# The Enneagram is BS



## newbie const (Nov 26, 2015)

At first,no personality system is complete or fully reliable.But I encourage enneatheory,because:
1)It has more room for variety.Combine fundamental enneagram,subtype,wings,variant and tritype,you can get a clearer picture than any other personality system.
2)It primarily considers a person's inner motivation(behaviour is not neglected in it),so it can be more reliable than the others.Because no matter how much a man changes,he can't change his cognitive pattern.
So it's not BS,but can be seemed fallacious.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

> Naranjo: "The Enneatypes aren't psychologically applicable."





Emologic said:


> I have no further questions.


With the quote you attributed to Naranjo, it looks like you misunderstood what he said in the video I posted.

He said the Enneagram *symbol *has nothing to do with psychology.

He prefers to refer to the types as _Psychology of Ennea-Types _without any reference to the Enneagram at all.

Although Naranjo played around the Enneagram symbol in one or two of his books, he focuses on the 9 ennea-types and the 27 instinctual subtypes that come from those. Beatrice Chestnut's book probably offers the best explanation of Naranjo's 27 subtypes.


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

"this is a serious debate"

lmao


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Emologic said:


> *1.*
> There is no explanation as to why someone can't be a 1w6 or a 5w3 or a 9w4, you name it. Why should a type only be able to have a Wing that is next to itself (1 can only have a 9 or 2 wing)? It doesn't make any sense.


How about, it would be a wing? It's like political left wing and right wing, but rather than a political perspective (with fundamental dispositions, beliefs, principals, etc) it refers to a more "left leaning" psychodynamic perspective or "right leaning" psychodynamic perspective (referring to respective approximate perspective).


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Emologic said:


> Frankly said, the Enneagram is bullshit.
> 
> I understand the system, how it works, and how everything interacts with eachother, but think about it.
> There is literally no reason as to _why_ the Enneagram's structure is built like that.
> ...


I actually think your reasoning is flawed. There's much better ways to try and shoot it down. But okay. 

Meanwhile, entertain yourself with this.


----------



## Dyidia (May 28, 2010)

Emologic said:


> *1.*
> There is no explanation as to why someone can't be a 1w6 or a 5w3 or a 9w4, you name it. Why should a type only be able to have a Wing that is next to itself (1 can only have a 9 or 2 wing)? It doesn't make any sense. Someone who values cognitive competence (5) could also value success/image (3), power/dominance (8), and security/safety (6). Does that make him a 5w3w8w6? According to the Enneagram, it doesn't. There's no _reason_ this is impossible, or is there? I don't think so.


You can try that, but then you kinda have to defend why allowing that makes more sense for the model. 

tl;dr, you're confusing "psychologically applicable" with bothering to substantiate scientifically. All that time making sure it's empirically valid could be spent finding out if it's actually useful to you.


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

Emologic said:


> *1.*
> There is no explanation as to why someone can't be a 1w6 or a 5w3 or a 9w4, you name it. Why should a type only be able to have a Wing that is next to itself (1 can only have a 9 or 2 wing)? It doesn't make any sense. Someone who values cognitive competence (5) could also value success/image (3), power/dominance (8), and security/safety (6). Does that make him a 5w3w8w6? According to the Enneagram, it doesn't. There's no _reason_ this is impossible, or is there? I don't think so.


Wings could be bullshit. I'm not a big believer in them, myself. But, I think the justification is that the circle is like a color wheel, and you could be any color on the wheel, but only one. So, if you're in between 1 and 2, but closer to 1, that makes you a 1w2. Again, I think wings could be complete bullshit.



> 2. Don't defend this like you would defend your religion (if you have one). If you can defend the Enneagram with logic, be my guest.


I don't believe in religion. I'm a complete skeptic.



> EDIT: If it's not psychologically applicable (but rather Mathematical, which is irrelevant), according to Claudio Naranjo, then what is the point of it at all? If it doesn't make sense, don't do it. Spirituality is illogical and frankly just pathetic.


I think the spiritual part is bullshit. The interesting part of it is how it describes real people.

I hate psychology. I think psychology is pseudoscience.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Entropic said:


> K.


Best and most appropriate response to this thread and similar threads; past, present and future.


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

I can see where the OP is coming from. Enneagram seems to be full of unexplained rules that are there just for the sake of it. Also, you can be 6 out of 9 types with tritype so it doesn't matter even if you can prove it since you can be majority of types which kinda triggers it pointless. Regardless, it's more important whether it helps people than whether we can (dis)prove it. If Enneagram helps people to find themselves and understand themselves then I see no reason in dismissing it.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

It's fun. What's wrong with fun if it seems to comply with your intuition?


----------



## Plumedoux (Aug 16, 2015)

@Emologic What's the point to start a debate, If you don't even participate. That's just prove the point that you are just a troll.
And you seems full of contradiction, just with a look of your pseudo Emologic.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Plumedoux said:


> @_Emologic_ What's the point to start a debate, If you don't even participate. That's just prove the point that you are just a troll.
> And you seems full of contradiction, just with a look of your pseudo Emologic.


I already called him out on being evasive.

He'll probably do what Tucken does and say he "just wanted to spark" getting people to talk about it. Which will backfire since he's selectively responded to shit-- usually the stuff that has no meat to it and doesn't require actual refutation


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Prada said:


> Also, you can be 6 out of 9 types with tritype so it doesn't matter even if you can prove it since you can be majority of types which kinda triggers it pointless.


In the Socionics model, everyone uses all of the functions. Does that make it pointless?

Regardless of what tritype you would type as, you're still going to have *one*(!) core type. Tritype doesn't devalue the role of the main type. Which means nothing is being made pointless.


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

Sun Daeva said:


> In the Socionics model, everyone uses all of the functions. Does that make it pointless?
> 
> Regardless of what tritype you would type as, you're still going to have *one*(!) core type. Tritype doesn't devalue the role of the main type. Which means nothing is being made pointless.


I don't know much about Socionics so I can't talk about that. But even if you use all functions, you still are just one type. In Enneagram you can be almost all types at a time. It's not about which type you are but which you aren't. Compared to other major typing systems (MBTI, Socionics) Enneagram just feels all over the place with its redundant rules and broad concept.


