaks to something larger than just what we can consciously identify as. 

as if there can be a mechanism so base/integral/universal that it exists not only in all types within a single triangle, but also serves as a humanistic imprint, that--no matter what--will leave its signs within a person... it goes back to ideas like archetypes and the like; what you're asking is like wanting to see what surrounds an object after having identified it. you know what it does, but "why it does" won't be found without considering it within the context of its subject; it's like taking an organ out of a body and trying to fully understand it, outside of the greater system it works in, when part of its very function is to work _with_ the system--it doesn't and won't make sense outside of it. 

barring there being something missing (like people who disagree with certain points [i'm not an expert on any, but for 4-->2 makes hella sense to me], or attempt to expand on the theory by adding/arguing when it already accounts for "disturbances" by the very fact that it doesn't attempt to explain everything, and so allows for individual variance _outside_ of itself) i'd look to it for any sense to be had from it. 


don't get me wrong, i'm all for explanations, but it kind of defeats the entire purpose since it only represents a framework for you to begin something with. if you [general] feel it doesn't fit, then alter it until it does... plus, "the answer" seems like one of those things that you'd have to live multiple times over before it became something understandable (kind of like your experience is just a blip on a really big map, lighting up a very small area around itself--you need a lot of those blips, to see anything you're getting at).


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

JSRS01 said:


> I would only suggest equating Air to mind and Fire to will, as opposed to intuition and thinking


are you into pagan teachings?


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Donovan said:


> in the people's types i've confirmed, i can see the movement from disintegration/integration points, in the way the enneagram lays out. (this was done after observation right? and then fitted to an older spiritual system--and not based upon some systematic/inner logic and then "found" in the environment?) it's not a system of "why" in its inner workings, but it may provide it by giving a "why" to the workings of people.


From what I've read, the system wasn't originally based on observation, but was made up and then altered a bit to fit someone's observations. 

There just really doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the system, though. That being the case, I don't see how it could possibly describe the way people work. I believe that if it did, they would be able to explain why it worked. The whole reasoning people are giving here seems to amount to "I don't know, it can't be understood, it just works."




> if you buy into the current arrangement, it shows that we're not just one type but all three points on a triangle, with the core being what defines our particular movement (just based off the "fact"/observation i've seen in my own life of these states existing within a person); we move towards these types because we already are these types, which speaks to something larger than just what we can consciously identify as.


The thing is, when you look at reality in terms of 9 specific types... you'll be predisposed to find examples of those 9 types, which seem like "evidence" for the system. If you have no idea why it works that way, and there doesn't seem to be any mechanism underlying it... then it's merely evidence that the system can be used to classify people, and that people's stress/growth states might tend to resemble the arrows, in as much as they resemble one of these 9 types to start with.



> as if there can be a mechanism so base/integral/universal that it exists not only in all types within a single triangle, but also serves as a humanistic imprint, that--no matter what--will leave its signs within a person... it goes back to ideas like archetypes and the like; what you're asking is like wanting to see what surrounds an object after having identified it. you know what it does, but "why it does" won't be found without considering it within the context of its subject; it's like taking an organ out of a body and trying to fully understand it, outside of the greater system it works in, when part of its very function is to work _with_ the system--it doesn't and won't make sense outside of it.


The problem is that considering it within the system requires you to accept it first, and then rationalize for yourself why it would work that way. That seems to be what most people working with Enneagram have done. You can do that with any idea anyone has ever come up with, flawed or otherwise. 



> barring there being something missing (like people who disagree with certain points [i'm not an expert on any, but for 4-->2 makes hella sense to me], or attempt to expand on the theory by adding/arguing when it already accounts for "disturbances" by the very fact that it doesn't attempt to explain everything, and so allows for individual variance _outside_ of itself) i'd look to it for any sense to be had from it.


Doesn't every theory ever allow you to look for variance outside of itself? That wasn't built into Enneagram, that idea itself IS built into the human thought process. The thing is, when an idea so poorly articulates the nature of what it claims to describe that you're immediately compelled to look outside of it in order to make sense of what it says... doesn't that suggest that it might not be the best way to go about understanding things to start with? 



