My thoughts on the Enneagram.

[JollyBard]

A person's personality is too complex to be a simple point on a hue, and "healthy" and "unhealthy" are subjective terms.

It's all esoteric pseudo-science bullshit.

Discuss.

[Void]

Depends how specific the match is supposed to be e.g. saying someone has a 'red' personality, which may be true yet there are all sorts of shades of 'red'.

[JollyBard]

There are too many factors for just one color, however specific it is.

[YHWH]

And these thoughts don't encompass mbti?

[JollyBard]

The MBTI has four different scales, which is much, much more precise.
You can't change the tone of a color in a hue.

And have you read about the origins of the enneagram? It's just esoteric babble.

[Lethal Sage]

Enneagram = 9x3 = 27
MBTI = 1x16 = 16

It depends on how you see it. Do you count the wings? Do you count XXXX's?

I find they serve different purposes. They're merely arbitrary ways to describe a personality.

[dissonance]

I find enneagram much more arbitrary and silly than MBTI. MBTI gets 16 types by dividing cognition by two four times. Enneagram gets 9 types by...what...not being able to think of another one?

There's no reason enneagram types would cover all personality bases.

Anyway, Magic P over at typeC and I came up with an alternate system that uses two three-option variables (3*3 = 9) to redefine the types. If anyone cares, here it is (http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/enneagram/8520-new-improved-enneagram-sponge-evan.html). At least it makes sense.

[ciphersort]

I find enneagram much more arbitrary and silly than MBTI. MBTI gets 16 types by dividing cognition by two four times. Enneagram gets 9 types by...what...not being able to think of another one?


Don't forget the power of..

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_jr1nCNVlAIA/Sp1gNEB3B-I/AAAAAAAAALs/Tngk-wdu73c/s320/510EAAKEN9L__SS500_.jpg

wings?

[Winterpark]

The MBTI has four different scales, which is much, much more precise.

Socionics has much more elements, like quadras, intertype relations, and reinin dichotomies; which is much, much more precise than both.

[jyng1]

Socionics has much more elements, like quadras, intertype relations, and reinin dichotomies; which is much, much more precise than both.

There's probably not much point in being more precise with a self report system where the error is likely to be significant with the candidates responses to whatever multi guess questions are involved.

Hogan (http://www.hoganassessments.com/) seem to be used widely in recruitment and claim they're quite accurate in predicting performance.

I did a Hogan assessment for my last job interview and thought it was quite easy to come across as emotionally stable, conscientious, goal driven and sociable. So... completely accurate. My only other experience with psychometric testing was for an Army position where we had a half day of assessments, including an interview with a psychologist. I have a copy of this report and it's not as in depth as a detailed intp profile, but I guess it focuses on what behaviours they can confidently predict.

[fduniho]

I find enneagram much more arbitrary and silly than MBTI. MBTI gets 16 types by dividing cognition by two four times. Enneagram gets 9 types by...what...not being able to think of another one?

There's no reason enneagram types would cover all personality bases.

Anyway, Magic P over at typeC and I came up with an alternate system that uses two three-option variables (3*3 = 9) to redefine the types. If anyone cares, here it is (http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/enneagram/8520-new-improved-enneagram-sponge-evan.html). At least it makes sense.

That's not an alternate system to the Enneagram. You and Magic P identified two of the triads mentioned by Riso and Hudson in The Wisdom of the Enneagram (http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Enneagram-Psychological-Spiritual-Personality/dp/0553378201/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top). One of the triads was first identified by Karen Horney. Riso and Hudson use the terms withdrawing (4,5,9), dependent (1,2,6) and assertive (3,7,8). The other is what Riso and Hudson call the harmonic triad. They use the terms competence (1,3,5), reactive, (4,6,8), and positive outlook (7,9,2). Both of these triads have been part of my Triadic Enneagram Test, currently offline, but soon to be back up.

These two triads have recently been factoring into thoughts on how the Enneagram relates to the Four Temperaments. Eysenck identified the Four Temperaments as reflecting two pairs of preferences. He understood Sanguines and Cholerics to be extraverted, Phlegmatics and Melancholics to be introverted. He also understood Sanguines and Phlegmatics to be emotionally stable, and Cholerics and Melancholics less emotionally stable (i.e. more neurotic). Eysenck understood introversion as sensitivity to stimulation, and extraversion as insensitivity to stimulation. So extraverts, feeling understimulated, would seek out activities and situations that stimulated them more, while introverts, feeling overstimulted, would prefer more peace and quiet. This seems to fit the Hornevian triad, with withdrawers being extreme introverts, assertives being extreme extraverts, and dependents falling in between. The stability-neuroticism scale seems to fit the harmonic triad, the reactives being the most neurotic, the positive outlooks being the most stable, and the competence ones falling in between.

