Post by ayoungspirit on Jul 24, 2016 18:38:00 GMT -5
First of all, in consideration of the points which have been raised, I would like to bring some external input by linking to the French Institute of the Enneagram. The community is questionable in some respects, but their article base is freely accessible, and a few of them are translated in English.
Notably, if you are trying to get a systemic and concise overview, you might find some interest in the following attempt : Steps to a Unified Model of the Enneagram (English).
It mentions the current state of the theory, and emphasizes the orientation of basic processes to assure both a self-contained and comprehensive reference. It also proposes an alternative interpretation to tritype and growth arrows, based on an auxiliary and repressed "center". This offers some contrast to a similar endeavor published in Enneagram Monthly called the Directional Theory of the Enneagram.
On the empirical side, they also have an article (French) on the potential relationship between type and cognitive dispositions in toddlers, extrapolated from the nine temperaments observed by unrelated doctors Alexander Thomas et Stella Chess (Temperament and Development (New York : Brunner/Mazel, 1977)). This joins the study of neurotransmitters (link) in parallel with theories on education like the Law of Three.
Edit : See also the thread opened by The Doctor to offer a clear insight on the matter : link.
Other than that, I should perhaps admit not being an adequate contributor to the topic, as my interest in Enneagram has never properly fructified.
Not to imply that I am devoid of opinion on the matter. For example, I believe that, even if the theories are focusing on different layers of the psyche, it would be hasty to consider them as compartmentalized and interchangeable. Not only do they both have attempted to describe behavior, cognition as well as core motivation, whether legitimately or not, but the layers themselves, as an organ, could be intertwined in a determining fashion. Simply said, it might be soon to decide that every type can be any other, without consistent data.
If we stand for personal experience, and without any pretense of generalization, I sometimes observed individuals not only displaying the traits associated with an Enneagram type in an incremental fashion, but a wholesome qualia. It has lead me to consider that, in a way or another, some Enneagram descriptions were more geared toward a CT type than another, which may point toward a necessary clarification (at least for me !). If you feel that this is on course, I can elaborate.
Notably, if you are trying to get a systemic and concise overview, you might find some interest in the following attempt : Steps to a Unified Model of the Enneagram (English).
It mentions the current state of the theory, and emphasizes the orientation of basic processes to assure both a self-contained and comprehensive reference. It also proposes an alternative interpretation to tritype and growth arrows, based on an auxiliary and repressed "center". This offers some contrast to a similar endeavor published in Enneagram Monthly called the Directional Theory of the Enneagram.
On the empirical side, they also have an article (French) on the potential relationship between type and cognitive dispositions in toddlers, extrapolated from the nine temperaments observed by unrelated doctors Alexander Thomas et Stella Chess (Temperament and Development (New York : Brunner/Mazel, 1977)). This joins the study of neurotransmitters (link) in parallel with theories on education like the Law of Three.
Edit : See also the thread opened by The Doctor to offer a clear insight on the matter : link.
Other than that, I should perhaps admit not being an adequate contributor to the topic, as my interest in Enneagram has never properly fructified.
Not to imply that I am devoid of opinion on the matter. For example, I believe that, even if the theories are focusing on different layers of the psyche, it would be hasty to consider them as compartmentalized and interchangeable. Not only do they both have attempted to describe behavior, cognition as well as core motivation, whether legitimately or not, but the layers themselves, as an organ, could be intertwined in a determining fashion. Simply said, it might be soon to decide that every type can be any other, without consistent data.
If we stand for personal experience, and without any pretense of generalization, I sometimes observed individuals not only displaying the traits associated with an Enneagram type in an incremental fashion, but a wholesome qualia. It has lead me to consider that, in a way or another, some Enneagram descriptions were more geared toward a CT type than another, which may point toward a necessary clarification (at least for me !). If you feel that this is on course, I can elaborate.