> don't get me wrong, i'm all for explanations, but it kind of defeats the entire purpose since it only represents a framework for you to begin something with. if you [general] feel it doesn't fit, then alter it until it does... plus, "the answer" seems like one of those things that you'd have to live multiple times over before it became something understandable (kind of like your experience is just a blip on a really big map, lighting up a very small area around itself--you need a lot of those blips, to see anything you're getting at).


So, what is it you're meant to begin with it? People keep referring to these ideas as if they're obvious. 

Yeah, experience is so limited and subjective. I feel like in order to really understand my life, I'd need to some how live out my own life until my death... and then live the life of everyone I ever knew, seeing myself from their perspective. And then after I was done, I'd need to somehow compare and correlate those experiences outside of time and space. Sometimes, I wonder if I've already started doing this.

But anyway, I guess I could always alter it until it fits, or even create my own system. I'll probably have to do so.

One thing about Enneagram, though... I've noticed that it often seems to work better for Fi/Te users than the Ti/Fe users. It seems like Fi users just "get it" right off, while anyone with Ti in their function stack tends to have more trouble with the system, often needing to figure out their type through process of elimination. That is the one thing I've been able to see clearly with Enneagram.

I sometimes think that the reason I don't get it, is because it's fundamentally a Te system for describing reality from an Fi perspective. Thus, since I really don't "get" Fi or Te, it doesn't seem to "work" for me.

Less consistently, I've noticed that Fi/Te users sometimes actually find Enneagram easier than MBTI/Jungian theory, while that's very rarely the case with Ti/Fe users.

In fact, one use I've found for Enneagram is that people's initial attitudes and difficulty/ease in using it, are often a place for me to start typing them in MBTI. If they really "get it," then they usually have Fi in their function stack. If they struggle with it, then that usually implies Ti. 

I believe that this is because Enneagram is supposed to be about motivations, and Fi users tend to be a LOT better at seeing and categorizing their own motivations. Enneagram itself really seems like a sort of external Te structure that you're meant to project your internal Fi motivations onto. But if you're a Ti user, you end up analyzing yourself, and then analyzing Enneagram... and end up feeling that Enneagram is oversimplified or arbitrary. You have an understanding your own structure internally, but may not feel that motivation has anything to do with why you're structured that way. If you look at it from an Fe perspective instead of a Ti one, you often end up feeling that the types represent roles you could play in social situations, and that you probably play quite a few of them.

Either way, it does seem that Enneagram is actually good for something. xD


----------



## Watercolourful (Jan 12, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> One thing about Enneagram, though... I've noticed that it often seems to work better for Fi/Te users than the Ti/Fe users. It seems like Fi users just "get it" right off, while anyone with Ti in their function stack tends to have more trouble with the system, often needing to figure out their type through process of elimination. That is the one thing I've been able to see clearly with Enneagram.
> 
> I sometimes think that the reason I don't get it, is because it's fundamentally a Te system for describing reality from an Fi perspective. Thus, since I really don't "get" Fi or Te, it doesn't seem to "work" for me.
> 
> ...


...this is actually really interesting, thank you for posting this!


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

Donovan said:


> are you into pagan teachings?


If by "into" you mean worship their gods, then no. If that's not what you meant, then yes I do _study_ paganism, primarily the beliefs of the Sumerians, Assyrians, and Babylonians.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

delphi367 said:


> So, what is it you're meant to begin with it? People keep referring to these ideas as if they're obvious.


I can honestly say in my observation that it took many people studying enneagram quite some time and adjusting to different resources to fully grasp the nature of an E type and the connections between each plus triads etc. It's quite complex to grasp for some until they begin looking at types mechanisms at a psycho-dynamic level which in its core root is quite simple but by also approaching the enneagram from an MBTI mindset, it is another hurdle to understand it at a more microscopic level of our deeper fears, the two theories are coming from opposite directions or positions in relation to the psyche, I dunno, it is quite controversial in the first place to attempt to combine E and MBTI or talk about each theory whilst observing and describing from the other lens.



> But anyway, I guess I could always alter it until it fits, or even create my own system. I'll probably have to do so.


And from above too, it is understandable and think absolutely plausible to adapt the system to your preference but only so far before you dismantle the theory including the bridges between one type and another and these bridges which are not necessarily arbitrary but are in strong relation to each other, there is a reason for the bridge to be there. It is worth understanding say 2 types that are connected in depth and then understand how and why they connect/move towards away from each other.