----------



## Butterfire (Oct 16, 2015)

kaleidoscope said:


> Reposting what I wrote long ago in another, similar thread:


To be honest, the MBTI is pretty much laughed at too. HR departments love it, but otherwise it's not given a lot of credence. 

I like the enneagram, but I don't consider it to be scientific. It's quasi spiritual. And I do think a lot of people on this forum take it way too seriously. 

Having said that, I find it to be a useful personal tool. And I tend not to care where my useful personal tools come from so long as they are useful and not hurting anybody. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Prada said:


> I don't know much about Socionics so I can't talk about that. But even if you use all functions, you still are just one type. In Enneagram you can be almost all types at a time. It's not about which type you are but which you aren't. Compared to other major typing systems (MBTI, Socionics) Enneagram just feels all over the place with its redundant rules and broad concept.


No.
As I said in my previous comment, no matter the tritype and whatnot, you'll still have *one core type*. No more, no less. You thinking otherwise is you failing to grasp the basics of the model.


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

Sun Daeva said:


> No.
> As I said in my previous comment, no matter the tritype and whatnot, you'll still have *one core type*. No more, no less. You thinking otherwise is you failing to grasp the basics of the model.


I know that and it doesn't change on my point.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Sun Daeva said:


> As I said in my previous comment, no matter the tritype and whatnot, you'll still have *one core type*. No more, no less. You thinking otherwise is you failing to grasp the basics of the model.


The Fauvres have combined Tritype into archetypes that ignore the dominant or core type (e.g., 125 includes 215, 512, etc.). They say people that share the same archetype may be more alike than people that share only the same dominant or core type (e.g., a 125 may have more in common with a 512 than a 136). 

I don't use Tritype so I personally don't have any take on it but I was wondering what your take is on that in reference to what you said above.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Prada said:


> I know that and it doesn't change on my point.


That doesn't make any sense at all. 

By acknowledging that regardless of "addons", sort of speak, the core type is still the most important.. as in.. it's *core*, lol.. it directly contradicts your claim that "_since you can be majority of types which kinda triggers it pointless._"

Somehow, somewhere, I missed a step in your _logic_.
D'you feel like explaining your reasoning, mayhap? 



enneathusiast said:


> The Fauvres have combined Tritype into archetypes that ignore the dominant or core type (e.g., 125 includes 215, 512, etc.). They say people that share the same archetype may be more alike than people that share only the same dominant or core type (e.g., a 125 may have more in common with a 512 than a 136).
> 
> I don't use Tritype so I personally don't have any take on it but I was wondering what your take is on that in reference to what you said above.


The archetypes described by tritype can stand alone, as they have their own unique signature. But they never negate the issues of your core type, including stress- and relief points, core fears, core motivations,.. 

It's archetypes within archetypes; archetypeception lol. I don't think the Fauvres ever claimed that the core struggles get overruled by the tritype.

The general behavior of one type 1 who has the tritype of 136 will probably look quite different than that of a 125. So in that sense, their overall impact on the world registers more clearly when thinking of tritype. It's the dressing that makes the meal stand out, it's the spices and aroma.
But the actual struggles and strengths of these two people will be best explained through the core type. That's where the meat and potatoes are.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Truthfully, I think a lot of the confusion with the enneagram on this forum would be cleared up if there wasn't such a huge disparity between people who are really serious about the theory and people who don't know anything about it/don't take it seriously at all. Generally speaking there is a steep learning curve to this theory and people who have worked with the theory for a long time and have used it to do inner work will be more serious about it, whereas people who have only taken a test or read a few type descriptions won't understand the ultimate goal of the theory. 

I've thrown up the fire and pitchfork for years now, that simply finding your type is NOT the single goal of learning the enneagram. There are forms of inner work, in my experience with the theory, that you can do for yourself to develop into a more balanced person _after_ finding your type that offer significantly higher return on the investment of your time. This is not well communicated by enneagram authors, so it is not surprising that people miss this. If you are not interested in deepening an understanding of mental structures and assumptions you may have come to over-rely on, you shouldn't waste your time with the theory. The enneagram teaches you to develop an inner observer so you can identify these structures, and additionally what sorts of positive growth you may experience from unwinding them when they aren't working for you. 

If you take a look at the history of the enneagram and how each type's concept has evolved from author to author, you'll find a lot of basis in clinical (especially neurotic) psychology. In many ways, I see the enneagram as just being an interface for those clinical psychological constructs; basically a 9 round game of charades. Claudio Naranjo, who is one of the "canonical" authors of the theory takes this approach, going so far as to archetype 9 bundles of neuroses for each type despite not endorsing the stance that all people are clinically neurotic. "Type" as a concrete thing does not exist per se; the components of a type (defense mechanisms, core fear, passion, virtue, etc) are just parts of a model charading something similar to a neurotic habit we all tend towards depending upon to get through our everyday life. 

The components of an enneagram type are very much logically organized, and part of a system - SIGNIFICANTLY more so than MBTI, which does next to nothing to explain what makes someone, for example, a "Sensor" instead of an Intuitive. The enneagram clearly defines what makes a 4, for example, different from a 7 on the level of ego fixation. People just don't see it that way because many popular authors want to expose you more to the vague personal traits of each type instead of how the type's internal "hardware" works. 

What you need is an understanding of the Passion/ego fixation, Virtue, core fear, self-identification/image, defense mechanism, and how these create an overall ego structure for each type. You can get this from reading some of the better written works out there, from authors like Maitri, Palmer, Naranjo, and Ichazo.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

drmiller100 said:


> Well, you are certainly welcome to your own interpretation, and I can judge it on my interpretation not your's if I want.
> 
> Diagnosis: the identification of the nature of an illness or other problem by examination of the symptoms.
> 
> ...


It's a personality system, first and foremost. That's not my interpretation, it's an objective fact.
Using it as the primary means for diagnosis is clearly not the point of the model.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Sun Daeva said:


> I
> Using it as the primary means for diagnosis is clearly not the point of the model.


Interesting. So the "point of the model" causes it to be unusable for any other activities? 

I suspect this is an Fi/Te vs Ti viewpoint. Maybe?

Smiles...........


