Get Everything Done

I have found the enneagram to be far more useful for personality typing than Meyers Briggs, so if you haven't heard of it or done the test, here's some good overviews:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enneagram_of_Personality
http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/

I get the sense that there are a disproportionate number of type 5's on this forum, and the key to the enneagram and growth vs. just analysis is in moving towards your strength (ie. 5 moving towards 8). I think AF has helped me move even further towards growth and type 8 (action oriented). I'm hoping others who read this will find it helpful as well.

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/typefive.asp

This 5w4 nods his head.
:-)

And 5w6 nods his ;-)

Jacqueline,

You are quite right ... I found the Enneagram much more useful than MBTI. I think the MBTI is overly complex ... 16 types rather than the 9 the Enneagram has. Also, the MBTI does not have much to say about growth ... rather it seems to emphasize getting into the situation that matches your type ... not always possible.

As to moving toward 8, yes, that is the effect of AF. But it is also 7 moving toward high 5 ... as it deals with the bugaboo of 7 ... Procrastination (also a problem for low 5s).

But really, any type can have time management issues an become more productive ... even if not moving toward 8.

Mike, I totally agree, but the time management issues will usually be for different reasons.

For example the type 5's issue will usually be that they feel they need to know more. So one could use this knowledge of the reason for their procrastination and learn to just dive in.

A 7 will have a list that's a mile long and not finish up anything, and probably needs to learn to focus to become more like the 5.

And a 2 will have so many commitments because they can't say no to anybody that they never get their own stuff done.

Just my $.02.

Surely the original exposition of the ideas of the enneagram by Gurdjieff and Ouspensky is about removing any automatic tendencies of personality trait and developing a strong will and focus, for which AF is an excellent accompanying tool. So in my reading about it I have kept to the source, which is Gurdjieff as far as we know, and possibly earlier, similar, Sufi diagrams which precede it.

Laurence, I find Gurdjieff a little too abstract for me these days. But that could be because I'm not a true 5 anymore, over the years I've moved to be a mix of 3, 5, and 7 and am much happier with the change.

I also used to be an ISTJ and now I'm an ENFP... -:)

Hi Jacqueline

I was rereading my MBTI stuff the other day and my questionnaire responses came out at ENFP but my Best Fit was ENTJ - looking at the two types after having done AF for a while answered a lot of questions!

Interesting Christine, I don't know you, but I would have definitely pegged you as an ENFP.

Hi Jacqueline

It was fascinating going back over my MBTI literature - there was quite a discrepancy between my indicator questions and my Best Fit. The literature gives a number of suggested reasons for such a scenario and looking back to when I took the test I was at a time when I was highly influenced by the very negative impact of a former work colleague. Isn't it strange how we are always willing to believe the negative things people say but rarely the positive? :-) Whilst I may swing between the two types to a degree I would say from rereading the type descriptions, that ENFP has become more dominant, in line with my indicators. Interesting ......

Christine, just try to think more like a 3, they'd let the criticism roll off their back or consider the source and decide they're an idiot and it's invalid - that's what I do. :-)

Relationship b/w Enneagram and MBTI:

http://tap3x.net/ENSEMBLE/typeframe.html

http://www.breakoutofthebox.com/flauttrichards.htm

So far as my experience shows, personalty does not change. That is kind of what we mean by "personality" ... informally, it is the underlying set of points of view, world views, ways of acting and reacting that are stable over time. If anything else, it is not really "personality".

When it seems that our personalities have changed (as measured by any system at all ... MBTI, Enneagram of Personality, astrology ... whatever) it is not that they have really changed, it is that we have measured incorrectly. Most often that is because we are in a special context and are looking at how we are reacting in that context ... rather than across the board in all contexts. Or that we are just looking at superficial things

I am an E type 5, not because I am analytical, or like to plan, or am drawn to intellectualizing ... any type can do those things. There are core features of each type and one has to discover if one exhibits those core features. The core feature of a type 5, for example, can be derived from the name "The Observer". Type 5s are somewhat withdrawn ... not in the sense that they don't go out of the house (that is depression or agoraphobia ;-) but that we have derived a FUNDAMENTAL way of dealing with the world, going back to our very earliest years ... we step back from the action (mentally, if not actually physically) and observe so we can know how to deal with the world. That cannot be changed. We can "develop" ourselves. We can begin to feel less of a need to withdraw. We can become more like the proactive E type 8, be we will NEVER become a type 8. We will just take on some of that dynamic way of being.

Enneagram theory talks about "low" and "high" sides of each type. The "high" side of 5 is more like an 8. That is to say, when a 5 is feeling very much in control, he can be more dynamic ... to put it simply. Likewise, when a 5 goes "low", is feeling overwhelmed and out of control, he goes more toward 7 ... that is to say he tries to escape into procrastination, or avoidance. He is STILL a type 5, but is acting in ways that make him superficially look like another type (7).

When I was working for IBM, I would teach classes (at one point) or give executive presentations (at another point). I was evaluated (by a professional, thanks to the wasteful fiscal practices of IBM ;-) as being an INTP. Later, after a lot of study, I found that I was actually more of an INTx ... meaning that my P was not so firm as the other dimensions. But I was CLEARLY an *I*. So how could I stand up in front of any audience and make jokes and convey information and gain consensus? Because I was a COMPENSATED *I* ... I was able, under the correct situations, to ACT as if I were an E. (Oh, sorry, I=Intravert and E=Extravert in MBTI terminology).

But what made me a REAL "I" and not a REAL "E"? Because the I/E dimension has to do with "energy". It has to do with how much it "costs" us to act in the way we do. An "I" suffers an energy drain where he has to interact and recharges his batteries in solitude ... an "E" just the opposite. My wife is the prototypical "E". She can party all night long and get more an more charged up. If she is sick, she gets cabin fever in about two days!

The point of all of this is that personalities are FUNDAMENTAL ways of being and they do not change.

Enneagram theory, especially in its religious incarnations, speaks a lot of personal spiritual evolution. And I grant that is true. In theory the 5 evolves toward the 8, then toward the 2. In theory if one becomes a saint, or whatever ;-) one transcends type entirely, taking on the traits of the high side of all types ... obeying rules as does the 1, being a helper as is the 2, blending in as does the 3, being strongly empathetic is is the 4, being a cool and uninvolved observer as is the 5, loving life and all experiences as does the 7, being dynamic and in control as is the 8, and balancing all points of view as does the 9. (As you see, I never really understood 6 that well ;-)

How does one do this? By meditation and other spiritual practice centered on knowing type theory and one's way of being. I have a set of meditations for each of the types wherein one learns who one is and begins to think about the strengths of the type on one's high side. Does it work? I guess in theory it would. I've not seen it work. I can only say that I have become a bit more accepting of other types as I have learned to quickly identify and understand them. My 2 neighbor still drives me nuts (2s are my nemesis ;-) but I no longer think that she is trying to mess with me. I understand that she is just being the only way she CAN be. I now know that asking her for help or accepting her help is the best gift I can giver her ... counter to all of the intuition in my being ;-) (5s often view asking help as a sign of weakness and vulnerability.)

My closing word here is that one can reap great benefits from Enneagram theory ... but only if one is willing to give it some serious study. It is far too easy to write people off by saying "She is just a 2 ... what can you expect." One has to understand the deeper reasons for character formation and realize that she is coping with pain and fear by trying to make life better for other people, hoping that in turn she can escape fear and danger from them by doing so. (To put only the most superficial cast on it.)

If anyone wants to truly understand, I would be happy to provide a reading list. One has to read about this stuff and not just get the cotton candy version of it from web sites ;-) Even the web sites of the big writers on Enneagram theory only serve to get you started. But more over, once you understand what type you are, it pays to spend your mental effort understanding how YOU act and react and what you feel as you do. I have found that understanding myself has led to better results than trying to understand others.