> One thing about Enneagram, though... I've noticed that it often seems to work better for Fi/Te users than the Ti/Fe users. It seems like Fi users just "get it" right off, while anyone with Ti in their function stack tends to have more trouble with the system, often needing to figure out their type through process of elimination. That is the one thing I've been able to see clearly with Enneagram.


From my first paragraph, it took me quite some time in which part of the process was shredding away some of my own bias about cookie cutting types, removing myself to an extent from an MBTI mindset when studying enneagram. Im just not 100% sold on Fi/Fe/Ti/Te having an ability to understand one thing called the enneagram better than others even if one is more naturally self introspective, that still lends to it's own bias when taken to another level and generally, have seen a similar learning experience of E universal to a range of MBTI types. But that doesn't mean certain MBTI types don't have their own process in ways of coming to grasp this essence of core neurosis which means that those who have grasped it, would also see the neurosis differently to other people which kind of makes little sense on one hand and yet is compatible with people's different worldviews. 



> I sometimes think that the reason I don't get it, is because it's fundamentally a Te system for describing reality from an Fi perspective. Thus, since I really don't "get" Fi or Te, it doesn't seem to "work" for me.


Te would also call for the finished product when enneagram in its very nature is holistic in the way it is multifacted regarding how it is interconnected and open to interpretation on a few different levels.


----------



## Brother (Sep 21, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> One thing about Enneagram, though... I've noticed that it often seems to work better for Fi/Te users than the Ti/Fe users. It seems like Fi users just "get it" right off, while anyone with Ti in their function stack tends to have more trouble with the system, often needing to figure out their type through process of elimination. That is the one thing I've been able to see clearly with Enneagram.
> 
> I sometimes think that the reason I don't get it, is because it's fundamentally a Te system for describing reality from an Fi perspective. Thus, since I really don't "get" Fi or Te, it doesn't seem to "work" for me.
> 
> ...


Now this, I like. The logic is pretty obvious, too. Identifying hard with a typological system that favours personal motivations and feelings is definitely Fi territory. I'm not quite sure I agree with Fe-users seeing it as a way to play up social roles. Ti users will also be attracted to the Enneagram as an attempt at quantifying our emotions, and the relationship between our motivation and behaviour which, in anyone but Fi users, is pretty murky territory


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> 8-->2: if you go by the ridiculous "Giver" descriptions of 2 floating across the internet, this makes sense, but when you go by the histrionic, seductive, dramatic, self-indulgent descriptions of Naranjo and Ichazo, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever


I can understand that seems like the opposite of one another, but I think that's taking it a bit too much at face value. 

Usually integration refers to higher health levels, adaptive coping, virtues, liberation of (core) fears, etc. Although I think there is integration at lower levels as well, but much more under control of core fear/desire. While they are in many ways opposite, love can make us vulnerable and controllable, and to surrender to unconditional love means to set the other free, and that's just one of the ways the two types are -in my view -closely linked. 

Seduction and ingratiation (of 2) is an active and assertive (security) strategy comparable with domination and intimidation, seeking to control others, while both (average /unhealthy) 8 and 2 deny emotional needs and vulnerability, in order to sustain an ideal self-image. (pride)



Wiki Histrionic Personality said:


> Another theory suggests that histrionic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder could have a possible relationship to one another. Research has found two-thirds of patients diagnosed with histrionic personality disorder also meet similar criteria with antisocial personality disorder.
> 
> Disingenuous subtype Histrionic Personality
> 
> ...


 
Also from Naranjo's CN.



Millon said:


> Rather than placing their fate in the hands of the others, and thereby having their security in constant jeopardy, histrionic personalities actively solicit the interest of others through a series of seductive ploys that are likely to assure receipt of the admiration and esteem they need. Unlike dependent personalities who anchor themselves usually to only one object of attachment, the histrionic tends to be lacking in fidelity and loyalty.