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

drmiller100 said:


> Interesting. So the "point of the model" causes it to be unusable for any other activities?
> 
> I suspect this is an Fi/Te vs Ti viewpoint. Maybe?
> 
> Smiles...........


I'm saying that judging the model based on how people potentially misuse it is not the way to go about this. I guess it's similar to the debate "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

People can use the enneagram to figure out what color to paint their kitchen for all I care. But if they're saying the model is awful because it gave them the 'wrong' color... well then...

And I suspect I use Ti/Fe myself, so...


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Sun Daeva said:


> It's a personality system, first and foremost. That's not my interpretation, it's an objective fact.
> Using it as the primary means for diagnosis is clearly not the point of the model.


More fuel for the discussion. This quote from the Enneagram page of the Naranjo Institute.


> Thus, the Enneagram provides us not only with a diagnosis of our malady, but also with very loose prescriptions, clues, pointers, and avenues to explore how we might become more than we apparently are, ‘other’ than what we are, or re-discover our capacity for spontaneity, understood as a non-automatic, healthy and organismic response to reality.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

enneathusiast said:


> More fuel for the discussion. This quote from the Enneagram page of the Naranjo Institute.
> 
> 
> > _Thus, the Enneagram provides us not only with a diagnosis of our malady, but also with very loose prescriptions, clues, pointers, and avenues to explore how we might become more than we apparently are, ‘other’ than what we are, or re-discover our capacity for spontaneity, understood as a non-automatic, healthy and organismic response to reality._


They're referring to the construct of personality as 'our malady'. But I don't think the use of the enneagram as a diagnostic tool in context of actual psychological problems is something they're promoting.

From the same page:


> Whilst enabling on the one hand, on the other hand this same personality is limiting to the degree that its construction requires the systematic negation of elements of ourselves or the world that do not conform to its mould. To be _in personality _is therefore to be _out of contact_ with a more comprehensive view of the world. To be in personality is to be wearing blinkers, or blue or red or green tinted spectacles such that we see the world (including ourselves) as red, or green or blue. It is to be on “automatic” plot, slightly roboticized, and no longer free to respond to the world and reality from an uninhibited emotional, cognitive or behavioural palette, from the free flow of instinct. To be in personality is to have lost the spontaneity of the infant, and the contact with self of the newly born.
> 
> The therapeutic function of the Enneagram of Personality is to identify the precise form of rigidity that we have constructed for ourselves in place of spontaneity and ‘being’.  Which suit of armour did we don at a certain point in our history, and subsequently confuse for our skin? Which mask did we confuse with our real face?


From what I get from this, they're basically saying that understanding our type can give us the tools to free us from our habitual non-productive patterns. So that we can be closer to our 'true self'.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Sun Daeva said:


> But I don't think the use of the enneagram as a diagnostic tool in context of actual psychological problems is something they're promoting.
> 
> 
> From what I get from this, they're basically saying that understanding our type can give us the tools to free us from our habitual non-productive patterns. So that we can be closer to our 'true self'.


I think we have differences in definition of diagnosis. I'm not talking clinical diagnosis within the DSM or something of that magnitude.

I am talking diagnosis in understanding my growth state and growth path and how I can wokr on be being a better person.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

drmiller100 said:


> I think we have differences in definition of diagnosis. I'm not talking clinical diagnosis within the DSM or something of that magnitude.
> 
> I am talking diagnosis in understanding my growth state and growth path and how I can wokr on be being a better person.


Ah sure, that makes sense.
I was discussing it in response to the faith-healing angle before, so I just assumed you meant it in a similar context. So yeah, guess I agree with you.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Sun Daeva said:


> I'm saying that judging the model based on how people potentially misuse it is not the way to go about this. I guess it's similar to the debate "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
> 
> People can use the enneagram to figure out what color to paint their kitchen for all I care. But if they're saying the model is awful because it gave them the 'wrong' color... well then...
> 
> And I suspect I use Ti/Fe myself, so...



This is a terrible analogy. What should Enneagram be used for then? It is used to help with psychological issues but then you say using it for psychological diagnosis is misusing it. No, it is using it in an area it claims authority. As it says itself and labels itself as a diagnostic tool. Diagnostic tool for what?

Our malady. Our original sin. lol. Come the fuck on.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> This is a terrible analogy. What should Enneagram be used for then? It is used to help with psychological issues but then you say using it for psychological diagnosis is misusing it. No, it is using it in an area it claims authority. As it says itself and labels itself as a diagnostic tool. Diagnostic tool for what?


I quoted this in my previous post:



> _Whilst enabling on the one hand, on the other hand this same personality is limiting to the degree that its construction requires the systematic negation of elements of ourselves or the world that do not conform to its mould. To be __in personality is therefore to be out of contact with a more comprehensive view of the world. To be in personality is to be wearing blinkers, or blue or red or green tinted spectacles such that we see the world (including ourselves) as red, or green or blue. It is to be on “automatic” plot, slightly roboticized, and no longer free to respond to the world and reality from an uninhibited emotional, cognitive or behavioural palette, from the free flow of instinct. To be in personality is to have lost the spontaneity of the infant, and the contact with self of the newly born.
> 
> The therapeutic function of the Enneagram of Personality is to identify the precise form of rigidity that we have constructed for ourselves in place of spontaneity and ‘being’. Which suit of armour did we don at a certain point in our history, and subsequently confuse for our skin? Which mask did we confuse with our real face?_


_
Naranjo Institute

_It's about personality and personality types. Not clinical psychology. I don't understand how this difference isn't clear to you?_
_


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Sun Daeva said:


> I quoted this in my previous post:
> 
> 
> Naranjo Institute
> ...


It is about our malady. It explains and diagnoses things that normally are covered by clinical psychology as part of this personality system. How do you not get that? Just parroting that it isn't psychology doesn't change the fact that it makes claims about issues that actually are treated in clinical psychology. It is within the domain of clinical psychology.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> What should Enneagram be used for then? It is used to help with psychological issues but then you say using it for psychological diagnosis is misusing it. No, it is using it in an area it claims authority. As it says itself and labels itself as a diagnostic tool. Diagnostic tool for what?


It's explained pretty well at this Naranjo Institute web page if you'll just read through it. 

Claudio Naranjo is a psychiatrist and the originator of the system (he evolved it from Oscar Ichazo's proto-analysis). Everyone else's take on the Enneagram types is a derivative interpretation of his work. He doesn't even like using the term Enneagram because it connotes something different than what it is. He prefers it be called Psychology of Ennea-Types instead.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> It is about our malady. It explains and diagnoses things that normally are covered by clinical psychology as part of this personality system. How do you not get that? Just parroting that it isn't psychology doesn't change the fact that it makes claims about issues that actually are treated in clinical psychology. It is within the domain of clinical psychology.


What are the things it diagnoses that normally are covered by clinical psychology, specifically? You're making all these claims, but I have yet to see actual backup to them. I'm 'parroting' *official sources*. I'm extremely curious where you get your view from.


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

Kerik_S said:


> "I have a life" is a slander tactic. Go away.


It's not a tactic at all. The statement explains the fact that I have priorities (such as life), and don't dwell too much on this forum, unless I get the urge to do so, like now.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Emologic said:


> It's not a tactic at all. The statement explains the fact that I have priorities (such as life), and don't dwell too much on this forum, unless I get the urge to do so, like now.


What separates this forum from the rest of your "life"?


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

enneathusiast said:


> It's explained pretty well at this Naranjo Institute web page if you'll just read through it.
> 
> Claudio Naranjo is a psychiatrist and the originator of the system (he evolved it from Oscar Ichazo's proto-analysis). Everyone else's take on the Enneagram types is a derivative interpretation of his work. He doesn't even like using the term Enneagram because it connotes something different than what it is. He prefers it be called Psychology of Ennea-Types instead.


Okay, I'm really confused about this whole thing about whether or not Enneagram is/isn't meant to be used as a self-help tool. I've read the link that you posted, and right at the bottom it says;



> *To this end the Enneagram of Personality offers us antidotes - attitudes and values that we can cultivate that will help to loosen, in time, the grip of our passions and cognitive fixations that constitute our “automatic” and defended self. Likewise, as a diagrammatic system, the Enneagram permits us to locate other ways of being in the world and our relationship to these ‘others’. Thus, the Enneagram provides us not only with a diagnosis of our malady, but also with very loose prescriptions, clues, pointers, and avenues to explore how we might become more than we apparently are, ‘other’ than what we are, or re-discover our capacity for spontaneity, understood as a non-automatic, healthy and organismic response to reality.
> 
> It is on this shifting crossroads between malady and cure, neurosis and virtue, that the long journey of the work on self occurs.*


Now, this might just be a matter of interpretation but isn't this basically _encouraging _people to use/apply the system to overcome personal (psychological) problems? 

It actually sounds _exactly _like the kind of stuff I've heard various therapists say (albeit, packaged differently), and with much less emphasis on personality/ego being a "bad" thing, and more of a focus on self-awareness and techniques to help cultivate an "internal observer". Another thing is a lot of therapists seem to dislike labels. One therapist once told me that using labels can be dangerous and cause more harm than good when dealing with people who have such a fragile sense of self, which is why he prefers to focus more on healing methods (in contrast to Enneagram which seems overly focused on the "labels").

EDIT: Feel like I should say that the reason why I'm asking for clarification is because I made the "mistake" of assuming that Enneagram might be able to help me with my various personal psychological issues. A few people have mentioned that this is "misusing" the system; for which I ask, well how am I supposes to apply it then? I guess I'm trying to understand where I may/may not have gone wrong.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

The Perfect Storm said:


> Now, this might just be a matter of interpretation but isn't this basically _encouraging _people to use/apply the system to overcome personal (psychological) problems?


I don't know if you're familiar with the DSM (it provides the psychological distinctions or labels that the therapists you mention seem to be averse to so you may not be familiar with it). Anyway, It's a thick book of psychological disorders used for diagnosis by psychologists (it doesn't recommend any particular treatment, it just points to symptoms to use for diagnosis and what needs to be worked with). A small part of the DSM is one chapter on Personality Disorders. The Enneagram types are sometimes matched up with some of those Personality Disorders to illustrate the unhealthy aspects of Enneagram type (e.g., Obsessive-Compulsive with type 1, Anti-Social with type 8, etc.). The rest of the DSM (the bulk of it) is concerned with psychological disorders. The Enneagram isn't used to deal with psychological disorders but it can be used to deal with personality disorders (as defined by the Enneagram types not the DSM so much) but it doesn't prescribe a method. It simply gives you a direction to explore. Various Enneagram teachers may provide various methods (e.g., Helen Palmer emphasizes the inner observer). But even the inner observer is not a treatment but a method of becoming aware of your habitual patterns. From that awareness you can begin accepting, interrupting, and changing those patterns.

A good example to distinguish between psychological disorder and personality disorder in the DSM is Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) vs. Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder. The two sound the same because of the wording but they're not the same. You should be able to do a search to find more about that.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

@enneathusiast

I'm very familiar with the DSM (and while I accept it's importance I also have a lot of issues with it). This might go some way in explaining why I also have similar problems with Enneagram.

Also, correlating Enneagram with personality disorders makes me uncomfortable. Personality disorders are pretty serious and very complex conditions. To say that Enneagram is used to deal with personality disorders (as opposed to psychological disorders) makes me think that this stuff is not relevant for most people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean that the assumption is made that most people suffer from some from of personality disorder? 

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Personality_disorder


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

The Perfect Storm said:


> I'm very familiar with the DSM (and while I accept it's importance I also have a lot of issues with it). This might go some way in explaining why I also have similar problems with Enneagram.


I don't see why your issues with the DSM should carry over to the Enneagram types. I wasn't trying to equate the two. I was simply trying to illustrate that psychological disorders are different from personality disorders. Applying the Enneagram types to particular psychological issues doesn't work because personality is more holistic than that (it doesn't deal with the individual parts).



The Perfect Storm said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean that the assumption is made that most people suffer from some from of personality disorder?


No, not at all. The Enneagram types generally treat personality as falling within a range from healthy to unhealthy. The personality disorders lie at the unhealthy end of the range. Unhealthy = a narrowed focus and reliance on your type's approach to life often operating at an unconscious level where you aren't even aware that this is taking place. This creates an inflexibility in the way life is dealt with (e.g., if I only know how to deal with life in this way and it's not working then I'm stuck). The goal is to become more aware of the patterns by bringing them into consciousness so that you can accept yourself and find a more supportive environment for the way you work (i.e., career choice, relationships, etc.) and also begin to grow beyond the habitual patterns by interrupting them and adding choice to what was unconscious and automatic.

