|
Enneagram Type 5 Board Archive GOOD! It shows you're paying attention!.Posted by Dave on July 20, 2000 at 15:54:12: In Reply to: I disagree with the concrete nature of your classifications. posted by WingPrayer on July 20, 2000 at 11:40:53: : and the comment.... : "while 5's are masters at complicating simple ideas and concepts by redifining them into various : ...seems to be intended as an insult. The point to think about, if you are a 5 or not, is that a 5's expalaination might seem as such to a non-5, or to one not informed on the topic, while seeming the exact opposite to a five or one informed. This is what good teachers understand - that different styles affect the ability to interpret and understand. What you deem confusion through levels of intricacy is synthesising for a 5. Putting ideas in compartments may simplification for some, but it is obfuscation to others. What is synthesizing for a 5 is only one-ninth of the truth or perception of reality, the truth as a 5 sees and comprehends it. Great if everyone is a 5, but they're not. But, a 5ish tendency is to make treatises of even the most basic of topics. To a 5, they are just being thorough (6's do this from a point/counterpoint perspective, while 7's usually just hit the high points), but to many of the other types it's perceived as being nerdy and obfuscating. In an academic situation or intellectual discussion on a topic's epistemology, ontology, meatphysics, or hermeneutics it brings an intellectual structure,depth and rigor. In a utilitarian scenario, as in most everyday life, it is seen as being incomprehensible. THE KEY for a 5 is to be able to flexible enough to communicate in the fashion best suited for thr audience and situation. AND, to be able when to discern when in-depth analysis is apprpriate, and when it's a unneccessary compulsion of their 5ish enneatrance. AND, yes it is generalizing in the broadest sense. For educational and discussion purposes only. So, there's no need to take these comments as personal attacks. Dave
|
|