Posted by Sceptic on January 30, 2001 at 22:42:48:
In Reply to: Yes we are. posted by Tom Chou on January 29, 2001 at 22:59:58:
Yes, although I don't think much for the validity of the enneagram theory, I am curious enough that I've come back to see what response my post got. I should have guessed that the prevailing stance would be along the lines of, "sure it's not scientific, but it seems to work." Anyway to the post...
Most of us are here because we tried the system and it worked
better than anything else we'd seen before.
Maybe you should look some more (or a bit harder). There's some good stuff out there that has the advantage of being based firmly in science and knowlege is increasing at a rapid pace.
Is it scientific?
Psychology is not like physics, and won't ever be, if that's
what you're expecting. But in a few decades, a lot more
brain circuits will be mapped out, and psychology will
slowly but surely integrate with the other sciences. But
I'll be old and gray by the time that is all figured out so
in the meantime I'm going to keep using things that work,
even if I'm not sure exactly how they work.
Is it scientific? Basically, no. I'll go into this a little further on. The future is now! Look a little harder as I said and you'll find sound theory with a knowlege base that is expanding rapidly... you won't have to wait until you're gray (though new things will allways be being discovered). I'm afraid though that if you ever try to establish a new psychological understanding (or probably integrate it, as I see on some threads that people have tried to do) that your current one will remain to some degree a contaminant. As I said, it's hard to get rid of stuff in your head once it's in there.
My advice to you: take the test, read some more about the
types, and see what you think.
- Tom
Took your advice. Did a search for 'enneagram background' and did some more reading. What do I think? Well, my view of enneagram theory surely hasn't improved. Found one very interesting site - CRI Journal - CRJ0146A - that gives the origins as well as some criticism (including from a Christian viewpoint which I don't care much for). I'll summarise some points I found interesting (if you're to afraid to read it yourself)...
-Apparently enneagram theory was initially introduced to the west by a shady character by the name of Gurdjieff from Armenia who lived in the late 1800s to early 1900s.
-Gurjieff on his travels ended up at the Sarmouni monastery in Turkestan (central Asia) where he learned mystical dancing, 'psychic powers', and the enneagram.
-The enneagram was used by the Sarmounis to foretell the future amoungst other things, including symbolising conscious/unconscious states. (Gurdjieff went on to found schools for attaining enlightenment based on the different uses of the enneagram. Enneagram as psychological model would come later.)
-The enneagram was used as means as numerological divination (numerology - an "occult science" that holds that the characteristics of everything can be determined by numbers). Apparently it was determined that everthing in the world comes down to three and seven. The enneagram's triangle's points corresponding to three, and the seven corresponding to the other shape.
-Gurdjieff claimed that anything that couldn't be assingned a numerical value and run through the enneagram, could not be known/understood in terms of 'cosmic significance'. To run something through was to follow a process around the points.
-After he died different enneagram groups formed. In Chile, 1960s, a guy called Oscar Ichazo took up the reigns and used the enneagram (without which nothing is known) to develop the system of nine personality types corresponding to the nine points.
-The system used the old numerological background from central Asia to relate the personalities. Four gets worse by becoming like two for example.
-These relationships had nothing initially to do with personalities. They are valid inasmuch as the original fortune telling system is valid.
-Despite this people accept the system and adjust their spiritual and psychological views and beliefs to comply with what it says.
So what do I think? Enneagram theory seems to have some pretty shaky foundations and its application leaves a lot to be desired. "Sure it's not scientific, but it seems to work," you may say. Or do you believe it just because some parts of it seem plausible. Hey, I really got into MBTI when I first discovered it because it seemed plausible, but as I said I my first post, that theory has gross flaws in it. The description of the category seemed to fit me well but the theory behind it, how the factors related to each other and expressed themselves was generally bogus and has since been surpassed by more scientific, descriptive theory (as opposed to pidgeon-holes). All that was really there were arbitary categories that didn't really relate too well. MBTI has 16, enneagrams 9. I'm still trying to get rid of some of the crap in my head that I believed in from that stuff.
I don't want to be too devisive. Whether you listen to what I say or not is up to you. Perhaps you have gone past the 'point of no return' and are loathe to doubt your beloved theory for the difficulty it would bring. If not, then I suggest you have a further look around. Who knows you might find, just don't believe everything you hear/read.