Enneagram / random notes on nature vs. nurture

[lbloom]

I was looking at Wikipedia's Enneagram 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_(Enneagram)) description, and I found this:

"Investigators often have histories of grossly inadequate, cold, or neglectful early parenting. These traumatic experiences may have created an expectation that relationships would not be gratifying, precipitating a subsequent defensive withdrawal from others (Gunderson & Philips, pg. 1445)."

Does that ring true for you 5-types? It doesn't seem to work for me at all.

Link 1 (http://www.enneagramcentral.com/study/een_e11.htm)

"He quotes a recent article in a medical journal that discovered that babies are born with nine (nine!) different attention styles. From birth they pay attention in different ways to different things. With no major adjustments or explanations you can overlay those nine ways of paying attention on the nine enneagram styles. The doctors doing the research had no knowledge of the enneagram. It is a remarkable, objective correlation of the enneagram map as we know it. It appears that we are born with our enneagram focus of attention."

An interesting Link 2 (http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/articles/NArtTina.asp), from an article on brain chemistry. Read on:

"We are quite cognizant of the debate on the relative contributions of nature versus nurture towards the development of personality. We have become convinced that nature determines type, but nurture determines health within the type, and interestingly also determines variant (Social, Sexual, and Self-preservation). We have formed a theory on the environmental basis of variant, and are developing a testing instrument to test our hypothesis.

Our theory is that variant is determined in the first 18-24 months, and relates to the organization of the family unit and its health. Specifically we believe that social variant types were raised in households with multiple "care-givers" such as is seen in multigenerational home settings more common in the past, and split care families common these days where a child may be raised in multiple homes with multiple "Moms, and Dads" due to divorce and economic influences.

Sexual variant people, we believe, are products of either "Traditional" homes with Mom, Dad, and 1.5 kids, or in single parent households with strong generally healthy ties with the "primary care-giver".

Finally, self-preservation variant types are, we believe, those who for whatever reason, death, illness, disruption, or sibling displacement had a problem with their relationship with their "Primary care-giver(s)" during the critical (18-24 month) period of development of their variant."

Post any good material or comments.

[Ka.avik]

I was looking at Wikipedia's Enneagram 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_%28Enneagram%29) description, and I found this:

"Investigators often have histories of grossly inadequate, cold, or neglectful early parenting. These traumatic experiences may have created an expectation that relationships would not be gratifying, precipitating a subsequent defensive withdrawal from others (Gunderson & Philips, pg. 1445)."

Does that ring true for you 5-types? It doesn't seem to work for me at all.


I don't get along with my dad as well as some, though I can't say I thought he was "grossly inadequate" -- as to my mom's health, yes she died when I was fifteen, but she was still healthy to most visible accounts, until I was probably nearly 10. No; scratch that, maybe not -- but I didn't "understand" that she was dying of a genetic defect I had inherited, until about that age.

I said I didn't get along with my dad, but I should I suppose, for the sake of accuracy, point out that I have never "connected" with my dad (he's an NF of some sort) with any success at those ages. Certainly, he was never my "hero"

The book on the enneagram, I think its titled "personality types (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780395798676&itm=7)" (and its cover is ORANGE!) has a few paragraphs (http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/TypeFiveOverview.asp) on "parental orientation of the Five" that hit pretty close to home, yeah. Though it's more noticable now -- every job I've been in, I'm wanting to know how I can be useful, and always think -- "why do they want me here? Any warm body could do this job."

Not sure about the rest of your post. Mostly because I haven't read it yet

first post!!

[Jennywocky]

"Investigators often have histories of grossly inadequate, cold, or neglectful early parenting. These traumatic experiences may have created an expectation that relationships would not be gratifying, precipitating a subsequent defensive withdrawal from others (Gunderson & Philips, pg. 1445)." Does that ring true for you 5-types? It doesn't seem to work for me at all.

My father was an alcoholic, so he was emotionally absent most of the time (or inadvertently denied me a voice when he WAS there). So I know I withdrew / was kept isolated from him. It just wasn't worth the effort trying to relate.

My mother was so attached to being a mom (since the wife thing was so painful) that she overcompensated and became smothering. So I remember pulling back from her just to get my space.

But in many ways, my parents were not neglectful. I had clothes, food, shelter, was kept healthy. I knew how to read before entering school, partly due to their initiative in educating me and providing me opportunities. In many "impersonal" ways, they were very good parents. I know that they both felt as if they loved me, even if their behavior didn't match up. It was just the relational aspects that were negative and from which I withdrew.

But I guess that's what we're talking about, huh?


"He quotes a recent article in a medical journal that discovered that babies are born with nine (nine!) different attention styles.

While admittedly I have not seen this study, these sorts of claims always sound like crap to me -- more like a personal overlay meant to justify the theory, rather than actually looking at what fits best. And the quote is so general as to be useless.

(Note: Not busting on you, busting on the original writer of that article.)


Our theory is that variant is determined in the first 18-24 months, and relates to the organization of the family unit and its health. Specifically we believe that social variant types were raised in households with multiple "care-givers" such as is seen in multigenerational home settings more common in the past, and split care families common these days where a child may be raised in multiple homes with multiple "Moms, and Dads" due to divorce and economic influences.

Sexual variant people, we believe, are products of either "Traditional" homes with Mom, Dad, and 1.5 kids, or in single parent households with strong generally healthy ties with the "primary care-giver".

