If The Enneagram is Real it cannot be a personality test.
As far as I am concerned ones personality type is an objective and scientifically observable set of functions, modality and animals that is genetic and unchanging throughout a persons life, known now as their Objective Personality Type, informed by the Objective Personality System or OPS. One day, if anyone wants to bother, the chromosome and gene responsible will be located... hold up that’s B.S. because the OPS cannot mutate, it’s mathematically perfect... okay however there is a connection between the genetic profile and personality type it’s not in one particular section of the DNA which leads me to revert to wondering as I always have that personality resides in the spirit rather than the body, which would mean the pain/pleasure responses one has when dealing with their saviours and demons would be a spiritual issue rather than just chemicals in the brain.
Sorry... let me start again - the Objective Personality System exists, is real, is mathematically perfect, and informs one’s view and interaction with feelings, reasons, the sensory world and intuition; F,T,S,N. those views are either from an introverted or extroverted orientation and a persons interaction with these functions will scale from highly enjoyable and constantly occurring to highly unenjoyable and entirely ignored. The frequent or infrequent use of those functions in conjunction with each other is also what allows a person to be or not be someone who is highly talkative, open to new experience and information, deeply obsessive over their known skills and subjects, reserved, personable, methodical, or willing to go along with surprises. Most importantly wether they are socially introverted or extroverted and observationally introverted or extroverted.
So for the enneagram to be real and exist in the world as a way of differentiating people the things that are differentiated within it’s nine types cannot be what is already well laid out within the OPS.
Here’s the logic, the argument I am coming to:
● The Enneagram and the Enneatype descriptions have to henceforth stop being generally known as personality types.
● If the Enneagram and the Enneatypes are described as a personality this must be differentiated from that which one would find in the OPS or any Objective Personality Type.
● If a description of an Enneatype includes an expression of the Ennetype relating to any trait or part of an OPS type the other relative parts must also be included (making it twice or four times, or eight times longer of a description).
Why?
Because If the Enneagram is to be real the Enneagram and the Enneatype descriptions must be seperate from the OPS allowing any person, of any of the 512 Objective Personality Types, to come to understanding they are one any of the 9 Enneatypes.
Currently and as far as I have observed up to 2020, there is something wrong with the way the Enneagram and the Enneatype descriptions are generally taught and expanded upon and they basically need to be rewritten or a universal description established.
Currently and as far as I have observed up to 2020, there is something wrong with the way the Enneagram and the Enneatype descriptions are generally taught and expanded upon and they basically need to be rewritten or a universal description established.
The two biggest problems
1. Most descriptions include traits of an Objective Personality Type being mistaken for a trait of an Enneatype. This makes someone of any other Objective Personality Type dissuaded from correctly identifying their Enneatype based on that description.
2. The inclusion of anecdotes particularly when a person of a particular Enneatype is identified and what is spoken or written about is their personal expression of their Enneatype without the respect of understanding that this person is also always going to be of a particular Objective Personality Type and not all persons of the Enneatype in question would express it in the same way because they are of a different Objective Personality Type from the person used in the anecdote.
Anyone who teaches the Enneagram needs to also be familiar with the Objective Personality System so that they do not use any of the descriptions and traits that are applicable within the OPS and mistake them for traits of an Enneatype.
Ultimately a good description of an Enneatype is going to be very simple and conduced to the main personal motivations of the Enneatype, and anyone writing a good Enneatype description will remain very apprehensive to expand the description to include anything that may disclude anybody; any Objective Personality or Personalities. This is in essence why the nine Enneatypes are titled by digits like house numbers around a culdesac, having no specific value or reason.
The description of each Enneatype needs to, essentially, to at least be open to, allow for 512 different expressions of the needs and motivations that each Enneatype desires to fulfil. This is very hard to do without understanding the Objective Personality System and the differentiation of the parts it describes.
I have yet to conclude what those good inclusive Enneatype descriptions may be but I can tell you that My brain is wired to catch anything that seems familiar and anything that does not remain general and widely applicable for multiple people, and so when I read or hear an Enneatype being expanded upon I am constantly triggered by undisclaimed ideas about the Type that in actuality limit it to being more specifically for people who would express being that type in a particular way, when many people who could still be this type would not express it in such a way.
Is this to say that the Enneagram heavily relies on the Barnum effect to actually be real?
No. In fact the third biggest problem of the current descriptions out their is this:
3. The descriptions include positive, vague, or generally applicable characterisations that allow many people to want to be identified as the type, falsely.
This allows for people to like a particular Enneatype in one stage of their life and then identify as a completely different type the next time they take a test. And this contributes to The Enneagram as a phenomenon that exists within the human population allowing us to defferencate different types being highly unreliable as a proof or theory or law, and what I am saying would make it real.
What we are left with is The Enneagram a tool with which people can pick and choose a type to
a. identify as for superficial reasons in their twitter bio
b. work on the problems laid out as vices or temptations towards hurting oneself or others which we all have anyway.
c. take language from in order to describe the multitude of issues most people have within the human experience.
So another rule:
● Anyone writing or teaching a good description of the Enneagram and The Enneatypes will be carful to not add universal characterisations of humans and so it would be helpful to also be very familiar with the way that horoscopes are written so as to avoid redundancy.
Is there really any language left to communicate the Enneagram that allows people to identify themselves correctly without choosing the type that is describing their Objective Personality or a profile they like because it feels good?
I hypotheses, yes. The Objective Personality is one’s tools with which they will inevitably express the goals put in them as their enneatype, the core motivations and desires.
Within the Objective Personality Type there is the function that deals to the self. I would say the Enneagram goes more deeply into this part of one’s self and offers more reason or value that can’t be known through a code of functions and animals. So at least within the Objective Personality Type there is space to know more about one’s identity that could be where the Enneatype lives.
But there is still a careful road ahead to really picking out the descriptions that can really understand the enneatypes, Just as the work is ongoing to refine the descriptions of the functions and animals within OPS before it can be presented to the world for further research. And I don’t know if I’m the one for the job here but I’ll never know if the work is done correctly without being alongside it.
Let me know what you think? Are there any other problems with the Enneatypes that still need to be ironed out. Does the Enneagram need to be remodelled or just completely thrown in the trash? (It’s been a few years since I first fell in love with it so I am less offended than I was in the beginning should someone attack the whole idea.)
2. The inclusion of anecdotes particularly when a person of a particular Enneatype is identified and what is spoken or written about is their personal expression of their Enneatype without the respect of understanding that this person is also always going to be of a particular Objective Personality Type and not all persons of the Enneatype in question would express it in the same way because they are of a different Objective Personality Type from the person used in the anecdote.
Anyone who teaches the Enneagram needs to also be familiar with the Objective Personality System so that they do not use any of the descriptions and traits that are applicable within the OPS and mistake them for traits of an Enneatype.
Ultimately a good description of an Enneatype is going to be very simple and conduced to the main personal motivations of the Enneatype, and anyone writing a good Enneatype description will remain very apprehensive to expand the description to include anything that may disclude anybody; any Objective Personality or Personalities. This is in essence why the nine Enneatypes are titled by digits like house numbers around a culdesac, having no specific value or reason.
The description of each Enneatype needs to, essentially, to at least be open to, allow for 512 different expressions of the needs and motivations that each Enneatype desires to fulfil. This is very hard to do without understanding the Objective Personality System and the differentiation of the parts it describes.
I have yet to conclude what those good inclusive Enneatype descriptions may be but I can tell you that My brain is wired to catch anything that seems familiar and anything that does not remain general and widely applicable for multiple people, and so when I read or hear an Enneatype being expanded upon I am constantly triggered by undisclaimed ideas about the Type that in actuality limit it to being more specifically for people who would express being that type in a particular way, when many people who could still be this type would not express it in such a way.
Is this to say that the Enneagram heavily relies on the Barnum effect to actually be real?
No. In fact the third biggest problem of the current descriptions out their is this:
3. The descriptions include positive, vague, or generally applicable characterisations that allow many people to want to be identified as the type, falsely.
This allows for people to like a particular Enneatype in one stage of their life and then identify as a completely different type the next time they take a test. And this contributes to The Enneagram as a phenomenon that exists within the human population allowing us to defferencate different types being highly unreliable as a proof or theory or law, and what I am saying would make it real.
What we are left with is The Enneagram a tool with which people can pick and choose a type to
a. identify as for superficial reasons in their twitter bio
b. work on the problems laid out as vices or temptations towards hurting oneself or others which we all have anyway.
c. take language from in order to describe the multitude of issues most people have within the human experience.
So another rule:
● Anyone writing or teaching a good description of the Enneagram and The Enneatypes will be carful to not add universal characterisations of humans and so it would be helpful to also be very familiar with the way that horoscopes are written so as to avoid redundancy.
Is there really any language left to communicate the Enneagram that allows people to identify themselves correctly without choosing the type that is describing their Objective Personality or a profile they like because it feels good?
I hypotheses, yes. The Objective Personality is one’s tools with which they will inevitably express the goals put in them as their enneatype, the core motivations and desires.
Within the Objective Personality Type there is the function that deals to the self. I would say the Enneagram goes more deeply into this part of one’s self and offers more reason or value that can’t be known through a code of functions and animals. So at least within the Objective Personality Type there is space to know more about one’s identity that could be where the Enneatype lives.
But there is still a careful road ahead to really picking out the descriptions that can really understand the enneatypes, Just as the work is ongoing to refine the descriptions of the functions and animals within OPS before it can be presented to the world for further research. And I don’t know if I’m the one for the job here but I’ll never know if the work is done correctly without being alongside it.
Let me know what you think? Are there any other problems with the Enneatypes that still need to be ironed out. Does the Enneagram need to be remodelled or just completely thrown in the trash? (It’s been a few years since I first fell in love with it so I am less offended than I was in the beginning should someone attack the whole idea.)
Comments