Just my $0.02 this early Sunday Morning. ;-)

That's a good point Jacqueline. I always want to see the best in people and someone once warned me about not putting people on pedestals they didn't belong on. Doing the MBTI enabled me to understand a lot about where I was coming from - and that it was ok to be myself. We are are so bombarded by society saying you should conform to this standard or that, be able to do this or that, behave in this way or that. MBTI enabled me to be a lot more accepting and understanding of the whys of behavious rather than just that whats if that makes sense.

Mike you are absolutely right that personality doesn't change - we are who we are. What I think though is that an understanding of our personality, and an understanding of other personality types, enables us to help ourselves and others more appropriately by understanding more of the perceptions with which we or others view things.

What I found interesting reading back on my MBTI literature was that whilst I typed as one thing my MB Best Fit was different. That Best Fit was my Best Fit at that time, but it was in the manner of where you say "Most often that is because we are in a special context and are looking at how we are reacting in that context ... rather than across the board in all contexts." That was very true of my situation at that time, and one of the things I find helpful in the MBTI is that it it identifies how the various types may respond to particular stresses.

A big part of the key is not to try to change ourselves but in learning to work with, as opposed to against, ourselves, by the understanding of why we "do" or why we react in a certain way. Going back to my "dishwasher" moment, now I understand that, for whatever reason I don't like being told "when" to do something, that recognition enables me to deal with it appropriately rather than just resenting it without knowing why.

Hi Mike, like a true 5, you're $.02 is like $20.00... :-)

No, I don't think basic personality does change, but I do think that when one is acting at their optimum, they have a broader range of behaviours to choose from, which can make typing difficult. When I'm positive, under no stress - or stress that I can handle, I'm much more flexible and able to choose alternative behaviours. It's when I'm under stress that I revert to what my 'pure' type is. Which is introverted, judging, etc. And that's when I know I'm truly at heart a 5 as well. Unfortunately, like many 5's (not that this is exclusively a 5 characteristic), I think that I can tend to manufacture the stress and therefore the behaviours completely in my own head which is kind of scary. That's where the enneagram is very helpful I think, because now I can see the points where I start to withdraw from the world and am able to stop the spiral downwards. Hence my irrational fear of planning and fear of becoming too engrossed in a particular interest.

BTW, my ex was a 6, albeit not a healthy one (ranging towards the paranoid side, always asking for 20 opinions on everything, needing constant validation yet resisting being told what to do). But when 6's are healthy, they are great workers, good team players and a lot of fun to be around.

I'd be interested in the reading list you would recommend Mike, although I've read Helen Palmer, Riso and Hudson and a couple of others, it would have been about 10 years ago, so I've forgotten quite a bit and I'm sure there's new stuff out there. I'd be interested in things that are more practical in nature, as I feel I've lost the incredible focus that I used to have along with becoming more adaptable - I'd like to eat my cake and have it too. :-)

Hi Christine,

Yes, it can get tricky. I don't think we can change how we are fundamentally, but we can "soften" the edges a bit ... quite a lot, actually. Simply understanding how and why other people do what they do does help us predict, understand, empathize, and be more able to tolerate and work with those who are fundamentally different. My wife is a 7, which is good because she is close to my type ... that is to say, she is right next door on the "path".

The problem we have is that we often play to each other's weakness. Her low 7 is to procrastinate and avoid. My low 5 is to go low seven ... so you can see where our weekends wind up ;-)
"Let's work on the house on Saturday.
"O.K."
<Saturday comes>
"What shall we do for breakfast?"
"Let's go out to the diner."
"O.K."
<after breakfast"
"Let's go to a movie!"

ROTF ;-) If only one of us could stand up and say "Crap no! We said we were going to work on the house this weekend!" But that almost never happens. I feel bad that she works so hard ... and of course, I don't want to do it either and my feeling bad for her gives me a great way out. <sigh>

But at least we know what happened and don't blame each other for it ... that is a big improvement over previous relationships.

Jacqueline,

I'd be happy to put together a list ... just give me a bit of time to think about it. One thing which is REALLY good are the tapes by Helen Palmer. I don't know if they are available any longer, but MP3s may be floating around out there somewhere. I have not compared them with the book, but her explanation of 5 was jaw dropping. I mean, the thing about going to a party and hating every minute of it but really enjoying the memory of it was something no one else captured ... at least when I was listening to the tapes. Fives really can live more in the future and the past than in the present.

One thing that was very educational for me was joining the INTP mail list, oh, some 15 years or so ago. Being on a list of almost all INTPs really revealed the type to me. They were exactly like me and reading how they viewed the world told me a lot I would not have gotten from any book. I especially liked how one guy described how he could melt right into the wallpaper pattern at a party and no one even saw him there. It is really quite true. At our most detached, we can be almost completely invisible. Uncanny ;-)

I would question one thing you said above ... under stress you really ought not to go to your pure type, but go toward low 7. You ought to become avoidant, paranoid, manic, and generally flee from everything. Each type, when balanced, is relatively neutral. The 5 is "The Observer" and there is nothing inherently good or bad about that. It is just how we see the world. When we go high, we observe then grab the bull by the horns and take charge ... like an 8 would. When things are bad, we observe then retreat into ourselves and run away from the stress ... like a low 7 would.

RE: Manufacturing stress! Oh did you ever say a mouthful. I have been watching that lately. I tend to manufacture worst case situations in my head. If I get some news, my reaction is to get ready for a fight because I know that things are going to get ugly. Here is where my wife helps so very much. Her 7 type sees the world as a fun positive friendly open place. She just assumes that everything will work out RIGHT. For a time I let her handle problems (like when the cable company hikes the rate without notice). Now I am more able to put myself into her mental state by imagining what she would do. So when I make the call I start out being friendly with the person on the phone who really has no stake in the outcome anyway. I still may have some problem, but at least it is not one of my own making because my attitude alienated the poor shmuck on the phone ;-) And if I still have to file a complaint with the cable commission, I will have to do that but I don't have to have emotion attached to it ... and what gets done will get done in any case.

My ex- was a 1. Imagine a 5 and a 1 ... OY! Fives NEVER EVER follow the rules ... we question everything and if it is a rule, that is just about prima facie evidence that it is WRONG! LOL ;-) I really had it with judgmental people after that experience. You can imagine how great it is to live with a 7. Her mantra is: "It's all good!"

I'll check my library tomorrow ... I am resisting procrastinating by doing that now ... I'm procrastinating enough by writing THIS ;-) There are some really fun books about the Enneagram types of Movie and Book characters. A really great way to understand the types by seeing them portrayed in fiction.

Hmmm, and here I thought M.F. was a one for sure...

People always invite me to parties and weekends away knowing that I'll liven things up - but when it's all over, I'm happy to drive away and be alone again. It's stressful always being "on" - although I do enjoy it at the time. It's when I start avoiding the parties and outings that I know I'm in trouble.

Sometimes when I go to the off-leash dog park, I like looking at the "dog people". You can tell a lot about a person by what type of dog they have. I'm a mix, with a golden retriever (he's a 7) and a cuddly, rag doll type of cat. Boxer people are usually sociable, lab owners are more goal oriented, collie owners can be a bit weird, people with Rotties are often "6's", people with dogs they've got from the Indian reservations seem to be 2's or 4's.

Personality can change. there are a lot of ways to define personality and seek out the constants that we feel remain over time. I know an enneagram author who uses the metaphor of a clothing style each person has.

Inherently though it doesn't take too much to see changes in personality or in the way that personality expresses. Just about anything is changeable on any level that is connected with our personalities. Change our brain chemistry (ie. drugs) and you'll see a different personality. Experience a trauma, your personality will change. I know my brother is very different in comparison to his life before the accident he experienced 15years ago.

