Enneagram Main Board Archive
Re: Are you guys for real?
[ Boards: Main, Type4, Movie, Care, Chat ][ [ HOME ]
Re: Are you guys for real?
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Enneagram Message Board ] [ FAQ ]
Posted by John DiFool on February 06, 2001 at 11:29:00:
In Reply to: Are you guys for real? posted by Sceptic on January 29, 2001 at 20:06:09:
I hang out here once in awhile (much less than I used to, for reasons I
will relate below). There are several points I want to address in your post: "I mean, is there even any scientific basis for this stuff?" Two points: first of all, testing the reliability and validity of a
personality system like the Enneagram is quite a bit different
from testing the molarity of a chemical compound. I mean we
are talking about >interior< states of people here, which cannot
just be sucked out and laid dead on a slab for dissection. The
best way to test it is to have a mutual dialogue between tester
and the testees, where the tester attempts to discern various
personality traits, and compare them to the model (and the
Enneagram is indeed a model).
You do have these various tests out there (often called 'indicators')
which purport to be able to discern the type of anyone who
takes it. While this is much more efficient for testing large
numbers of people, these tests have several problems; to name
two, the 'forced choice' format often makes people choose
from between two statements, neither of which may describe
them; and most importantly the test's design necessarily limits
the kind of information you can get out of it.
For example, most any indicator assumes that you will be one
of the nine primordial types; if you are testing the Enneagram's
overall truthfulness, then it will be impossible using this test to
discern whether there are in fact other types outside the "nine"
primary ones (an important thing to do if you want to test the E's
validity), since the test was designed with just the nine 'traditional'
types in mind. If you belong to that (mythical?) 10th type, the test
will instead pigeonhole you as one of the "official" Nine. Kind of a
circular trap...
And sadly, there have been in fact precious few attempts to
test the reliability and validity of the Enneagram in psychological
circles. Any search on a campus search engine (hooked up to
thousands of professional journals) inevitably turns up very few
articles, outside of book reviews (there are plenty of books out
there but again few try to test the E. in this way). There was a
Dissertation done in the early 80's (look in Dissertation Abstracts)
on this subject. There is much more stuff on the MBTI in
professional journals of this type, for some odd reason...
There are of course a number of variations off of the Ennagram-
seems every author (books only remember) has their own
particular spin. The problem I have is when people try to make
the system so very specific, which results in nonsensical distortions
the more specific said modifications get, as you can ALWAYS
find exceptions to any rule-that goes double for studying personality!
For example, the common wing theory (c.f. Don Richard Riso)
says that your wing must come from one of your two adjacent types
(for me a Four, either Five or Three-in my case 5); but I strongly
suspect that there are people who have no wing, have 2 wings, and
have a wing which is not adjacent, plus I think it is entirely possible to
be a dual type (more or less equal helpings of 2 types). You'll get lots
of hand-waving from True Believers at this point defending the
adjacent wing theory, but the problem is you cannot prove that
>everyone< is going to fit your system, and I abhor the pigeon-holing
which invariably follows from this stance. You'll see similar
attempts with this "head/heart/gut" stuff etc. too...
The Enneagram does emphasize vertical development and
transformation to a certain extent, tho it is still primarily a horizontal
typology. I'd imagine that it doesn't apply to fully self-actualized
people, nor does it apply to psychotics, borderline cases, and the
like. For 'normal' people, it has its values-and it doesn't need to
be 'perfect', comprehensive, and all-knowing to be useful. ;-)
Personally, I have known a number of folks who are primo
examples of their types (or subtypes): my mom and dad are
a 2 and a 1 respectively (Mom used to move to Eight and lash
out at my sister once playing her role as the Happy Homemaker
lost its appeal when she felt she wasn't being appreciated). I
dated a pristine example of the Six's "Over-compensating Tough
Gal" (Riso's term) in college-a nightmare I hope I never revisit. I
myself in my younger days was a exemplary unhealthy Four w a 5
wing. But I have also met people where I don't have the slightest
idea of what to do with them (and no the common fallback "if you
can't tell they must be Nines" doesn't work either).
At this point I have serious reservations about the general
r. & v. of the Enneagram (and grave misgivings about specific
subtheories)-anyway, I have tried to move on beyond it, and
not let it limit me. If that can be called "utilizing the strengths
of the other 7 types", then so be it. ;-) John DiFool
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
|
|
|