# The enneagram bias needs to stop



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

Hermetica said:


> I'll never believe an "empirical system" that categorizes Justin Bieber as NiFe. *Never.* Lol.
> 
> http://cognitivetype.com/database/


:wink:


----------



## Cracked Actor (Apr 17, 2015)

mistakenforstranger said:


> :wink:


Touché


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

Hermetica said:


> Touché


Didn't you know? It's because the Biebs is an INFJ-Se subtype...:dry::laughing: 

http://cognitivetype.com/2017/11/13/nife-se/


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

*Sorry, had to, because I'm a dick.*


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Hermetica said:


> I'll never believe an "empirical system" that categorizes Justin Bieber as NiFe. Never. Lol.
> 
> http://cognitivetype.com/database/


A lot of their typings are off.
This doesn't mean there aren't some empirical clues that work, it just means they haven't honed in on the right ones yet. Theirs is a new experiment and it takes time to refine these things.

Unless you've read their book, it is too soon to refute the premise. I've read the whole book, and I have highly specific disagreements with their approach, as well as many of their typings, but the premise behind it is interesting and is in line with what Jung was aiming for. 

Both Jung and Naranjo made VERY STRONG reference to the physical appearance of certain types manifesting that way for a reason. 

I will quote myself on some earlier posts on this topic:



> To be fair, when I wrote those posts I was talking directly to Roshan, who understands mechanisms of type in a similar way that I do, so I could skip right over a bunch of explanations for what I meant by it and why it's relevant to the types. My assessment there on its own wouldn't be adequate for a typing argument, but I've delved deeply into this too many times - on this thread or another on this forum, also on my own forum, ad nauseum. So I just wrote it to her because she speaks my language when it comes to looks and how images present.
> 
> A lot of people here are skeptical about "typing by appearance." There are certain indicators that someone's appearance gives about type that are undeniable. It's not like "long nose means type 5" or something. Head types tend to have more weight in the fast-moving mind so you see some weight on their head in their posture. 4s tend to have a very specific type of sad eyes but a more disembodied relationship with the body. If you put Prince (4w3) next to Sting (3w4) the latter is much more athletic looking and in his body. 4s spend a lot of time looking into an inner hall of mirrors and identifying with what's inside, so there's a psychological reason why their physiology has a different affect, though you have to have the eye to recognize it,because of course a 4 can be an athlete and build muscles (or a 5 like Trent Reznor who is a fucking beast at this point). I am going to get a lot of backlash for even attempting to cover what I'm talking about here, and I know I don't have enough time to hang around here and convince anyone because it's a type of visual psychology I've been attuned to and studying my whole life, which matches up well with enneagram and translates very well to the typings of real people who agree with those types, as well as commonly agreed upon typings of celebs. Body language is a lot more telling than yapping about oneself. Everyone lies to themselves. Body language can be studied with actors or celebs, but there's still something underlying that cannot be shaken. This is impossible to explain to someone who doesn't see it; it's like telling a tone-deaf person how to hit the right note. That's why I only mention it to people who already understand it, and it's the same with mentioning to Roshan how image works and is expressed (although that's different from body language) - she already speaks this language.





> There are probably endless references debating the percentage, but this gets my point across. To ignore this is voluntary ignorance and stubbornness. (Not accusing anyone here of that, but addressing the general argument that body language and image presentation are irrelevant to type.)
> 
> Body Language Classes, Research, and Consulting | Nonverbal Group | NYC





> WRITTEN BY BLAKE
> 
> HOW MUCH OF COMMUNICATION IS REALLY NONVERBAL?
> 
> ...





> When people argue "body language says nothing about a person" I can't even talk to them about type. It is beyond obscene and absurd to assume that psychology is disconnected from how someone appears. This doesn't mean their facial features, but their expression. It is counter to anything remotely related to psychology, so unless you're talking about cartoons, you have to accept that even if YOU can't read body language, it is a window to someone else's psychology, which is what enneagram is about. My father, a psychiatrist, can tell almost eveything about his patients the minute they walk in. When they reveal their specific stories, nothing surprises him. It's his job to have them pinned right away, and he can tell family dynamics based on how they sit relative to each other in the room, personal struggles based on how they carry themselves etc. This is not magic, it's common sense.
> 
> I'll address Manson's specifics at a later time.
> However "based on the outside rather than the inside" is an absolutely nonsensical assertion.
> ...


This part is most relevant to the posts here: 


> *The VI used in Socionics or, more deeply, cognitivetype.com is super interesting. I personally don't apply it unless *I* understand the psychology around it. For instance, it makes sense that a Pe type would have pop out eyes that look around a lot to take in the environment... as it matches their psychology. However, some of the shit about eyebrows and mouth placement is arbitrary to how the type thinks. I do understand Fe vs Fi smiles in the *times when* someone smiles, as in Fe types smile to include you in the emotional atmosphere or to join it, and Fi types do it to express some personal emotion which may be out of synch with the atmosphere. But I really don't care less about which smile is more straight. I used to because I thought it was related, but over time I've seen too many clear exceptions where the person's *body language* is expressing Fi but their smile is overly straight the way Fe smiles are described. So I look at it skeptically, making sure to apply it to reality (as in real people) and also match it up with the *genuine psychology of the type* - in other words, HOW it is used and WHY - before I apply it myself.
> 
> This is not to say that eyebrows and straight smiles and other indicators *don't work* --- maybe they do. But until I personally understand the mechanics behind it and the reason it has to point to type X, I don't personally apply it to a conversation, though I might sometimes point out that CogType or some other renowned site had typed this person as Type X, *fwiw* - which doesn't mean I have taken the time to look into it or I necessarily agree.
> 
> ...





> The things I read can't be concealed. I would agree that to the average eye, it can be hard to read. Not trying to talk myself up but I'm just not tuning into that stuff that can be concealed. It might be related to my cognition because others who share similar cognition notice similar things. Aside from my father, I know someone else who, as a profession, can read all that stuff about people right away. He works worldwide as a life coach. It's one of those things where I commend you for being skeptical if you don't have the eye for it. You have a great eye for a lot of things, so it's best to stick to those, unless you develop an understanding of this one way or other. For those of us who see past that stuff, the onus is on us to explain, using specific examples, what we are seeing in the body language and why it matters. I've done this when examining specific types closely, and it can be persuasive if I do it well, since it's clear to the audience (including those like you who don't do body language) what I am seeing once I spell it out. It's not invisible it's just that most people don't think to look for it and connect it to a meaning. But it takes a long time to analyze each person, so you'd have to decide on a case by case basis if you found that specific interpretation of someone's body language cues persuasive.







> Yeah.. I've gotten a lot better at making distinctions between types, and will continue to. I don't expect anyone to take my typings at face value "just because I said so." The onus is on me to make a good case, and still the onus is on the other person to choose to accept that case.
> 
> Having studied enneagram for an additional 2 years since I made those particular distinctions, the way I see things has evolved, and it will continue to. I'm not asking anyone to simply accept what I say; this is why I back up my cases with reasons if I want to make them strongly. Sometimes I just throw out my opinion but I don't expect that to sway anyone. But I am always learning, improving, realizing more and more how the deeper aspects of body langauge but more importantly, TYPE, work... so yes, it's likely that along with my ongoing revelations and studies, I will evolve my opinion on how it applies to people.
> 
> But I won't change my opinion on the very clear fact that body language is a huge important component of human psychology and communication. Matching it up to types in someone else's system takes time. It's a deep intricate system. Learning to read body language is an ongoing process. We will be hard pressed to find anyone here that can do it more aptly than my 63 year old psychiatrist father, given how much time he's had to master the art of reading people. He doesn't know enneagram, but if I show him a few people who are Type X and explain the deep reasons why, he can pick out ten more , faster than even I could. I've actually seen him do this.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> *Sorry, had to, because I'm a dick.*


*shakes fist angrily* TUUUURRRIII!!


----------



## Cracked Actor (Apr 17, 2015)

Animal said:


> Both Jung and Naranjo made VERY STRONG reference to the physical appearance of certain types manifesting that way for a reason.
> 
> I will quote myself on some earlier posts on this topic.


First, I should address that I really don't care about your personal opinion pieces. They are merely opinion, not fact, so I have no interest in reading them therefore you shouldn't have to waste your time sharing them with me. As far as I can tell, you're not a world renowned psychoanalyst with several books and proven theories under your belt. Second, I'm more interested in the part of your statement that Jung and Naranjo made "very strong references" to physical appearance correlating to certain personality types. I would instead prefer quotes as well as referenced sources (websites, books with the cited page numbers, etc) of Jung and Naranjo addressing that claim. Then I'll be on my merry way.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Hermetica said:


> First, I should address that I really don't care about your personal opinion pieces. There are merely opinion, not fact, so I have no interest in reading them therefore you shouldn't have to waste your time sharing them with me. As far as I can tell, you're not a world renowned psychoanalyst with several books and proven theories under your belt. Second, I'm more interested in the part of your statement that Jung and Naranjo made "very strong references" to physical appearance correlating to certain personality types. I would instead prefer quotes as well as referenced sources (websites, books with the cited page numbers, etc) of Jung and Naranjo addressing that claim. Then I'll be on my merry way.


