Enneagram typing?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm exploring this new Aspie me from my 78th+ years septuagenarian perch. From lean beginnings of long ago and far away my "me" has remained constant (to me); but it gets multiply reported differently!

To know an item it is good to see it from many viewpoints, be it object or reporting subject (or both). So I tried Enneagram typing.

Added to AS/ASD, MBTI INFP & "disabled," I'm now an Enneagram personality type 5:4 or thinker-artist (not artist-thinker) by:

thebestenneagramtest.com

It fits very well and is somewhat comforting. Have any WP world folk used it? And if so how was your fit? Any comments appreciated!

I looked into the enneagram a while back and found it quite useful. Obviously any typing system has it's issues. They are generalisations. But I liked how it spoke about the types interacting.
I'm a 9 wing 1.

I'm a 4 (individualist) and my ASD BFF is a 9 (peacemaker). "At their best, healthy Fours are inspired and highly creative, able to renew themselves and transform their experience." I'm working on that.

Welcome to AS and WP.

Enneagrams are based on numerology, which is a form of divination, which in turn is a vain attempt to determine the true nature of a person, place, or object by examining arbitrary and unrelated things while imagining a supernatural connection between them, and ignorantly conflating the meanings of "Causation" and "Correlation"..

Fnord: I gather (from this and some of your other posts) that you are formally trained in the sciences. Much if those are reductionist, or get pushed into reductionist forms at some stage in their historical evolution-history. For sure it helps in formalizing their "blocks of knowledge and art."

However, such is not the only way to structure and formalize blocks of "being-experiences," a larger structure. My understanding of the Enn. is that it is of very old middle eastern Sufi wisdom and came about in social wisdom observations of human kind without math and numbering in its foundations. Maybe true, maybe not, I don't know.

My personal styles seem to be orthogonal to "just reductionism." They are (seem to be) very heavily "patterns based" observation-intuition complexes (just words, but "my intuitions" words).

Whatever, from rather long, and my not even being aware of "the process," times of observation, patterns suddenly just leap into my awareness and "are." It's been my "style" since my beginning, say mom and grandmom. It then does the same thing of/on my patterns sets to "super-pattern." Rather spooky!!??

I only recently (last ten years or so) have become aware of it to even make/pattern(??) the description of it I give here. I thought all sentients did this and "only this" in their own cognition styles. Was that ever wrong!!

Now I get to be Aspie-styled too. I have learned much in the reductionsts stye, but patterned it all after the fact, it seems. The popular STEM world view is horribly incomplete and confining to my version of "science-ing." I have to have an "A," for art, both fine and craft-trade forms, and an "I," for intuition, to get close to my "ways of beings." Happily, for me it mnemonicly(sp?) bureaucratizes to "ISTEAM."

Pardon my windyness on my issues! I give it to partly "explain(?)" my interest in multiple views of personality types, like the Enneagram and the Meyers-Briggs MBTI. I patrern, whatever, best in such "raw data" multiples. And yes, I feel trapped in "only reduction-isms."

True; but science is not only self-correcting and progressive, it also works.  Enneagrams are not science, but superstition.  The only practical use they have is to provide income for the person who interprets them for people who do not know any better.

Superstition has no place in an empirical society, unless it involves telling ghost stories around a campfire, or making profit off client's gullibility by drawing pictures, flipping cards, and spinning yarns.

(I should know, since I used to earn a livable income telling fortunes for people who were ignorant of science.)

The MBTI, while entertaining, is often used by employers to to hire only those whose personalities allegedly fit what the employer believes to be the 'superior' profile.  You would be amazed at how many evangelical white males fit this profile, regardless of their level of education.

(It is also fair to note that REAL psychologists tend to shy away from the MBTI classification system.)

Astrology is another way of 'typing' people (it is also another great way to make bank).  I remember many times when I have constructed natal astrology charts for people, made up completely random stories about what each symbol means and how they relate to each other, only to have the client express amazement at the accuracy of my interpretation.

(There is a reason why such interpretations are loaded with "Barnum Statements"; I suggest you look it up.)

I took the test but then I realised you have to pay to get the results, so I don't know what my result was.

Truly sad you found out the hard way.  To repeat: Enneagrams provide income for the person who interprets them.

I think I did one of those before and I got 8 or 5. Forgot which one was more dominant. I like MBTI more. Somehow Enneagram feels harder to understand. Reminds me of astrology. Of course if it helps you feel good about yourself or feel like you fit in, that's all good.

I tried to type the link in the OP into the browser and found no site on that adress.

I know Enneagrams, it's just another attempt at systemizing personalities.

I am a scientist at heart --- systems more so? and see these exercises as useful. One can see where oneself "leans" and make adjustments, or not. Like science there is little absolute Truth, mainly relativity and correlations, subject to change. They are not superstition in a general sense -although folks could certainly (ab)use the data that way. I'm looking at my genealogy today and trying to figure out how I have DNA relations on my mother's side that are not related to my mother. I think it's b/c dad comes from the same region and the DNA is combining... or b/c DNA is not static. Facts change. That said, my MBTI and Enneagrams have probably changed less than my DNA. LOL.

Leave off the initial "the".  it leads to a pay-for-results clickbait site.

I am an engineer by training.  Hardware and software I understand; superstition, I do not.  Show me a system, and I will want to know how it works.  Fail to show me how a system works, and I simply will not buy it.

Enneagrams are based on numerology, which is based on superstition, which in turn is utter nonsense.

I am a scientist by training.
What we know about the world are more or less useful simplifications and models.
Some models give right predictions - usually based on repeated experience - despite not understanding the mechanisms. Think of all the sanitary rules in the Old Testament laws.

Enneagrams have numerological smoke and mirrors but in the essence, they're just another attempt at systemizing human temperaments.

Just like astrology, numerology, phrenology, and a host of other off-the-wall systems.

Meh ... whatever turns a profit by making people happy, I guess...

Although there are little-to-no absolute truths even in science, there's still a very distinct separation between science and superstition.

Science is a constant effort at being less wrong.

Superstition is concerned mainly with just getting some things right...and that leaves a lot of room for funny business.

Even if superstition can get some things right, it's just not worth touching at all under any circumstance. Why would you willingly choose to consume tainted information when there's already far more products of proper science than any one person can handle?

Also, the history of science has a LOT of lessons regarding those who are rather more inconsistent and selective in what they choose to believe. Progress has been halted and people hurt many many times by popular ideas or powerful people that take the approach of being more right than less wrong. Alchemy, the ether, the substance called 'cold', the Earth-centric universe, phrenology and all those other bogus attempts to quantify the brain and mind, etc..