Re: and so on...

Subject:

Comments:
: : : : : Some broken hammers can still bury nails. : : if it buries nails better than anything else around, it's the best hammer around. find me a better hammer, and i'll use that instead. but if you're just interested in complaining about the shortcomings of the enneagram without offering any alternative theory, i'm realyl not that interested. : REPLY: I don't NEED to offer an alternative theory. The burden of proof is on the enneagram; I am the skeptic/dissident. The enneagram makes certain claims, so I question them. But if you want an alt. theory, well I can't provide that just yet. : : : : : : By "true" i mean something like this...suppose we make a personality system of two types of people: Type I will be extraverted, arrogant, work-obsessed, emotionally labile, and short-tempered. Type II will be introverted, sarcastic, work-obssessed, decisive, and calm. Some people in this world will fit in I or II, and this system would be "true" for them. Most people though, would not fit in these two categories neatly, so the system wouldn't be "true". I guess by true, I actually mean practical. : : : : your definition of true and your illustration don't make sense to me. so this 2-type thing, it's "true" for the people who fit into it nicely? and it's not true for the others? but if it doesn't describe the subject matter, how practical can it be for anyone? or are you under the silly notion that it's practical if i can identify with a particular type neatly, and it's not practical fi i can't? : REPLY: Let's just can the word "true". We'll use "practical". Also, let's assume these two types are not just trait-based and have motivations just like the enneagram. Those short descriptions are actually trivial...I and II are supposed to be abstract concepts. If a person strongly identifies with Type I, a good understanding of Type I will help you know that person. But if a person identifies with neither of the types, how will that system help you understand the person? This is true (the literal sense, not the definition I was using). Now, what is debateable is whether or not the Enneagram can adequately fit everybody, or at least, most people. For sake of argument, let's assume there is a person that fits nowhere in the nine types. How could the enneagram be a practical tool for them? You're saying it can, I'm saying they can't. I mean, there are many parts of type Seven which are true about me...hedonism, rationalizing, hate to close off my options, etc. but understanding type Seven doesn't give much insight into my personality because there is a whole lot about which is NOT true for me. If a person reads a type Five description and starts getting personal insights and screams "That's me!" -- then the enneagram IS USEFUL FOR THEM. I don't deny that. What I am skeptical of is if the enneagram is useful for EVERYBODY. : : : : Traditions? Actually, it was Oscar Ichazo who came up with the whole integration/disintegration rubbish. There weren't any Egyptian sages in 1800 B.C. discussing why a "7w9" can't exist. : : what, you don't think they had 5s when they were making up the enneagram? what is your point here? : REPLY: By Fives, do you mean the concept of type Five, or Fivish people [aka introverted, analytical, argumentative ;) people]? Obviously there were people back then who would be classified as type Five today. But, I don't think the Egyptians (or Babylonians, etc.) were discussing actual "type five" itself. You also have to remember that Ichazo is the largest single source for the modern enneagram. He used ancient beliefs/philosophies like the Kabbalah and such as a BASIS...but it would be stupid to think that the Kabbalah had any references to Fives. : : : abotu the panelling thing.... : : you weren't talking abotu the sort fo thing that riso and palmer do. you said you'd teach them all abotu enneagram types without teachign them about the enneagram. : REPLY: I think you have a point there. It would be better to start from scratch. Have people describe themselves, study them, and draw conclusions from the results. It would be starting over, but it's at least a clean start. : : : it is not possible to have a good understanding of every type without having at least some concept of the way that they work at their best and worst and what and that's all wrapped up in teh concept of (dis)integration. : REPLY: Well, that's because you DEFINE the enneagram that way. If the definition of a type requires you to take account the lines of integration/disintegration, then a type IS that. What we are actually arguing over is the practical results of defining a type like that. : : : THATs what i mean when i said glossed over. and, it's STILL reinventing the wheel. if you say this hammer is busted, you should try to figure out what's wrong with it, and come up with a better, nmore useful, model. : REPLY: Actually, I would study the nail first. Then ask myself: What would be the best way to nail this nail? Make a few prototypes, experiment around. As of right now, I have identified the problem with the hammer...I just don't know exactly how to fix it. I've come up with some ideas...but we have yet to put them to experimental action. : : : : : Whether or not a person has an enneagram type is trivial. What matters is how it WORKS for them. Does it FIT them? Everyone has a type, no matter how you define it. Remember that two-type system in the above paragraphs? EVERY single person on earth is one of those two types. Now they may not fit cleanly with either type. Some may be 60% I and 40% II for example. Either way, this is exactly what the enneagram teaches: That we are all one type, although we don't have to fit 100% with the type. : : your 2 type system above was among the worst personality systems. in that system, people CAN be half and half. the enneagram is not like that system. : REPLY: Again, I must stress that the two personality types are actually abstract. Type I can be loud, quiet, mean, friendly, it doesn't matter. Type I can be motivated to live life to the fullest or to stick to a routine, it doesn't matter. What matters is there is a hypothetical two-type personality system which divides people's personalities into two camps. (Isn't that what the enneagram does, but on larger scale?). I used only 2 types to make it as simple as possible. Hmm...try this idea...consider this two-type system to be JUST LIKE THE ENNEAGRAM except with just two types. This would mean that what defines an enneagram type 5 (or 6, 8, 2, etc) would define I and II. If type is about motivation and ways of dealing with the world, then so would the fictional/abstract types I and II. Obviously, two types aren't enough. Of course, I would argue nine types aren't enough. Do you follow me? : : again, i'm lost as to what you mean by 'for them.' how it works for WHO? you mean that if the enneagram WERE a perfect system (everyone has one type, no exception, the type is a perfect description of their personality, and so on) but it wasn't the sort of thing that everyone enjoyed using (and was satisfied using) then it wouldn't be TRUE? what the hell kinda reasoning is THAT? : REPLY: By them, I mean people in general. You misunderstood me though. What I believe the enneagram SHOULD be...is a "perfect" system where everyone has one type, no exception, and the type was a perfect (or at least highly practical) description of their personality. I don't know where you got the "satisfying about using" part. : : : : : So here's my question, and please be honest: Has everyone you met been a great example of a textbook type? : : yes. every single one of them. quite often, it wasn't easy for me, as an imperfect observer, to type them. in several instances, i found that i had various misconceptions abotu a person or a type, and that was always teh source of the confusion. however, figuring out someone's type after some confusion is always a very satisfying experience. everything just kinda clicks into place, and what they do makes sense. i'm being honest here, however, i have a feeling that you're going to claim that i'm misleading myself or you. : REPLY: Well yea, you could be misleading yourself...but just because that's a possibility does not necessarily mean you ARE. Maybe you are seeing enneagram types clearly in people. I can believe that. I've seen the types clearly in others as well...just not in all people. : : : : : How can my knowledge of Sixes be all that effective when so much of her is a One, and vice versa? Also: I'm not simply confusing traits since Ones and Sixes can look alike. : : well, ya gotta respect a cocky bastard, i guess.... cory, here's another alternative explaination: you just don't know what her type is. either you don't know her well enough, you don't know the type well enough, or both. time is no proof of you knowing her, neither is how often you see her, since you could hold a misconception about her and her motives for years and years without ever letting go of it and seeing who she really is. also, having read lots of books is no proof of you knowing her type, since a book can't really give you the kind of understanding that comes with properly identifying people of a type in reality. if you dont' knwo at least a few people of each subtype well, then you don't know that type well. if you're having this sort of confusion, it's likely you don't understand 6es, dont' understand 1s, or don't understand some other type that she really is. : REPLY: What you said is a possibility, but it can be kind of dangerous to think that way. In science, if there is a prevailing theory, and someone comes across an anomaly which puts a hole in the theory, there's nothing wrong with analyzing and critiquing this anomaly, just as long as you don't automatically discredit the anomaly simply because it contradicts the theory you believe. : : : If you got to know her, you'd see that shes a One-Six hybrid. : : your arrogance is sweet like paint chips. : : : : : Now THIS makes my teeth hurt. Everytime I mention this issue, I always get the "well you just dont understand it" remark. : : well, you don't! your remarks regarding the enneagram, people, and the practice of using models to help predict the universe indicate to me that you lack understanding of all of them. if you would like to know exactly WHAT you don't understand, go back over my posts to you, adn re-read them. you will see that you are very obstinate, and generally don't seem to take in any bit of what i say. you simply chew on the same information, and regurgitate it again. if you reread all my posts to you again, and you STILL don't get it, just repeat until you do. if you have a new question or argument for me, then reply. : REPLY: And you call me arrogant. ;) Here's the problem, Isaac...you may very well be right with the "you just dont get it" statement. However, that's not going to convince me. I'm asking for evidence/support/proof for that statement. How am I going to be swayed to your side? I'm not simply going to believe what you say because you say I'm wrong. It's just my word vs. yours. Now, if you offered up something more, I could be persuaded to join your side. This whole thing is kind of like saying "The earth is sphere-shaped, not flat." This is truth, but if you don't offer arguments about horizon-bending, gravity, etc. then how am I to believe you? : -Cory

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: