Personality Types by Riso/Hudson

[antireconciler]

I don't know how many of you find the Enneagram useful, but I highly recommend Personality Types by Don Richard Riso and Russ Hudson. I probably reference it more than any other book I own, and I've almost always left it thinking "Man, that makes total sense. I would have never thought of that, though." The book does a phenomenal job methodically integrating personality types, fears, desires, attitudes, behaviors, parental orientation, personal integration and disintegration, etc. Especially check out the postscript and appendix. It's solid work.

[NGene]

I'd like to read the book, but my local library doesn't have it. *sigh*

[antireconciler]

Online Enneagram material does the book an injustice.

[Miss Padfoot]

I tend to prefer the MBTI to the Enneagram. Can you tell me, is there anything I can learn from the Enneagram that I can't learn from the MBTI? The MBTI has a very good track record with me so far. Nearly everything INTP descriptions have said has been accurate. The Enneagram, on the other hand... I'm not so sure.

[NGene]

Online Enneagram material does the book an injustice.
I certainly believe that. After I had borrowed the only Enneagram book my library had, I could be certain as to what my type was, and I was really amazed by the accuracy of the type Five description. The book was an introductory one, and probably wasn't anywhere near as comprehensive as Riso and Hudson's book, but still had a lot better type descriptions than any online sources I've seen.

I've got very mixed feelings about the Enneagram. It doesn't seem very scientific, it's got its roots in mythology and religion, and many aspects of it seem rather arbitrary,

However, it seems really accurate. Generally the Five description fits me really well (although there are things that certainly don't fit) and contains some traits even the MBTI hadn't explained, and I can clearly agree with my integration and disintegration points (8 and 7). Generally it describes me well, so it seems accurate in my case, but I'm still wondering that maybe all this apparent accuracy is just the Forer effect.

[CosmicDust]

I think that the patterns in personality can be classified in any which way and still make some sense, or at least appear to do so. We can always find at least some aspect of ourselves and something that sounds like someone we know in one of the descriptions from any type system. So I don't think there's anything "special" about any particular type system.

[antireconciler]

I'm not really in a position to defend Enneagram Theory right now because I can't quite make myself fit in it right now. For a long time I used it as a rough map of my inner world when I got lost believing I was a Five, and it would set me straight and allow me to see where I had gone wrong. Of course, that sounds very Nine-like, rather than Five-like, and many things Nine I can relate too. There are also many things Nine I definatly cannot relate too, and some things Five I definatly can't relate too either after I thought about it. That applies to just about every type, for that matter. Minor twists or insights allow every type description in that book to be useful in some way. So, it's very easy to see myself in its descriptions in the way that we are all human and all follow human nature and all have very similar desires, and, in the end, very similar ways of getting what we want, while being very difficult, as NGene says, to find yourself specifically. As with MTBI, we must not confuse the finger pointing at the moon with the moon itself. Any personality type system is limited, having several types, needing over six billion ... while also needing only one simultaneously.

In the end, it's a book of wisdom and human nature rather than a series of complex personality analysis systems, just like MTBI.

Enneagram Theory does have very old roots. The authors talk about needing take what worked and chop out a lot of superstition.

Like CosmicDust says, I think fundementally MTBI and Enneagram aren't much different. The book itself has several chapters were it shows how Enneagram integrates with just about every other psychoanalytic tool ever devised.

[Birnam]

since any worthwhile personality system is based on reality, they're bound to hit the same notes every once in a while.

I've not read any Enneagram books, just off the internet- I'll have to grab a book next time I'm at the library..

[paladinoflunaria]

I shall have to read a book on the Enneagram typology. I'm interested and from what I've researched it is logical. I tend to sway toward MBTI, but I think Enneagram is valid.

[KentOhio]

Is this the book where they have a list of sentences you're likely to hear each type say, and a list of things you're likely to never hear a type say? I liked that list, wherever it was.

[Division56]

I want to see that list! It sounds like jolly good fun.

One of you should find it, for the good of the forum!

[Slider]

Is this the book where they have a list of sentences you're likely to hear each type say, and a list of things you're likely to never hear a type say? I liked that list, wherever it was.

just more stereotypical bullshit.


riso is a stiff.

[INTrPosr]

I find Riso/Hudson's "Wisdom of the Enneagram" quite revealing, which poses a question about type 5s. The book discerns a difference in 5w4 and 5w6, as a difference in art (5w4) and science (5w6).

Along those lines, Kelly's Ptypes shows a correlation of INTPs being 5w6 and INTJs being 5w6. I personally believe that INTJs are more scientific than myself. In fact, contrary to the descriptions of INTP, I consider myself to have more a practical artistic nature. Does anyone else consider themselves more scientific than artistic, or vise versa?

[synchronous]

This is my first post on intpcentral, and I thought this would be a good place to start. Mind you, this thread has gone a bit cold! lol. Anyhow, I'm no psych expert, in fact I spend my days in an entomology lab identifying insects. But, I've studied the enneagram for many years. I've just been introduced to MBTI over the last several months. I've taken various online tests and consistently turned up as 5w6, INTP, although, after reading the Type 5 distinctions, I'm more fundamentally 5w4 than 5w6. I suppose my recent results reflect my maturity, balancing out my wings.

Personality Types by Riso and Hudson is an excellent book. I've consumed it over the last two weeks, although, a bit much to digest all at once. One problem I see in trying to ID yourself as one type or another, is that some types can resemble other types at different levels of development. This can get confusing. Riso and Hudson have also put out another book called 'Understanding the Enneagram'. A good portion of this book is dedicated to Misidentification. If you are wondering whether you are a 9 or a 5, this book helps flesh out the differences. As well, the book contains "the list" or questionnaire to help you assess which type you are. It was where I had one of my 'aha' moments and the past came rushing back. Let's say it helped me identify my wing... :)

As for whether the Enneagram is better than the MBTI - I'd say neither one is better than the other. They both compliment each other. Just a theory, but, I view it under the nature/nurture concept - you are pre-wired at birth to be a certain MBTI type, and the Enneagram basically explains how you relate to the world and people based on how you opted to deal with accumulated childhood experiences and parental influences. Combining the two systems, say, if you are a 9W1 INTP, the contemplative and intuitive aspects of Type 9 would resonate more strongly in you as opposed to other type 9 aspects. This would help explain why a 9 might see themselves as a 5, or resonate strongly with some aspects of 5.

The books by Riso and Hudson are excellent reads. I recommend them. Anyhow, just some observations...

[Slider]

I find Riso/Hudson's "Wisdom of the Enneagram" quite revealing, which poses a question about type 5s. The book discerns a difference in 5w4 and 5w6, as a difference in art (5w4) and science (5w6).

see, this is an example of a stereotype. mbti doesn't correlate so strictly anyway. there are much more intp 5s than intj 5s.

[Poison Okra]

Isn't that a stereotype?

Nice avatar, Synchronous

[Slider]

no, it's not a stereotype. if you knew more about the enneagram you might know that.

[synchronous]

Nice avatar, Synchronous

Thanks.

[Poison Okra]

Fair enough, but there's no need to get angry about it.

[Slider]

lol, I'm not angry . . .

[Poison Okra]

Perhaps, but I perceived a biting persnicketiness in there! :D

[synchronous]

The issues of stereotypes and type correlations has me wanting to babble a bit. One of the things I don't like about the books by Riso and Hudson is that there seems to be a bit too much preoccupation with trying to make the Enneagram correlate with MBTI type psychology and/or disorders. In doing so, I think some of the essence of the Enneagram gets lost in the translation.

The very first book I read on the Enneagram was one from Richard Rohr and and Ebert Andreas called, 'Discovering the Enneagram: An Ancient Tool for a New Spiritual Journey'. This book does a great job at explaining the Enneagram types, but, you have to suspend your cynicism about religion. When I read the Type 5 description - The Need to Perceive, I had little doubt I was a 5. It seemed clear as day. The more I read up on type 5 from other sources, especially sources where there was an attempt to link it with modern day psychology, the more I got confused and doubtful.

One problem in many Enneagram sources is the attempt to describe a type using and linking loaded terms like "Intelligent, Brilliant, Science", essentially stereotyping with the result of confusing readers and sending them off on another path. You get the sense sometimes that if you are not brillliant or an intellectual academic, you are not a 5. Riso and Hudson touch on this problem in their description of the 5W4 subtype in Personality types. Unfortunately, their analysis of 5 has only reinforces the Type 5 academic/scientific stereotype. I think what's important to grasp about the Type 5 is the process extroverted intuition/introverted thinking. You could be a 5 working at Starbucks, zoned out, thinking about some issue you discussed last night over the internet with some buds.

Anyhow, if you get a chance I recommend reading Richard Rohr's Type 5 description. I re-read the description last night, and ironcially, I discovered it also reads like an INTP description too. I'd say Rohr's description does a good job correlating the two whether it was intended or not.

[CosmicDust]

In the Mistyping chapter of "Understanding the Enneagram," R&H explain that academia is actually dominated by 6's rather than 5's (probably 6w5's mostly, but I could see intuitive 7-wingers getting into it too; there are even some 7's in academia).

I fit the 5 stereotype of being academic/scientific, but then, I'm almost a 6.

[Arioch]

I've looked into the enneagram and I always came away with a feeling of "this does not logically compute. It is unscientific and to inaccurate."

I frown upon it

[synchronous]

In the Mistyping chapter of "Understanding the Enneagram," R&H explain that academia is actually dominated by 6's rather than 5's (probably 6w5's mostly, but I could see intuitive 7-wingers getting into it too; there are even some 7's in academia).

I fit the 5 stereotype of being academic/scientific, but then, I'm almost a 6.

My SO is a 6w7. When he was young, his father insisted he get a degree in science. My So wanted to be a DJ, but, he followed his Dad's advice and obtain a Master's in Biochemistry, graduated with top honours, and researched leukemia and anti-aging. He's still involved in the sciences. I guess my point is that there are probably alot of non-5's in academia for different reasons. One of the 6ish qualities I admire in my SO that makes him so good in science, is his thoroughness and attention to detail, double check for accuracy. I suppose these qualities are second nature, and probably fueled by a need to eliminate uncertainty. A 5's need to perceive combined with the 6wing's need to eliminate uncertainty via thorough analysis makes science and this sub-type an excellent match. As a 5w4, I have that need to perceive, and love to analyse complex systems to understand thruths, but, don't have that need/desire to follow through with careful analysis to eliminate doubt.

I've read R&H's comments on 6, and I do agree. I still think R&H do the 5's a little disfavor by reinforcing the 5w6's science/academia stereotype that's often held up as the totem for 5s. Had I not taken a second stab at the detailed analysis, including reading the description of the sub-type 5w4 (which I passed up the first time around), I would have missed typing myself based on what I read in the book. In contrast, I read Richard Rohr's description and could relate almost word for word. There is less focus on brilliance, intelligence and science (these qualities most often the domain of other types as well); also, less emphasis on 5w6ish qualities. It seems like a more balanced analysis of type. IMO.

[CosmicDust]

Academia seems to be largely the realm of the Head types. 7's, I think, just love the game sometimes. If they're info gluttons, they might enjoy an academic career. I TAed for a prof whom I think is a 7 - he's almost hypomanic in his ability to stay on the ball on a tremendously busy schedule, and comes off enthusiastic and childlike when he teaches. 7w6's can make great scientists, such as Richard Feynman (and this prof I TFed for, who's rather well-known). 6's may enjoy being part of the institution and working for greater causes by making discoveries, like your main squeeze does. And 5's can get direct access to ideas they can play with.

I do analyze and double-check a lot, but for me analysis is often exploratory, trying to refine my perception of the trees in the forest by zooming in on the leaves and studying their structure, metaphorically speaking. (I have actually stared at leaves and other objects, such as minerals/gemstones, just to see what their structure is like, what I could see in them.) I like to analyze for fun, but I can do the troubleshooting thing as well, and may deal with my problems via analysis. When it's not for fun, I can find it dull or frustrating. There are probably 6's that can relate to all this too, though.

[Miss Padfoot]

In the Mistyping chapter of "Understanding the Enneagram," R&H explain that academia is actually dominated by 6's rather than 5's (probably 6w5's mostly, but I could see intuitive 7-wingers getting into it too; there are even some 7's in academia).

I fit the 5 stereotype of being academic/scientific, but then, I'm almost a 6.I disagree with Riso on this one. I think 5s are more academic as 6s. I think 6s would be too distracted by the "authority issues" of academia and the alternation between phobia and counterphobia, to be able to concentrate on the real intellectual meat of research and thinking. But then, I'm not a 6. Can you explain whether you think it is your 5 or your 6 side that gives you your academic bent?

(I would expect to see quite a few 4s - mostly 4w5s - in academia as well, mostly in the subjects to which feelings are relevant.)

[Slider]

most 6s like academia for precisely the 'authority issue' and because they feel safe in a large organization. that being said, i hate college. actually, i've never really liked any school.

and the book said the field was dominated by 6s, which is different from saying 6s are more academic than 5s. there are loads more 6s than 5s . . .

[synchronous]

most 6s like academia for precisely the 'authority issue' and because they feel safe in a large organization. that being said, i hate college. actually, i've never really liked any school.

Yes, I think that's part of it, although, if the 6 is counterphobic, he/she will have an issue with authority, and quite likely rebel and reject the nice, large, safe organization. I've seen my SO display this behaviour in spades.

I like the learning aspects of school, but, I don't care for the structure - all the rules and regulations. I dread having to take the requisites. I would prefer to move on to the 'main course'. Anything where the words "should" is employed, irritates me. My interest usually turns to the electives, and often have me wanting to follow another academic path. As well, I've always had problems limiting myself to one or two fields of interest. I have a tendency to want to keep my options open for other possibilities. My ideal would be to pick and choose all the subjects I would like to learn about. Totally impractical in the real world of course...

