Posted by Bertram Ostrer (126.96.36.199) on September 04, 2003 at 03:30:59:
In Reply to: Re: B.O. . . posted by ISTP/typeless? (188.8.131.52) on September 03, 2003 at 23:03:23:
Nice questions for thought. I minored in psych, too.
My type doesn't fit me 100 percent. It fits me better than any other type does, given my understanding of the type, which isn't based on one author or book, but on a combination of several, plus my own tentative input. Some of my psychological drives might not clearly reflect my type. Some might indicate the influence of other types in me. Yet many of my drives do seem to reflect my main type. Different authors define that type differently. I have tried to synthesize my own definition from experience. I've explained my view of the Enneagram a couple of times recently, and I've realized, with some amusement, that the particular focal angle of my descriptions cannot be found in any book, though my descriptions are based on material from the books.
Though I'm loathe to admit it, I find the Enneagram community to be roughly 90 percent bigotry and also roughly 90 percent neurotic self-congratulation. I don't bother people about it, but I try to avoid these traps, and I have somewhat distanced myself from the Enneagram community during the last few years. I find it hard to have an Enneagram-related conversation with most people without having to either awkardly sidestep the simplistic stereotyping or sometimes even having to drop the subject altogether when there's no room to sidestep. :>
I don't believe a person's type reveals as much about that person as many Enneagram fanatics would imply it does. I'm reminded of the science professor who, in a plea for the cessation of stereotyping, informed his class "I don't own any of the following things: a pocket protector; a belt holster for a calculator; a pair of glasses held together in the middle by masking tape," etc. You get the idea.
So in short, I don't identify much with "the system" as it's generally understood.
Post a Followup