# The Forer Effect



## nathdep (May 5, 2012)

I know this isn't the first post about the Enneagram and the Forer Effect and it certainly won't be the last but I disagree with people that say that the Enneagram only seems accurate because of the vagueness of the enneatypes.

I have been researching the Enneagram for almost 2 years and it seems to me that each enneatype is pronounced. I know that I've been reading where people say that there are many overlaps between enneatypes.

Well, I found this on wikipedia which seems to be an unbiased source:



> Basic fear of 6 - Being without support or guidance
> 
> Basic fear of 8 - Being hamred, controlled, or violated


It seems that these two fears are quite different. The 6 wants someone to _guide _them whereas the 8 has a fear of being _controlled.
_
It just seems to me that each enneatype is too distinct for them to fall under the Forer Effect.

I am a definite type 6 and there has been no question since I discovered this type. I can see that I have more differences with 8s than I do with 7s. Moreover, I know I don't have the inward anger that 1s have and I know that my confirmed type 1 friend doesn't have nearly as much anxiety or problems with being socially assertive as I do.

It also doesn't make sense to me that people can still say the Forer Effect validates the Enneagram when Riso/Hudson published the RHETI which, as far as I know, is a very specific method of finding a person's type.

How could the Enneagram be so vague if Riso/Hudson made a 144 question test? I don't think anything can be vague after answering 144 questions about it.

What do you think?


----------



## Lotan (Aug 10, 2012)

The Enneatypes are certainly less vague than something like Astrology, and thus less prone to the forer effect. Astrology is different, though, because you don't choose your astrology type, it's set in stone based on the day you were born. That's why it has to be really vague, minus some key traits of which there are enough that almost everyone will relate to at least one or two of each type.

However, I think the "forer effect" can happen when someone who is inexperienced with the enneagram takes a short, free personality test, reads only the description of the type they get, and thinks "wow, that IS me" without exploring the motivations and other types more deeply. For example, I relate to type 5. When I got type 5 on the first enneagram test I took I never questioned it. But, I probably wouldn't have questioned 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, or 8, either; the only result that would have really baffled me would have been 9 or 2. Without an understanding of every type, someone can easily look at one and decide "yes, that's me for sure" and be set on that type even if a different type fits them better.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

People use the Forer Effect as an excuse for justifying their disagreements with people on here when they don't have as much of a clue as they think they do. There are three points that people need to understand about the enneagram:



Your type is not a choice - you respond to your core fears the way you do whether you identify your fears correctly or not
Many types can influence your core type
You still behave per core fears even if your persona isn't the same as the type descriptions

You're right that the core fears are very clear. The Forer Effect comes into play when people try and type themselves before reading classical enneagram theory, and are able to pinpoint past episodes where they behaved like a certain type's behavioral description. For a personal example, like @_Lotan_, I did that with 5. I did it with 8 too, but that one took more time. I'm a no bullshit, in your face sort of person at times, like directness, and am intense (protective) with the people I love, but I kept finding that my problems are more in overthinking (like a head type) than overdoing (gut type, 8). 

The solution is to 

Piece together a string of past experiences
Compare them with more recent ones
Find parallels between what the classical theory (Naranjo, Ichazo, etc) says and a consistent pattern of behavior.

You find that you _impulsively _behave to compensate for the fears of your type - it isn't a choice. How you come across in doing so (your persona) can be really different from stereotype, but you are still acting on your core fears impulsively.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Figure said:


> You find that you _impulsively _behave to compensate for the fears of your type - it isn't a choice. How you come across in doing so (your persona) can be really different from stereotype, but you are still acting on your core fears impulsively.


I always felt the type descriptions made too many assumptions based on the core fear/desire. 

Anyway, science and even the catholic church have protested against the enneagram; one because the enneagram focuses on introspective and not "objective" data and, two, because the enneagram doesn't represent popular dogma.

http://www.catholicassociates.com/Enneagram warning.pdf

The church has always been against institutions and beliefs that undermine the ecclesiastical mythology. Just look at the renaissance and the trouble with showing heliocentrism...

The enneagram confronts people with their own bullshit, which makes certain groups uncomfortable.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

unctuousbutler said:


> I always felt the type descriptions made too many assumptions based on the core fear/desire.


Is that where they come from? I always assumed they were just observations from people who type via tests, etc in which they'd make too many assumptions *period *



> Anyway, science and even the catholic church have protested against the enneagram; one because the enneagram focuses on introspective and not "objective" data and, two, because the enneagram doesn't represent popular dogma.
> 
> http://www.catholicassociates.com/Enneagram%20warning.pdf
> 
> ...


