# Why must we be certain of how the Enneagram works?



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Why is there certainty? Because certainty is something humans long for. Don Riso and Richard Hudson put together the Enneagram not too long ago. We simply take their word for it; it has never been independently verified, as a whole system. Never has someone else started with the same raw material and ended up with the same, or approximately the same, system. 

Yes, type 9 accurately described a lot of problems I have. But it also describes a lot of problems I _don't_ have. And likewise, type 6, type 5, type 4, type 1, type 7, _also_ describe some problems I have. 
There is no doubt that learning about the enneagram is useful. It increase self-awareness and really stimulates personal development. My life has infinitely improved since learning about the enneagram. That's what matters. 

But I'm tired of how its arranged in this specific shape and everyone just swallows all the stuff about WINGS, and Disintegration lines, and all that jazz. I mean, yes, I do have a lot in common with type 1, but if any other type was supposedly my "wing", I would probably rationalize that, as well. 

The enneagram has a ton of wisdom in it. But why do we have to approach it with the idea that the structure is set in stone? Why do we believe that? Why can't it instead be an attitude of exploration? Why does it have to solidify into a system of labeling and putting people in discrete categories? 

I remember the time I was at an enneagram conference and I made some random comment, "I love organizing parties and getting people together!" or something. And someone goes "really? even though you're a 9?"
I just wanted to bang my head on the table and then jump out of a window. That kind of thinking. really? 

Lets face it, people. The human psyche cannot be put into discrete categories. End of story.

Yes, there are patterns in behavior. yes, personality is a web, and all traits are intertwined. But still. 

And lets face it-- we've swallowed the structure of the enneagram hook, link, and sinker because people want certainty, people want structure, people want categories and order. And people want to believe that someone out there knows the answers to everything, that someone has it all figured out. So we just take their word for it. 
But you can't put your own mind into discrete categories. 

The sad thing is, too, is that the Enneagram contains SO much wisdom, that SO many people could benefit from. But people reject it specifically because it seems too far-fetched. It seems arcane, like astrology. And they're right. It is. And it makes people feel unnecessarily judged and labeled. So they reject all the wisdom. 
Why take all that amazing wisdom and squash it into this improbable system of organization that makes it look like nonsense? 

We need to take that wisdom of human behavior patterns and take it out of the labeling system. 
In a way, that system itself is a short cut to so-called "self-knowledge." I know my enneagram type, so I supposedly know something about myself!
No. You dont.
The only way you know anything about yourself is by observing _yourself_. The enneagram can give you suggestions about particular behavior patterns that might occur in you. You have to look inside and decide which patterns really apply to you.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Other ways to organize it:

Instead of making people pick and declare their type, organize the types by basic behavior patterns or defense mechanisms involved. 

The numbers contribute directly to this; they make people think that behavior itself can be isolated into discrete categories. 

type 8 is the type where "you think everyone is always out to get you and you feel perpetually obligated to fight back." You could take the phrase and condense it to a smaller phrase and that would label the _pattern_ itself, but not the _person_. 
i.e. Defense Mechanism: Constant Aggressive. Reflexive Aggression. Whatever you want to make it. 

The Enneagram is the study of how _ordinary_ humans behave. And its missed by psychology because psychology only focuses on what's pathological and abnormal, giving the rest of us a "get out of jail free card." We force "abnormal" people into treatment and therapy and whatnot, but realizing that _everyone_ needs treatment and therapy. That stuff thats focused at "everyone"--not just the "abnormal''-- i.e. The Enneagram, Buddhism, meditation, etc-- gets dismissed as silly, because no one wants to actually look inward and do that work. 

So the Enneagram and all the wisdom is contains plays an incredibly important role in the world. It forces the ordinary person to look inward and observe themselves.
But. the way its organized is ridiculous and it detracts from the wisdom. You dont need to put people in categories in order to take advantage of the wisdom.
The behavior patterns can be categorized to some extent (though not always so discretely)-- but don't categorize the _people_. 

Think of it as collective behavior patterns that apply to people, collectively. That way each person can explore the range of all the behavior patterns -- and you will probably find some that apply to you more than others-- without worrying about ~~~~WHAT TYPE AM I???~~~


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> Don Riso and Richard Hudson put together the Enneagram not too long ago. We simply take their word for it; it has never been independently verified, as a whole system. Never has someone else started with the same raw material and ended up with the same, or approximately the same, system.


Are you saying Riso and Hudson invented the Enneagram?



charlie.elliot said:


> The enneagram has a ton of wisdom in it. But why do we have to approach it with the idea that the structure is set in stone? Why do we believe that? Why can't it instead be an attitude of exploration? Why does it have to solidify into a system of labeling and putting people in discrete categories?


Because that's what sells. It's a business now. It wasn't that way in the 70s when it was being explored experientially by Naranjo and his SAT groups. But it's become a business here in the US. As an example, you can't sell certified training if you don't have some stable and static system. If it wasn't stable and static then the training would have to keep changing, people would get upset that the previous training they took is no longer accurate, and no one will take the trainings anymore. People aren't evolving the Enneagram because they're just repeating what they learn and those people are repeating what they learn etc. etc. The motivation is in figuring out how to apply the Enneagram (very often to make money) not to evolve it (except for adding on trademarked concepts here and there to create an opportunity for more training classes and money-making opportunities). In other words, there's just no incentive to evolve it because it's making money as is.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> The behavior patterns can be categorized to some extent (though not always so discretely)-- but don't categorize the _people_.