You don't get to tell people what is the proper way to converse with you.

You were commenting on my posts, misrepresenting my stance. I cleared up my stance for the other people in the thread to whom you were misrepresenting me, as usual.

I don't actually care what you think about it. 
And nobody gets to tell me HOW to converse. Especially when you spout _your own_ opinions all over the place. If you tell someone to do something, you have to do it yourself first.

Some nerve.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Hermetica said:


> First, I should address that I really don't care about your personal opinion pieces. There are merely opinion, not fact, so I have no interest in reading them therefore you shouldn't have to waste your time sharing them with me.


Internet tough guy.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Naranjo's Character and Neurosis, on Type 1:


> While “anal character” is a rather ambiguous concept, we also find in Wilhelm Reich the
> description of a personality that corresponds more purely to our perfectionist: his case of
> “aristocratic character,” discussed in Character Analysis in support of some general ideas on the
> function of character. He describes his patient as having “a reserved countenance,” and being
> ...





> I find that generally speaking ennea-type I individuals are pyknics and most commonly
> ectopenic mesoendomorphs. There are exceptions, however, mostly among those of the social
> subtype who tend to be athletic but slender and wiry. It is possible to think that the
> aggressiveness of ennea-type I is supported by somatotonia in their inborn temperament.



Naranjo's Character and Neurosis, Type 2


> “The constitutional type, found predominantly in women and children, is generally delicate and pretty ... and a physique that can fluctuate easily in weight loss and gain, with the fat tending to a shapely plumpness rather than the flabby or formless fleshiness of Calcarea carbonica.





> The body build of ennea-type II is typically more rounded than ennea-type I and also softer than ennea-type III, and so it is possible to think that a genetically determined endomorphia supports the viscerotonic need for affection. Since physical beauty is more common in type II than in any other character, it is also possible to speculate that this and perhaps a constitutionally-given playful disposition are “seductive” beyond any attempt of the child to be seductive—particularly as a stimulus to a seductive parent.


Naranjo, Character and Neurosis, Type 3


> Constitutionally ennea-type III exists in the context of somatotonia and, correspondingly, a good measure of mesomorphia. As a whole, the ennea-type III population may be the highest in mesomorphia after that of type VIII and that of the counter-phobic character.14 It is not surprising that an athletic constitution supports the active and energetic character of type III. It seems to me likely that physical beauty and general intelligence may also be among the factors leading to the implicit choice of vanity as a way of psychological survival.


Character and Neurosis, Type 4


> 5. Etiological and Further Psychodynamic Remarks
> 
> Constitutionally ennea-type IV is most often ectomesomorphic in body build—neither as high in ectomorphia as type V nor as mesomorphic as type III—though occasionally they may be of more rounded contours in body build, particularly with aging and among men. The oversensitivity and the measure of withdrawnness characteristic of type IV is thus consistent with the cerebrotonia that is the counterpart of ectomorphia. The plasticity or dramatic ability of type IV (which it shares with the other characters in the hysteroid corner of the enneagram) may also correspond to a constitutional endowment. Though congenital defects may support a may also correspond to a constitutional endowment. Though congenital defects may support a sense of inferiority (just as it is said that the limp are envious) more commonly stature or the lack of physical beauty have a part. Of course, however, some type IV women are outstandingly beautiful and the source of envy is found in environmental sources of deprivation and injury to self-esteem.





> Refinement
> 
> An inclination to refinement (and the corresponding aversion to grossness) is manifest in descriptors such as “stylish,” “delicate,” “elegant,” “tasteful,” “artistic,” “sensitive,” and sometimes “arty” and “affected,” “mannered” and “posturing.” They may be understood as efforts on the part of the person to compensate for a poor self-image (so that an ugly self-image and the refined self-ideal may be seen as reciprocally supporting each other); also, they convey the attempt on the part of the person to be something different from what he or she is, perhaps connected to class envy. The lack of originality entailed by such imitativeness in turn; perpetuates an envy of originality—just as the attempt to imitate original individuals and the wish to emulate spontaneity are doomed to fail.


And so forth. Each type has many more quotes like this, but I'm not going to waste my entire night collecting ALL the quotes from C&N that are posted here and typing out the very long descriptions of appearance in his other books. This one even has drawings of each type and is rife with physical descriptors going much further than the above:

Ennea-type Structures: Self-Analysis for the Seeker


Now, keep in mind I am quoting Naranjo. Do not mistake these for my opinions or quotes.

These descriptors are pervasive in Naranjo's work. Instead of demanding that other people on the internet provide quotes, I'd recommend doing some actual reading in order to inform your many opinions about what enneagram means.