Oh no, it's kind of true, I guess that means we should avoid it (eyeroll).


----------



## DoubleDare (May 15, 2013)

I recently heard in a David Daniel's podcast one of the best explanations of the purpose of the Enneagram - that it describes/predicts where our attention is habitually focused. He was paraphrasing a leading psychological thinker (can't remember who it was) who stated that attention is the only psychological process that we have any control over. 

The Enneagram can be used, therefore, to help us get a solid understanding of where our attention is being directed constantly and habitually, so that we can have a choice in the matter, rather than just running off of our highly-developed ego mechanisms. 

Being as the nine personality types describe nine different ways that attention gets focused, the Forer Effect ultimately could not be at play, since we can't be habitually focusing our attention in nine different directions at the same time (ie, no focus). One of the nine *must* describe where we focus our attention automatically. If it looks to someone like all nine types are overgeneralized and overlapping, I assert it is because they haven't fully understood the automatic core mechanisms that drive the focus of attention for each personality type. 

This is why I feel that looking at where attention is focused is more useful for determining type than behavioral descriptions, many of which can be generally applied and thus create overlap.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Figure said:


> Is that where they come from? I always assumed they were just observations from people who type via tests, etc in which they'd make too many assumptions *period *
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, it's kind of true, I guess that means we should avoid it (eyeroll).


Yeah, you wouldn't want eternal damnation, would you, Figure? 


* *




Give up the ENNEAGRAM and start going to CHURCH! Praise Jesus! :crazy:


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

unctuousbutler said:


> Yeah, you wouldn't want eternal damnation, would you, Figure?
> 
> 
> * *
> ...


Puh, I'm already screwed with that, I think you need to follow your own advice and BOW, HEATHEN!


----------



## Alles_Paletti (May 15, 2013)

I think the reasoning that 'people who think the enneagram is too vague don't properly understand it' is a horrible argument.

I've also studied the enneagram, reading books, read about every page on sites like e.g. the 'enneagraminstitute', and have had several personal coaches who studied and used the enneagram for years. 

And I think the enneagram is very vague if you dive into it. It's not MECE at all (for those who don't know MECE principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I was actually thinking of writing a 'type 10' page based on the Forer effect before I googled this page, the 'Alanis Morissette' type ('I'm a little bit of everything, all rolled into one). 

The argument that you are _impulsively_ controlled by your basic fear and have no active choice in it... why?

Why do you not have a choice?

And why would you have only one basic fear? 

It doesn't make sense. 

The enneagram would maybe make more sense to me if everyone had a 'gradation' of types, where you are maybe more one thing than the other but definitely not a single type. 

I'm not saying it's not useful... some of the life/growth lessons are pretty good and you can pick the one you need.

EDIT: Also, the 'Ichazo passions' http://www.whale.to/v/script.html are based on classic sins. Really :frustrating:? That seems likely to be accurate...

/rant


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Alles_Paletti said:


> I think the reasoning that 'people who think the enneagram is too vague don't properly understand it' is a horrible argument.
> 
> I've also studied the enneagram, reading books, read about every page on sites like e.g. the 'enneagraminstitute', and have had several personal coaches who studied and used the enneagram for years.
> 
> ...


Why do you identify as 5w4 if you have so many qualms with the enneagram system?


----------



## Alles_Paletti (May 15, 2013)

unctuousbutler said:


> Why do you identify as 5w4 if you have so many qualms with the enneagram system?


Nice ad hominem 

Because that's what I identify _most_ with of course. 

But I've also tested 1w9, 3w4, 6w7, 8, 5w6, 5. 

And if you read the post right you see my qualms are with accuracy - I don't think the enneagram is completely useless. 

You can use something even if you have qualms with it.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Alles_Paletti said:


> Nice ad hominem


It's really not. There's a person behind the poster and I wanted to know if some kind of cognitive dissonance or absurdism was driving the disconnect between the "why does a person only have one type?" crucible-monologue and your apparent declaration as one type, namely 5w4. It just seems like someone at best on the fence wouldn't definitively declare one type.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Alles_Paletti said:


> The argument that you are _impulsively_ controlled by your basic fear and have no active choice in it... why?


In essence you're asking why actions are motivated by unconscious desires. The truth is that our childhood experiences and traumas leave issues that most people haven't worked out, so these tendencies keep popping up well into adulthood or until dealt with and dispatched. At the healthier levels of type, one has dealt with many childhood issues and one is not really "impulsively" pulled by the basic fear and desire. The ego is seen as a temporary band-aid over trauma and little more.


----------



## Alles_Paletti (May 15, 2013)

unctuousbutler said:


> It's really not. There's a person behind the poster and I wanted to know if some kind of cognitive dissonance or absurdism was driving the disconnect between the "why does a person only have one type?" crucible-monologue and your apparent declaration as one type, namely 5w4. It just seems like someone at best on the fence wouldn't definitively declare one type.


Rating my words/arguments based on the type of person I am is 'ad hominem'. 'It's really not' is not a good argument against it.

If you have a reply on the content I'll be glad to hear it.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Alles_Paletti said:


> *Rating my words/arguments based on the type of person I am* is 'ad hominem'. 'It's really not' is not a good argument against it.
> 
> If you have a reply on the content I'll be glad to hear it.


Where did I deploy a rating? Quoted below is the entirety of the post that garnered the "rating my words" comment. Someone seems a little touchy. 



> _Why do you identify as 5w4 if you have so many qualms with the enneagram system?_


----------



## Alles_Paletti (May 15, 2013)

unctuousbutler said:


> Where did I deploy a rating? Quoted below is the entirety of the post that garnered the "rating my words" comment. Someone seems a little touchy.


1) The fact that I personally type as 5w4 is irrelevant to the argument. It's a loaded question that implies my argument is invalid because I use the system I have qualms with.

2) In your second post, you indicate you try to find out 'There's a person behind the poster and I wanted to know if some kind of cognitive dissonance or absurdism'. So, you try to find out whether you can invalidate my argument based on the person I am.

3) In this post, you say 'someone seems a little touchy'. Again ad hominem.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Alles_Paletti said:


> 1) The fact that I personally type as 5w4 is irrelevant to the argument. It's a loaded question that implies my argument is invalid because I use the system I have qualms with.
> 
> 2) In your second post, you indicate you try to find out 'There's a person behind the poster and I wanted to know if some kind of cognitive dissonance or absurdism'. So, you try to find out whether you can invalidate my argument based on the person I am.
> 
> 3) In this post, you say 'someone seems a little touchy'. Again ad hominem.


1) Wrong deduction - there's no implication about the robustness of your argument 

2) After my first response 

3) After my first response


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

/accidental derail


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

Fact:Some questions do indeed stem from genuine curiosity


----------



## Alles_Paletti (May 15, 2013)

unctuousbutler said:


> In essence you're asking why actions are motivated by unconscious desires. The truth is that our childhood experiences and traumas leave issues that most people haven't worked out, so these tendencies keep popping up well into adulthood or until dealt with and dispatched. At the healthier levels of type, one has dealt with many childhood issues and one is not really "impulsively" pulled by the basic fear and desire. The ego is seen as a temporary band-aid over trauma and little more.


That's not what I'm asking. 'The argument that you are _impulsively_ controlled by your basic fear and have no active choice in it... why?' is my literal question. 

I don't see the link between what childhood traumas/experiences one might have and acting 'impulsively' and 'having no active choice'. 

But you seem to agree that we are not really impulsively pulled by the basic fear and desire in your second last sentence.




> 1) Wrong deduction - there's no implication about the robustness of your argument
> 
> 2) After my first response
> 
> 3) After my first response


Fair enough.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Alles_Paletti said:


> That's not what I'm asking. 'The argument that you are _impulsively_ controlled by your basic fear and have no active choice in it... why?' is my literal question.
> 
> *I don't see the link between what childhood traumas/experiences one might have and acting 'impulsively' and 'having no active choice'. *
> 
> But you seem to agree that we are not really impulsively pulled by the basic fear and desire in your second last sentence.


There's a clear link. The ego develops largely in response to childhood trauma. The ego is basically synonymous with these unconscious tendencies to the extent that removing the compulsive response to the basic fear/desire would quickly change your life.


----------



## Alles_Paletti (May 15, 2013)

unctuousbutler said:


> There's a clear link. The ego develops largely in response to childhood trauma. The ego is basically synonymous with these unconscious tendencies to the extent that removing the compulsive response to the basic fear/desire would quickly change your life.


That your childhood has influence on your personality (I assume that's what you mean by ego) is logical enough (I'd replace trauma with experiences but whatever). 

That removing things from your life (like compulsive responses) would change your life is also logical. 

But that is not what I'm asking; again:

'The argument that you are *impulsively *controlled by your basic fear and have *no active choice *in it... why?'

It doesn't question fears/desires influencing your personality. It questions the statement that you would not have an active choice in acting on those fears/desires.

