# SX-dom and shy?



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

mia-me said:


> David Gray's credentials as an Enneagram scholar don't exist


I don't understand how _anyone_ can technically have "credentials" as an Enneagram "scholar" anyways when enneagram is a non-factual pseudoscience. The enneagram is interesting and I like it, and I identify people as different types frequently, but its still just a pseudoscience, and enneagram types aren't a concrete thing such as what sex someone is, what languages they speak, where they went to high school, etc.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Ock said:


> I don't understand how _anyone_ can technically have "credentials" as an Enneagram scholar anyways when enneagram is a non-factual pseudoscience. The enneagram is interesting and I like it, and I identify people as different types frequently, but its still just a pseudoscience, and enneagram types aren't a concrete thing such as what sex someone is, what languages they speak, where they went to high school, etc.


So you're saying that anyone can fabricate what they wish and push it to believers, relative to Enneagram?


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

mia-me said:


> So you're saying that anyone can fabricate what they wish and push it to believers, relative to Enneagram?


Well yeah, more or less. But its still up to the individual what they choose to believe, and if people don't relate to an idea, then it loses its supposed "merit".


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Ock said:


> Well yeah, more or less. But its still up to the individual what they choose to believe, and if people don't relate to an idea, then it loses its supposed "merit".


Of course it's up to people what they choose to believe but they need to do their homework, relative to sources touting 'theory' vs 'hypothesis'. Frankly, all typologies fail scientific rigor, including Jung's insights. This doesn't mean that it's all useless but there are existing theoretical frameworks that these typologies are premised on and when someone hits into left field with something outside of those frameworks, people need to know this before they come to any conclusions about whether to believe or not.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

mia-me said:


> Of course it's up to people what they choose to believe but they need to do their homework, relative to sources touting 'theory' vs 'hypothesis'. Frankly, all typologies fail scientific rigor, including Jung's insights. This doesn't mean that it's all useless but there are existing theoretical frameworks that these typologies are premised on and when someone hits into left field with something outside of those frameworks, people need to know this before they come to any conclusions about whether to believe or not.


But then again, MBTI and enneagram themselves once hit "into left field" to the masses, and maybe still do to a point. I don't think the majority of people necessarily believes in them.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Ock said:


> But then again, MBTI and enneagram themselves once hit "into left field" to the masses, and maybe still do to a point. I don't think the majority of people necessarily believes in them.


The masses believing or not believing would be irrelevant. What matters is the theoretical framework and gauging merit against it. This doesn't mean that new hypotheses can't or don't have merit against the framework.

If something resonates with you, then of course, it's your choice to believe it or not. But...don't blindly believe something, even if it resonates with you. Always verify, otherwise you'll end up latching onto garbage like QAnon.


----------



## justhannahsis (Jan 3, 2017)

mia-me said:


> Of course it's up to people what they choose to believe but they need to do their homework, relative to sources touting 'theory' vs 'hypothesis'. Frankly, all typologies fail scientific rigor, including Jung's insights. This doesn't mean that it's all useless but there are existing theoretical frameworks that these typologies are premised on and when someone hits into left field with something outside of those frameworks, people need to know this before they come to any conclusions about whether to believe or not.


Yeah, at the end of the day, these are all just a bunch of humans trying to understand each other and people in general better. I think there will always be a limit to the knowledge or insight a human can have on its own psyche and fluid Self. We can’t be boxed in, but, we can come to a general understanding of ourselves and see recurrent patterns in our personalities, and we add little labels and names to feel like we have a grip on who we are. So, I would say, you know, just keep that in mind, and read all of the information you can on the instincts to come to a conclusion. I feel like you’ll always find a common theme or “vibe” around each instinctual type description, whether it was written by this dude or that dude or whomever, there will be a common reading on the instincts. So, just read all you can, and then you’ll get a better understanding or “feel” around it, and obviously only you can really know who you are and what you resonate with, so you go with what you resonate with the most. At least, that’s how I tackle it.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

mia-me said:


> The masses believing or not believing would be irrelevant. What matters is the theoretical framework and gauging merit against it. This doesn't mean that new hypotheses can't or don't have merit against the framework.
> 
> If something resonates with you, then of course, it's your choice to believe it or not. But...don't blindly believe something, even if it resonates with you. Always verify, otherwise you'll end up latching onto garbage like QAnon.


Yeah, I get that. I'm still not assuming I'm sp/sx instead of sx/so or whatever. I'm just lending this guy an ear and being open.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Ock said:


> Yeah, I get that. I'm still not assuming I'm sp/sx instead of sx/so or whatever. I'm just lending this guy an ear and being open.


You do you and I'll do me. My original post had nothing to do with you and your beliefs or openness. It's my personal skepticism coming to the forefront. Oh and before I forget, the Big Five has the most scientific merit but it's not a typology.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

mia-me said:


> My original post had nothing to do with you and your beliefs or openness.


I get that. But you still stated your opinion on a public forum, allowing me to respond to you with my opinion. That's generally how this works.


----------



## hiddenglass (Feb 18, 2021)

mia-me said:


> How do I know that you're not David Gray or a friend, who's trying to push traffic to his sites, Enneasite (owner) and Enneagrammer (co-owner)? From what I've read, David Gray's credentials as an Enneagram scholar don't exist, strictly a forum member from an enneagram site and that he's fabricated non-canon Enneagram hypotheses.


lol


----------



## hiddenglass (Feb 18, 2021)

lol bro you think you can get your IQ tested online 

I'm not gonna argue with you


----------



## justhannahsis (Jan 3, 2017)

I feel like too many people see personality typologies as if it were set in stone, it’s always good to try and evolve our understanding of things, not stay stuck in maybe a limited view or being close-minded to a new or different perspective. Typologies are the surface, our real essence and complexed selves are the ocean.

Let’s not forget that advancements of an understanding, or a different view of things, could have also been seen as threatening in the past, in the scientific field for example. We used to straight up let people bleed out to cure them of diseases and we must’ve thought that was the best thing ever until we realized we were wrong and there was a better way. So, yeah, we should always stay open-minded. You can’t really know what’s the most “scientifically correct” or whatever, at the end it’s personality we’re tackling, we can’t really know what applies for everyone, for people in general, but we can know what mostly applies to us.

It’s all theory lol


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Ock said:


> I get that. But you still stated your opinion on a public forum, allowing me to respond to you with my opinion. That's generally how this works.


Okay, then white knight away premised on unproven hypothesis.


----------



## hiddenglass (Feb 18, 2021)

justhannahsis said:


> I feel like too many people see personality typologies as if it were set in stone, it’s always good to try and evolve our understanding of things, not stay stuck in maybe a limited view or being close-minded to a new or different perspective. Typologies are the surface, our real essence and complexed selves are the ocean.
> 
> Let’s not forget that advancements of an understanding, or a different view of things, could have also been seen as threatening in the past, in the scientific field for example. We used to straight up let people bleed out to cure them of diseases and we must’ve thought that was the best thing ever until we realized we were wrong and there was a better way. So, yeah, we should always stay open-minded. You can’t really know what’s the most “scientifically correct” or whatever, at the end it’s personality we’re tackling, we can’t really know what applies for everyone, for people in general, but we can know what mostly applies to us.
> 
> It’s all theory lol


exactly. enneagram is far from something ANYONE could call a closed canon. ichazo says he got his insights from archangel metatron 🙄🙄🙄

anyone actually subscribing to what the enneagram purports to teach has z-e-r-o reason to think every enneagrammatic insight has already been mined. go and find something in the system no one has ever seen before. you can do it. 

yes, you, dear reader.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

mia-me said:


> ...but there are existing theoretical frameworks that these typologies are premised on and when someone hits into left field with something outside of those frameworks, people need to know this before they come to any conclusions about whether to believe or not.


