User:Admin/Critique of Enneagram

From Wikisocion

As a typology, the Enneagram is even more qualitative than socionics and suffers from the same fundamental problems: lack of hard-and-fast criteria for types and categories, differing emphasis in different descriptions, and frequently divergent typings. If socionics is a "logical" system by its own criteria, then the Enneagram would probably be an "ethical" one.

As I read basic info about the types and look at people's typings of others in the socionics community, I see many cases where people do not fit the descriptions for that type. However, after reading a couple sets of descriptions, I see that each is a bit different. Actually, no, they are often totally different. So one ends up with the same quandary of "so what is really the essence of each type?" that plagues socionics. If you apply your system in isolation, it doesn't matter that other people have a different understanding of the system. If you try to discuss it with others or universalize it, you encounter problems. The Enneagram is in a hopeless situation; its qualitative approach endlessly spawns new ideas, but no realization or materialization of the system as a whole is possible. In other words, "for personal consumption only." Basically, not much different from socionics.

Philosophical troubles aside, when I read descriptions of the different types, I see some resemblance to socionic types. Here's what I think, based off the set of descriptions at Wikipedia:

One — EII, IEI

Two — ESI, EII

Three — LIE, EIE, LSE, ESE

Four — ILI, IEI

Five — LII, LSI

Six — EIE, IEI, LIE, ILI

Seven — IEE, ILE, ESE, EIE

Eight — SLE, SEE, LSI, ESI

Nine — SEI, SLI

Read full article at my blog.