@_lycanized_



> Fact:Some questions do indeed stem from genuine curiosity


You're right, and it is food for thought. But some questions are not so innocent. Without any way of telling which it is, I'm going to err on the cautious side - at least if I'm in an argument.

One reason I think I'm a 5.


----------



## DoubleDare (May 15, 2013)

Alles_Paletti said:


> 'The argument that you are *impulsively *controlled by your basic fear and have *no active choice *in it... why?'
> 
> It doesn't question fears/desires influencing your personality. It questions the statement that you would not have an active choice in acting on those fears/desires.


I get your concern around choice (the *free will* concept, if you will, regarding human behavior), but I think there are a couple of important distinctions that need to be made. While most people would agree that humans always have a choice regarding their behavior, the ego constructs that the Enneagram deals with are so deeply ingrained that making them disappear permanently is unlikely. We can operate outside of our ego mechanisms in moments of enlightenment, when we see what is happening for what it is (ie, not reality, but ego interpretations), but the many habitual ways of being put into place without our awareness or complicit consent will always be a huge part of our individual identities. And without enlightenment, there is almost no chance of operating outside our given paradigm. Without some kind of self-observation and paradigm shift, our reality seems to us so real that we would never even consider the option of operating a different way. While we may think we have truly free "choice", we are really choosing from a narrow, pre-programmed set of options. Our own individual realities are for us like water is for fish (probably) - it's so pervasive that it doesn't even occur to us as distinct. It's just everyday life.

I think the distinction is best illustrated by courage. Courage is not the absence of fear - it's having fear, and acting anyway. We can have the habitual reactions we have (fear), but choose to act in a radically different way (courage). The Enneagram can help identify the habitual ways of being that we live in every moment so that we can see a choice for ourselves.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Alles_Paletti said:


> That your childhood has influence on your personality (I assume that's what you mean by ego) is logical enough (I'd replace trauma with experiences but whatever).
> 
> That removing things from your life (like compulsive responses) would change your life is also logical.
> 
> ...


I would replace cautious with presuming. You also kinda made an argument where there wasn't one initially. :crazy:


----------



## Alles_Paletti (May 15, 2013)

DoubleDare said:


> I get your concern around choice (the *free will* concept, if you will, regarding human behavior), but I think there are a couple of important distinctions that need to be made. While most people would agree that humans always have a choice regarding their behavior, the ego constructs that the Enneagram deals with are so deeply ingrained that making them disappear permanently is unlikely. We can operate outside of our ego mechanisms in moments of enlightenment, when we see what is happening for what it is (ie, not reality, but ego interpretations), but the many habitual ways of being put into place without our awareness or complicit consent will always be a huge part of our individual identities. And without enlightenment, there is almost no chance of operating outside our given paradigm. Without some kind of self-observation and paradigm shift, our reality seems to us so real that we would never even consider the option of operating a different way. While we may think we have truly free "choice", we are really choosing from a narrow, pre-programmed set of options. Our own individual realities are for us like water is for fish (probably) - it's so pervasive that it doesn't even occur to us as distinct. It's just everyday life.
> 
> I think the distinction is best illustrated by courage. Courage is not the absence of fear - it's having fear, and acting anyway. We can have the habitual reactions we have (fear), but choose to act in a radically different way (courage). The Enneagram can help identify the habitual ways of being that we live in every moment so that we can see a choice for ourselves.


Fully agree with this.



unctuousbutler said:


> I would replace cautious with presuming. You also kinda made an argument where there wasn't one initially. :crazy:


...maybe...


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Alles_Paletti said:


> The argument that you are _impulsively_ controlled by your basic fear and have no active choice in it... why?
> 
> Why do you not have a choice?


You DO have a choice. The point is to make you aware of your fixationS (notice I made it plural, more on that later) so you can grow past them.



> And why would you have only one basic fear?


They are not fears so much as fixations, or warped views of reality & yourself (which makes your type a psychological survival strategy of sorts, but a very flawed one, being based on a falsehood). You don't really have just one... more on that below.




> The enneagram would maybe make more sense to me if everyone had a 'gradation' of types, where you are maybe more one thing than the other but definitely not a single type.


The enneagram types are not arbitrarily arranged. Each type's proximity to other types influences it, meaning each type tends to have a bit of the fixations of its nearby types (wings), and individuals tend to lean towards one nearby type (a stronger wing, or stronger secondary fixation). In addition to wings, integration/disintegration of your core type & wings explains how the other fixations some into play. In this way, each type is connected to all the others.

So in a sense, everyone has all the fixations, but some are much stronger than others & how they relate to the core type (or core fixation) greatly affects how they manifest or how you experience them psychologically.

Lastly, this is a philosophy of sorts. It's not science or even "real" psychology. It's just a way of looking at things, perhaps useful to some for self-growth & understanding.


----------



## Alles_Paletti (May 15, 2013)

OrangeAppled said:


> You DO have a choice. The point is to make you aware of your fixationS (notice I made it plural, more on that later) so you can grow past them.


That, for me is also the main point of the enneagram. 



> Lastly, this is a philosophy of sorts. It's not science or even "real" psychology. It's just a way of looking at things, perhaps useful to some for self-growth & understanding.


That's how I see it. It's a way of looking at the world, and it's a very useful way, but indeed it's not science and therefore is not proven, reproducable or accurate.

This topic was about the Enneagram test being very specific and the 'Forer effect' effect's not being important.

And I feel the Forer effect is definitely a problem with the enneagram. Especially if you read all the mistyping. One reason given many times for most mistypings is that (some) people would _like_ to be another type. 

But that's a problem with most personality tests; just look at all the topics of people being annoyed at people claiming they are 'NTs'.


----------



## DoubleDare (May 15, 2013)

Alright, since you still feel like your questions haven't been answered, maybe we can discuss your points more in detail. 



Alles_Paletti said:


> I think the reasoning that 'people who think the enneagram is too vague don't properly understand it' is a horrible argument.
> 
> I've also studied the enneagram, reading books, read about every page on sites like e.g. the 'enneagraminstitute', and have had several personal coaches who studied and used the enneagram for years.
> 
> And I think the enneagram is very vague if you dive into it. It's not MECE at all.


Actually, I think it is very MECE. Each type has a specific fixation associated with it. As I said before, you can't be fixated on nine different things all at the same time, so to know your type, you have to determine what your primary habitual, automatic, mechanistic fixation in life is. At your core. They all are mutually exclusive as primary fixations, even though we can experience all nine fears at various times.



> And why would you have only one basic fear?


I know it's semantics, but basic *means* the base. You can't have multiple bases for one unit, or multiple bases for a personality (though I'm not sure if that applies to people who suffer from multiple personality disorders, lol). One fear is your most basic fear. It doesn't mean it's your only fear - just your greatest fear.



> The enneagram would maybe make more sense to me if everyone had a 'gradation' of types, where you are maybe more one thing than the other but definitely not a single type.


A lot of people, myself included, believe in the "wing" theory, which pretty much supports a gradation of types. You're not one type only - you're one type with some (often) significant amount of influence from the types on either side. This allows for a lot of diversification and gradation for types.



> EDIT: Also, the 'Ichazo passions' are based on classic sins. Really :frustrating:? That seems likely to be accurate...
> 
> /rant


The classic sins are classic for a reason - many theologians and philosophers who observed human behavior attempted to categorize destructive behavior into classes, which came to be called "sins". Just another way to interpret human behavior. Since the Enneagram and the "classic sins" cover much of the same ground (why humans do what they do, especially when what they do is often self-defeating), it's not so strange that they would get paired up. It's all just analogy, anyway. Using words to describe something that can't be described with words. 



> This topic was about the Enneagram test being very specific and the 'Forer effect' effect's not being important.


I haven't found a single Enneagram test helpful (granted, I'm a terrible test taker - even personality tests!). At all. I would never advise anyone to base their relationship to the Enneagram on their test results. Enneagram tests categorize behaviors, which is the most superficial and potentially most easy to misinterpret part of the system. And, the Enneagram =/= Enneagram tests. The Enneagram exists without the need for any tests.


----------



## Alles_Paletti (May 15, 2013)

DoubleDare said:


> Alright, since you still feel like your questions haven't been answered, maybe we can discuss your points more in detail.


Appreciated!



> Actually, I think it is very MECE. Each type has a specific fixation associated with it. As I said before, you can't be fixated on nine different things all at the same time, so to know your type, you have to determine what your primary habitual, automatic, mechanistic fixation in life is. At your core. They all are mutually exclusive as primary fixations, even though we can experience all nine fears at various times.
> 
> I know it's semantics, but basic *means* the base. You can't have multiple bases for one unit, or multiple bases for a personality (though I'm not sure if that applies to people who suffer from multiple personality disorders, lol). One fear is your most basic fear. It doesn't mean it's your only fear - just your greatest fear.
> 
> A lot of people, myself included, believe in the "wing" theory, which pretty much supports a gradation of types. You're not one type only - you're one type with some (often) significant amount of influence from the types on either side. This allows for a lot of diversification and gradation for types.


