Posted by Polly on December 24, 1998 at 08:44:51:
In Reply to: Re: self-typing posted by Dave on December 23, 1998 at 19:55:24:
I hate to be overly simplistic about this, but how to you ascertain your underlying motivations other than by looking at your behaviors? In fact, the enneagram resources I've used all say something along the lines of "read thee descriptions of behaviors and see if you identify with one or a few to find your type" or there's a test in which you pick behaviors or opinions/desires and they result in a "type." It is only then that you read that the motivation for say, a 7, is fear of pain, etc. Do you see what I mean? I can sit and think long and hard about whether I'm positive, negative or ambivalent toward my mother or father, and I could sit and try to think whether I act more from anger or fear, but that's very tricky (I could discover that I find myself feeling fear throughout my life, but perhaps I've just stuffed down the anger, or some variation of this). Okay, so I'm doggedly pursuing this because I can't quite be certain of my type and I really don't know how to proceed unless I feel on firmer ground. After all, if I misidentify myself and start to assess things in detail and working on development/integration, etc., then I've gone down the wrong path altogether! Ah, well, I'll keep pushing on with this...
> > >>> Integration/disintegration is a developmental schema for the enneatypes, and is partially true for development.
> > Could you explain what you mean by this? By this point I've read a few books and articles, etc., and finding some very different approaches. One of the most recent is by Rohr, and I think I recall his saying that along the integration/disintegration paths, you may be at different levels of development of the number you go to. So, if I'm a ONE responding to stress by going to a FOUR, I may exhibit aspects of a healthy FOUR or I may come in at say, Level 5 of FOUR and experience and exhibit self-consciousness and other more negative aspects of a FOUR. Is this accurate/a generally accepted approach? It certainly does provide a lot of dimension to consider, especially when you add in the wing and determine where that is in the integration/disintegration continuum.
> ------------------------------------------------
> Hi Polly,
> My personal view in a nutshell:
> There are 3 main orientations to the connecting points:
> 1. One descibes the movement with the arrows under stress or risk; movement against the arrows under security or relaxation.. This more of a consciousness or a situational approach.and lends itself to stress management and meditation for growth.
> 2. They’re merely connecting points, so each type has traits and issues of their connections in addition to their own. There’s more of a connection to these points than the other unconnected points, so one has the resources and issues of the connections more than the other points.
> 3. The Jesuits introduced the concept of linear development from unhealth to health (unredeemed to redeemed), or disintegration to integration. This is a developmental model.
> Another way to put it is that moving with the arrows accentuates negative and destructive personality traits and further entrances a person into type and away from their true essence; moving against the arrows gives relief from the primary character fixation of personality and leads to psychological and spiritual liberation. Anything that moves one into the state of mind of the integration point is healthy and nurturing.
> My experience in working with and observing people is that the developmental model is the strongest in theory, but weakest in terms of functionality in the real world. There are simply more ways to develop fully functioning people than a strict linear pathway. It is a good guide, just incomplete
>
> >
> > I'm also curious about your comment to look at the "why" rather than the "do." Do you mean what my motivations are? I guess I've been approaching it the other way around, to some extent -- comparing some of my actions/thought processes with descriptions and seeing how the type explanations of the behaviors mesh with my own assessments of whys.
> -----------------------------------------------
> The enneagram does an excellent job in describing personality traits, but that is a secondary function. The MBTI or the Merril Social styles are better at that in my view.
> The Egram is more of an ontological or Being approach to the human condition. Where your attention is "stuck" and where you over focus your attention on which creates your beliefs and attitudes, which then create your thoughts and behavior. What need(s)you are motivated or driven to satisfy as a result of not being in your essence state.
> There's nothing wrong with using your thought processes and behaviors as clues to getting at your type, but when you get your type you'll have a greater understanding WHY you do what you do.
> Happy holidays!