3 ms·

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 u

by 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

by aaimnr 10y ago

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