The correlation of the Enneagram types to the DSM personality disorders or syndromes was really just a way of tying it in with modern psychology to see where it stood in relation. Helen Palmer compares it to the Rosetta stone.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

enneathusiast said:


> I don't see why your issues with the DSM should carry over to the Enneagram types. I wasn't trying to equate the two. I was simply trying to illustrate that psychological disorders are different from personality disorders. Applying the Enneagram types to particular psychological issues doesn't work because personality is more holistic than that (it doesn't deal with the individual parts).


The jury is still out with regard whether or not psychological disorders are different from personality disorders (I have met therapists who both advocate and reject this concept. Truth is, we simply do not have enough data to form any definite conclusions). 

Can you please explain what you (personally) mean by "personality."



> No, not at all. The Enneagram types generally treat personality as falling within a range from healthy to unhealthy. The personality disorders lie at the unhealthy end of the range. Unhealthy = a narrowed focus and reliance on your type's approach to life often operating at an unconscious level where you aren't even aware that this is taking place. This creates an inflexibility in the way life is dealt with (e.g., if I only know how to deal with life in this way and it's not working then I'm stuck). The goal is to become more aware of the patterns by bringing them into consciousness so that you can accept yourself and find a more supportive environment for the way you work (i.e., career choice, relationships, etc.) and also begin to grow beyond the habitual patterns by interrupting them and adding choice to what was unconscious and automatic.
> 
> The correlation of the Enneagram types to the DSM personality disorders or syndromes was really just a way of tying it in with modern psychology to see where it stood in relation. Helen Palmer compares it to the Rosetta stone.


I still stand by my original point in that this stuff is too vague and wishy-washy to help those in real need. I understand the point and intention, I just think it falls short in practice.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

The Perfect Storm said:


> The jury is still out with regard whether or not psychological disorders are different from personality disorders (I have met therapists who both advocate and reject this concept. Truth is, we simply do not have enough data to form any definite conclusions).


In terms of the Enneagram the two are different. Take my example I suggested you follow up on from the earlier post with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder vs. Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder. This is from the first page I found when searching for the comparison of the two. OCPD in this case correlates well with type 1 in the less aware states.



> So today, let’s look at 5 important differences between OCPD and OCD:
> 
> *Difference #1: Insight*
> Folks with OCD usually know that their thoughts are not exactly reasonable (“Did I turn off the stove? I’d better check,” or “If I wear unmatched socks, something bad will happen to my brother.”)
> ...





The Perfect Storm said:


> Can you please explain what you (personally) mean by "personality."


In simple terms, it's the overall pattern of behaviors, emotions, thoughts, and interactions that are unique to each individual. Enneagram type for me doesn't describe those patterns. It describes a habit of attention organizing and driving many of those patterns. When you become more conscious of the patterns and know what's driving them you can consider responses to life that more appropriately satisfy that drive or you can shift your attention to what's more appropriate to the situation. 



The Perfect Storm said:


> I still stand by my original point in that this stuff is too vague and wishy-washy to help those in real need. I understand the point and intention, I just think it falls short in practice.


I think you're expecting it to provide insights into detailed issues. It's for working with the larger structure rather than specific issues as I tried to explain. I also think you're doing your best to stay away from that which is fine. You know better what you need and can handle at this time.

On the other hand, it originally required an experientially understanding provided by group work guided by a teacher. Nowadays, many people only get a superficial understanding of it by reading some web pages and discussing it with others who may only have a superficial understanding of it as well. So, yes if you just read about it then it's going to appear wishy-washy. It requires years to learn about (sometimes it even takes years to get your type right) because IMO none of the author's have a good handle on what it's actually pointing to at the core level (just a vague intuitive understanding that they try to describe through personality).


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

@enneathusiast

I'm too off my tits to continue this conversation. I would like to resume this at some point but I feel that it's an insult to you for me to try and continue this.

So, thanks for entertaining me up until this point!

EDIT: I'll come back to this...eventually


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

The Perfect Storm said:


> \
> EDIT: I'll come back to this...eventually


You made good points. There are absolutely significant dangers for lay people to try to diagnose personality issues in others, or even themselves. 

Enneagram can be used, I believe, to find opportunities or trends or growth places for people. I think mbti, the big 4, ennegram, etc can all be used to understand oursevles and others. 

I think "diagnose" and "understand" can be synonymous in how I look at it if you are only looking at shallower levels.


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

Would it help if the Enneagram came with a "for entertainment only" warning sticker like one of those coin-operated love-tester machines?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

The Perfect Storm said:


> Okay, I'm really confused about this whole thing about whether or not Enneagram is/isn't meant to be used as a self-help tool. I've read the link that you posted, and right at the bottom it says;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly. Exactly. I would not respect any psychologist/counselor who incorporated this into therapy. They are against labels. Personality typing has a bad history. These are serious issues. 

It does invite one to diagnose and find themselves through this system. It encroaches on clinical psychology. I believe it attracts people who overthink and self-diagnose. In other words, it is unethical and ill suited for its supposed purpose. My money would be on it making it worse. A rudderless, obsessive systemization is the last thing people need. I have had people in this thread continually say it doesn't try to diagnose these things and bring people down this path. Bullshit. Those quotes provided and other material show otherwise.

I actually agree with the point about it needs a "just for fun" sticker. I was thinking before about how they are like all these bullshit supplements that use weasel words on health claims, but all have in fine print, "this product's claims have not been verified and should not be used to treat any condition." Enneagram should come with a similar label.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Exactly. Exactly. I would not respect any psychologist/counselor who incorporated this into therapy. They are against labels. Personality typing has a bad history. These are serious issues.
> 
> It does invite one to diagnose and find themselves through this system. It encroaches on clinical psychology. I believe it attracts people who overthink and self-diagnose. In other words, it is unethical and ill suited for its supposed purpose. My money would be on it making it worse. A rudderless, obsessive systemization is the last thing people need. I have had people in this thread continually say it doesn't try to diagnose these things and bring people down this path. Bullshit. Those quotes provided and other material show otherwise.
> 
> I actually agree with the point about it needs a "just for fun" sticker. I was thinking before about how they are like all these bullshit supplements that use weasel words on health claims, but all have in fine print, "this product's claims have not been verified and should not be used to treat any condition." Enneagram should come with a similar label.


Again I ask you, in what ways does it encroach on clinical psychology? I'm not asking for _your opinion, nor for your beliefs, bets or guesses_. I'm asking about what it actually *does*. Even after your numerous posts in this thread, you have yet to make a single actual point that is supported by the _Enneagram of Personality_.

You are being evasive, you are ignoring my previous question to give substance to your own claims, whilst passive-aggressively referring to me, saying that what I discussed is "bullshit".
*Your behavior and claims* are what is *bullshit* in this thread. 


The following quotes are from wikipedia. I wonder what makes you give credence to other *typology models*, but not this one? Because you don't *like *it? Honestly, that's all I've gotten from your posts. An opinion. And while I have nothing against anyone having an _opinion_, you claiming that _your opinion_ carries more weight than my substantiated rebuttals is plain arrogance. _Unsubstantiated arrogance._



> The (...) Enneagram (...) is a model of human personality which is principally understood and taught as a typology of nine interconnected personality types.
> source





> Typology is the study of types.
> source





> Personality type refers to the psychological classification of different types of individuals. Personality types are sometimes distinguished from personality traits, with the latter embodying a smaller grouping of behavioral tendencies. Types are sometimes said to involve qualitative differences between people, whereas traits might be construed as quantitative differences.[1] According to type theories, for example, introverts and extraverts are two fundamentally different categories of people. According to trait theories, introversion and extraversion are part of a continuous dimension, with many people in the middle.
> source


Nothing in these quotes makes the model 'encroach on clinical psychology' any more than, say, the MBTI, or Socionics, do.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Sun Daeva said:


> Again I ask you, in what ways does it encroach on clinical psychology? I'm not asking for _your opinion, nor for your beliefs, bets or guesses_. I'm asking about what it actually *does*. Even after your numerous posts in this thread, you have yet to make a single actual point that is supported by the _Enneagram of Personality_.
> 
> You are being evasive, you are ignoring my question to give substance to your own claims, whilst passive-aggressively referring to me, saying that what I discussed is "bullshit".
> *Your behavior and claims* are what is *bullshit* in this thread.
> ...


Do you really deny that this thing is promoted as a tool to deal with problems that are covered in therapy? Anxiety disorders for one. It tries to explain anxiety. 

Those things encroach on psychology as well but don't have the weird original sin or angle and I think Enneagram is the most diagnostic of them all. It is the most prescriptive.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Do you really deny that this thing is promoted as a tool to deal with problems that are covered in therapy? Anxiety disorders for one. It tries to explain anxiety.
> 
> Those things encroach on psychology as well but don't have the weird original sin or angle and I think Enneagram is the most diagnostic of them all. It is the most prescriptive.


*Where does it try to explain anxiety?* Show me. I don't have to deny a thing as long as you refuse to back up your own claims.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Do you really deny that this thing is promoted as a tool to deal with problems that are covered in therapy?
> 
> Those things encroach on psychology as well but don't have the weird original sin or angle and I think Enneagram is the most diagnostic of them all. It is the most prescriptive.


You seem to be suggesting that the Enneagram prescribes treatment and then go on to say it's diagnostic or prescriptive.

It doesn't prescribe *treatment*. There is no method of treatment in the system. You have to go elsewhere to find that.

It tries to help you observe how you are and suggests some possibilities for what to explore. That's it. If you think it's something else then you're probably looking at how different people might apply it differently based on their preferred method or practice. That's something separate from the Enneagram types themselves. It's what those particular people happen to be doing with the information the types are offering them. You can't fault the information for how people decide to use it.

If anything, I'd say that the information provided by the Enneagram types goes deeper than other systems. Thus, the potential harm that can come from misuse of that information is greater. It's like any other system of knowledge. It can be used in both good and bad ways, but the knowledge itself is neutral.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Emologic

Of course the test isn't scientific and it's largely hooey: It's kind of one of those tests that give vague trends to one's personality


----------



## autsdraws (Dec 6, 2015)

I think the enneagram is just a "scientific" way of stating that everyone is different. Combine the 27 enneagram types with MBTI and there's limitless possibilities.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Do you really deny that this thing is promoted as a tool to deal with problems that are covered in therapy? Anxiety disorders for one. It tries to explain anxiety.
> 
> .


Anxiety disorders are very different than anxiety. Anxiety is VERY different than the 5/6/7 of enneagram. Some people get anxious from public speaking, but that is hardly comparable to enneagram or anxiety disorders. 

I'll go on record as "deny". Now what?


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

autsdraws said:


> I think the enneagram is just a "scientific" way of stating that everyone is different. Combine the 27 enneagram types with MBTI and there's limitless possibilities.


MBTI actually makes sense logically as the structure explains itself when analyzed (such as the concept of extroversion and how it affects the cognitive functions, and the whole S/N T/F thing, paralleling eachother).

The Enneagram, however, doesn't explain why it works the way it does.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Emologic said:


> The Enneagram, however, doesn't explain why it works the way it does.


That's one of my biggest complaints about it as well but here's my thinking about why that is.

The Enneagram types are best understood in an intuitive experiential way (because I think that's how they were developed). As soon as you try to explicitly define a type or use the symbol to create a rule, it slips away (flaws in the description appear). You'll have some people seeing it in a generalized way and say just how well it all fits them. Then you'll have other people who begin to look closer at the details and realize that some of the pieces just don't fit. So I don't think it's a problem with what the Enneagram types are pointing to (you can develop a sense for that). It's that no one is really clear on what that is (not clear enough to describe it accurately and consistently - just a lot of vague labels and concepts that keep changing their meaning depending upon who's interpretation you're hearing).


----------



## autsdraws (Dec 6, 2015)

Emologic said:


> MBTI actually makes sense logically as the structure explains itself when analyzed (such as the concept of extroversion and how it affects the cognitive functions, and the whole S/N T/F thing, paralleling eachother).
> 
> The Enneagram, however, doesn't explain why it works the way it does.