They already do that with trait theories. That's what the psychology field prefers to type theories.

Personally, I think the whole problem is looking for behavior patterns and trying to categorize personality in general. Personality is unique for each individual, as is behavior. The types don't describe personality. They describe a major influence upon personality. Look at the types to understand the influence operating beneath personality. Two people of the same type will express that influence differently through personality and behaviors because that's where it's unique. What's common is the process they use to organize their experience and the approach to life that comes out of that. How that approach gets enacted will be different for each individual because there are many other influences upon personality and behavior that come into play besides Enneagram type.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Completely agree with your OP, which is why I don't venture in the Enneagram forums as much anymore. Everyone is so damn rigid in their conceptualization of it, and fuck, I used to be as well. It seems so silly to me now, because we're really limiting ourselves and how we think of and understand people around us. The only reason I think in Enneagram terms now is to make sense of my experiences and gain insight along my journey, using them as a flexible tool rather than a flawless system. It is also definitely _not_ the only tool I use, which really helped in detaching myself from it all.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

enneathusiast said:


> Are you saying Riso and Hudson invented the Enneagram?


From what I learned during my EI training, they pretty much did. The symbol existed before, but Riso & Hudson actually put together the descriptions pretty much from scratch. Gurdjieff (who was not even that much farther back in time) talked about the symbol but didn't talk about personality types (I don't think? Could be wrong about Gurdjieff... dont feel like looking it up now...)




> Because that's what sells. It's a business now. It wasn't that way in the 70s when it was being explored experientially by Naranjo and his SAT groups. But it's become a business here in the US. As an example, you can't sell certified training if you don't have some stable and static system. If it wasn't stable and static then the training would have to keep changing, people would get upset that the previous training they took is no longer accurate, and no one will take the trainings anymore. People aren't evolving the Enneagram because they're just repeating what they learn and those people are repeating what they learn etc. etc. The motivation is in figuring out how to apply the Enneagram (very often to make money) not to evolve it (except for adding on trademarked concepts here and there to create an opportunity for more training classes and money-making opportunities). In other words, there's just no incentive to evolve it because it's making money as is.


Yeah those are all great points.
I guess what I'm saying is that I wish it was a _discussion_, rather than "this is the Enneagram-- take it or leave it!"
But you're right, that would be much harder to proliferate.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

enneathusiast said:


> They already do that with trait theories. That's what the psychology field prefers to type theories.
> 
> Personally, I think the whole problem is looking for behavior patterns and trying to categorize personality in general. Personality is unique for each individual, as is behavior. *The types don't describe personality. They describe a major influence upon personality.* Look at the types to understand the influence operating beneath personality. Two people of the same type will express that influence differently through personality and behaviors because that's where it's unique. What's common is the process they use to organize their experience and the approach to life that comes out of that. How that approach gets enacted will be different for each individual because there are many other influences upon personality and behavior that come into play besides Enneagram type.


That is a fantastic point and also a point I've tried to make several times (glad somebody else understands!!!)
Each trait is just an influence, not an absolute trait. I wish that point was made clear-- in literature, in trainings, everywhere. It's not. People don't get that. 
It's like the difference between genotype and phenotype. Underlying genes, and expression of genes.

But anyway, I still don't think its helpful to categorize people as belonging to one type or the other, and I also don't think its helpful or necessary to have the wings and the lines through the middle and so on.
The types all interact with each other in complex ways-- we should observing our own selves and talking about our experiences-- not just looking at the enneagram and saying "hmm, what's my wing?" like you're looking up a word in the dictionary. Its not that simple.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

I guess the question is, how do you communicate the wisdom in an efficient way? 

The way we have now is pretty efficient-- except that some people reject it because they think it looks like nonsense. And some people swallow it whole-heartedly and start identifying with the type. Which is ironic because the ultimate message is to DIS-IDENTIFY with the ego. But so much many people choose instead to _identify_ with their type (especially if you're a snazzy type like 4 or 5.... not as much of a problem for 1s or 9s or 6s...)

There must be another way. A way that communicates the wisdom without the stupid symbol that people think is arcane. And without the urge to identify with your people-- and identify _others_ with _their_ type!

I also don't like the labels.
"Peacemak-er." 
"Challeng-er." Etc.
"-er" implies that its something you _do_. But just because I'm a 9 doesn't mean I go around "making peace." Its not like that's my _job_.

At one of my enneagram trainings -- the teacher basically described type 9s as people who just relax in front of the TV all day.
Then, later, he was asking the 5s to "tell him about their fascinating minds!" So, what am I, a boring slob who just sits in front of the TV all day and never thinks about anything? Nevermind that I basically never watch TV and I think my mind is pretty damn fascinating, honestly. But he never thought to ask me to tell him about "my mind." 