The reason why personality across scientific studies remains pretty stable is because people typically don't transform in dramatic ways, not because they can't. And most people don't really stretch after their thirties. Especially pre-2000, the typical Western life style is very linear in terms of life experience (go to school, go to college, career, have kids & family, retire etc). It's the people that deviate from the more common experience that also experience more personality change. One factor is that the life experiences tend to differ.

If you think in terms of beliefs, after 30, beliefs for many people are pretty much set. And we know how much beliefs dictate what we experience and our perception. If our beliefs are stable, then it encourages stability across other dimensions. I think changing beliefs is part of growing and so at the very least, the way in which our personality expresses will change. And in some case personality itself changes. The interesting thing about the enneagram perhaps is that there are healthy and unhealthy expressions of the different types, and so it may be that as we get wiser we are better at displaying the more productive sides of our personality, however,

Psychologists have found that the early years after birth predict how we relate to other people on an emotional level and how we regulate affect and thus the types of (close) relationships we have through life (google: attachment style). This, apart from genetics, is I reckon one of the biggest influencers of most people's life. Especially if in those first few years if you developed an attachment style that has made close relationships difficult or imbalanced. Studies indicate that this influences the majority of people through life. Most people would be 'screwed' so to speak that if such an influence on their personality would be a permanent one. And it's not.

Researchers tend to regard the Big Five (which has the dimensions Neuroticism, Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Extraversion) as the most stable and accurate scientific measure for personality. They have also linked these brain chemistry (llevels&patterns of neurotransmitters like dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine, acetylcholine). In turn the enneagram has gained some scientific support by achieving some significant correlations with the big five among certain dimensions.

From a brain chemistry point of view, we can do a lot of 'rewiring' and altering. Whether it be by relearning and retraining our habitual emotional responses, meditation, drugs, therapy, becoming famous whatever angle you can think of.

Of course there are, even if one grows and changes through the course of life, constants and stable patterns. I'm not denying the stability of our tendencies. But I think the only component that isn't subject to change is the spiritual component (the wearer of personality).

What I've found with my nieces and nephews and particularly my own children in observing one becoming an adult anyway, is that their personalities are remarkably stable over time - ie. how they were as babies (one being particularly phlegmatic, the other not) is how they have remained. They both also have personalities that are remarkably similar to their fathers (different dads) despite both having little to no association with them.

Mike, I meant that when I put myself under stress, I definitely move towards the characteristics of an unhealthy 5 - and I've been as low as a 7-8 on that scale, which is a pretty scary place to be. :-) So knowing what you know now would you look more critically at a prospective mate in terms of compatible type?

Peter, I find that it wasn't until I was in my late 30's that my personality really changed permanently and stabilized - more similar to how I was as a very young child. It wasn't until then that I shook off parental and family influences and figured out things for myself - maybe I'm a late bloomer. :-) The 20's and 30's were a period of constant fluctuation in an effort to get to that point it seems. So, in looking back, I can connect the dots there too I guess. Just wish I hadn't take such a circuitous route.

Peter,

You said: "Of course there are, even if one grows and changes through the course of life, constants and stable patterns. I'm not denying the stability of our tendencies. But I think the only component that isn't subject to change is the spiritual component (the wearer of personality)."

And that is what I call "personality" ... that part of an individual which does NOT change. You seem to be calling it by a different name ... "tendencies" ... "spiritual component", etc.

As to what psychological researchers agree on ... it is not really very much. The "big five" that you cite is only one school of thought. Freudians see things one way, Jungians another, Behaviorists still another. Sometimes I think that there are as many schools of thought as there are psychologists out there thinking about these things ;-)

As to brain chemistry, that is the mechanism by which things happen. IOW, mind is not brain and brain is not mind. To argue otherwise is pure reductionism. There is not much agreement about how it all works together. There is a tantalizing question about which comes first, the chemistry or the mental processes ... it seems to be somewhat circular. In any case, once brain chemistry returns to what is normal for that individual, he usually has what we would call the same personality he had before. So I would not really call how a person acts under altered brain chemistry a change in personality ... but rather a temporary change in actions and outlook. Personality is who we are. It is what remains after artificial influences are removed.

Of course, if someone wants to define "personality" as those things that are transient ... that would only mean that we'd have to come up with a new word to mean what personality means now ... i.e. what is permanent. Pretty much like lots of other things ... when it becomes politically correct to change word usage so new words have to be invented to mean what the old words used to mean.

Jacqueline,

Yes, I've seen how children are so much like their parents. It is interesting that even when they rebel (as most do at some time or another) they are STILL like their parents ;-)

Unhealthy 5: O.K. I gotcha now ;-)

Mate: Oh, I know that I'd avoid someone who is too far away from me ... I would not relate well to them. I would choose a 7 or 8, because I could understand them well, but unhealthy 8s are just scary! ;-) I mean, they are always putting their fists through walls or engaging in addictive behavior. But the healthy ones can be a real joy. And 7s are similar, the healthy ones are modest, fun loving, forgiving, tolerant, etc. while the unhealthy ones are avoidant and frenetic and loud. I can't take much of that.

(It is funny, when my 7 wife comes home she blasts in like a tornado, which overloads me. But in the morning, when I'm singing to the cats and buzzing around the house (I'm usually up 2 or more hours before she gets up), she opens one bleary eye and looks for all the world as if she wants to kill me ... but she would never say that! LOL ;-)

As to changing ... I was externally different in my late teens and 20s. But my personality was no different. I may have dressed just a little like a hippy, with long curly hair and a moustache ;-) But the thing is, internally I was always the same person. My earliest memories of my really interacting with others date to about 3 or 4 years old. I was more open and energetic, but internally I was still observing and hanging back before playing my cards.

Mike: If we define personality as that what does not change then the statement that personality doesn't change is a mute one because you're only regarding elements that appear to have stayed the same.

It's not a very functional definition either, philosophers, researchers etc can't even agree on what identity and when identity change occurs, which is precisely what we refer to as that what doesn't change. Imagine how hard it is to determine that what remains the same for something as colorful as personality.

You mentioned that errors occur while measuring. Measurement distorts and only offers superficial perceptions. Sometimes they are valuable & accurate some times they are not. While I'm not a big fan of the big five, it's the most proven & agreed upon measure. I just don't find it very useful.

But let's consider when we're looking at our kids grow up, or friends for that matter and speculate on how personality doesn't change. That is measurement in itself. If you look for differences you'll find them, if you look for constants, you'll find them. But like I mentioned earlier, our beliefs filter our reality and seek to confirm what we believe.
As I referred to in the former post, for most people, after their 30s, beliefs remain pretty much the same. They are very stable. It's in the first 30 years typically that the most change occurs (much like Jacqueline gives an example of).

Any child that has grown up and has gone through changes has been through the experience of visiting relatives and the relatives treat the person like they did in the past - often excruciatingly like a child. Anybody who's been part of a group/ movement/party and changes so much that they leave that group and years later, meets with one of their former peers will notice how their perceptions haven't changed much. In fact, the whole phenomenon of the 'first impression' is a good example of how fixed beliefs/perceptions reinforce the idea that people don't change.

It's the perceptions that remain pretty stable and typically adults don't change their perceptions too much.

As far as brain chemistry is concerned, there thankfully isn't much agreement on what comes first or what causes what. But we do know if that one element dramatically changes it is going to effect all the other elements. Which is also the reason human history has devised an abundance of approaches to things like healing, wellness medicine, religion, psychology etc.

To give an example: my brother experienced a heavy head injury in his teen years. His personality dramatically changed to what it was before even though he's not disabled and lives a fairly normal life. Any part of personality that one would have pegged as unchangeable before that accident, would have gone to pieces after ward. Likewise that experience effect on my parents personalities was significant as well, even though you could make the case of their personalities simply responding and expressing in different ways. As far as perceptions go, on which we are basing the stability of personality anyway, their personalities changed quite significantly.

When I referred to a spiritual component, I think of that as that what is infinite, wise and unlimited. That's probably why I don't like the idea of pegging personality as unchangeable because that to me sounds like an unnecessarily limiting notion. Fixed perceptions inhibit growth.

Hi Peter,

You said: "If we define personality as that what does not change then the statement that personality doesn't change is a mute one because you're only regarding elements that appear to have stayed the same."

O.K. About three points there.

- The word you wanted there is "moot", meaning "is no longer applicable" as in a suit for damages by a person who has just died ... (approximately, as usually used in common discourse). "Mute" refers to a person who does not speak (or the act of not speaking when speaking is called for).

- The word which describes what you were getting at is "tautological", meaning self-proving or self-defining (again, approximately)

- In fact, it is quite useful to have universal terms. The one I just used there "universal" is a prime example. In this case, it is quite useful to discuss what is not changing in a person. You did that yourself at the end of your last post ... only you called it something different.

And yes, it is exactly those things which do not change that I was referring to.

You said: "It's not a very functional definition either, philosophers, researchers etc can't even agree on what identity and when identity change occurs, which is precisely what we refer to as that what doesn't change. Imagine how hard it is to determine that what remains the same for something as colorful as personality."

Oh yes, I agree. It is very hard to define. However, I refer to Justice Potter Stewart who said about pornography: "I don't know what pornography is, but I know it when I see it." Lots of things are like that. We see them, we can readily identify them, but we can't define them after years of trying. But lacking a nice tight definition is no reason to throw up our hands and say that the thing does not exist.

You said: "While I'm not a big fan of the big five, it's the most proven & agreed upon measure. I just don't find it very useful."

The more I hear psychological theories, the less I'm a fan of any of them ;-)

You said: "But let's consider when we're looking at our kids grow up, or friends for that matter and speculate on how personality doesn't change. That is measurement in itself."

Well, really it is observation more than measurement, yes?

You said: " If you look for differences you'll find them, if you look for constants, you'll find them. But like I mentioned earlier, our beliefs filter our reality and seek to confirm what we believe."

They certainly can. But we need not fall prey to that if we are aware of it. If you contend that we can't know because our beliefs control our understanding you get into a real problem. You can't know THAT statement for the same reason. So it is pretty much a self-contradictory argument.

You said: "As I referred to in the former post, for most people, after their 30s, beliefs remain pretty much the same. They are very stable. It's in the first 30 years typically that the most change occurs (much like Jacqueline gives an example of)."

I'm not sure how beliefs equate to personality. Beliefs are ... well, beliefs. I'm quite sure many of my beliefs have changed, but I am the same person I always was. Imagine if I became a new person every time I decided that chocolate was better than peach cobbler ;-)

You said: "Any child that has grown up and has gone through changes has been through the experience of visiting relatives and the relatives treat the person like they did in the past - often excruciatingly like a child."

Are you really contending that the antics of a semi-senile grandma is what defines personality?

You said: " Anybody who's been part of a group/ movement/party and changes so much that they leave that group and years later, meets with one of their former peers will notice how their perceptions haven't changed much. In fact, the whole phenomenon of the 'first impression' is a good example of how fixed beliefs/perceptions reinforce the idea that people don't change."

I simply don't agree with that. Much of what people see is on the surface. The phrase: "You are just not the same person." does not reflect a well considered observation. Most likely the person is very much the same, he has simply learned that his "movement" is not what it pretended to be. For more fascinating information on that general idea read:

- "Darkness at Noon" by Koestler or,
- "The True Believer" by Hoffer

You said: "It's the perceptions that remain pretty stable and typically adults don't change their perceptions too much."

From all you have said, I'd have guessed you'd have made quite the opposite point. After all, you contend that beliefs distort perception.

You said: "As far as brain chemistry is concerned, there thankfully isn't much agreement on what comes first or what causes what. But we do know if that one element dramatically changes it is going to effect all the other elements. Which is also the reason human history has devised an abundance of approaches to things like healing, wellness medicine, religion, psychology etc."

Yes, but my point, to which you are responding, is that it reactions to chemicals are transitory. Once the chemicals are removed, we return to who we were. (Absent significant brain damage, of course.)

You said: "To give an example: my brother experienced a heavy head injury in his teen years. His personality dramatically changed to what it was before even though he's not disabled and lives a fairly normal life. Any part of personality that one would have pegged as unchangeable before that accident, would have gone to pieces after ward."

I agree that brain damage alters who a person is. But that is one of those life-boat arguments, is it not? To put it in the extreme: "See here, I cut off his head and he does not have the same personality." ;-) But seriously, psychology is the study of the "normal" ... whatever that may be. We can study the abnormal, and we can even learn by the abnormal to understand what the normal is ... but the abnormal is not the normal. It is ... well it is ABnormal. An injury which leaves a person without the functioning of part of their brain has effectively destroyed who the person is ... he simply no longer has the functioning machinery to act and perceive as he did before. That is not the same thing as the normal changes to perception and behavior we all strive for as part of our personal growth.

You said: "Likewise that experience effect on my parents personalities was significant as well, even though you could make the case of their personalities simply responding and expressing in different ways. As far as perceptions go, on which we are basing the stability of personality anyway, their personalities changed quite significantly."

I don't get that. You first say that the personalities did not change, then you say that they did. ??? I said nothing about "perception" being what we base "personality" on ... that is your position (I suppose) an a position with which I firmly disagree. I also am not sure I would even agree with how you would define "perception". From your writing here it seems to be much more encompassing than simply perception. You seem to be bundling in beliefs, emotions, and cognition as well.

You said: "When I referred to a spiritual component, I think of that as that what is infinite, wise and unlimited. That's probably why I don't like the idea of pegging personality as unchangeable because that to me sounds like an unnecessarily limiting notion. Fixed perceptions inhibit growth."

Well, I don't know what to say about that. I don't think that I can see a logical path from "personality" to the even more undefined terms such as "spirituality" ... and what could "infinite" mean in the context of a human being? I am pretty clear about what I mean by my terminology and "personality" has nothing at all to do with "spirituality". Spirituality is far more limited a term ... it is just one of many ways in which we view the world, the sum total of those making up "personality".

It was fun jousting with you, Peter. Great mental exercise. Thanks much for it.

As far as I know, Gurdjieff thought of personality as a hard shell around the essence of a person. He thought essence ceased its development in infancy, under the barrage of cultural influence (language, religion, media) which formed personality, normally taken to be identity. He viewed this as illusion, a kind of waking sleep, and formulated techniques to encourage and help essence knock through the shell and emerge. That's what he called "The Work" (I have put this literally in a nutshell, and over-simplified it). He expounded this model roughly around the time Freud was following his own fruitful road.

The enneagram, which Gurdjieff well have invented (the source he ascribed it to has never been found), was used by him as a complex metaphor for cosmos, music, psychology . . .

From comments above, and bookshelves at bookshops, the modern understanding of enneagram seems to be very different from its likely inventor's. Using a circular chart to categorize people seems to me like natal charts for MBA's, lacking the challenge of Gurdjieff's analysis on the one hand and the poetic beauty of astrology on the other.

Could one of you acolytes please elaborate so I can learn what I am missing, or else confirm that there is no link (other than the diagram) to Gurdjieff?

Laurence,

Sorry, but I can't help much. I picked up the Enneagram where it is today, not from whence it started. So far as my understanding goes, Gurdjieff was certifiable, and quite the charlatan. No matter, he proposed a system (largely pulled out of his butt) that developed into what we have today ... which works nicely. The situation is much like Franz Mesmer's nonsensical ideas about animal magnetism having nothing at all to do with hypnosis. I would not dream of making any kind of fuss about the linkage between today's understanding of hypnosis and Mesmer's silliness.

The real development of the Enneagram can be attributed to Oscar Ischazo and Claudio Naranjo. Going back in the other direction, one can trace some thin lines back to Plato! So, personally, I don't care a whole hill of beans about pedigree ;-)

One other observation I might make ... all of this is metaphor. It is possible to discuss personality in terms of MBTI, Enneagram, astrology, Freudian Ego, Id, etc. or any other of other things. Obviously the alignment of planets has nothing at all to do with personality ... and yet, if we don't pay attention to the planets but just look at the "types" as unrelated to anything, the description of an astrological "sign" can be as descriptive as an Enneagram or MBTI type. The important thing to notice is that without regard to how you get there, you can get to clusters of attributes of personality that allow one to predict ... and that is all science demands of any theory ... that it be able to predict.

So while it might be interesting to read about the silly old poops who wandered around from secret meeting to secret meeting ... that has little to do with were we are now ;-)

Thanks, Mike, that's good to know.

You're right, there are some common threads in most of these systems. Freud found the Greek myths a vital source. And today, though in a culture largely without fervent religious belief, most fear a forthcoming climatic retribution for past misdeeds. So the basic types and legends emerge in a different form throughout history, including now, and I think it is worth being attentive to these.

To quote Stuart Wilde: "I like my spiritual enlightenment on the hurry up."

I think the way that Riso, Hudson, Palmer present it the Enneagram is a lot less work, less interpretation, etc. But then I don't like to work on anything more than I absolutely have to. :-)

Jacqueline

Gurdjieff deliberately made his writing difficult to follow. He tried to take people out of their comfort zone. The popularity of the more recent books rather prove his point. However their popularity suggests they have some merit - but without the obstreperous inventor there would be no enneagram.

Mike, re. 6's - you can usually spot them a mile away - when 'unhealthy', they are passive aggressive to an extreme, will cut off their nose to spite their face, extremely resistant to change because they have certain "rules" locked in like concrete (you told me this 5 years ago, so I'm holding you to that.) And typically very, very needy.

My ex sister-in-law was taken off her life support 2 days ago, and passed away yesterday. It's in times like this, when under stress, that I really see my ex's "6" tendencies come out full force. And unfortunately, they also tend to be drama queens or kings and as such, almost thrive on putting themselves under stress - in fact, they'll sometimes manufacture a stressful situation in their own minds. As a 5, they can be overwhelming to deal with.

Like anything else, I guess the key is to be aware that they (like anyone else that's unhealthy) are operating very unconsciously and are a victim, as we all are, to their own patterns.

Hi Jacqueline,

I guess my biggest problem with 6 is that I don't understand the motivation that well. I understand it for the other types ... even 9, fer cry'n out loud ;-) But 6 is so damn ... dare I say it ... artificial. I mean, phobic and counterpohbic subtypes? Other types don't have those "kind" of subtypes.

It occurs to me that I've not shared that reading list, so here goes.

http://www.amazon.com/Enneagram-Made-Easy-Discover-People/dp/0062510266/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241387864&sr=8-2

This should be the first book anyone reads. It is simple, full of good cartoons (those that well support the ideas) and very understandable.

http://www.amazon.com/Enneagram-Understanding-Yourself-Others-Your/dp/0062506838/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241387864&sr=8-4

Is probably the best second read. Helen Palmer is very perceptive and well describes the types in ways that make them understandable. Her description of 5 struck me as much more on the point than many of the other big writers. I also recommend her tape set, if you can find it.

http://www.amazon.com/Personality-Types-Using-Enneagram-Self-Discovery/dp/0395798671/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241388071&sr=8-19

Is maybe the best book by the other major writers in the field. Reading Palmer and Riso/Hudson gives a well rounded view.

http://www.amazon.com/Enneagram-Transformations-Don-Richard-Riso/dp/0395657865/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241389066&sr=1-24

Gives meditations and affirmations for each of the nine types for those who wish to better connect with their type and to move from the constraints their programmed responses.

The next two are recommended on the premise that examples teach best:

http://www.amazon.com/Enneagram-Movie-Video-Guide-Personality/dp/1555521002/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241388278&sr=8-1

Describes the enneagram types of movie characters (as well as the actors who play them, in many cases), and

http://www.amazon.com/Literary-Enneagram-Characters-Inside-Out/dp/155552107X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241388406&sr=8-3

offers a similar take on great literature.

For a bit of a heavier read, either one of these:

http://www.amazon.com/Character-Neurosis-Integrative-Claudio-Naranjo/dp/0895560666/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241388730&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Transformation-Through-Insight-Enneatypes-Literature/dp/0934252734/ref=pd_sim_b_6

might be a good place to start.

I'll leave it at that because anyone interested in this subject will be well able to choose subsequent reading once they master these.

Thanks for the list Mike! This isn't something I've explored too terribly much over the last number of years, but I really value being able to understand - and have some compassion for - why other people act or react as they do. So I'm off to place some holds at the library now. :-)

Like anyone else, I think 6's come from a place where they're trying to ensure safety. That means no change as they are generally dogmatic, they will look for approval of their actions from multiple sources because they don't have confidence in their own perceptions. If you're not with them, you must be against them. Kind of "opposite world" to me, since I usually find that if everyone approves of what I'm saying or doing, it's either not much fun or I'm being too politically correct. So since you're a 5 like me, you rely on your own assessments and have confidence in your own mind, which makes the 6's behaviour quite incomprehensible.

Being in a somewhat bad relationship for 17 years off and on with an unhealthy 6, I can tell you that any book that has the pop psychology phrase "crazy-making" in the index was talking about a 6. :-) Like anyone else though, when they're a healthy 6, they are a joy to be around.

Hi Jacqueline,

I'm a 5W6, so you'd think I'd understand 6 a bit better. Actually, I can relate to many of the things you say about 6 as I have that "streak" in me. But 5W6 is no where near a full type 6. I will, for example, cut my nose off to spite my face, as you say, but with me it is really more like intransigence. IOW, it is not just being "dug in" but more a question of you have not yet convinced me of the rectitude of your position and have resorted to force and THAT just will not work with me. So while I "get it", I really still don't.

I need to read more about the underlying structure of the 6. Remember that the 9 types are grouped in threes as to the basic underlying fixations, passions, and instincts. (OY!, is this area awash in buzz words ;-)

The one thing that has a big red flag raised about type 6 is the whole phobic/counterphobic thing. I'm a systems person. I LIVE for systems ;-) I need to see the beauty and order in any alleged system before I feel at all attracted to it.. One reason AF resonates with me is that it is so damn simple and therefore, in my view, makes more sense. (Which, BTW, is why Andreas' venture into working the list first backward, then forward, and with flags with when to change rules on every other Tuesday, has me raising my eyebrows. ;-)

Anyway, if every type had something like a "type" and "counter-type" to it, then at least the system would be balanced. The enneagram is balanced and symmetrical and much "nicer" than MBTI and so seems "truer" to me ... except where it comes to type 6. When I get there the whole thing goes ... how to the Brits say it? ... all pear shaped. If you need to change the structure of the whole thing to make one type fit the theory ... it is there that you start to lose me.

There are two types that give me trouble because they don't seem self-explanitory. Type 6 because it takes a dictionary to follow the explanation and a type 9 because it has no clear indicators, in my experience. My rule has always been if I can't type someone he is probably a 9! LOL ;-) But 6 has some of that as well ... if he is angry all the time he might be a 6. Errr, yeah but while that might be accurate most of the time, it does not give me what I need to feel as if I really understand.

I probably need to go out and find me a 6 ;-) I'm sure that you intuitively get 6 in the way I'd like to because you've seen one up close ;-) I have 4s in my life or I don't think I'd ever really gotten them (even though I have a small 4 wing). I did not get 3s until I spent a lot of time with my neighbor and saw that he was really willing to give up his life for his concept of "success" and "acceptance". I think I got 2s pretty early but until I spent some time with my neighbors wife I never realized how entirely helpless and blind she was to how destructive she was to other people in the name of "helping" them.

My mother, ex, and mother-in-law, are all 1s so I get them. (When my wife was explaining the enneagram to her mother, her mother asked: "What type am I." My wife explained 1 to her in detail. Her mother then asked: "O.K. so if I'm a 1 what am I supposed to do?" The whole place cracked up and her mother had this perplexed look on her face about why we were all laughing. It just shows how blind one can be to the rest of the world. The old "rose colored glasses" thing.

My brother-in-law is a 4 and I've really begun to "get" the intense pain 4s feel on the low side. And no one is more manic then he. I also used to hang with an artist crowd (in my misspent youth) and thinking back, I have lots of good examples of 4 from them.

I'm married to a 7, and of course I go to 7 on the low side of 5, so 7 is easy for me. Likewise 8 as I go to 8 on the high side and new a particularly odd 8 once. I don't understand 8 very deeply, but I do "get" them a bit. (II never really understood the idea of "burning one's bridges" until I saw an 8 in a full blown neurotic episode. I had to see that to get the distinction between "cutting one's nose off to spite one's face" and "burning one's bridges". Looking inside (the only really valid laboratory for any psychological experimentation) I can see where I have done both in my life and did not understand that those were different things until I saw this 8 in full blown "terror mode". I finaly got that the 8 could not "move on" until they had destroyed the past. It was hard to understand, until that experience, that some people can ONLY live in the present and must actually destroy the past and ignore the future in order to live in the present. Odd but now I get it.

But 9s and 6s confuse me. I need to find me some of those there types, that is all there is to it ;-)

As to the books, "Character ..." and "Transformation ..." are excellent books but will take a while to read, most likely. They are a bit ... dense. ;-) But they are also very rich as well.

Mike, you said this:

"I probably need to go out and find me a 6 ;-) I'm sure that you intuitively get 6 in the way I'd like to because you've seen one up close ;-) "

I don't think there are a ton of 6's which is part of the problem - one of my brothers is one (part of having 8 kids in the family is you get almost all the types!), my ex, and there's one on this forum as well. The problem with them is that I can only spot them when they are unhealthy. Or maybe because they are a jumble of opposites, they tend to be more unhealthy?

They're usually the workaholics (not in the same way that 3's can be very work-oriented) - they are the true workaholics - kind of inefficient, indecisive, they are always soooo busy, their problems are worse than anyone else's. The thing is though, they won't sound indecisive until you experience them over time and see how they go back and forth like a seesaw. Unlike an 8, they will burn their bridge, then waffle on it because they're constantly fighting with their own minds. I have also found that they can be highly manipulative. The thing that drives me up the wall the most though is that if you don't agree with them, or support them in something, they will always attack and very fiercely. Despite their passive aggressiveness, they can be highly confrontational. Then they will come back and you're supposed to pretend that nothing happened because they always have reasons (aka excuses) for their behaviour, but nobody else can. After a while, it gets a little tired. :-)

As you can imagine, it's difficult having a child in common with one of them, you can never get away which is the thing to do with these people - and it drives them crazy. :-)

I have to say that what I know about MBTI seems so much simpler, and what I like about it is that it seems to concentrate on the positives of personality typing whilst giving warnings about the negative. I know all of these tools can be helpful in understanding eachother but have always seen MBTI as a tool to work with peoples' strengths. That in itself should help to minimise the negative apects which we all have in our personalities. If we don't concentrate on the building up of people's strengths we could run the risk of focusing only of the differences with ourselves.

It reminds me of a communications skils course I did once with my PA. We worked excellently together but had occasional misunderstandings. That was when I discovered not just how different our styles of communication were but also the fact that the way we communicate to others is not necessarily how we want to be communicated to. If I am giving a report I will usually communicate with a lot of words and detailed information (surely not I hear you say!) However if I am receiving a report I want it in the form of a clear concise summary BUT with the supporting information available if I ask for it. Two quite different things!

I wasn't familiar with this typology. Even though I was trained with Myers-Briggs, I don't care for it and think more in terms of the 4 types (Sanguine, Choleric, Melancholy, and Phlegmatic). Because we can't hold more than 5-7 items in short-term memory (without grouping), I do better trying to remember 4. :-)

Sanguines want fun. They struggle with organization because they are typically into so many activities. They really struggle with maintenance of systems and routines because maintenance isn't nearly as fun as a new system that you can tell everyone about. This is my primary type.

Cholerics want control. They struggle with productivity (which is their strength) when aspects of their work are out of control. They won't do things they consider unnecessary. I showed my dh how I was keeping track of the amount of time I spend on various activities. As a choleric, he said, "Why would you want to do that?" He spends no time on productivity helps at all.

Melancholies want perfection. These are the people who stress out when someone marks their AF notebook or their schedule is ruined by a rude so-and-so. If the lack of perfection leads to depression (as it often does), their productivity will suffer.

Phlegmatics want peace. They're happy doing the minimum to get by in life. If you want them to do something a certain way, they'll either do it to keep the peace or they'll avoid you. There are few phlegmatics on boards like these because most of them don't care how much work they get done. They would like help getting the nagging of others to stop, however.

Obviously not sophisticated, but very helpful in quickly assessing someone. I think this is how fortune tellers are able to connect with people they don't know, even over the phone. Combinations are common, but Sanguine/Melancholy and Choleric/Phlegmatic are opposites and cannot be a combination.

Jacqueline,

I suspect you are right about the dearth of 6s. I have seen somewhere an estimate of distribution in the population. I don't remember it but it seems to me that we are largely a 3 culture. And it makes sense because the American mantra is to "get along and blend in" ... just what the chameleon does so well ;-)

It think that most types are spotted more when they are unhealthy simply because we don't often consider a person's personality until they become a rock in our shoe ;-)

Confrontation: Yeah, I think that the passive-aggressive is key there. I've known my share of 8s and they are also very angry when on the low side, but 8s go off like a bomb ... there is no doubt about their position. And while 8s don't waffle on burning bridges, they do have a crazy making way of dealing with anger. For them it is just "part of life". You can be in a major arguement with an 8 in which they say horrible and hurtful things and then <blink> it is all over ... and when you are still smarting from the wound, they look at you as if you are crazy and say: "Argument? Oh that. You don't take any of that seriously, do you?" As I say, crazy making.

Mel

I was just trying to work out whether I fell under Sanguine or Melancholy when I read your last para .........

Christine,

Well, you remember that quote attributed to Einstein: "Things should be a simple as possible, but no simpler." With all of this one has to realize that it is an artificial construct of our own minds. Yet, on the flip side, people are what they are so in order to understand them you need to cover the basis that exist, not only those that fit neatly into a theory.

And all of that said, it is really all a metaphor so you can mostly use whatever construct works for you. I have found that the Enneagram works best for me. I loved MBTI but found it too complex. It has four parameters blended in all 16 ways. And worse, most people move along a spectrum of each of those parameters. So while I am an INTP, my P/J parameter is fairly soft ... not quite 50-50, but soft enough so that I am comfortable looking like an INTJ in many instances. And my I/E parameter is also soft enough so that, unless you know me well, I can easily be typed an xNTx. Now that is confusing and complicated in my estimation.