Yes, precisely. I think MBTI is fairly accurate because it tracks one's cognitive functions, like you said, and everyone seems to have some sort of order to their thought processes, so they fit into a certain type. However, Enneagram is more like one's "inner nature" or whatever, and I personally think that each individual is uniquely complex, so saying that we all have one set "nature" is ridiculous, even if there are a lot of choices to choose from. Also, yes, as you said, there's no explanation for how the enneagram works the way it does, so immediately it's less trustworthy than the MBTI system, which has a mapped-out, understandable system on which it functions.


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

enneathusiast said:


> That's one of my biggest complaints about it as well but here's my thinking about why that is.
> 
> The Enneagram types are best understood in an intuitive experiential way (because I think that's how they were developed). As soon as you try to explicitly define a type or use the symbol to create a rule, it slips away (flaws in the description appear). You'll have some people seeing it in a generalized way and say just how well it all fits them. Then you'll have other people who begin to look closer at the details and realize that some of the pieces just don't fit. So I don't think it's a problem with what the Enneagram types are pointing to (you can develop a sense for that). It's that no one is really clear on what that is (not clear enough to describe it accurately and consistently - just a lot of vague labels and concepts that keep changing their meaning depending upon who's interpretation you're hearing).





autsdraws said:


> Yes, precisely. I think MBTI is fairly accurate because it tracks one's cognitive functions, like you said, and everyone seems to have some sort of order to their thought processes, so they fit into a certain type. However, Enneagram is more like one's "inner nature" or whatever, and I personally think that each individual is uniquely complex, so saying that we all have one set "nature" is ridiculous, even if there are a lot of choices to choose from. Also, yes, as you said, there's no explanation for how the enneagram works the way it does, so immediately it's less trustworthy than the MBTI system, which has a mapped-out, understandable system on which it functions.


The Enneagram is NF material. Spirituality doesn't make sense.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

autsdraws said:


> Yes, precisely. I think MBTI is fairly accurate because it tracks one's cognitive functions, like you said, and everyone seems to have some sort of order to their thought processes, so they fit into a certain type. However, Enneagram is more like one's "inner nature" or whatever, and I personally think that each individual is uniquely complex, so saying that we all have one set "nature" is ridiculous, even if there are a lot of choices to choose from. Also, yes, as you said, there's no explanation for how the enneagram works the way it does, so immediately it's less trustworthy than the MBTI system, which has a mapped-out, understandable system on which it functions.



How well do you understand enneagram? I note you are a 9. Do you indeed avoid conflict? Do you indeed understand and relate to parts of 6 and 3 as theory predicts?

To me, enneagram and MBTI and socionics and big 5 and all the rest are just different view points of people, and of course they will never define ALL of someone. They do however describe parts of us.

I believe MBTI is not as useful as enneagram in understanding myself. It gives me tools and concepts to better understand why I do the things I do.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Emologic said:


> The Enneagram is NF material. Spirituality doesn't make sense.


Do you believe in human consciousness? 

Do you believe spirituality doesn't make sense to ANYONE, or rather it does not make sense to you?


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

drmiller100 said:


> Do you believe in human consciousness?
> 
> Do you believe spirituality doesn't make sense to ANYONE, or rather it does not make sense to you?


"Believe" in human consciousness? One can't believe in anything that empirically exists.


René Descartes said:


> "I think, therefore I am."


 I share the same basic traits every mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian or fish has. That's empirical evidence, that animals including humans have consciousness. However, if you're talking about good judgement, that's a whole other subject. 

Do I believe spirituality doesn't make sense to anyone? Yes, and no.
1+1=2, no matter how you look at it. Nobody can say "but for me, 1+1=3." It simply doesn't work like that.
Spirituality has nothing to do with sense. People can believe in spiritual stuff independently, because it fits both requirements of being both abstract and irrational, ergo because there's no way to rationalize it, there's no way to disprove it.
And yet at the same time, if there's no way to rationalize it, it simply doesn't make logical sense.

Spirituality is an exploit for smart people to believe in things, unable to disprove their fantasy.

_(Btw, your profile picture is giving me the feeling you're about to fuck me up.)_


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Emologic said:


> Spirituality is an exploit for smart people to believe in things, unable to disprove their fantasy.
> 
> _(Btw, your profile picture is giving me the feeling you're about to fuck me up.)_


Who me? I'm just an entp 8w7. since enneagram you don't believe in, and you are an intp, we are just the same, except I'm more extroverted. right?????

If you were to research 8w7, you could learn something about me. You could use the tool to predict how I might behave, and react, and respond. You could use the tool to see what motivates me, and you could learn about whether I'm generally "healthy" or unhealthy within my ateness. 

but hey, that is all spiritual fantasy crap.

Once upon a time I did some math stuff. Math is the basis of many forms of logic, and is a powerful tool to prove things. Once I gained journeyman competency in math, I worked on physics. 

I got far enough into physics I found spirituality. Heisenberg uncertainty principal. Schroedinger's Cat. Paradox of light. 

All that stuff is fantasy spirituality crap with no practical application. 

Except nuclear bomb. 

So I guess I gained some respect for the fantasy spirituality stuff. And over time I have come to a conclusion there are things in this universe which are beyond my comprehension like love, and vulnerability and gravity. 

And enneagram helps me understand why I fuck people up when they annoy me. 

Not to worry - I really enjoy discussions like this.


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

@Emologic

Allow me to translate his 8-speak into normal English



drmiller100 said:


> Who me? I'm just an entp 8w7. since enneagram you don't believe in, and you are an intp, we are just the same, except I'm more extroverted. right?????
> 
> If you were to research 8w7, you could learn something about me. You could use the tool to predict how I might behave, and react, and respond. You could use the tool to see what motivates me, and you could learn about whether I'm generally "healthy" or unhealthy within my ateness.
> 
> ...


What he really means is:



drmiller100 said:


> I'm going to fuck you up


----------



## autsdraws (Dec 6, 2015)

drmiller100 said:


> hmmmmm
> 
> i took tests and read descriptions. eventually I decided I was an 8. but really i thought I was probably an 8, but 7 was DANGED close and 5 sure sounded like me sometimes and 3 also.
> 
> ...


It sounds a lot like theory to me, but, hey, it's a system with a rough design that can be utilized for someone's benefit, so I suppose it's valid enough in its own right. It does sound like it gave you a proper description of yourself, so...
I dunno, I'll research it more and continue to try and figure it out. 
And lol I totally get that! Impatience has been a major problem for me in the past...oh man xD


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

nburns said:


> I thought of a way to scientifically validate the Enneagram. It's not actually that hard.
> 
> Hypothesis: Each person falls into exactly one of the nine Enneagram types.
> 
> ...


BS, here's why:

I can come up with a system that classifies people as either type A or type B, and just fill the descriptions with random bs. There will be 50% in both A and B no matter how you look at it. Does that make it scientifically valid? No.


----------



## The Dude (May 20, 2010)

It is psychological fact that people are motivated in two ways...fear and hope. The enneagram covers this at an existential level. Yeah, the descriptions beyond the key motivations, fears, and desires of each type are a bit much and the tests are stupid like they are with the MBTI, but at the base level it is really solid. I think the key is to keep it simple. Systems end up getting bloated and too fantastic to believe.


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

Emologic said:


> BS, here's why:
> 
> I can come up with a system that classifies people as either type A or type B, and just fill the descriptions with random bs. There will be 50% in both A and B no matter how you look at it. Does that make it scientifically valid? No.


That's kind of how I feel about the MBTI. You can arbitrarily pick some trait and then split people into ones that have it and ones that don't. Like Funny/Serious. You could plot everybody's place on the Funny/Serious spectrum, and you could probably even make it scientific. But that's not all that insightful.


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

nburns said:


> That's kind of how I feel about the MBTI. You can arbitrarily pick some trait and then split people into ones that have it and ones that don't. Like Funny/Serious. You could plot everybody's place on the Funny/Serious spectrum, and you could probably even make it scientific. But that's not all that insightful.


I can absolutely relate to your point, and I understand why the problem arose. It's the letter-system that screwed up the wonderful personality structure. Intro- and Extroversion is by far the most unstable piece of the board, since there is a proven neutral with Ambiversion, not to mention it's often fluctuating. There is a big problem with N and T as well. Ni-s define Intuition very different from Ne-s, meaning the Intuition function is usually describes as an irrational mix between both of the functions. Same with Fi-s and Fe-s. Fi-s take things personal and make other people's emotions their own. Fe-s are emotionally tuned to their environment and desire peace and harmony.
And then there's J and P. P stands for extroverted perception, meaning there are 2 ways to define perception, Se and Ne. J stands for extroverted judgement, Te and Fe, you get the point.

The MBTI is very insightful once it is fully understood, but these cheap (even expensive) tests are executed wrong and filthen the reputation of the MBTI. The people who design the tests are usually people who don't understand the MBTI.

Example: Let's say your an ENTJ, for example. It would be completely possible for you to get the opposite result, ISFP, as it shares the same functions.

That's what 90% of people fail to understand.


----------



## mAnic7imprESsive_ (2 mo ago)

AddictiveMuse said:


> Why must things be definite? There's really no absolute answer that we can find to the questions both science and spirituality alike ask. It's all the same grey area. Science is not the be all and end all, rather, I view it more so as a resource that I can use if and when desired. Why adopt one sole outlook? You close yourself off then. Searching for confirmation in these fields will be fruitless. Every theory and every view will be put to debate. It happens. I rather use it all as a reference point when making my decisions.





Endologic said:


> Frankly said, the Enneagram is bullshit. I understand the system, how it works, and how everything interacts with eachother, but think about it. There is literally no reason as to _why_ the Enneagram's structure is built like that. *1.* There is no explanation as to why someone can't be a 1w6 or a 5w3 or a 9w4, you name it. Why should a type only be able to have a Wing that is next to itself (1 can only have a 9 or 2 wing)? It doesn't make any sense. Someone who values cognitive competence (5) could also value success/image (3), power/dominance (8), and security/safety (6). Does that make him a 5w3w8w6? According to the Enneagram, it doesn't. There's no _reason_ this is impossible, or is there? I don't think so. *2.* And what logical explanation is there as to why the _growth/stress_ structure works the way it does? Why would a stressed 8 suddenly become a 5? Why would a mature 8 suddenly become a 2? There is absolutely no reason as to why this works the way it does. The Enneagram star is baseless, and it's nothing more than a cool shape, or is it? *3.* In another thread, similar to this one, I found something _very interesting_: The Enneagram Blogspot: Scientific Proof for the Enneagram "Scientific proof"? I don't think so. I agree that the chemical levels inside of the human body can indeed be correlated to this, but there's no logical explanation as to why one can't have "neutral-neutral-neutral" or "high-low-high" levels, or anything else, according to the Enneagram. _However_, if this should be scientific proof, there would have to be exactly 27 Enneagram types, if we take the levels "high", "neutral" and "low", and multiply them by 3[SUP]2[/SUP], because there are 3 relevant chemicals. But wait a minute, this so-called "scientific proof" doesn't explain 1: The Wing system, and 2: The growth/stress structure. Also, if there are 27 Enneagram types, this totally destroys the value-system, so this "proof" is technically _disproving_ the Enneagram, to a degree, unless you'd like to "invent" 18 other values. Thought so. *The Enneagram surely has some interesting psychological material included into it, but the way it's presented, it's utter bullshit.* Before you comment, please consider 3 things. 1. I'm not trolling, and this is not for fun. This is a serious debate. 2. Don't defend this like you would defend your religion (if you have one). If you can defend the Enneagram with logic, be my guest. 3. I like to count to three. It makes things sound so much more epic, and all good things come in threes. That's it. I'd like to see you guys getting yourself out of this one. Good luck. EDIT: If it's not psychologically applicable (but rather Mathematical, which is irrelevant), according to Claudio Naranjo, then what is the point of it at all? If it doesn't make sense, don't do it. Spirituality is illogical and frankly just pathetic.


 Above all else, the enneagram is as solid as astrology. The enneagram is in tested pseudoscience that bears no weight in evidence based psychology. Whatever there is to it, the individual trumps all of that shit anyways.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

I've just clearly seen too many real life examples of the enneatypes and wings to not believe in it.


----------

