# Yet Another Theory Theory



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

For software developers the title may resonate. Proof that at least once I was one to the discerning practitioner.

So, I see only the two theories there. Jungian and its many branches and then Big Five, a theory I personally detest.

I see no mention of the enneagram, which probably all of you know, to me, is easily the best match with reality, truth, love, whatever superlative conclusion you wish to choose.

My own set of theories extend the enneagram as a base, in most senses. I think a lot of enneagram folks, supposed experts, would deny that my theories relate to the enneagram, which puts me in a strange middle ground. I guess I can say that my set of theories are 'influenced' by the enneagram and many of its guru's teachings.

So, this thread was more or less so that I could relate that fact first. I do find it unusual that the enneagram is not mentioned here. What constitutes the basis of a threadgroup here?


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

You mean as a sub-board under "Other Personality Theories"? Enneagram has its own board pre-dating these new ones, so that is why it is not listed here.


----------



## Cartier Wolfe (May 1, 2018)

theorytheorytheorytheory


----------



## Dalien (Jul 21, 2010)

http://personalitycafe.com/support-suggestions/1236641-big-five.html


http://personalitycafe.com/support-suggestions/1248922-jungian-theory-sub-forum.html


----------



## Dalien (Jul 21, 2010)

You’re theory utilizing enneagram is so far different than the enneagram gurus that you want your theory to be listed as other... do I have this right? It’s still utilizing enneagram though. If so, why don’t you create a thread in the enneagram forum keeping people interested/interacting in said thread and then request it to be stickied. Just a suggestion.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Dalien said:


> You’re theory utilizing enneagram is so far different than the enneagram gurus that you want your theory to be listed as other... do I have this right? It’s still utilizing enneagram though. If so, why don’t you create a thread in the enneagram forum keeping people interested/interacting in said thread and then request it to be stickied. Just a suggestion.


Yes, I see now. I had perhaps in error considered Jung, Cognitive Theory, and MBTI all directly related and mostly inseparable. 

Big Five to me is just a Capitalist cop-out and a 'Sciencism' cop-out attempt to make personality theory something they can control and abuse.


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

series0 said:


> Big Five to me is just a Capitalist cop-out and a 'Sciencism' cop-out attempt to make personality theory something they can control and abuse.


Proof?


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Cal said:


> Proof?


Seriously? Proof? Since all knowledge is imperfect and if it is held within a perfect frame, that frame almost has to lack meaning, needing proof is a crutch in general. Even so-called 'proof' is only held as belief. All fact is belief, not the other way around.

Still, I suppose I can attempt a proofish approach to suit this need.

Here is at least one case of failure for the system: Bolivian Forage Farmers just say 'No' to Big Five

But to me the failure is obvious.

The Big Five sweeps multiple issues into incongruous buckets, designed, intended, and purchased; to sideline certain virtues of mankind. To me it is the sort of academic and fear-based pragmatism that is a classic sell out of idealism and draws even more attention away from the outlier or rare virtue exemplars that mankind needs to heed a whole lot more than it is.

In a more modern society, where diversification and wealth and technology have created pools of NOTHINGNESS, devoid of meaning, ALL types are more easily able to surface from the core. In a more natural and balanced environment, sharp edges are taken off the gears that make a person's personality roll. Life either rolls over them or they learn to roll. The balance creates, in general, a more wise and balanced perspective, albeit one closer to animal lack of choice rather than an exalted realm of free will and wise choice when no wise choice is mandated. 

So, I would say that whereas more animal man societies are wiser by default, it is precisely that, ONLY DEFAULT. Mankind must create the void of NOTHINGNESS and still choose wisely within it to advance morally.


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

series0 said:


> Seriously? Proof? Since all knowledge is imperfect and if it is held within a perfect frame, that frame almost has to lack meaning, needing proof is a crutch in general. Even so-called 'proof' is only held as belief. All fact is a belief, not the other way around.
> 
> Still, I suppose I can attempt a proofish approach to suit this need.
> 
> ...


You can believe in a fact, but a fact in itself is objective. The study uses observations of the children, such as whether or not they are smiling to test for the accuracy of the Openness and neuroticism scales, which is flawed since how a person may act will not automatically show you their actual personality or what they are thinking. Not to forget that their results need replication, which they even mentioned themselves:



> Our current results require replication, with emic inventories
> and with other methods such as those based on behavioural
> observation or on peer reports by non-Tsimane.



The rest of what you said seems to revolve around your own morals and through insightful to the way how you think this does not equate towards the reality of things.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Cal said:


> You can believe in a fact, but a fact in itself is objective.


Prove it. If you can, then what you prove will be tied to meaninglessness. Within any meaningful frame, there must be fear, anger, and desire; the only foundations of personality, apart from the poles of order, chaos, good, and not good (evil). Yes, this is my belief. 

You can say that facts are objective, but you are only lying to yourself, and that only within a frame of meaningfulness. Many so-called 'facts' are tautologies bound within meaningless frames, ergo, they do not really matter.



Cal said:


> The study uses observations of the children, such as whether or not they are smiling to test for the accuracy of the Openness and neuroticism scales, which is flawed since how a person may act will not automatically show you their actual personality or what they are thinking. Not to forget that their results need replication, which they even mentioned themselves:


Indeed, studying personality is the study of emotion, and 'getting inside someone's head' to know their intent, is, so-far, quite difficult. This makes the observer effect look like a stable truth by comparison. 

Further, consider this:

Many modern academics, intellectuals in some sense at least, have some degree of trouble understanding the observer effect completely. But how simple is such a thing to predict and understand in my emotional math theory?

All observation is born of the need to know, an emotion. Imbalanced emotion is certain to CHANGE things. The act of observation of course, CHANGES that which is observed, by virtue of fear, its root emotion. 



Cal said:


> The rest of what you said seems to revolve around your own morals and through insightful to the way how you think this does not equate towards the reality of things.


Perhaps this is so. I certainly would not call my understandings, my beliefs, facts in the sense of truths. But facts very close to how the common people use the term, 'facts', I would claim that. Most people are very comfortable with the ... fact/belief ... that facts are only beliefs. They may or may not realize that this is so precisely when they have meaning. That is an emergent extension.

It is also necessarily true that between any two believers that disagree, one and only one is closer to the truth, or reality.


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

series0 said:


> *Prove it. If you can, then what you prove will be tied to meaninglessness. Within any meaningful frame, there must be fear, anger, and desire; the only foundations of personality, apart from the poles of order, chaos, good, and not good (evil). Yes, this is my belief.
> 
> You can say that facts are objective, but you are only lying to yourself, and that only within a frame of meaningfulness. Many so-called 'facts' are tautologies bound within meaningless frames, ergo, they do not really matter.*
> 
> ...


Facts are not about meaningfulness, they are about consistent evidence and what we know. They are objective, not subjective. If facts were to be subjective than tools such as math would not even work. A fact is indisputable, such as the fact that the sun rises from the easy and sets in the west, or that we need air to breath. There is no real meaningfulness in them, nor is there anything complicated about them. They matter though because they keep order, and allow us to expand and properly theorize and make hypothesis.

Anyhow, this post was written just after I got up, so it is pretty crappy. So I would not take it too seriously for now.


----------