----------



## Cracked Actor (Apr 17, 2015)

Animal said:


> And so forth. Each type has many more quotes like this, but I'm not going to waste my entire night collecting ALL the quotes from C&N that are posted here and typing out the very long descriptions of appearance in his other books. This one even has drawings of each type and is rife with physical descriptors going much further than the above:
> 
> Ennea-type Structures: Self-Analysis for the Seeker
> 
> Now, keep in mind I am quoting Naranjo. Do not mistake these for my opinions or quotes.


Naranjo is describing body types (ectomorphs, etc) and the only demeanor discussed in those examples is that of type 1. For example, for 2s "seductive" is not related to physical appearance nor facial muscles, it's related to behavior. 

Back on page 4, what my first initial post was addressing in this thread is that you were talking specifically about *facial muscles* relating to cognitive types which is where I (and @Turi) decided that there was nothing solidly proven to support that claim. Not by Naranjo nor Jung. Which is why that example of Bieber mistyped as INFJ was brought up.

But I'll use another example. A few months ago, you made a mistyping based on appearances when you believed Tori Amos was a 7, despite the fact that she's a sexual 4w5, because she "doesn't look sad enough to be 4". So I think you can see how judging people from their facial expressions/muscles is not a reliable method. It's superficial at best because all it does is focus on the persona/mask every human wears rather than the real person beneath the mask. Not every human being wears their real emotions on their face which is important to remember when it comes to people like Tori Amos.



Animal said:


> *Based on recognition of facial muscles and their usage* - Cognitivetype.com has identified Martin Luther King Jr. as FeNi. Also, for what it's worth - Bruce Lee, Steve Jobs, Jordan Peterson etc. Some theorists also describe FeNi as the 'politician' archetype... often, the revolutionary.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Hermetica said:


> Naranjo is describing body types (ectomorphs, etc) and the only demeanor discussed in those examples is that of type 1. For example, for 2s "seductive" is not related to physical appearance nor facial muscles, it's related to behavior.


He described plenty of behavior in the 1 segment I posted which was directly related to body language. There are passages like this throughout all the types, but they take longer to find, and are pervasive. Try reading any one of his books - you will see. Then you can attempt to represent his opinions and writing accurately instead of reacting only to a few choice quotes (and ignoring the parts that do relate to body language).



> Back on page 4, what my first initial post was addressing in this thread is that you were talking specifically about *facial muscles* relating to cognitive types which is where I (and @*Turi*) decided that there was nothing solidly proven to support that claim. Not by Naranjo nor Jung. Which is why that example of Bieber mistyped as INFJ was brought up.


I agree that nothing is solidly proven. I have no argument with this. I mentioned the facial muscles thing to explain that this was what the typing was based on, so people would know; though I did not make any attempt to make a case that _I personally_ agreed with it.




> But I'll use another example. A few months ago, you made a mistyping based on appearances when you believed Tori Amos was a 7, despite the fact that she's a sexual 4w5, because she "doesn't look sad enough to be 4". So I think you can see how judging people from their facial expressions/muscles is not a reliable method. It's superficial at best because all it does is focus on the persona/mask every human wears rather than the real person beneath the mask. Not every human being wears their real emotions on their face which is important to remember when it comes to people like Tori Amos.


That was not a few months ago. I already addressed this on another thread (and it was years ago iirc).. I will quote myself here:

_Yeah.. I've gotten a lot better at making distinctions between types, and will continue to. I don't expect anyone to take my typings at face value "just because I said so." The onus is on me to make a good case, and still the onus is on the other person to choose to accept that case.

Having studied enneagram for an additional 2 years since I made those particular distinctions, the way I see things has evolved, and it will continue to. I'm not asking anyone to simply accept what I say; this is why I back up my cases with reasons if I want to make them strongly. Sometimes I just throw out my opinion but I don't expect that to sway anyone. But I am always learning, improving, realizing more and more how the deeper aspects of body langauge but more importantly, TYPE, work... so yes, it's likely that along with my ongoing revelations and studies, I will evolve my opinion on how it applies to people. 

__But I won't change my opinion on the very clear fact that body language is a huge important component of human psychology and communication. Matching it up to types in someone else's system takes time. It's a deep intricate system. Learning to read body language is an ongoing process. We will be hard pressed to find anyone here that can do it more aptly than my 63 year old psychiatrist father, given how much time he's had to master the art of reading people. He doesn't know enneagram, but if I show him a few people who are Type X and explain the deep reasons why, he can pick out ten more , faster than even I could. I've actually seen him do this.
_
I have not made the case that I myself am the God and Master of spotting types based on appearance, that I'm beyond reproach or that I cannot improve my understanding over time and thus change the way I see types. I have simply stated that there is a correlation between body language and psychology.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Hermetica said:


> Naranjo is describing body types (ectomorphs, etc) and the only demeanor discussed in those examples is that of type 1. For example, for 2s "seductive" is not related to physical appearance nor facial muscles, it's related to behavior.