With this in mind, 7's are the most sanguine, 8's the most choleric, 9's the most phlegmatic, and 4's the most melancholy. If you think about these four types and the four temperaments, this makes sense. Furthermore, 5's fall midway between Phlegmatic and Melancholy, 3's fall midway between Sanguine and Choleric, 2's fall midway between Sanguine and Phlegmatic, 6's fall midway between Choleric and Melancholic, and 1's are in the middle. Again, I think this all makes sense, but I need to eat breakfast before I elaborate further.

[dissonance]

Why should 4 and 9 work together? Sounds like 2 systems that have been confirmation biased into seeming related.

But yes, we did not make up the two variables. We just had the idea that types should be defined by those variables, making the system just as descriptively valid as MBTI (although with a different scope in the realm of psychology).

Maybe a new interpretation is a more accurate way to put it than a new system.

Also, I should mention that MP deserves more credit than I.

[fduniho]

Why should 4 and 9 work together? Sounds like 2 systems that have been confirmation biased into seeming related.

The extraversion/introversion and stability/neuroticism scales are continuums, not binary on/off states. These can be divided into three parts: two extremes and a middle ground. This gives 3x3, which equals 9. Mathematically, what 4 and 9 have common is that they are squares of integers. 4 is 2 squared, and 9 is 3 squared. If you can get 4 types with two pairs of opposing preferences, you can also divide each pair into 3 groups and get 9 types.

[fduniho]

Besides writing his Left Behind series, Tim LaHaye has written some books on temperament. In his book Spirit-Controlled Temperament (http://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Controlled-Temperament-Tim-LaHaye/dp/0842362207/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283876455&sr=8-1), he describes not only the four main temperaments but also 12 temperament blends. He gets 12 by assuming that one temperament is predominant and another is secondary. He is not looking at temperament through Eysenck's theory, as I am, but since our theories both involve temperament blends, it will be worth checking to see how his temperament blend descriptions compare to my predictions about temperament and Enneagram type.

For the SanChlor, he says "The happy charisma of the Sanguine makes this person a people-oriented enthusiastic sales type. But the Choleric nature will provide the resolution and character traits necessary to fashion a person more organized and productive than the pure Sanguine." (43) I predicted that the Three would be a mix of Sanguine and Choleric, and this description sounds a lot like a Three.

Of the ChlorSan, LaHaye says, "They are the best at motivating others and thrive on a challenge." (45) The Enneagram Three has been noted for both its motivational abilities and its competitiveness.

Of the SanPhleg, LaHaye says, "Helping people is their regular business, along with various forms of sales." (44) My theory predicts that the Enneagram Two is a mix of Sanguine and Phlegmatic, and this type is particularly noted for how helpful and giving it is.

Of the ChlorMel, LayHaye says, "They love an argument, even arguing against their own position just to argue." Enneagram type Six has been called The Devil's Advocate.

Of the MelPhleg, LaHaye says, "The greatest scholars the world has ever known have been MelPhegs." (54) The same thing can be said about Enneagram Fives, which my theory predicts are a mix of Phlegmatic and Melancholy. He adds, "These gifted introverts combine the analytical perfectionism of the Melancholy with the organized efficiency of the Phlegmatic. They are usually good-natured humanitarians who blossom in a quiet solitary environment for study and research." (54-5) Sounds a lot like a Five.

Of the PhlegMel, LaHaye says, "Most PhlegMels have an obsession against involvement. They are so afraid of overextending themselves or getting overinvolved that they automatically refuse almost any kind of affiliation." (60-61) This brings to mind the Five's detachment and the scarcity-mindedness behind the avarice of the Five.

Since my theory places the One in the middle, let's look at the Sanguine-Melancholic and Phlegmatic-Choleric blends for type One characteristics. LaHaye says, "SanMels reflect an uninhibited perfectionism that often alienates them because they verbalize their criticisms." (43) Type One is particularly known for its perfectionism. Of the ChlorPhleg, LaHaye says, " Although not as quick-tempered as some temperaments, they are known to harbor resentment and bitterness." (50) This speaks to the emotional self-control and repressed anger of type One. He adds, "No one can be more bullheadedly stubborn than ChlorPhlegs. Repentance or the acknowledgment of a mistake is not easy for them." (50) This speaks to the moral perfectionism of some type Ones. Of PhlegChlors, he says, "They are not fighters or crusaders by nature but often let their inner anger and stubbornness reflect itself in silence." (59) Although this goes against the idea of Ones being reformers, Ones are known for repressing anger without verbalizing it.