Later the same day, I was talking about my tendency to be a control freak and my OCD-like need to have everything in order. It really bothers me and its something I need to address in my life. But all the response I got was "But you're a 9! that's not what 9s are like." .......... Or "Oh, I guess its you're 1 wing!" yeah. ok. sure. go with that.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> From what I learned during my EI training, they pretty much did. The symbol existed before, but Riso & Hudson actually put together the descriptions pretty much from scratch. Gurdjieff (who was not even that much farther back in time) talked about the symbol but didn't talk about personality types (I don't think? Could be wrong about Gurdjieff... dont feel like looking it up now...)


That's hilarious. I hope you just misinterpreted what they were saying and they really didn't say that explicitly or even hint at it.

Ichazo put it all together during the 1950s and 1960s. Naranjo took Ichazo's Enneagram material and evolved it into the enneatypes. Everyone else's understanding developed out of what they learned from Naranjo. Bob Och's, a Jesuit priest, learned about the enneatypes directly from Naranjo. Och's then taught what he learned to other Jesuits. Someone attending Och's class took notes. Those notes got passed around among the Jesuit's at the time. Riso came across those notes and expanded upon them (I've got copies of them in my closet from a training I took with him). Palmer and Riso published the first popular books of the Enneagram types in the late 1980s (there was an earlier book published that was written by several people who got it from Och's teachings somehow but it didn't have the same popularity). Ichazo sued Palmer for plagiarizing his material and not giving him credit. Riso got scared and became very copyright aware of everything he did regarding the Enneagram.

Like I said, this is a business and people spew all kinds of non-sense to promote their business. Unfortunately, those who take them as "experts" buy into what they say and don't know what's accurate and what's BS.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

enneathusiast said:


> That's hilarious. I hope you just misinterpreted what they were saying and they really didn't say that explicitly or even hint at it.
> 
> Ichazo put it all together during the 1950s and 1960s. Naranjo took Ichazo's Enneagram material and evolved it into the enneatypes. Everyone else's understanding developed out of what they learned from Naranjo. Bob Och's, a Jesuit priest, learned about the enneatypes directly from Naranjo. Och's then taught what he learned to other Jesuits. Someone attending Och's class took notes. Those notes got passed around among the Jesuit's at the time. Riso came across those notes and expanded upon them (I've got copies of them in my closet from a training I took with him). Palmer and Riso published the first popular books of the Enneagram types in the late 1980s (there was an earlier book published that was written by several people who got it from Och's teachings somehow but it didn't have the same popularity). Ichazo sued Palmer for plagiarizing his material and not giving him credit. Riso got scared and became very copyright aware of everything he did regarding the Enneagram.
> 
> Like I said, this is a business and people spew all kinds of non-sense to promote their business. Unfortunately, those who take them as "experts" buy into what they say and don't know what's accurate and what's BS.


Oh, well I didn't absorb that much detail (because I don't care  )
they said Riso & Hudson put together the type descriptions we're most familiar with. And my point still stands, because where the hell did Ichazo get it from? The 1950s are not that long ago. Did he just make it up?


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> But anyway, I still don't think its helpful to categorize people as belonging to one type or the other, and I also don't think its helpful or necessary to have the wings and the lines through the middle and so on.
> The types all interact with each other in complex ways-- we should observing our own selves and talking about our experiences-- not just looking at the enneagram and saying "hmm, what's my wing?" like you're looking up a word in the dictionary. Its not that simple.


I agree. I try to say what a person's dominant type is rather than what their type is (unless the phrasing just feels awkward in the context of the discussion). The trap of the Enneagram types (probably most systems that promote personality types) is when someone sees themselves as a type. No one is a type. It only represents a dominant aspect of ourselves. The goal before this thing got popularized was to realize that and find some freedom from it. Nowadays people walk around saying "I'm type X, what type are you?" not even realizing they're promoting the trap that the types were meant to get them out of in the first place. That's why I don't include my dominant type in my profile. People will use that to stereotype me as just that type instead of seeing that as only representing my dominant type.

Personally, I find the wings can be useful for understanding variations of the different types. The lines on the other hand, belong to the Gurdjieff tradition and it's law of seven or octaves but the Enneagram types weren't placed upon the symbol properly to use the law of seven as Gurdjieff did. I think people just saw them on the symbol and thought "hey, those must mean something." To use the law of seven or octaves, points 3, 6, and 9 represent something different than the other points.









The types being used properly with the Gurdjieff symbol are demonstrated by the planetary types (which come from students of the Gurdjieff work and have nothing to do with the popular version of the Enneagram types).


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

enneathusiast said:


> I agree. I try to say what a person's dominant type is rather than what their type is (unless the phrasing just feels awkward in the context of the discussion). The trap of the Enneagram types (probably most systems that promote personality types) is when someone sees themselves as a type. No one is a type. It only represents a dominant aspect of ourselves. The goal before this thing got popularized was to realize that and find some freedom from it. Nowadays people walk around saying "I'm type X, what type are you?" not even realizing they're promoting the trap that the types were meant to get them out of in the first place. That's why I don't include my dominant type in my profile. People will use that to stereotype me as just that type instead of seeing that as only representing my dominant type.


I can honestly say that I genuinely don't care what your type is 
(I might not have said the same thing a couple months ago)



> Personally, I find the wings can be useful for understanding variations of the different types. The lines on the other hand, belong to the Gurdjieff tradition and it's law of seven or octaves but the Enneagram types weren't placed upon the symbol properly to use the law of seven as Gurdjieff did. *I think people just saw them on the symbol and thought "hey, those must mean something."* To use the law of seven or octaves, points 3, 6, and 9 represent something different than the other points.


Hahaha you're so right!!! Why does the system have to be associated with the symbol anyway??

From the little I've learned, it seems as if the symbol itself has most to do with numerology.... which is just an entirely different area of interest.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> The 1950s are not that long ago. Did he just make it up?


That's the question that hasn't been answered. He claims he put it together himself and most accept that as true. He studied a wide number of traditions. I'd guess that like everyone else who comes up with a new approach to something, they borrow what they've learned and combine it with new ideas. I don't think we'll ever know exactly because that creative process can't really be detailed completely.

That's why I get a kick out of people who describe it as an ancient system. It's just not. I think the people saying that are either hyping it up for marketing reasons or they heard it somewhere and are just repeating it. IMO, too many people just repeat what they hear about this thing because some "expert" told them so. That's where this can sometimes take on the properties of a religion (instead of some god saying this is how it is, it's some ancients or experts saying so - ancients replacing god and the experts replacing the preachers interpreting the word of god).


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> Hahaha you're so right!!! Why does the system have to be associated with the symbol anyway??
> 
> From the little I've learned, it seems as if the symbol itself has most to do with numerology.... which is just an entirely different area of interest.


If the title of your system is "The Enneagram" how are you going to market it without the symbol? You just couldn't call it "The Enneagram" anymore. Why kill the cash cow by doing that when the brand has already been established. Because it's misleading? What's that got to with making money from it?

Claudio Naranjo, who first began teaching the Enneagram types and never seemed to be in it for money, sees the Enneagram community in the U.S. too concerned with monetizing the Enneagram types. He's prefers to simply refer to them as Psychology of Enneatypes (distancing the types from the symbol).


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

enneathusiast said:


> If the title of your system is "The Enneagram" how are you going to market it without the symbol? You just couldn't call it "The Enneagram" anymore. Why kill the cash cow by doing that when the brand has already been established. Because it's misleading? What's that got to with making money from it?


Because it is _not_ established. So many people see the symbol -- plus the unnecessary/probably false details such as wings (which is directly related to the symbol)-- and think it looks like nonsense-- with good reason. It projects this image of being something like Wiccanism or numerology or astrology. And its not. at all.

The behavior patterns described in the enneagram shouldn't even be the enneagram-- they should be an established part of psychology. And they probably would be if psychology wasn't wholly invested in describing only the abnormal. 

Its just sad that the wisdom that has the potential to be real science, and has the potential to be the most useful and legit part of psychology, is hidden behind this arcane symbol and repulses people who value science and rationality. 

I cant tell you how fast my family members dismissed the enneagram when they saw how it was set up like a symbol and the types and the number theories behind it as so forth. It was like watching a mag lev bullet train go by. While I was desperately trying to explain the depth of the wisdom in it.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

charlie.elliot said:


> But anyway, I still don't think its helpful to categorize people as belonging to one type or the other, and *I also don't think its helpful or necessary to have the wings* and


 There's nothing wrong with resetting back to the basics. People either forgot, have no idea, or take for granted that wings are an add-on to the system just like tritypes are. I also find it kind of questionable that newcomers to the enneagram theory can figure out the rest of their tritypes and the wings on their tritypes, but can't figure out their main type. 

In one of Susan Rhode's books, she recalled meeting someone who said, "I don't subscribe to the wing theory", and Rhodes was like, "Seriously?" At first, I agreed with her, because it's like 2016, com'on! But then... most people around here think of a dominant wing is mutually exclusive. In the same way how being "right handed" somehow prevents them from using their left hand as well.



> the lines through the middle and so on.


 Well, they're helpful for me... but I also made new lines... 



charlie.elliot said:


> I guess the question is, how do you communicate the wisdom in an efficient way?


 First of all, communication is a two-way street. If one person does not want to listen, does not want to understand, or does not like what s/he hears and therefore refuses to understand... then you really can't communicate to them. Sometimes they just have to find out the hard way.

Second of all, you can't really communicate wisdom in an "efficient" way because wisdom requires context to make sense. You kind of need to learn more about their problems rather than assume it's the exact same problem you've had. Think of all of the baby boomers vs millennial arguments that occur. Or Asian immigrants to the US thinking all of their children's life successes depend on test scores and GPA. Or telling depressed people to simply "be happy". There's a tone-deafness of "are we even talking about the same thing?"