From the perspective (or spectrum) of psychospiritual growth, unhealthy dictatorial ruthless 8s transform to protective, magnanimous healthy 8s, who can surrender to a higher authority (and love), where unhealthy domineering and coercive 2s become humble, unconditionally loving, (self-) nurturing and generous, emotionally aware [4] healthy 2s. I can see how 4 contributes to that transformation of 2, like 2 (and 4) does to 8.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

wings: often a type is in a way a merging/blending of the types on either side.
like 3-image-center-love-me combined with 5-no-one-understands yields 4-my-image-is-no-one-understands
3-image-center combined with 1-be-good-or-else yields 2-my-image-is-I'm-so-good-love-me
(i mean this can get a bit circular 2-I'm-good-love-me plus 4-my-image-is-no-one-understand yields 3-love-me-I'm-uniquely-outstanding)

integration/disintegration -- no justifications here, i really don't' get how going to 9 is healthy for a 6. then you'll say, going to _healthy_ 9. well, frankly, once you're going to healthy of a type, that's already by definition healthy, and it could be other types as well.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> From what I've read, the system wasn't originally based on observation, but was made up and then altered a bit to fit someone's observations.


yeah. honestly i feel like there's a lotta bunk still floating around and the whole system would be greatly strengthened by some taking a cleaver to the giant wads of hanging fat (and then a scalpel) and leaving a nice, trim system in its place. Simplify, simplify.

but in line with what you say re:mbti below, this is almost certainly Ti talking (total tangent, but, while Te is touted as efficient, not enough is made of Ti liking their ideas and internal systems to be as efficient as possible. While possibly ironically becoming more complex. It's the sort of thing that makes me enjoy reducing 16 mbti types to combinations of two sensing dichotomies-- either NeSi or SeNi and two juding dichotomies FeTi, TeFi.. and then you understand those principles and you understand the system. well. in theory.

point is, 9 arbitrarily ordered types drives me nuts. i made more piece with the system once introduced to triads, and especially the idea of towards-away-against being multiplied to a 3x3 square)



> There just really doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the system, though. That being the case, I don't see how it could possibly describe the way people work. I believe that if it did, they would be able to explain why it worked. The whole reasoning people are giving here seems to amount to "I don't know, it can't be understood, it just works."


at the end of the day i just go with "hey, this was a useful insight into me".
could probably get that off an astrology junkrag if i instrospected about it deeply enough...



> Yeah, experience is so limited and subjective. I feel like in order to really understand my life, I'd need to some how live out my own life until my death... and then live the life of everyone I ever knew, seeing myself from their perspective. And then after I was done, I'd need to somehow compare and correlate those experiences outside of time and space. Sometimes, I wonder if I've already started doing this.


huh



> But anyway, I guess I could always alter it until it fits, or even create my own system. I'll probably have to do so.


-hands over scalpel-



> One thing about Enneagram, though... I've noticed that it often seems to work better for Fi/Te users than the Ti/Fe users. It seems like Fi users just "get it" right off, while anyone with Ti in their function stack tends to have more trouble with the system, often needing to figure out their type through process of elimination. That is the one thing I've been able to see clearly with Enneagram.
> 
> I sometimes think that the reason I don't get it, is because it's fundamentally a Te system for describing reality from an Fi perspective. Thus, since I really don't "get" Fi or Te, it doesn't seem to "work" for me.
> 
> ...


fascinating insight rings true with own experience.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

delphi367 said:


> From what I've read, the system wasn't originally based on observation, but was made up and then altered a bit to fit someone's observations.


which part? with which creator? as far as i know, naranjo was a legit psychotherapist... he wasn't imagining these people in his head. what do you mean by observation? like something measurable (which would be funny considering your Ti vs Te outlook). 

the rest of your argument is like saying, "hey, look, i can see the effects of gravity--but unless someone can explain it from the big bang... i'm not buying, but good try"...  

i mean, what have you read on the subject? (you make it seem as if you've pretty much ran through every bit of material you can get your hands on, and that you're still left wondering--as opposed to just reading a description here and there and forming a picture that everything to be understood was just covered...?) better yet, it tends to have more effect if you put forth an argument that deconstructs what you're attacking, then saying "i don't agree, you tell me how i'm wrong". why don't you tell how you're right? 



> Doesn't every theory ever allow you to look for variance outside of itself? That wasn't built into Enneagram, that idea itself IS built into the human thought process. The thing is, when an idea so poorly articulates the nature of what it claims to describe that you're immediately compelled to look outside of it in order to make sense of what it says... doesn't that suggest that it might not be the best way to go about understanding things to start with?


what does this even mean? everything allows for it--yes--because it's not stopping one/many random people from doing from using their imagination...? so in effect, sure? 

and "it's built in the human thought process"-again, what's your point? isn't this a model meant to reflect a facet/fraction of that process? why would it not in some way mimic it, or better yet, is there any reason it would account for more than it is said to? 


you're trying to apply too much to it, then getting "x-feeling" whenever your thoughts don't align, or it doesn't match up with your unique method of dealing with the world--but you could turn all of your questions onto MBTI/Jung and be just as lost. there is no rationalization past a certain point--_that's_ what i'm trying to say. there's always going to be a deeper layer--there just will be. i can see this stuff in my every day life, it may not be complete, but i'm not going to throw it out the window immediately just because i can't fully understand it. if that were the case, just to maintain my intellectual honesty/integrity, i wouldn't be able to leave my damn apartment on a daily basis, or even fully enjoy it as i don't understand how wood is made, or how the molecules set together and i might as well throw away my belief in wood as well... who cares if i can see it, it might just be some kind of figment of my imagination that i haven't developed the correct question to yet... . 


and btw, i'm on the Ti/Fe axis. depending on when and how the aux.'s (or however you'd like to name them) come into play, you could say Ti is my tertiary if we're going traditional to one source, or, that it's my aux is we're going real traditional--now, that only leaves with us with confliction in terms of I/E, but there's enough information in this one sentence to overrride that, as like orientations go hand-in-hand with an earlier system but are opposed and paired as opposites with the new. now here's a riddle that _can_ be solved: what type am i? 


what this comes down to is just your basic philosophy/outlook/what you want. when i first got into jung/mbti i tried to really get into the nitty gritty of the functions, and to find some floor-to-ceiling rationale--like, "we know what a function is on paper, but what surrounds a function? what mechanism is it encased in that causes it manifest the way it does?". but then i realized how pointless it really was, how missing the point it was, and how impossible it is (lol). 

but, i do enjoy your inquiry. it's interesting.


----------



## Dyidia (May 28, 2010)

I felt for several years that the Enneagram didn't really have any depth to it. And then I found how Naranjo described the type 9 reflected a lot of the things I deal with. 

And then after studying the history of it I went back to not really buying into it.

I'd say if you're trying to get a feel for the depth of the Enneagram, it helps more to look at patterns moreso than motivations. It gets a bit annoying trying to argue with people who want to say that people with type 9 seek peace, then reframe everything in terms of how what they do could be a reflection of seeking peace. I can't really think that way.

Otoh, people with type 9 do have some pretty typical patterns. Same with every other type. Reading Naranjo's C&N and then comparing that with the people who feel they have that type is how I came to my own view of what each type looks like.

If I were to try to put my finger on it, I think the Enneagram has just been refined within its local maximum of accuracy. There's not necessarily a connection between 3 and 6 like described in Enneagram, but if you have the patience to play around with a lot of maybes there's certainly a lot some people can say about such a possible connection. Like if you buy into wing theory, there's a lot for you to come to an understanding about in terms of "4w5" in contrast to "4w3," whereas if you posit a 4w7 you're kinda on your own (and you'd probably need to rethink the structure to make it into a useful concept with depth anyway).

All type theories are like that to me though. It's just a way of simplifying the complexity of human nature.

And I like how Enneagram in particular helps people to understand themselves.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

@Dying Acedia - you phrased very concisely, and aptly, what I was hoping to eventually express in this thread. "Thanking" the post wasn't enough so I just thought I'd say that.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Donovan said:


> which part? with which creator? as far as i know, naranjo was a legit psychotherapist... he wasn't imagining these people in his head. what do you mean by observation? like something measurable (which would be funny considering your Ti vs Te outlook).


I've never heard that at all. I heard he was involved in some spiritual movement.


> the rest of your argument is like saying, "hey, look, i can see the effects of gravity--but unless someone can explain it from the big bang... i'm not buying, but good try"...


No, it's not like that at all. This is more like someone telling me that gravity exists, but I see everything floating upwards slowly.

The entire problem is actually that I DON'T see it.



> i mean, what have you read on the subject? (you make it seem as if you've pretty much ran through every bit of material you can get your hands on, and that you're still left wondering--as opposed to just reading a description here and there and forming a picture that everything to be understood was just covered...?) better yet, it tends to have more effect if you put forth an argument that deconstructs what you're attacking, then saying "i don't agree, you tell me how i'm wrong". why don't you tell how you're right?