[CosmicDust]

I don't know which side of me makes me more academic. The 5 side probably contributed to my interest in the natural sciences for non-practical purposes. Astronomy involves discovering basically for its own sake, and there are so many cool systems I can use as metaphors for Earthly things. The phobic 6 side is probably what gets me through school - worrying about my progress from time to time, kicking myself in the butt to try to get myself going.

I'd expect rather few 4w5's in academia because (a) there are very few 4w5's and (b) academia may involve too much 6ish stuff that would turn them off. They might be able to deal by not going to all those little coffees and lunches and other department events they tend to have. I would go to some of those before, but my participation in student life these days is quite minimal. I just don't find them that interesting. I like the discussion boards better. Also, I tend to work on my own time and don't want to have to remember all those things and schedule around them.

I think some counterphobic and switching 6's actually like to have someone/something to complain about and rail against. They seem to need an enemy.

[Slider]

I don't really care for the rules, especially the ones about class attendance and participation. i'm shy and i'd really rather just do stuff by myself, its easier and will most likely be better than if I had to involve another's opinion. always had trouble deciding wot to study too, mostly cos i have no idea wot I wanna do. settled on english after being a history, international studies, journalism, anthropology and sports management major. in my senior yr and just now 'found' my minor: anthropology. . . . geez, cosmic I can't believe you even went to a few of those things - wot did you do there? anyway, when it comes to school i'm a major fuckup, avoiding and procrastinating all the time, barely scraping by . . .

[CosmicDust]

I typically went to these things mainly to eat. I would also talk some. Oftentimes, though, I would just wander around bored and aimless, sometimes thinking to pass the time. I still go to the free pizza lunches with the colloquium speaker if I remember to do so, and sometimes I even go to the colloquia themselves (though I tend to get bored and/or sleepy during the hour-long presentations; occasionally the subject matter is very interesting to me, like some cool extragalactic thing, but even then I've dozed off during the duller parts). These days, I often forget to go to either, and don't mind skipping them 'cause they tend not to be exciting.

[synchronous]

I think some counterphobic and switching 6's actually like to have someone/something to complain about and rail against. They seem to need an enemy.

You've hit the nail on the head there. I've often sat there scratchin' my head wondering why my beau goes right into the "Lion's Den", and has the audacity to poke the Lion in the eye to provoke it! Then he complains about his plight. Sheesh. lol.

[synchronous]

I don't really care for the rules, especially the ones about class attendance and participation. i'm shy and i'd really rather just do stuff by myself, its easier and will most likely be better than if I had to involve another's opinion. always had trouble deciding wot to study too, mostly cos i have no idea wot I wanna do. settled on english after being a history, international studies, journalism, anthropology and sports management major. in my senior yr and just now 'found' my minor: anthropology. . . . geez, cosmic I can't believe you even went to a few of those things - wot did you do there? anyway, when it comes to school i'm a major fuckup, avoiding and procrastinating all the time, barely scraping by . . .

I hear you on that. I have a checkerboard educational background ranging from computer science to bioengineering technology to forestry. I have a checkerboard employment history to match. One of the reasons I find myself here at intpcentral is to understand why I do this. From what I understand, this is 'normal' for many INTPs. I've always wondered why I could not adapt to the SJ world. All I thought I wanted/needed was a husband, a steady job, a house with a white picket fence, 2.2 kids and a dog. I followed that path reluctantly and it almost killed me! lol. My life is nowhere near that ideal picture at the moment. I've come to accept that I will always follow a lifepath outside mainstream and that's ok. I also understand though that I do have to be chameleon like and adopt a more SJ attitude to pay my bills so I can enjoy more exploring. Despite your feelings about academia, I hope you stick to completing your studies. It will at least give you a springboard to move on to other things you enjoy.

[Slider]

the only extra-curricular thing i've done at school was go to jazz night a couple times at an on-campus restuarant. i don't even know if that qualifies . . .

i'm not going to quit now, i'm almost through. probably the only reason i'm here is cos a BA gives me more options, and since i dunno fer sure wot I wanna do, and I often get bored with wot I decide to do, i like options. i could end up getting my private pilots license and not even using the BA, who knows? certainly not me. . .

yeah, my life will deffo be "weird" and probably even "a waste" according to the sj society but wotever.

[INTrPosr]

I find Riso/Hudson's "Wisdom of the Enneagram" quite revealing, which poses a question about type 5s. The book discerns a difference in 5w4 and 5w6, as a difference in art (5w4) and science (5w6).

see, this is an example of a stereotype. mbti doesn't correlate so strictly anyway. there are much more intp 5s than intj 5s.

Okay, since this was my quote I guess I need to respond. :rant: How is the statement anymore stereotypical than being labeled an absent minded professor, being mathematically inclined having a rumpled look, being unfeeling and naieve in social settings...... Should I go on? :cheers: