3 ms·

I have studied the Enneagram deeply. It is a far more profound system than the MBTI, and far more useful for understanding oneself and others. The MBTI has so

I have studied the Enneagram deeply. It is a far more profound system than the MBTI, and far more useful for understanding oneself and others. The MBTI has some correlation to the Enneagram, and it is from that correlation that it takes most or all of its validity. But the correlation is only partial. If you look in Jung's Psychological Types, you will see that he correctly characterized eight of the nine Enneagram types (which one he missed I leave as an exercise for the reader). Missing one type, he was unable to see the whole structure with its deeper properties, such as integration/distintegration, that reflect the way the types relate to one another. Nor did he pick up on how the types develop as childhood survival strategies (which is not as simple as you're suggesting). The MBTI starts with Jung's already incomplete system and just messes it up further. Someone will probably ask me whether the Enneagram has been objectively validated. It has not been, and can never be, because it contains an inherent element of subjectivity. The way you know your Enneagram type is not by taking tests. Tests can provide useful hints, but if all you have is a test result -- even if it's correct! -- you do not know your type. The way you know is by studying the types until one of them clicks for you, and you see yourself in a new way: then you know. The Enneagram does talk about our dark sides, and that's important; but it isn't only about that by any means. It can also show us positive aspects of ourselves that we have not accepted, and it's very much about how to develop those aspects further. ETA: if you would like help figuring out your type, I would be delighted to assist. My email address is in my profile.

aaimnr 10y ago
What you mention about Jung/enneagram correlation is interesting. You'd think that since he's based on different partitioning scheme (2 * 2 * 2) he should end up without any types matching exactly, but you seem to suggest that it's the case and he's just missing one. I guess it could make sense provided he based his type descriptions on empirical evidence (clustering his patients) that he later artificially pushed into 8 categories. I don't know M-B well, but since it's a M-B thread and it may be useful to other readers, I tried to pursue your exercise and based on type descriptions tried to match it. Here's what I managed to do, based on vague Jung type descriptions I've found on the internet: ET - 1,IT - 5, EF - 3, IF - 9?, ES - 8, IS - ?, EI - 7, II - 4 Does it make some sense? Where are the gaps? Are there any Eneagram specific resources that you'd recommend? I've found A.H. Almaas and Eli Jaxon-Bear books the most insightful. I'd love to read/hear something original on the topic that doesn't come from the echo chamber of people who are in these circles, make money from it etc. As to the type, just as you said one of them "clicked" with me strongly and I'm almost 100% sure which one is mine.
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  Here are my pairings. (I'm at work and don't have my copy of Psychological Types handy, so this is going off someone else's interpretations [0]. But I think this is probably right.) ES - 7 IS - 9 EI - 8 II - 4 ET - 1 IT - 5 EF - 2 (but see below) IF - 6 The EF description does have some Three-sounding qualities to it; it's a fair guess that Jung lumped many Threes in with the Twos, since, after all, a lot of Threes (a majority, in my experience) lean toward Two, and after all he had to put them somewhere. (Some of them probably wound up in EI and ES as well.) Still, based on the descriptions in his book, I concluded that he overlooked the Three. [0] http://www.watchwordtest.com/types.aspx http://www.watchwordtest.com/types.aspx

aaimnr 10y ago

What you mention about Jung/enneagram correlation is interesting. You'd think that since he's based on different partitioning scheme (2 * 2 * 2) he should end up without any types matching exactly, but you seem to suggest that it's the case and he's just missing one. I guess it could make sense provided he based his type descriptions on empirical evidence (clustering his patients) that he later artificially pushed into 8 categories. I don't know M-B well, but since it's a M-B thread and it may be useful to other readers, I tried to pursue your exercise and based on type descriptions tried to match it. Here's what I managed to do, based on vague Jung type descriptions I've found on the internet: ET - 1,IT - 5, EF - 3, IF - 9?, ES - 8, IS - ?, EI - 7, II - 4 Does it make some sense? Where are the gaps? Are there any Eneagram specific resources that you'd recommend? I've found A.H. Almaas and Eli Jaxon-Bear books the most insightful. I'd love to read/hear something original on the topic that doesn't come from the echo chamber of people who are in these circles, make money from it etc. As to the type, just as you said one of them "clicked" with me strongly and I'm almost 100% sure which one is mine.

ScottBurson 10y ago
Here are my pairings. (I'm at work and don't have my copy of Psychological Types handy, so this is going off someone else's interpretations [0]. But I think this is probably right.) ES - 7 IS - 9 EI - 8 II - 4 ET - 1 IT - 5 EF - 2 (but see below) IF - 6 The EF description does have some Three-sounding qualities to it; it's a fair guess that Jung lumped many Threes in with the Twos, since, after all, a lot of Threes (a majority, in my experience) lean toward Two, and after all he had to put them somewhere. (Some of them probably wound up in EI and ES as well.) Still, based on the descriptions in his book, I concluded that he overlooked the Three. [0] http://www.watchwordtest.com/types.aspx http://www.watchwordtest.com/types.aspx