Third of all, in order to successfully communicate to someone else, you need to learn their language and they need to be willing to learn yours. That's why we try to look for something resembling "agreement" as to what certain things mean... so we can talk about it. If we can find common ground on what certain definitions mean and be able to use a common language, then we can actually communicate our experiences. For example, what's "easy" or "obvious" for one person may be "difficult" or "unintuitive" for another. What's a "life-threatening problem" for one person is a "minor nuisance" for another.

Otherwise, if we rather write everything off as "it's all subjective so what's the point in arguing or debating"... then there's a communication barrier that won't be overcome, and no relevant wisdom gets transmitted. Think of all of that bullshit paper writing analyzing fiction in English class... it's that skill that's needed. For example, I find it difficult to relate to people who think Romeo and Juliet is tragically romantic, because I think it's tragic how seriously far some teenagers are willing to follow their feelings. For fuck's sake, in the beginning of the play, Romeo was crushing so hard on Rosaline... and then he quickly forgot about her!



> The way we have now is pretty efficient-- except that some people reject it because they think it looks like nonsense.


 I also think a lot of English literary criticism is nonsense, but ... just because I don't find it valuable does not mean no one else does...



> There must be another way. A way that communicates the wisdom without the stupid symbol that people think is arcane.


 If it's not the enneagram symbol, then it's just other symbols... that's sort of how it's always been... Like "lions symbolize courage" or "the color black represents death or mourning" (which is total bullshit because in my ancestral culture, white is the color that represents death or mourning)... or jungian archetypes...

People should try telling mini stories that represents a chapter in their hero's journey. Oh, you said something about necessity of the internal lines?












> I also don't like the labels.
> "Peacemak-er."
> "Challeng-er." Etc.
> "-er" implies that its something you _do_. But just because I'm a 9 doesn't mean I go around "making peace." Its not like that's my _job_.


 It's also crazy how other types investigate things even though they aren't necessarily fives.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

enneathusiast said:


> That's why I get a kick out of people who describe it as an ancient system. It's just not.


 It's from the previous century and that's *not* ancient to you? It could just mean that you're old. :tongue:



> I think the people saying that are either hyping it up for marketing reasons or they heard it somewhere and are just repeating it. IMO, too many people just repeat what they hear about this thing because some "expert" told them so. That's where this can sometimes take on the properties of a religion (instead of some god saying this is how it is, it's some ancients or experts saying so - ancients replacing god and the experts replacing the preachers interpreting the word of god).


 Well, I'm going to own up to spreading hype and "properties of a religion" based on what I read here...


EM 215 said:


> In the 1950’s, Oscar Ichazo (born in Bolivia in 1931) was invited to participate in a study group of high-ranking European and Oriental mystics in Buenos Aires, Argentina, composed of Martinists, Theoso-phists, Rosicrucians and Anthroposophists. Ichazo served them coffee, and they taught him *Kabbalah, Sufism, Yoga, Zen and techniques from the Gurdjieff work*. (see also EM issues 21, 22, and 23)
> 
> Quoting Ichazo: “This was around 1950, and (one) man invited me to Buenos Aires, where I was involved with a group of mystics, many of whom were seventy or eighty years old when I met them... None of them was South American. They were Europeans or from the Middle East” (Extract from “Interviews with Oscar Ichazo, a 1982 Arica Institute publication”).


Here's a link to the article in question. This includes something about the "History of the Enneagram", and even something about the Hero's Journey and Tarot cards... 

I know I said in another thread that Riso/Hudson is one of the "newer" authors, but I said that relative to Ichazo. I actually think his books are rather outdated as well... So who's going to write newer materials and put those on the market?


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> Because it is _not_ established. So many people see the symbol -- plus the unnecessary/probably false details such as wings (which is directly related to the symbol)-- and think it looks like nonsense-- with good reason. It projects this image of being something like Wiccanism or numerology or astrology. And its not. at all.


The brand name "The Enneagram" is established. The brand name can be difficult to establish so it has value when it's recognized. What you're talking about shows up sometimes when they try to sell it in the business world (like the MBTI is done). I've seen them softening up some of the "new agey" feel to it over the years and I think that's mainly due to more people using it in the business context. But how to get rid of the symbol without losing the brand?



charlie.elliot said:


> The behavior patterns described in the enneagram shouldn't even be the enneagram-- they should be an established part of psychology. And they probably would be if psychology wasn't wholly invested in describing only the abnormal.


They probably already are but not bundled like the Enneagram types. They're a bunch of traits that would need to be packaged. The Enneagram types don't break it out into traits because it's a type system. Besides if you look at behavioral traits, there's going to be a lot overlap between types which would be another problem to deal with.

Not all of psychology is invested in the abnormal. Positive psychology is one example. StrengthsFinder is a popular tool that works along with that.



charlie.elliot said:


> Its just sad that the wisdom that has the potential to be real science, and has the potential to be the most useful and legit part of psychology, is hidden behind this arcane symbol and repulses people who value science and rationality.


I've felt that way for a long, long time now and have worked out a system that does just that. The challenge is writing it up and presenting it so that it can be heard amongst all the noise of the existing system. Hopefully I'll make some progress before I become too old to do it anymore. Sometimes it just feels insurmountable in my lifetime.



charlie.elliot said:


> I cant tell you how fast my family members dismissed the enneagram when they saw how it was set up like a symbol and the types and the number theories behind it as so forth. It was like watching a mag lev bullet train go by. While I was desperately trying to explain the depth of the wisdom in it.


:laughing::sad::1892:


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

cir said:


> It's from the previous century and that's *not* ancient to you? It could just mean that you're old. :tongue:


Are you calling me ancient as well then? :redcard:

Seriously though, as a contrast, the two people who developed the Enneagram types are still alive while the three people who developed the Jungian and Myers-Briggs types are not.



cir said:


> So who's going to write newer materials and put those on the market?


I was planning on it. But, since finding out I'm ancient, I'm no longer sure. :rockon:


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

@enneathusiast -- The IPIP-- whoa!!! that's amazing! I've never heard of it. 

I'm just gawking at this right now-- the list of 3329 personality traits. (not sure if I like this or dont like it, but either way, its fascinating!!)



> Abuse people's confidences.
> 
> 
> H1131
> ...


ETC. 

Sounds like a Billy Joel song!


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> @*enneathusiast* -- The IPIP-- whoa!!! that's amazing! I've never heard of it.


Feel free to package all that into the 9 Enneagram categories. It's all free for public use as I remember.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

enneathusiast said:


> Are you calling me ancient as well then? :redcard:
> 
> Seriously though, as a contrast, the two people who developed the Enneagram types are still alive while the three people who developed the Jungian and Myers-Briggs types are not.


 Ha, I should probably add in some context so that people can know how ... off ... my sense of time is. I work in the software industry, and "new" systems are invented and popularized _very_ quickly. And all of the old farts bemoan needing to learn yet another system that won't stay around for long and then talk about how "it's just another iteration of $previous_system"... which I'm starting to see and agree... oh my god I'm getting old...

Still, I like the enneagram more than using blood types... 



> I was planning on it. But, since finding out I'm ancient, I'm no longer sure. :rockon:


 "The more things change, the more they stay the same"... It's not about your physical age, it's about your life experiences... Or your heart. "Young at heart". That red liquid circulating to/from your heart throughout your body... you could think it's blood, or you could think it's wine, and what better than aging like wine?


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

cir said:


> I work in the software industry, and "new" systems are invented and popularized _very_ quickly. And all of the old farts bemoan needing to learn yet another system that won't stay around for long and then talk about how "it's just another iteration of $previous_system"


OMG, I am ancient. I'm one of those people you're talking about. I didn't touch a PC until after I graduated college because all we had in college was a mainframe (real men program in assembler).
:computer:

Come to think of it, my farts have been a bit dusty lately.


----------



## Brains (Jul 22, 2015)

enneathusiast said:


> OMG, I am ancient. I'm one of those people you're talking about. I didn't touch a PC until after I graduated college because all we had in college was a mainframe (real men program in assembler).
> :computer:
> 
> Come to think of it, my farts have been a bit dusty lately.


enneathusiast => methuselah


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Brains said:


> enneathusiast => methuselah












I remember when the Enneagram was just a circle...


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

enneathusiast said:


> I remember when the Enneagram was just a circle...


 We just call that the "Law of One" these days.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

I honestly think a lot of "clashes" about _how _it works and the best way to apply it (etc), could easily be explained, in part, by differences in valued JFC's. I'm not the best person at detecting "patterns" but I do see some trends in the Si vs Ni, Ne vs Se, Te vs Ti, Fe vs Fi way of "filtering" the information. I actually think a lot of the time people are in agreement but it gets lost in translation because people are coming at it from different angles, or are focusing on different aspects.

But, yeah. Too much emphasis on the "right" way, I think. I do think that it puts a lot of people off.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

The Perfect Storm said:


> I honestly think a lot of "clashes" about _how _it works and the best way to apply it (etc), could easily be explained, in part, by differences in valued JFC's. I'm not the best person at detecting "patterns" but I do see some trends in the Si vs Ni, Ne vs Se, Te vs Ti, Fe vs Fi way of "filtering" the information. I actually think a lot of the time people are in agreement but it gets lost in translation because people are coming at it from different angles, or are focusing on different aspects.
> 
> But, yeah. Too much emphasis on the "right" way, I think. I do think that it puts a lot of people off.


JFCs?


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

charlie.elliot said:


> JFCs?


Jungian cognitive functions


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

The Perfect Storm said:


> charlie.elliot said:
> 
> 
> > J*FC*s?
> ...


 Well, then, I'm going to disagree. Clearly JFC means "Jungian Fried Chicken".

To distinguish what I was talking about earlier: The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious... a collection of translations of Jung's writings...


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

The Perfect Storm said:


> I honestly think a lot of "clashes" about _how _it works and the best way to apply it (etc), could easily be explained, in part, by differences in valued JFC's. I'm not the best person at detecting "patterns" but I do see some trends in the Si vs Ni, Ne vs Se, Te vs Ti, Fe vs Fi way of "filtering" the information.