Wrong. The demeanor and physical appearance of other types are talked about by Naranjo in the quotes that @*Animal* put up. Perhaps you ought reread her post.

And while you're at it, perhaps you could look into the book by Naranjo that @*Animal* referred to. You know, instead of blowing her off the way you do.


----------



## Cracked Actor (Apr 17, 2015)

Animal said:


> *I have not made the case that I myself am the God and Master of spotting types based on appearance*, that I'm beyond reproach or that I cannot improve my understanding over time and thus change the way I see types. I have simply stated that there is a correlation between body language and psychology.


I beg to differ. You call anyone who disagrees with your opinion a "n00b" (I can pull quotes, I mean there's even some examples of that behavior very recently in the Lana thread) so I do think you sway back and forth from a superiority complex to an inferiority complex when it comes to how you regard your typing abilities compared to others. I think it's plain as day that your ego (and image) is very attached to how well you can type or at least how well others regard you as a typist.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Hermetica said:


> I beg to differ. You call anyone who disagrees with your opinion a "n00b" (I can pull quotes, I mean there's even some examples of that behavior very recently in the Lana thread) so I do think you sway back and forth from a superiority complex to an inferiority complex when it comes to how you regard your typing abilities compared to others. I think it's plain as day that your ego (and image) is very attached to how well you can type or at least how well others regard you as a typist.


Trolling/ personal attack


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Hermetica said:


> I beg to differ. You call anyone who disagrees with your opinion a "n00b" (I can pull quotes, I mean there's even some examples of that behavior very recently in the Lana thread) so I do think you sway back and forth from a superiority complex to an inferiority complex when it comes to how you regard your typing abilities compared to others. I think it's plain as day that your ego (and image) is very attached to how well you can type or at least how well others regard you as a typist.


Ooh, we have some major psycho-analyst on our hands!

May I see your credentials?
Perhaps you need to be reminded of your own words?



Hermetica said:


> First, I should address that I really don't care about your personal opinion pieces. They are merely opinion, not fact, so I have no interest in reading them therefore you shouldn't have to waste your time sharing them with me. As far as I can tell, you're not a world renowned psychoanalyst with several books and proven theories under your belt.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

@nep2une, Why would you thank such a post? It is a nasty personal attack, and holds no bearing on who I am. It breaks two forum rules: Trolling and personal attack. He is also presuming my psychology while only a few posts before, telling me I wasn't a psychoanalyst. If you have a problem with me, why not tell me what it is instead of thanking rule-breaking and rude, degrading posts against me? Have I done something to offend?


----------



## Cracked Actor (Apr 17, 2015)

Animal said:


> He described plenty of behavior in the 1 segment I posted which was directly related to body language. There are passages like this throughout all the types, but they take longer to find, and are pervasive. Try reading any one of his books - you will see. Then you can attempt to represent his opinions and writing accurately instead of reacting only to a few choice quotes (and ignoring the parts that do relate to body language).
> [/COLOR]


His descriptions of body language in Enneatypes =/= typing cognitively via facial muscles

Enneagram and cognitive functions are not the same thing. I hope you know that. I read the descriptions you posted. Nowhere did it say that Type 4s have a specific facial expression nor that of Type 2 and Type 3. You can't guess a person's cognitive type or enneatype from their facial expressions/muscles. That is the point that Turi and I are getting at. Also, you haven't indicated where Jung has discussed facial muscles relating to cognitive type either. You conveniently left that part out.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Hermetica said:


> His descriptions of body language in Enneatypes =/= typing cognitively via facial muscles
> 
> Enneagram and cognitive functions are not the same thing. I hope you know that. I read the descriptions you posted. Nowhere did it say that Type 4s have a specific facial expression nor that of Type 2 and Type 3. You can't guess a person's cognitive type or enneatype from their facial expressions/muscles. That is the point that Turi and I are getting at. Also, you also haven't indicated where Jung has discussed facial muscles relating to cognitive type either. You conveniently left that part out.


I am done talking to you.


----------



## typethisperson (Feb 4, 2017)

@Animal I actually think there may something in the whole physical cues of someone that can make them more inclined to be a type like 6s are often cerebral. I just think it may be more accurate with MBTI.


----------

