CT/Enneagram Parallels
Feb 7, 2018 16:02:27 GMT -5 by simonemusic (Joseph)
Auburn and The Doctor like this
Post by simonemusic (Joseph) on Feb 7, 2018 16:02:27 GMT -5
Zweilous I see your point, I don't have enough data to be sure. But I don't know if even 75% of 8's are TeNi. My 8 friend is SeTi-Ni. So even the Je correlation doesn't exactly fit for him. Yes 1 can be J heavy, but again, my close friend who's a 1 is NiTe. The first 5 I can think of right now (besides you) is Mary Roach, who's likely NeFi-Te, double extraversion.
"I think, on the contrary, that Enneagram loses its capacity to speak to human experience if it can only be interpreted as corresponding to parts of the psyche that CT doesn't."
I don't necessarily think that's true. CT is not necessarily "personality" per se, it's cognitive function. Enneagram types are deep emotional/physical/mental processes with instinctual drives. They are like neuroses/fears. The systems might have a lot to do with each other in a way that I haven't discovered yet, but to me, they are not related. Correlating them just seems like data porn.
"If we can't bring in anything related to the experience of J functions, what even is 1 anymore?"
J functions are a cognitive style. Type 1 is a superego type that uses reaction formation and to uphold a sense of virtuousness, like a draining of all "fun" into premature adulthood. None of that is implied in J functions, there are several Te-dom 7's I can think of. The only parallel I can imagine is stiffness in the body as a result of either of these psychologies, and perhaps a general stiffness of psychology. But the amount of J doms that are NOT as stiff in their psychology is overwhelming....Lady GaGa is a big crazy 7w8, Charlie Sheen is Te 7....
I guess I'm reacting from a place of seeing people make charts of correlation and then making completely reductive conclusions based on this data without understanding both systems thoroughly. Like 8 = TeNi. I mean let's just say that 75% of 8's are in fact TeNi. Then why aren't other TeNi's 8's or 8-fixed? And why is one quarter of the population of 8's NOT TeNi? It's an interesting thing to think about, but my only issue with this is that we just don't make any reductive conclusions. Like J = 1. I think it's tempting to try to combine every theory into one big mega-theory that is elegant. If something can manage it in a way that makes sense, I'd accept it.
"I think, on the contrary, that Enneagram loses its capacity to speak to human experience if it can only be interpreted as corresponding to parts of the psyche that CT doesn't."
I don't necessarily think that's true. CT is not necessarily "personality" per se, it's cognitive function. Enneagram types are deep emotional/physical/mental processes with instinctual drives. They are like neuroses/fears. The systems might have a lot to do with each other in a way that I haven't discovered yet, but to me, they are not related. Correlating them just seems like data porn.
"If we can't bring in anything related to the experience of J functions, what even is 1 anymore?"
J functions are a cognitive style. Type 1 is a superego type that uses reaction formation and to uphold a sense of virtuousness, like a draining of all "fun" into premature adulthood. None of that is implied in J functions, there are several Te-dom 7's I can think of. The only parallel I can imagine is stiffness in the body as a result of either of these psychologies, and perhaps a general stiffness of psychology. But the amount of J doms that are NOT as stiff in their psychology is overwhelming....Lady GaGa is a big crazy 7w8, Charlie Sheen is Te 7....
I guess I'm reacting from a place of seeing people make charts of correlation and then making completely reductive conclusions based on this data without understanding both systems thoroughly. Like 8 = TeNi. I mean let's just say that 75% of 8's are in fact TeNi. Then why aren't other TeNi's 8's or 8-fixed? And why is one quarter of the population of 8's NOT TeNi? It's an interesting thing to think about, but my only issue with this is that we just don't make any reductive conclusions. Like J = 1. I think it's tempting to try to combine every theory into one big mega-theory that is elegant. If something can manage it in a way that makes sense, I'd accept it.