As far as I've seen, the framework that the Enneagram typology is based on is a symbol with nine numbers on it around a circle with some inner connecting lines that was used by Gurdjieff to understand the flow of processes which never had a thing to do with any typology.

Why nine types? because there are nine numbers on the symbol
Why three centers? because there's a triangle pointing to the center points at 9, 3, and 6
Why integration/disintegration or stress/security points? because of the hexad lines with arrows
Why wings? because each type has a number of either side of it
Why trifix or tritype? because we need to look at one number from each center (the centers indicated by the triangle)
What if people question our reliance on the symbol? we'll just tell them that it's an ancient system from some very wise people or just make something up that sounds good to rationalize why it fits the symbol's patterns

Boy, thinking outside that logical framework is just a wild left field swat. How dare they.😱


----------



## justhannahsis (Jan 3, 2017)

hiddenglass said:


> exactly. enneagram is far from something ANYONE could call a closed canon. ichazo says he got his insights from archangel metatron 🙄🙄🙄
> 
> anyone actually subscribing to what the enneagram purports to teach has z-e-r-o reason to think every enneagrammatic insight has already been mined. go and find something in the system no one has ever seen before. you can do it.
> 
> yes, you, dear reader.


Not archangel metatron 😆😆

Also, it’s like people forget they are more than just an enneagram, myers briggs type, etc. People also forget that they technically have a bit of every single type in them, or in varying levels. It’s hard for any human to be able to say “yeah, I’m never an angry person” or “I’m never creative”. We usually have so many varying traits in our personalities, or have a bit of the traits we don’t usually portray or tap into.

Some traits are just more dormant than others, or some are even in our shadow/subconscious, so maybe we don’t see it in ourselves but it’s somewhere in there hiding, so to speak. Typologies kind of scratch the surface and are general, quite vague descriptions of our personalities, but it’s fun to start with it to have a “picture” of our personalities, but also, it’s good to keep being able to see ourselves outside of typology.
Also, what I find really funny about all of this typology crap is that to get to know what your “type” is you already have to have good knowledge of yourself and self-awareness. Someone who’s not very conscious of their motives, or their internal processes probably won’t get really far with typologies or even get the right “typing”, so it’s like, you either know yourself or you don’t. Even though typologies are for getting to know yourself in the first place. Quite interesting tbh.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Daeva said:


> I think that the "instinct flows" are non-existent. The idea for them came from random users on the old Enneagram Institute forum, yet it was never confirmed by Enneagram Institute itself.
> 
> Currently, the only source on the "instinct flows" comes from a website by David Gray. All other websites quote his. Who is David Gray? He was a forum member of the old Enneagram Institute forum. That's it. A random forum person. Granted, he has currently befriended John Luckovich, who is a follower of Enneagram Institute's Russ Hudson, and as such tries to get his ideas implemented as canon. However, none of this has any legitimacy within the original Enneagram. At best, it's a "different version" of the Enneagram. At worst, it is the fantasies of a random internet dude.
> 
> I would caution against any website or author who uses the "instinct flows." They are not supported and unverified. "Instinct flows" are up there with "instinct stackings ranges" and "subwings." You can play with these ideas if you think it is fun, but they have no value.





Daeva said:


> Indeed, theories have to start somewhere. Ideally, they are rooted in extensive research and data with peer reviewed work. Of course, because of the exact lack of such, the Enneagram model cannot be regarded as scientific. However, it does hold a strong core model based on historical teachings that are backed by psychologists. This "flow" idea (not a theory) has nothing of the sort. Entertain them if you like, just know that if psychological value is what you're looking for, this idea of "flows" is a castle in the sky.


Agreed.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

mia-me said:


> Okay, then white knight away premised on unproven hypothesis.


Okay. Not sure what that's supposed to mean, or how it relates to my comment. No worries.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

Every good or bad new idea starts out with only a few individuals.


----------