As to the positives, I have not seen that one system is more positive oriented than another. The Enneagram deals explicitly with both the high and low sides of personality equally. In fact, the diagram has that encoded in its very nature. It is a diagram of "paths" which show how one moves in the healthy and unhealty way between types. It also graphically illustrates how different types share attributes. I grant the whole idea of wings and such can complicate things, but only when you dig into it. Most people don't go that deeply into it so are not troubled by it. For me, it is curcial to understand wings ... I am a 5w6 with a fairly small 4 wing. That tells me a whole lot more than that I'm just a 5, for example.

As to focusing on how to utilize the strengths of others, that flows from first understanding how the types flow into each other. I know how to utilize a 2, for example ... just ask for help and a 2 is in hog heaven ;-) Just speak in vaguely emotional terms about the transcendence of things and you'll have a 4 sobbing ;-) It is really right there in the diagram ... wells it is if you spend the time hammering it all out.

Remember that the very essence of the Enneagram is that it was conceived as a "spiritual" system. It talks continually about being on the "path to enlightenment". There are numerous exercise in meditation to strengthen weakness and enhance strengths. As a 5, for example, I need to realize that my low 7 tendencies need to be vigilantly watched. I have to be aware of procrastination and excuse making. I also need to emulate type 8 and work on decisiveness.

What I did not like about the MBTI is it simply told me what my tendencies were then suggested that I would probably not want to be a football coach because that would not fit my type very well. Big fat help! I knew that much already ;-) What I instantly got from the Enneagram was an explanation, a path, a way (and an injunction) to move in a positive direction. All of that was missing from MBTI and that is the whole reason I look at any system ... to make positive change.

I said that I see this all as metaphor. So why would I not study astrology? I mean, have you ever talked with a good astrologer? They are amazing ... dead on. The problem with astrology is that you have to reject about 90% of the premise and that means you don't even have sufficient vocabulary to be able to talk to them well enough to learn the system. Hell, I'm not going to waste months of my life learning to calculate nonsensical charts to simply do a cold reading ... which is basically what it is all about. Learn 12 personality types and then cold read people. The only real way to grasp it is to be very intuitive right out of the gate. I am very intuitive ... but not about people. DUH! Five, right? ;-)

Detailed vs. Broad: Gotcha. I know how that is. A 5 can be very like that. I need lots of detail but not until I basically grant you your premise. My wife (most women it seems, sorry ;-) like to give lots of background before they get to the point. It is crazy making. Get right to the point and let me ask for the detail I NEED. I have tried to educate people like that by explaining how it interferes with them getting what they want. Along the road to getting to the point, I've long since checked out and have taken refuge in mental La-La land so will probably never even hear you when you finally get to the point. (Of course, then I get: "You never LISTEN to me!" LOL ;-) I would if you would simply not tell me so much ;-)

Mark,

Yes, that is a very MBTI idea. MBTI is very much business oriented, at least here across the pond. MBTI talks about interactions and team building as a big part of the system.
As I mentioned, I got my course and typing courtesy of IBM.

One thing I did not mention about my not liking MBTI so much is that it really tries to corner the market for profit. One is not allowed to have a type unless it is given you by a paid practitioner who is certified and pays dues. LOL ;-)

Christine, this may help you decide:

Sanguines like attention. They're the ones that wear the look-at-me outfits and tell funny stories about themselves. They tend to be loud talkers. They have sunny dispositions. They're deeply hurt by criticism. They can be immature and easily distracted. They're often disorganized. Usually quite outgoing. They're energized by people--especially by those who compliment them.

Melancholies are energized by being alone. They are typically very organized, detail-oriented, and scheduled. They are very sensitive and are particularly sensitive to others' feelings (although they are prone to criticizing the Sanguine). They may not compliment frequently because they believe perfection must be achieved before such praise is due. They are often musically or artistically inclined. They are very prone to depression because they and those they live and work with fail to meet their standards. This personality does not typically like to have attention drawn to him/herself.

It's possible to have characteristics of both, but not to be a true combo. I'm primarily a Sanguine and secondarily Choleric. Even though I am Sanguine, I can be perfectionistic about some things and I do have some musical talents. I also like to be alone sometimes--just not for long periods. I have a good friend who thought she was a Melancholy all her life simply because her parents (Melancholy and Choleric) tried to tell her she was by the way they raised her. Actually, she's a Sanguine and is much happier being herself now.

Hi Mel,

This is such an interesting post because it raises so many issues. Please don't think I'm being simply argumentative ... it is just so rich ;-)

As to grouping and short term memory, yeah but the ghost of George Miller is rolling over in his grave ;-) Firstly it is 7 +/- 2 so that is between 5 and 9 ... so the Enneagram system is covered ;-) And let's not forget that it applies only to short term memory and you are using long term memory for this ;-)

I agree that simpler is better, and that is why I like 9 over 16 ... though some might argue that it is really 4, not 16, but I think you really do need to see the 16 types rather than the four parameters.

But if you want simple, why not go further and look at it from the whole "parent/child" paradigm. (Though, I admit, even the parent/child thing gets messy when expanded to its full blown dysfunctional family. ;-) The trouble is that the simpler the metaphor, the more that is lost if you don't cover all of the "bases".

The problem I have with this system is that it is as arbitrary as astrology ... IOW, just as astrology is based on the false notion that planets govern how we act, this is based on a similarly false premise that our body type influences how we act. But that does not stop me accepting the system per se. What stops me is that it does not cover all of the bases. IOW, personality is richer than just four slots. Even in the Enneagram you have 0, 1, or 2 wings. You have low and high functioning under stress. You have paths, you have subtypes. It has the richness to explain subtle differences ... though you don't need to get into all of that for a basic understanding.

That said, the system you described is basically:

Sanguine = E7
Choleric = E5/8
Melancholic = E5
Phlegmatic = E9

As I mapped that I noted that there are personality types that are obvious but not covered. In Enneagram terms the type 1 is missing ... that is the person who is rule driven ... everyone has to follow the rules at all costs.

E2 is missing -- the helper, who gains one sense of self by how much they help others.

E3 is missing -- the chameleon who in every situation is prototypically what he should be for that group. The one who is always dressed appropriately, tells the correct joke, uses the correct language ... simply fits in best.

E4 is missing -- the overly emotional one. The artist. The one who cries at movies and is easily driven to heights of ecstasy.

E6 is missing -- the one who is suspicious, passive-aggressive, hostile at the low side, for example. And the whole high/low dimension is missing on all of these.

And that is to say nothing of the overlaps. (Choleric has both 5 and 8 attributes and both Melancholic and Choleric describe 5.)

I compared it to Enneagram because that is where I start from. OTOH, I could certainly argue that those four types are the basic types and one gets to such personalities as "helper" by blending. And who is to say which is right? Is it more right to have four types that explain it all by blending, or 16 types which make too many distinctions and lead one to collapsing into groups of types. Or 12 zodiac signs?

It is all really metaphorical. It simply has to allow you to understand what you see, in terms meaningful to you. And it proves itself by allowing you to predict actions based on observation. IOW, once you decide that I am "choleric", can you predict how I'll behave at a party? On a deadline at the office. When bugged by a type E2? LOL ;-) If you can, you have a good and useful system.

Fortune tellers ... yes, that is called "cold reading". It is a very useful skill for fortune tellers, magicians, actors, etc.

Thanks for bringing that system up. I had long forgotten that "body type" system. I remember studying it in a beginning psych class, oh so many years ago ;-)

OK I give up - I am making a conscious (or perhaps intuitive) decision that my "type" is "Confused" and that it is reacting to the situation of "confusion" by going to watch something mindless on TV. As a now confused Sanguine Melancholic my Myers Briggs E feels it "vants to be alone"!