Why not just completely forget about the Enneagram and just use JFC's then? Sounds like the Enneagram is just rendered irrelevant and unnecessary at that point.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

cir said:


> Well, then, I'm going to disagree. Clearly JFC means "Jungian Fried Chicken".
> 
> To distinguish what I was talking about earlier: The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious... a collection of translations of Jung's writings...


lol @ Jugian Fried Chicken

I admit I didn't read your previous posts in detail (or many others). I'm just thinking aloud here.



enneathusiast said:


> Why not just completely forget about the Enneagram and just use JFC's then? Sounds like the Enneagram is just rendered irrelevant and unnecessary at that point.


Because I see them as two different systems that focus on two separate things. I think they are both useful, although I admit that it can be difficult to tear some of the differences apart (hence the confusions and "clashes" I talk of).

I'm afraid I can't really expand on that more because I'm not confident enough at articulating it but @Figure made two very good posts in that other thread which sums up my thoughts. I have also studied Socionics quite a bit so a lot of my understanding comes from that system and if someone hasn't taken the time to understand it fully them what I say will probably just go over their head.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

The Perfect Storm said:


> Because I see them as two different systems that focus on two separate things. I think they are both useful, although I admit that it can be difficult to tear some of the differences apart (hence the confusions and "clashes" I talk of).


What do you think the Jungian functions add that the Enneagram types don't cover? At least give me an example of what you're thinking.

Don't worry, my intent is not to pick it apart and debate the matter. It's just to better understand where people see the Enneagram types lacking.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

enneathusiast said:


> What do you think the Jungian functions add that the Enneagram types don't cover? At least give me an example of what you're thinking.
> 
> Don't worry, my intent is not to pick it apart and debate the matter. It's just to better understand where people see the Enneagram types lacking.


Jungian functions are about how we gather, and process information; Enneagram is more about fixation and self-concept/world view. It's the difference between what tools you use to navigate the world and filter"data" versus the main influences that shape and "narrow" our world view. You could have two people that have the same set of tools but their focus is completely different. Generally speaking, having similar "tools" does tend to make it easier to understand where the other person is coming from (even if you completely disagree with them).

No idea if that made sense I suck at explaining this stuff. xD

My advice to you is to go and study this stuff in more detail if you are struggling to understand it. It's probably best to go back to the original sources then try and grasp other peoples interpretation of it. At least, that's what works best for me.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

The Perfect Storm said:


> Jungian functions are about how we gather, and process information; Enneagram is more about fixation and self-concept/world view. It's the difference between what tools you use to navigate the world and filter"data" versus the main influences that shape and "narrow" our world view. You could have two people that have the same set of tools but their focus is completely different. Generally speaking, having similar "tools" does tend to make it easier to understand where the other person is coming from (even if you completely disagree with them).


Interesting. What if the Enneagram types could also be used to explain how we gather and process information? Would that take away the need to add the Jungian functions into the mix?



The Perfect Storm said:


> My advice to you is to go and study this stuff in more detail if you are struggling to understand it. It's probably best to go back to the original sources then try and grasp other peoples interpretation of it. At least, that's what works best for me.


It's not that I'm struggling to understand the Jungian functions. It's that I think I already use the Enneagram types to describe something similar to what other people are using the Jungian functions for and it may be worthwhile for me to consider that audience when I go about explaining how I use the Enneagram types.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

enneathusiast said:


> Interesting. What if the Enneagram types could also be used to explain how we gather and process information? Would that take away the need to add the Jungian functions into the mix?


I personally don't think Enneagram can do that (at least not in it's current "state")...

Let's take type 4 as an example (seeing as we were both part of a conversation linked to this on another thread). It's fair to say that, this Enneatype is self-referencing, and focused on _self, _and emotional feelings/experiences as means of expressing and embodying the "authentic self" (the trap being that the focus tends to be on negative emotional states which the type "attaches" to, leading to the self-fulfilling prophecy and personal narrative that confirms to them that they are "different" and are, "unlike" others.) Now, the way this "fixation" (or whatever you want to call it) is expressed can manifest differently depending on the "tools" that the individual values, which will also in turn affect the way the person expresses themselves (an example might be the difference in expression between a sensor verses an intuitive type). I'd love to be able to offer you a concrete example but it's difficult, because defining what functions are is as much as a head-fuck as trying to convince someone that Enneagram is not just a load of hocus-pocus, lol.

I guess, I can still be a 4 and still value "objective" sources. I mean, I identify as a 4 yet I am also an Se-dominant which means I take in data primarily "as-it-is" and then it get's filtered by Fi (which is more subjective and "personal" if you will). Compare this process to an ISFP, who will take in information via Fi first-and-foremost, with Se coming in as a secondary "muscle". I made a thread a few weeks a go about the differences between xNFP and xSFP type 4s because I do think it's an interesting topic of discussion, mainly because most of the type 4 "stereotypes" do sound very similar to INFP descriptions (unfortunately noone responded xD). Now, you could just say that this must be because INFP translates to type 4 in the Enneagram system; I however think that there is more to it than that. It took me a long time to get my head around so I understand why people get confused but, to borrow from what was said in the other thread, the line between the two systems is very blur...but it definitely exists (imo). It's just very hard to put into words! 