I just finished thoroughly reading 4 different books on the subject, actually. From cover to cover. Two by Riso-Hudson, one by Palmer, and one by Maitri.

I've seen many studies comparing Enneagram to other systems, such as DSM, MBTI, Big 5, and others. Enneagram has quite a few holes, a lot of personality types and motivations it fails to cover at all.

Maybe Enneagram isn't meant to cover everything. But I think it's fairly obvious that a lot of people fall into holes that are not properly defined by the system. 


> what does this even mean? everything allows for it--yes--because it's not stopping one/many random people from doing from using their imagination...? so in effect, sure?
> 
> and "it's built in the human thought process"-again, what's your point? isn't this a model meant to reflect a facet/fraction of that process? why would it not in some way mimic it, or better yet, is there any reason it would account for more than it is said to?


You just seemed like you were claiming that the makers of the system were thoughtful enough to add this feature, even though it was actually an inherent part of the process.

That was the only reason I mentioned that.



> you're trying to apply too much to it, then getting "x-feeling" whenever your thoughts don't align, or it doesn't match up with your unique method of dealing with the world--but you could turn all of your questions onto MBTI/Jung and be just as lost. there is no rationalization past a certain point--_that's_ what i'm trying to say. there's always going to be a deeper layer--there just will be. i can see this stuff in my every day life, it may not be complete, but i'm not going to throw it out the window immediately just because i can't fully understand it. if that were the case, just to maintain my intellectual honesty/integrity, i wouldn't be able to leave my damn apartment on a daily basis, or even fully enjoy it as i don't understand how wood is made, or how the molecules set together and i might as well throw away my belief in wood as well... who cares if i can see it, it might just be some kind of figment of my imagination that i haven't developed the correct question to yet... .


There's a lot of "reductio ad absurdum" going on here. I'm not saying that it has to go to an *unreasonable* level of depth, but the level of depth I'm expecting to find is actually covered by many systems, and is demonstrably missing here.

I'm actually already talking to people who are trying to add and define new types within the Enneagram.

I don't think I'm applying too much (how much is too much, anyway?), I think that it's reasonable to expect a system to follow certain principles or to have a certain level of completeness. 

It's not that it lacks levels of depth, it's that it entirely lacks the kind of depth I need to make sense of it. It's all rooted in the assumption that people have certain innate kinds of awareness that they lose touch with, and then substitute for something else. It's got a lot of ideas that seem rooted in Eastern meditative traditions and getting past ego. It honestly seems more like a meditation tool than a useful system of personality.



> and btw, i'm on the Ti/Fe axis. depending on when and how the aux.'s (or however you'd like to name them) come into play, you could say Ti is my tertiary if we're going traditional to one source, or, that it's my aux is we're going real traditional--now, that only leaves with us with confliction in terms of I/E, but there's enough information in this one sentence to overrride that, as like orientations go hand-in-hand with an earlier system but are opposed and paired as opposites with the new. now here's a riddle that _can_ be solved: what type am i?
> 
> what this comes down to is just your basic philosophy/outlook/what you want. when i first got into jung/mbti i tried to really get into the nitty gritty of the functions, and to find some floor-to-ceiling rationale--like, "we know what a function is on paper, but what surrounds a function? what mechanism is it encased in that causes it manifest the way it does?". but then i realized how pointless it really was, how missing the point it was, and how impossible it is (lol).
> 
> but, i do enjoy your inquiry. it's interesting.


I actually have gotten a lot of that information by studying various perspectives on the functions. In addition to studying the Model A in Socionics, I also studied books written by Lenore Thompson, John Beebe, Dario Nardi, Isabel Myers, Carl Jung... it took me a lot of reading to actually make sense of MBTI/Jungian functions at a deeper level. I've also come up with several ways of modeling it. One word of warning though... don't listen to Keirsey. He's not really talking about Jung/MBTI at all, and you'll be confused for years if you listen to him. LOL.

And you pretty much have to be an INFJ or ISFJ with strong Ti, based your description of yourself. I would guess INFJ, given your interest in this discussion.

Anyway, I understand your arguments, and I really feel like we're probably not going to convince each other.


----------