When it comes to managing members of a team and divvying up work depending upon their strengths, I have used the Kolb Theory of Learning Styles. It's a good resource to figure out who should do what. And since it's only 4 types, it's pretty easy to get your head around.

http://www.mcgill.ca/files/scsd/Kolb_Theory_of_Learning_Styles.pdf

Mike, you just pointed out why I don't use a typology like the Eneagram for personality: I can't remember more than four categories! I haven't heard 5 +/- 2 items for 24 years. The PTSD I have from grad school and the brain drain I sustained having six children has permanently damaged my memory. :-) Thanks for the reminder! I need all of those I can get.

You are right about those 4 categories being based on body type, but the names were based on body humour imbalances theorized to underlie the personalities (e.g., too much phlegm made a person sluggish and unmotivated). The only real value is in the observations that went into the theory. My experience is that this classification is very functional. It has helped me be a better wife and mother for one. I came to see that my dh wasn't trying to control me to make me miserable nor was my son unwilling to make a decision to try my patience.

Certainly there are people that can't be easily categorized. Personality is indeed complex. But giving people a simple way to understand it can improve relationships and help them understand themselves. For example, I realized that the reason I struggled with housekeeping was because it's no fun. It's only fun (for me at least) when I have a new cleaning or organizing tool or approach. This is how I am with productivity also. I love newness and the excitement of sharing a new idea with others. Then it gets stale. I change things not to complicate (as many Melancholies and Cholerics might suggest) but to keep myself motivated.

Mike, I would guess that you have both Choleric and Melancholy traits. Do you agree?

Hi Mel,

Yeah, if you look back at my previous post you'll see that I put E5 under both Choleric and Melancholy (given your description of the traits of those two types) -- and I am a solid E5.

Observation: Exactly. Most of the origins of these things become murky and fall away and we are left only with observation ... which is where we should have started from ;-)

PDSD and Brain Drain: LOVE IT! ;-) (Oh, and remember it is 7 +/- 2, not 5 +/- 2. It comes from an almost legendary study done by Miller in 1955, if memory serves. (Hang on a moment ....

"The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information" is a 1956 paper by the cognitive psychologist George A. Miller of Princeton University's Department of Psychology. In it Miller showed a number of remarkable coincidences between the channel capacity of a number of human cognitive and perceptual tasks. In each case, the effective channel capacity is equivalent to between 5 and 9 equally-weighted error-less choices: on average, about 2.5 bits of information. Miller did not draw any firm conclusions, simply hypothesizing that the recurring sevens might represent something deep and profound or be just a pernicious, Pythagorean coincidence.

More to be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two )

Better Wife: Gotcha there. Having some (read ANY) explanation for human behavior which takes sinister motivation off of the table can only help make life more pleasant. No matter where I look in area of personality theory, I see value.

Just for fun ... it is even broader than that. While researching decision theory, I wandered far afield into the occult area of divination. (Ah, don'tcha just LOVE ADD! ;-) I found that methods of divination worked as excellent tools to make decisions. Of course, I also found that it did not pay to share my insight with practitioners of those arts as they were all equally and firmly convinced that they had some connection to the supernatural ;-) But being a life long atheist I found no problem brushing away the crap and getting down to what was working underneath all the hoopla.

It seems that what makes these systems work is that they uncover what the subconscious has worked out and is presenting under cover of random disconnected noise. For example, I read the "I Ching" as a book, from front to back (rather than as intended, by chapter chosen by a cast of sticks) and I found it remarkably like the babbling of a fortune teller. You can read pretty much anything you like into any "chapter". I spent a while messing about with Tarot cards and also found some pretty charming, but nonsensical stories that served to bring up what the person hearing them really believed.

The light bulb really switched on when I read one of the more popular writers on Wicca (her name escapes me at the moment) who really had come to the same conclusion (pretty impressive for someone entrenched in superstition and the occult). She said that if you could not find your favorite Wiccan divination tool, you could go into the nearest bookstore, enter a meditative state (using the appropriate incantations, of course ;-) close your eyes, walk down any isle of books with your right hand out, index finger pointed and stop when it "felt right", open your eyes, look at the book you were pointing to, and find the answer to your question there (in randomly chosen paragraphs of randomly selected pages, or even the title).

The journey was long, but fun for me, and eventually brought me back to that old poem about flipping a coin. Damn, what was it now ... hang on a sec .... ah, here it is. I thought it might have been Gillette Burgess or Dorothy Parker or someone else in that gang but it is not ....

-----

Whenever you're called on to make up your mind.
And you're hampered by not having any.
The simplest way to solve the dilemma you'll find,
Is simply by flipping a penny.

No, not so that chance shall decide the affair;
As you're passively standing there moping.
But as soon as the penny is up in the air,
You'll suddenly know what you're hoping.

--Piet Hein

-----


Dontcha just love the Internet ;-) Piet Hein, BTW, is the author of a series of books with short poems accompanied by silly drawings called "Grooks". I think I have them all upstairs somewhere ;-) I do love his wacky take on life.

For more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Hein_(Denmark)

and

http://chat.carleton.ca/~tcstewar/grooks/grooks.html

'Nchoy ;-)

Mike I am really ROTFL that once again I messed up the number. Maybe for me it IS 5 +/- 2. LOL! I've actually always had a really good visual memory which enabled me to do well in school. I could see my notes and the textbook in my head and come up with test answers. I can still remember every word you used if you make me mad and my speaking notes. The rest, not so much. I am working through a book on memory skills with the kids. Can't you tell? LOL!!

While I don't share your atheism, I do agree with you that much of the superstitions people hold actually have a much simpler explanation. I often use and advise a similar approach to decision-making. I pretend I've made a decision and ask how I feel as a result. I'm a very decisive person, but in those cases where I struggle, this often does the trick.

Love Piet's poem! Of course with my memory, I will remember it as Piaget and it will get all jumbled up with developmental psych. LOL Thanks for your thoughts!

Mel,

LOL ;-)

BTW, when I have clients who are stuck and not able to see how to get around an obsticle I often tell them to move to the future to a time when they have moved past the problem, look back, and see what it is that they did. As absolutely nutty as it sounds, that usually works.

Another insane thing that should not work but does ... when someone can't answer a question about how they feel about something I can ask "What if you did know? What would it be?" ... that also works for some bizarre reason.

People really ARE strange ;-)

I like that concept! Thanks! I think a lot of times people operate out of fear. For example, if a teacher or speaker asks a question, I might know the answer but will remain silent in case I am wrong. By asking your question, you take fear of failure out if the equation. In theory I am successful; how did I do it? A much less threatening question than which approach will be successful. I am just now applying this to a dilemma I have so I appreciate this very much.

Christine, this seems to be what I think your type is based on your descriptions:
(from Enneagram Institute - hope I'm not violating copyright here):

"Although Sevens are in the Thinking Center, this is not immediately apparent because they tend to be extremely practical and engaged in a multitude of projects at any given time. Their thinking is anticipatory: they foresee events and generate ideas “on the fly,” favoring activities that stimulate their minds—which in turn generate more things to do and think about. Sevens are not necessarily intellectual or studious by any standard definition, although they are often intelligent and can be widely read and highly verbal. Their minds move rapidly from one idea to the next, making Sevens gifted at brainstorming and synthesizing information. Sevens are exhilarated by the rush of ideas and by the pleasure of being spontaneous, preferring broad overviews and the excitement of the initial stages of the creative process to probing a single topic in depth.

As long as Sevens can keep their minds occupied, especially with projects and positive ideas for the future, they can, to some extent, keep anxiety and negative feelings out of conscious awareness. Likewise, since their thinking is stimulated by activity, Sevens are compelled to stay on the go, moving from one experience to the next, searching for more stimulation. This is not to say that Sevens are "spinning their wheels." They generally enjoy being practical and getting things done. "

I really like Riso and Hudson's books the best of all that I've read.
http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/7growth.asp