Based on LaHaye's description of various temperament blends, it looks like my theory of the relationship between the Enneagram and the Four Temperaments is on the right track. There were a few blends whose descriptions didn't include anything that struck me as a clear match, but for each Enneagram type for which my theory identifies the type as a mix of temperaments, I found something in LayHaye's temperament blend descriptions that matched the Enneagram type.

[dissonance]

The extraversion/introversion and stability/neuroticism scales are continuums, not binary on/off states. These can be divided into three parts: two extremes and a middle ground. This gives 3x3, which equals 9. Mathematically, what 4 and 9 have common is that they are squares of integers. 4 is 2 squared, and 9 is 3 squared. If you can get 4 types with two pairs of opposing preferences, you can also divide each pair into 3 groups and get 9 types.

Ah, makes sense.

Too lazy to read the rest, as I know my system works regardless of what you said. It's either compatible with what we created or not and I disagree.

[Eric B]

My take on the Enneagram's relation to type and temperament is here http://www.erictb.info/temperament3.html#enneagram

Though I have kind of backd off of it a bit. I would definitely agree with you on 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9, and the notion of some of them being inbetween temperaments.
I had 5 as Melancholy, 1 as between Melancholy and Choleric, 6 as a fifth temperament called Supine, which is introverted and agreeable (I use agreeableness instead of neuroticism, as I mention in your other thread) while the Phlegmatic 9 is in the middle and 4 then is between Melancholy and Supine (not as directive as the Melancholy, but not as agreeable as the Supine).

I also proposed that the Instinctual Variants could be different types, and basically, "Social" would end up as the Interaction Style, and "Self preservation" would correspond to Keirsey's groups. But no one in Enneagram theory stacks different variants like that.

LaHaye's system also neatly maps onto type through the Keirsey temperaments and Interaction Styles as I point out on the other thread.

[fduniho]

I had 5 as Melancholy

Speaking as a 5, I have normally identified my temperament as phlegmatic when picking just one of the four temperaments. I do have a melancholic aspect to my temperament, but I would never describe it as the purest representation of melancholy. It is much too phlegmatic to be that. But I can see that a 9 would normally be even more phlegmatic than I am, given that laziness is a phlegmatic trait, and sloth is the main vice of type 9.

[echoes]

I find enneagram much more arbitrary and silly than MBTI. MBTI gets 16 types by dividing cognition by two four times. Enneagram gets 9 types by...what...not being able to think of another one?

There's no reason enneagram types would cover all personality bases.

Anyway, Magic P over at typeC and I came up with an alternate system that uses two three-option variables (3*3 = 9) to redefine the types. If anyone cares, here it is (http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/enneagram/8520-new-improved-enneagram-sponge-evan.html). At least it makes sense.

and you know those divisions of cognition are true...how? MBTI gets 4 dichotomies by what ...not being able to think of another one?

[Eric B]

Speaking as a 5, I have normally identified my temperament as phlegmatic when picking just one of the four temperaments. I do have a melancholic aspect to my temperament, but I would never describe it as the purest representation of melancholy. It is much too phlegmatic to be that. But I can see that a 9 would normally be even more phlegmatic than I am, given that laziness is a phlegmatic trait, and sloth is the main vice of type 9. Yeah; one of the reasons, and likely the biggest reason why I have not been pushing my grand unified Enneagram-Type-Temperament correlation is because I realize that a lot of INTP's come out as 5 (myself in part). An INTP's Phlegmatic would be the Interaction Style (INP).
Many do come out as Melancholy when they take cheap "traits list" tests.

What I think it might be is what I call the "social image" part of the temperament combination: the IT. This is sort of Melancholy, as Melancholy is defined as introverted and task-focused. I is of course introvert, and the T tends to task focus.
However, the T is not apart of the Interaction Style, but rather the temperament (NT). NT is structure focused, which is another form of task focus. So INTP's have both introversion and a level of task focus, which makes them on the surface have something in common with the other IT's, who genuinely are Melancholic in Interaction (IST/INJ). Hence, "social image".

Now, since the Enneagram does not distinguish between Interaction and Conation (i.e. Keirsey's temperaments), then INTP's will come out as the Melancholic 5's.
If they would stack different types in the instinctual variants, with SO (and/or perhaps SX) as Interaction Style, and SP as Conative, then, you would probably see a lot of INTP's broken down as 4, 6 or 9 (the Phlegmatic or Supine types) SO/(SX), and 1, 3 or 8 (the Choleric types) SP.
You could say 5 is the "average" of these types bended together

[dissonance]

and you know those divisions of cognition are true...how? MBTI gets 4 dichotomies by what ...not being able to think of another one?

"True" is a weird label to use in this context.

I know the divisions of cognition add to all of cognition. That's all. If you divide something into pieces, the pieces added together equal the thing you divided.

Same with MBTI.

Whether or not the divisions are descriptively useful is all that matters.