Hmm. I feel you are oversimplifying the enneagram to the core fixations and then arguing that point. There's much more to each type than _just_ the fixations. 

Let me first try to see if I understand what you're saying:

You're arguing that the main problem is not the enneagram not being MECE, but finding out which of the nine fixations you experience at times is your primary. Made even more difficult by the fact that we can have a 'secondary' fixation, the wing, and also experience all nine at times. So it's not the enneagram that is causing the unclarity, but it's the fact that it is difficult to type people.

Am I understanding correctly?

I do want to add that I don't really believe the fixations are perfectly MECE; I don't see how pride and arrogance could be MECE. 



> The classic sins are classic for a reason - many theologians and philosophers who observed human behavior attempted to categorize destructive behavior into classes, which came to be called "sins". Just another way to interpret human behavior. Since the Enneagram and the "classic sins" cover much of the same ground (why humans do what they do, especially when what they do is often self-defeating), it's not so strange that they would get paired up. It's all just analogy, anyway. Using words to describe something that can't be described with words.


That opposes that the fixations would be perfectly MECE. If it can't be specifically described than it can never be MECE. Also, funnily enough, it's not completely historical; they invented two more sins for the enneagram 



> I haven't found a single Enneagram test helpful (granted, I'm a terrible test taker - even personality tests!). At all. I would never advise anyone to base their relationship to the Enneagram on their test results. Enneagram tests categorize behaviors, which is the most superficial and potentially most easy to misinterpret part of the system. And, the Enneagram =/= Enneagram tests. The Enneagram exists without the need for any tests.


Hmm. But any scientist would argue that results that are not reproducable are worthless. Otherwise it's just belief. 

I do agree that personality tests are difficult to be accurate. There is always a lot of context that will affect the way you answer. But I'm not that mistrusting of tests, as they also help you think. Statistically, the best you can do for accuracy IMO is make _a lot_ of tests and try to see if there is a pattern.


----------



## DoubleDare (May 15, 2013)

Alles_Paletti said:


> Hmm. I feel you are oversimplifying the enneagram to the core fixations and then arguing that point. There's much more to each type than _just_ the fixations.


As far as I've read, the enneagram is all about the core fixations. The fixations are the source for each type. Everything a type is, is because of that fixation. Are you arguing that there are multiple sources for each type? If so, what are the other sources, as you see it? 



> You're arguing that the main problem is not the enneagram not being MECE, but finding out which of the nine fixations you experience at times is your primary. Made even more difficult by the fact that we can have a 'secondary' fixation, the wing, and also experience all nine at times. So it's not the enneagram that is causing the unclarity, but it's the fact that it is difficult to type people.


Yes! 




> I do want to add that I don't really believe the fixations are perfectly MECE; I don't see how pride and arrogance could be MECE.


Pride and arrogance? Not sure to what you are referring with arrogance. I haven't heard anyone refer to any of the fixations as "arrogance." Not that it ultimately matters - there are many, many labels/descriptors for the fixations. Some use the classic sins model, some don't. Some call the fixation of 2 "pride"; Ichazo called it "over-independence." Both refer to the same fixation.





> That opposes that the fixations would be perfectly MECE. If it can't be specifically described than it can never be MECE.


Don't confuse "can't" with "hasn't yet." There is lots of stuff in the universe that we have a pretty damned good idea about but can't describe adequately...yet. Just because we can't perfectly describe something *right now* doesn't mean it doesn't exist (and isn't perfectly distinct)...



> Also, funnily enough, it's not completely historical; they invented two more sins for the enneagram


I don't think anyone was trying to make the enneagram historical (at least, no one I've read yet). Turns out, the seven sins parallel seven of the personalities, so some found it useful to use as one of the many descriptors for each fixation, as it would communicate strongly to those accustomed to dealing with that paradigm. I wouldn't attribute too much to it.



> Hmm. But any scientist would argue that results that are not reproducible are worthless. Otherwise it's just belief.


There is a lot of value to be had in results that aren't reproducible by science. I think even scientists would agree that just because something isn't reproducible doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Ask anyone whose life has been permanently changed by viewing a masterpiece of art, hearing an inspiring song, reading a powerful book, talking with a counselor, seeing the solution to an elegant number formula. There is no way to quantify or reproduce that result, but there is no question that there *was* an enormously valuable result. Will everyone get that result? No. But that shouldn't keep us from trying!


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

The problem with comparing enneagram and the forer effect have 2 main problems as I see it.
1: The forer effect is only really in effect when it has to do with a few vague descriptions. The enneagram is a detailed system and just like you shouldn't judge MBTI as being prone to the forer effect due to some type profiles, neither should you do with the enneagram as neither of the systems rely on the profiles in any way. The profiles are mostly by people who know the system really well or they are by people who are interested in showing their experience with the different types and not their depth of understanding.

2: The forer effect is mostly in effect when it comes to positive things about you such as "you are in your core a happy person, who might not always have such an easy time expressing it for various reasons". The enneagram is however known as probably one of the most negative personality systems out there. The reason for it is because it is meant to point out things to help you in your self-development rather than to speak to your ego in some way.

Lastly, for everyone mentioning astrology. Astrology is not subject to the forer effect per se, it is the general horoscopes that you see in the newspaper and stuff that are good examples of what gives off the forer effect.

PS. If you are normal and critical individual then you are less likely to be fooled by the forer effect or equal (at least for long) as you'd quite fast be able to think to yourself "hey, this fits for everyone/most". People who deeply believe in the existence of people with supernatural powers (as in magic aka. witches and that) are probably the people who are most likely to believe whatever they are told and thus suffer from the forer effect. This is because they must already be gullible enough to believe that someone has magical powers to begin with. People who deeply believe in psychics are just the same, but that kinda counts as "supernatural powers".


----------



## Alles_Paletti (May 15, 2013)

DoubleDare said:


> As far as I've read, the enneagram is all about the core fixations. The fixations are the source for each type. Everything a type is, is because of that fixation. Are you arguing that there are multiple sources for each type? If so, what are the other sources, as you see it?


No, that's not what I'm arguing. What I'm saying is that even if the fixations are the basis of everything, that does not mean the type that forms from that will be perfectly non-overlapping with any other type. Like trees with different roots but intertwining branches. 



> You're arguing that the main problem is not the enneagram not being MECE, but finding out which of the nine fixations you experience at times is your primary. Made even more difficult by the fact that we can have a 'secondary' fixation, the wing, and also experience all nine at times. So it's not the enneagram that is causing the unclarity, but it's the fact that it is difficult to type people.
> 
> Yes!


We can agree on that then . 



> Pride and arrogance? Not sure to what you are referring with arrogance. I haven't heard anyone refer to any of the fixations as "arrogance." Not that it ultimately matters - there are many, many labels/descriptors for the fixations. Some use the classic sins model, some don't. Some call the fixation of 2 "pride"; Ichazo called it "over-independence." Both refer to the same fixation.


Probably a different source. It listed 'pride' for 2 and 'arrogance' for 8. Anyway, I see in the classical enneagram the distinction is better Enneagram History and Origins: The Traditional Enneagram; so I retract my statement on this.



> Don't confuse "can't" with "hasn't yet." There is lots of stuff in the universe that we have a pretty damned good idea about but can't describe adequately...yet. Just because we can't perfectly describe something *right now* doesn't mean it doesn't exist (and isn't perfectly distinct)...


Ehh... nope, not convincing. Fairies might still exist but as for now I did not see the evidence so I'm going to assume no. No offense meant  



> There is a lot of value to be had in results that aren't reproducible by science. I think even scientists would agree that just because something isn't reproducible doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Ask anyone whose life has been permanently changed by viewing a masterpiece of art, hearing an inspiring song, reading a powerful book, talking with a counselor, seeing the solution to an elegant number formula. There is no way to quantify or reproduce that result, but there is no question that there *was* an enormously valuable result. Will everyone get that result? No. But that shouldn't keep us from trying!


Uhm whoops. My wording was not very smart in choosing 'worthless'. I should have said 'unreliable' because that's what I meant. 

A lot of what you're saying makes sense - the main problem is not the unclarity of the enneagram (although I'm not 100% that the types are truly distinct) but the difficulty of typing people, and tests being unreliable. But there's a lot of value to be found in the enneagram, regardless of the reliability of tests. 

So your typing will be necessarily mostly based on your own 'read' of yourself after studying the types. There's nothing wrong with that but it does mean that the 'Forer effect', or for that matter any personal bias might affect your read - we're human after all.


----------



## DoubleDare (May 15, 2013)

Alles_Paletti said:


> No, that's not what I'm arguing. What I'm saying is that even if the fixations are the basis of everything, that does not mean the type that forms from that will be perfectly non-overlapping with any other type. Like trees with different roots but intertwining branches.


The behaviors can and do overlap (sometimes a lot), but just like two species of trees which grow next to each other and become so intertwined that they may be indistinguishable from a distance, they are still two very distinct and different organisms. You may have to look close to see where they are separate (and maybe even study some botany, lol), but once you distinguish the two different species, you wouldn't continue to mistake one species for the other.




> Ehh... nope, not convincing. Fairies might still exist but as for now I did not see the evidence so I'm going to assume no. No offense meant


But unlike fairies, you (or, at least, a lot of people) see a lot of evidence that different personality types exist. It's not like everyone is just blindly categorizing things - when examined and studied, patterns have emerged. If nothing else, it starts with the triads. Everywhere I look, in literature and philosophy and religion, throughout time and across the globe, human beings speak of behavior in terms of "thoughts, feelings, and actions." Different words are often used (like, more recently, "touched, moved, and inspired", for example), but the concept is the same. That pattern is too pronounced to say that there is no evidence. This is one of those "where there is smoke, there is fire" situations. We may not have pinpointed the fire, but there is an awful lot of smoke. 



> A lot of what you're saying makes sense - the main problem is not the unclarity of the enneagram (although I'm not 100% that the types are truly distinct) but the difficulty of typing people, and tests being unreliable. But there's a lot of value to be found in the enneagram, regardless of the reliability of tests.
> 
> So your typing will be necessarily mostly based on your own 'read' of yourself after studying the types. There's nothing wrong with that but it does mean that the 'Forer effect', or for that matter any personal bias might affect your read - we're human after all.


I still have no certainty about which type I am. My personal bias is strong, and my self-awareness is weak. I cannot see very far into my blind spots, and all my mirrors seem to be cracked or too small (lol). But the more I study and contemplate and reflect and examine, I'm starting to see patterns in my own behavior and in the behavior of others that map onto the Enneagram (all the smoke may have an origin). I think this is the only way to truly discover your's or anyone else's type (though, in their defense, tests might offer a few useful starting suggestions). In my case, I currently relate like I'm a Six, a type that *never* came up on any test at the beginning. Not even close. So much for tests.


----------



## DoubleDare (May 15, 2013)

And I do acknowledge that the Forer Effect is widely prevalent among those using the Enneagram, even for myself, if I'm honest about it. That doesn't mean that the Forer Effect can fully describe and therefore discount the ideas behind the Enneagram. It is actually very important for one to recognize and mitigate the role of the Forer Effect for themselves when using the Enneagram if they want to get the full value of what it offers.


----------



## DoubleDare (May 15, 2013)

In thinking more on this subject, I believe the Forer Effect can only be seen at play with the Enneagram when interested parties rely on test results. 

Since, ultimately, each individual is responsible for determining their own type through self-observation and introspection, and since the Forer Effect is related to identifying with a personal description created by someone else, there is no way that I can see that someone who is typing themselves using self-observation and introspection could be under the influence of the Forer Effect. 

Since each individual needs to determine for themselves which type they are, and they can choose freely, the Forer Effect cannot be applied to the thoughtful use of the Enneagram. It can only be applied to those who accept someone else's determination of their type.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@nathdep
I think experience of the Forer Effect when studying the Enneagram comes from all the rosy, focus-on-the-positive descriptions out there to make people feel good about themselves/like "special snowflakes" instead of conveying accurate information.


----------



## Aleysia (Dec 31, 2012)

I'm reading one of Helen Palmer's books on the enneagram right now, and she makes statements such as
- "We all adopt the Two perspective when we see the potentials in people."
- "North American culture is largely Three."
- "We all adopt the Five worldview during times of scarcity."
- "We all adopt the Six perspective when we feel endangered."

While parts of all type descriptions could apply to basically anyone, at some point in time, in some situation... I think it's pretty obvious whether none/few/some/many/all of the specifics resonate with you on a day-to-day basis. For example, every single point Palmer made about Fives, I "got". On the other hand, I didn't agree with the core premise of Seven type let alone any of the specifics, which is clearly why my (unhealthy) Seven ex drove me batshit crazy.


----------



## Rose for a Heart (Nov 14, 2011)

nathdep said:


> I know this isn't the first post about the Enneagram and the Forer Effect and it certainly won't be the last but I disagree with people that say that the Enneagram only seems accurate because of the vagueness of the enneatypes.
> 
> I have been researching the Enneagram for almost 2 years and it seems to me that each enneatype is pronounced. I know that I've been reading where people say that there are many overlaps between enneatypes.
> 
> ...


I don't know much about the forer effect, but the reason I was kind of annoyed by enneagram was because I could relate to almost all of the *basic fears.*


----------