> It's not that I'm struggling to understand the Jungian functions. It's that I think I already use the Enneagram types to describe something similar to what other people are using the Jungian functions for and it may be worthwhile for me to consider that audience when I go about explaining how I use the Enneagram types.


Yes, if you want to reach a wider audience I think looking into that would definitely be a smart move. If you've found a way to explain all the differences in a neater and more coherent way then good for you, a lot of people will appreciate that for sure. 

EDIT: @*enneathusiast* just tagging you because what I originally said didn't really make sense so I edited it a bit. xD


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

OMG...I just turned orange. I do NOT like this look! xD

Now I'm going to have to find a new avatar that matches both the colour and my mood/aesthetic. 

UGGGH!


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

@The Perfect Storm

Your response made me realize that I'm going to run into the same problem with the Jungian functions that I ran into with the Enneagram types. People have all this stuff in their heads already. As soon as I mention something close to what's in there they'll be off and running trying to reconcile whatever I say with what they already have turning around in their brain. Hmmm...I'll have to think about how to approach that.

But to give you a hint along the lines of what I'm thinking, where Jungian functions only have thinking and feeling, the Enneagram types have thinking, feeling, and doing. So, there's no one-for-one correspondence but there are some similar things happening. 

Jung took this dyadic approach for some reason where it's thinking vs. feeling regarding decision making. The reality is that there's a third decision making approach that involves doing. It's often called gut decision making. You just take action then adjust (the ready, fire, aim approach). I don't see the Jungian functions accounting for this. So from my perspective the Enneagram types actually explain things that aren't found in the Jungian functions. That's one reason I'm surprised when people use the Jungian functions in lieu of what's already available in the Enneagram types. I guess it's just that the traditional approach to the Enneagram types is more theme-based (the passions, the fixations, etc.) than function-based (doing, feeling, thinking) and the traditional approach is all that's really available at present.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

enneathusiast said:


> Your response made me realize that I'm going to run into the same problem with the Jungian functions that I ran into with the Enneagram types. People have all this stuff in their heads already. As soon as I mention something close to what's in there they'll be off and running trying to reconcile whatever I say with what they already have turning around in their brain. Hmmm...I'll have to think about how to approach that.


Associations are inevitably going to be made, yeah. I'm not sure it's something that can be completely avoided given the nature of the subject. Human brains are wired to make connections (whether they are relevant or not xD).



> _But to give you a hint along the lines of what I'm thinking, where Jungian functions only have thinking and feeling, the Enneagram types have thinking, feeling, and doing. So, there's no one-for-one correspondence but there are some similar things happening. _
> 
> _Jung took this dyadic approach for some reason where it's thinking vs. feeling regarding decision making. The reality is that there's a third decision making approach that involves doing. It's often called gut decision making. You just take action then adjust (the ready, fire, aim approach). I don't see the Jungian functions accounting for this. So from my perspective the Enneagram types actually explain things that aren't found in the Jungian functions. That's one reason I'm surprised when people use the Jungian functions in lieu of what's already available in the Enneagram types. I guess it's just that the traditional approach to the Enneagram types is more theme-based (the passions, the fixations, etc.) than function-based (doing, feeling, thinking) and the traditional approach is all that's really available at present._


Jungian types have feeling functions too (unless I'm misunderstanding you). To be fair, the main model I reference is Socionics which is not purely Jungian, it has it's own take (it's just easier to refer to JCF because more people are aware of it than Socionics, which still suffers due to the lack of translation of sources from Russian/Ukrainian to English along with multiple schools of thought). 

A lot of people actually mistake "gut" decision making for sensing functions (specifically Se). Take me for an example, if you observed me in person you may think I were a gut type because of how I literally just jump into action without giving it much thought. Of course, it does depend on the situation, but generally, the Se-dominant is very comfortable in the "present" and thrives in situations where they can improvise with data in the here-and-now. Similarly, I struggle with highly conceptual thinking as I'm Ni-inferior, which might go some way in explaining why I am not so good at articulating myself when discussing more abstract topics (and often refer to sources).

Have you looked at Socionics? It might be worth a go, it's an interesting take on Jungian typology. I do understand what you are saying about how things can be covered by either system, but I don't think this makes them incompatible.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

The Perfect Storm said:


> Jungian types have feeling functions too (unless I'm misunderstanding you).


I guess you misunderstood.



The Perfect Storm said:


> A lot of people actually mistake "gut" decision making for sensing functions (specifically Se).


Yeah, I played around with the S function to fill in for doing. More specifically ST because I think of doing more as a decision function than a perceiving one. Nothing really seems to make sense around doing without reinterpreting things (which I don't want to do).



The Perfect Storm said:


> Have you looked at Socionics? It might be worth a go, it's an interesting take on Jungian typology.


It's been a while since I looked at Socionics. I may take a quick look again to see if something jumps out.

I guess what I'll need to do is just stick to the Enneagram elements but expand the focus beyond a theme-based approach to a more function-based approach (which I've already been doing).

It's strange that everyone seems to be talking about Jungian functions but the biggest unexplained variance within Enneagram type I've noticed seems to do with J and P.


----------