Finally, self-preservation variant types are, we believe, those who for whatever reason, death, illness, disruption, or sibling displacement had a problem with their relationship with their "Primary care-giver(s)" during the critical (18-24 month) period of development of their variant."

I have nothing concrete to say about this, because people generally don't "save memories" until maybe 4-5 years of age. My only knowledge of my mother's caregiving is interpolated off what I experienced later in childhood -- the stuff I can actually remember, and knowledge of how she thinks and behaves, and the probable context.

I think the theories here are a little too "pat," however. I'll think about them some more.

[lbloom]

While admittedly I have not seen this study, these sorts of claims always sound like crap to me -- more like a personal overlay meant to justify the theory, rather than actually looking at what fits best. And the quote is so general as to be useless.

I agree.

[bergenski]

Given the overall description of Fives operating from a fear-based platform, it wouldn't seem unreasonable that many of them would have problematic childhoods. On the nature/nurture ideas, I agree that people often try to mold data to fit preconceived structures. This variant idea in the first 18-24 months sounds something like hooey, but that's my speculation.

[INTrePid]

I was looking at Wikipedia's Enneagram 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_(Enneagram)) description, and I found this:

"Investigators often have histories of grossly inadequate, cold, or neglectful early parenting. These traumatic experiences may have created an expectation that relationships would not be gratifying, precipitating a subsequent defensive withdrawal from others (Gunderson & Philips, pg. 1445)."

Does that ring true for you 5-types? It doesn't seem to work for me at all.
. . .

Sexual variant people, we believe, are products of either "Traditional" homes with Mom, Dad, and 1.5 kids, or in single parent households with strong generally healthy ties with the "primary care-giver".

Finally, self-preservation variant types are, we believe, those who for whatever reason, death, illness, disruption, or sibling displacement had a problem with their relationship with their "Primary care-giver(s)" during the critical (18-24 month) period of development of their variant."

I was born two months premature. Maybe that affected my 18-24 month period? I was in a glass box. >:P I probably cried a lot.

I got along pretty well with my mom until I was a teen. There have been many rough patches ever since. It seems to get worse with age.

[Rhu]

I was born two months premature. Maybe that affected my 18-24 month period? I was in a glass box. >:P I probably cried a lot.

Exactly the same story. I also had some sort of flu when I was born. My mother still brings it up sometimes when she's trying to impress me with her religion--more than seven weeks premature, ill, doctors saying my chances were about the same as a coin flip. My father, in shock, saying that he knew I'd be just fine. "God has a plan for you, Rhu!" she'd say.

I'd laugh, "He's really into making boring plans, I guess."

[C.J.Woolf]

Just once, I'd like to hear someone say, "God's winging it with you!"

[ObtainGnosis]

I think I have the sexual variant and the description of the associated household is congruent with my experience.

However, I also think I have the self-preservational variant. I had a very stable home with respectable, somewhat overly responsible parents. I'm an only child and I became intellectually conscious at a young age and was always rebellious and in trouble. My parents and I disagreed philosophically to say the least and for a long period of my youth I was outright hateful to them, mostly because they isolated me for behavior that didn't really warrant such severe punishment and were antagonistic towards who they thought I was becoming. So despite having the "traditional" family background, I was alienated from my parents and isolated by them, and this, I think, has a lot to do with my self-preservational tendencies.

[Jasz]

I was looking at Wikipedia's Enneagram 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_(Enneagram)) description, and I found this:

"Investigators often have histories of grossly inadequate, cold, or neglectful early parenting. These traumatic experiences may have created an expectation that relationships would not be gratifying, precipitating a subsequent defensive withdrawal from others (Gunderson & Philips, pg. 1445)."

Does that ring true for you 5-types? It doesn't seem to work for me at all.

Link 1 (http://www.enneagramcentral.com/study/een_e11.htm)

"He quotes a recent article in a medical journal that discovered that babies are born with nine (nine!) different attention styles. From birth they pay attention in different ways to different things. With no major adjustments or explanations you can overlay those nine ways of paying attention on the nine enneagram styles. The doctors doing the research had no knowledge of the enneagram. It is a remarkable, objective correlation of the enneagram map as we know it. It appears that we are born with our enneagram focus of attention."

An interesting Link 2 (http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/articles/NArtTina.asp), from an article on brain chemistry. Read on:

"We are quite cognizant of the debate on the relative contributions of nature versus nurture towards the development of personality. We have become convinced that nature determines type, but nurture determines health within the type, and interestingly also determines variant (Social, Sexual, and Self-preservation). We have formed a theory on the environmental basis of variant, and are developing a testing instrument to test our hypothesis.

Our theory is that variant is determined in the first 18-24 months, and relates to the organization of the family unit and its health. Specifically we believe that social variant types were raised in households with multiple "care-givers" such as is seen in multigenerational home settings more common in the past, and split care families common these days where a child may be raised in multiple homes with multiple "Moms, and Dads" due to divorce and economic influences.

Sexual variant people, we believe, are products of either "Traditional" homes with Mom, Dad, and 1.5 kids, or in single parent households with strong generally healthy ties with the "primary care-giver".

Finally, self-preservation variant types are, we believe, those who for whatever reason, death, illness, disruption, or sibling displacement had a problem with their relationship with their "Primary care-giver(s)" during the critical (18-24 month) period of development of their variant."

Post any good material or comments.

i was not aware of the variant theory. as far as my immediate experience goes, it seems to fit.

i wonder how this would work between siblings. how do parental preferences play into this?