To Isaac (re. wings)

Subject:

Comments:
: : but we already have a system that describes all of those connections much more elegantly. it's the standard 1wing model, with a spectrum related to health. the thing that's so elegant about it is that, no matter HOW much i change for the better or worse, i AM ALWAYS a 54. however, a person could be what you might call a 5c8 at one point, and a 5c7 at another. it's simply a 5 at different levels of health. : ***Why must line dynamics be directly correlated with "levels of health?" : : i do not mean to imply that i side with riso on his method of de-fuzzifying health levels. there are not 9 levels of health. there is a sliding continuum in several different dimensions. ie, you might be fairly "healthy" in general (like over the course of the year or month) yet be in a horrid mood this moment, and thus be acting much like a very unhealthy person. or vice versa, or any other of an infinity of other possibilities. but in none of these possibilities does your type change from your one type-wing combonation. : ***Mine does change. Not my main type, but my subtype - from 4w3 (heavy wing) to 4c1 or 4c2 to 4w5 (light wing) occasionally. You say black, I say white. Neither of us has any evidence, really. : : that combonation describes all possible states of health, because it is a characterization of the internal patterns of motivation and focus and so on, NOT a characterization of the traits that you exhibit. : ***That's what I'm talking about. Thanks for at least bringing up this pre-novice idea about behaviorism, traits, and actions, if only to dismiss it. Are you under the impression that I was, in any way, referring to behaviors, traits, or actions? : : that's what makes the egram such a bitch to use; you have to really do some work to get at that stuff. : ***Tell me about it. It took me an instant to figure out my main type, and a year to figure out my dominant subtype and variant. : : the 18 personalities are not simplification. each couplet of numbers refers to one particular brand of internal universe. : ***, Yes, but each internal universe has a spectrum of variation that may be <i>within</i> one person's range of influence, and a person's range of influence may, either slightly or moderately, cross the indefinite spectrum border into the space of influence from another type or subtype. It depends on where the focus of your fixation is, and how far over the Enneagram map its "radiation" extends. : : the traits are only the extension of that. : Good point, but again, why stall the discussion by bringing up the subject? It's like explaining to a university math professor, "The plus sign and the minus sign represent different operations," just to make sure you've established that foundation for your discussion with him. Pointless. : : i disagree on general principle with what you're saying. a wing is not a thing. it is not weak or strong. to say so would be like saying that fido is very dog and felix is very cat. they're not qualities that can be stronger or weaker, they either are or are not. : ***In spite of anti-behaviorism, you must still go on what you see, must you not? The best you can do is attempt to distinguish signs that, while they are still within the behavioral realm, come closer, in their subtlety and complexity, to indicating one's psychological fixations. If one 4, for example, appears to be influenced by 3 to a greater degree <i>consistently</i> than another 4, why must you dogmatically conclude that their Egram-related psychological makeup is identical in spite of the evidence at hand? : : this misconception commonly arises, i've noticed, from thinking that personality refers to what you do and think. : ***I've been rallying on this board for years against even the most defensible-seeming uses of behaviorism in Enneagram typing. You'll not find a more radical proponent of anti-behaviorism anywhere on this board. Likewise, you'll not find a more radical proponent of the spectrum model. : : egram type primarily concerns WHYs, not WHATs. : ***Again, you're stalling the argument by insisting to the English professor that he end his sentences with periods. This is getting boring. Please don't bring up the subject in future correspondence with me. I promise you, there's no need to. My hypothesis does not depend on this common disproportionate reference to surface traits in any way whatsoever. : : to say that 5s like science is a good rule of thumb, but is not a hard and fast rule by any means. : ***Hum dee-dum dum.... (still waiting for you to get past this pointless primer). : : it's just that science tends to appeal to the sort of things that 5s tend to want, because of their basic personality. to say that 5s repress their emotions and try to be objective in order to avoid destruction IS true, because that is in the definition of 5. : ***""egram type primarily concerns WHYs, not WHATs." - you : ***"to say that 5's repress their emotions [BEHAVIOR, AND "WHAT," NOT WHY] and try to be objective [MAYBE HOT BEHAVIOR, BUT STILL "WHAT," NOT WHY] in order to avoid destruction [YOU SHOULD HAVE LEFT IT AT THAT] IS true, because that is in the DEFINITION [emphasis mine] of the 5." - you : ***So, you waste time explaining these little-known foundations of Enneagram theory to me, only to reveal that you don't really understand them yourself? : ***(I'll expound upon that subject more in my debate with Cory, er, Rotten Apple about Feeling-type Fives.) : : some of the things in that "internal universe" i talked about are things that are filled in by the wing archetype. sometimes we exhibit our wings more than others. : ***Yes, and the 5w4 (heavy wing) I referred to can be a 5w4 (light wing) at another time and in another situation. Situation is a factor in one's movement within one's individual range of influence. In my hypothetical situation about the "line of 5w4's," the subtypes I assigned to each 5w4 can be understood to represent his present condition within his individual range of influence. When one's fixation, moving within one's general range of influence, approaches a point, one gains more access to the point's line-connected points. : ***In spite of individual ranges, however, it appears that everyone has a habitual focus point on the outer circle or the inner lines, from which their situational range of influence extends. Thus, a defense for the distinction between heavy wingers and light wingers in general. : : however, if fido is playing catch, he is not "more dog" than when he is lying on the carpet. : Must the distinction be behavioral? : : to say that a wing is stronger is to say that the person we are talking about is *currently* exhibiting traits comonly associated with his wing. : ***For the record, you brought up surface traits, not me. : : however, he does not have a "strong wing", because at another moment (or in another year of his life), those traits may diminish in favor of traits that are more in line with his "main" type. but a 54 is a 54 ALWAYS, even when he is not acting 4ish. "54" refers to a set of reasons for doing things, not a set of things to do. : ***Are you sure you're responding to the right post? It sounds as though you're responding to a post in which the writer mentioned behaviors, traits, and actions somewhere. Or maybe you're under the inexplicable impression that my viewpoint could only arise from an erroneously behavioristic stance. But again, why must it be so? I fail to understand how my opinion about varying wing strengths denotes behaviorism. It has neither more nor less to do with surface traits than the static 18-subtype "black-white-black-white" model. That is, both models arise from a foundation of ideas about internal motivations. You have not explained your conclusion of yours, so please do. : : the reason i make such a big deal of this is because the model is useless unless it points out what things change (and how), and what things stay the same. : ***Here, if anywhere, is where we may find common ground yet. In my view, one's type and subtype are static, but there is an individual range of influence - radiance, or extension of focus - that may, depending on the person, allow one to experience influence from other spaces. : : that's why we can use the enneagram to <i>understand</i> people, because we know how and why they will change, and what about them will stay the same. if we assume that wing is "strong", then we are making the claim that it is strong always. : ***And here, if anywhere, is where we will just have to agree to disagree for now. A strong-winger is generally a strong-winger, though the strength of his wing can undergo a temporary flux in response to circumstance. : : clearly it is not. most people lean on their wing more in certain situations or in certain periods of their life, and at other times it's almost impossible to detect. : ***For some people, yes. : : and if we assume that one static thing can change, it is inviting to assume that perhaps they can change wing or change type, since these are other static things in the model. : ***They can experience occasional influence from other spaces, and occasional influence from the spaces extending from their habitual focal point (wings, lines, etc.), but the static type-and-wing component may be understood to represent my "focal apex" interpretation. : : if we throw that monkey wrench into the middle of everything, we've rendered our system useless. : ***Incidentally, the more you simplify the system in the service of making it elegant, the less useful it gets. : : everyone's totally schizophrenic and can do and be any random thing; since we know that's not how people act, that's not how the model should say they act. : ***"That's not how the model should say they act?" What happened to "why, not what?" OK, enough of that point for now. : : another thing: if we take your example of 54s of varying wing exhibition, and do the same thing with 56es, we should get 2 5s who are theoretically the same personality type. however, this is not what happens. you get a 56 who is not very suspicious and a dispassionate 54, but they are <i>still different personality types</i> even when the wing is indistinguishable! the 54 is concerned with beauty in a very 5ish way, different in crucial ways from its 4ish counterpart. the 56 is concerned with practicality in ways that are very un54ish, yet remarkably different from 6 and 4. the wing affects change deep within a person, so deep that it describes them even when they are not displaying their wing. : ***Good point, but what compelled you to introduce that into the argument? Quit insisting to the geology professor that the Earth is round. : : without a wing, a 5 would literally have no emotions to repress. that doesn't make any sense at all. : ***"A ray of sunlight is made up of MANY atoms." - Eros from <i>Plan 9 From Outer Space</i>. "Wrong!" - an onlooker with an engineering degree. : ***There you go, giving me these long-drawn-out primers on the system, and then you cater to this typical pop-league amateur idea about point 5 being bereft of emotion. : : moreover, since we can change the amount to which our wing is "strong", (this exhibition is really a factor in health), : ***Why so? Since when do various spaces on the Enneagram represent different "levels of health?" : : what's the point in marking off various amounts of displaying one's wing as different types? : ***Different ranges of expression within one type; not different types. : : why not have some static types, with room to move around *within one's type*; assuming that the type is the roadmap to this changing. : ***That's what I mean, except a static type, in my interpretation, does not have to be directly on a point. : : if the two models are equally valid, as far as how well they describe people accurately, then this model is far superior because it is more elegant and thus lends itselfmore easily to prediction and explaination. : ***I never had a problem with prediction using my version of the model, but if you need a more cut-and-dry approach, you should use it. Neither is more inaccurate than the other, really - at least not relative to the absolute truth that evades us all. : : : Which brings me to my next point: I don't believe in this "integration and disintegration" nonsense. That philosophy makes at least one glaring error: it declares that one can "integrate" by moving from one fixation, or entrancement, to another. : : moving up and down to another type is a metaphor. it's not really that your personality type changes, because it never changes. : ***If you understood my statement to mean "changing types," then I must fortify it. I meant "by moving TOWARD another fixation," or "by replacing certain motivations of one fixation with motivations from another." Since this is exactly what Riso and other authors mean when they discuss line dynamics, and since that seems to be the general approach to line dynamics in general as a consequence, I thought that detail would be obvious. In any case, recall that my "moving to/moving toward" statement, however construed, was still part of an indication of my disagreement with the idea. : : a very healthy enlightened 54 is still a 54, no matter how 8ish he appears. : ***True. : : (see "crouching tiger hidden dragon", and look at the character of li mu bai.) even at his healthiest, a person will be motivated by the same things that motivated them deep down in early childhood. : ***You ought to teach Enneagram 101 for novice children. You sure seem to feel the need to explain the bare basics for no discernable purpose. : : we do not outgrow our strengths and weaknesses, we simply learn to use them effectively and healthily. it just so happens that the sort of things that 8s are very good at, 5s are very bad at. overcoming this difficulty, thus, *appears* to be a "shift" of sorts up to 8. it's not that the 5 is becoming an 8, or that his "personality focus" is "shifting to another entrancement" or any other hippie crap; he just looks more like an 8, : ***Since when does the Enneagram system have anything to do with what one looks like? You can still teach Enneagram 101, but be careful what you put into those kids' heads. : : because he is doing what he has been avoiding (which happen to be things that 8s take for granted.) : ***Again, you contradict your "what, not why" point. : : the same goes for all the other types integrating. disintegrating happens much the same way, but not in a good way. : : i don't really like the terms integration and disintegration, but i use them as a matter of convention. the lines are there for a valid reason and make the model work properly, but there's a tendency to think that one can abandon their personality type in favor of the one along one of the lines. : ***Find someone who suggested that, then, and give him his bare-basic primer. : : if you're talking about riso's 9level health bs, i also take issue with this. : ***Indeed I am, albeit in disagreement. :) : : health is the continuum of the system, the sliding scale. but the personality type describes the nature and direction of the change. you can go anywhere in your own inner universe, but you can't ever leave. (what would it even mean for "you" to "leave you", i wonder. a topic for another thread, i suppose.) : ***I think we both agree on that. If you assume I don't, you ought to read more carefully. : : isaac : ***pork ^(oo)^ : "Oh, what an oinker is he!" - A Poet

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: