Spin-off: Personality Types and the dynamics of discussion

[AMWolfe (Andrew M. Wolfe)]

Hi James,

Always a joy to see you posting on here, even when I disagree. Since I bubbled over quite a bit about the Enneagram, I thought I’d weigh in a bit here in response to your post.

@jammycakes

Here’s what the Gospel Coalition has to say about the enneagram:

Some comments on this article, in no particular order:

I find it interesting how TGC uses science. It’s quite useful for knocking things they don’t like, but just don’t take it too far, or you might end up over at BioLogos with those theistic evolutionists…

No matter how many times they put the words “Enneagram” and “astrology” together, it doesn’t actually mean that the two are similar. Astrology suggests that my personality type is the same as everyone else born in late May and early June. This is… rather ridiculous.

“Why are some evangelicals enthusiastic about the Enneagram?” they ask. Interestingly, they never consider that some evangelicals might actually consider it to be insightful.

“The symbol also is reminiscent of the pentagram, which is associated with various occult groups, from Wiccans to Satanists.” Really? So is the Star of David. In fact the Star of David has 6 points, a lot closer to 5 points than the Enneagram’s 9. I would think TGC would be above this silly sort of guilt-by-association, but apparently not.

Overall, I’m not a fan of essential oils or anti-vax rhetoric, but I think the Enneagram (and Myers-Briggs, for that matter, although I’m not really a bit fan of the MBTI personally) is in a different category, and the key is to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff. You don’t have to buy into it as some all-encompassing Theory of Life™, or become a devotee of Gurdjieff, to find some value in its descriptions of personality variations, n’est-ce pas?

Anyway, clearly, your mileage may vary…

Peace,
Andrew

[AMWolfe (Andrew M. Wolfe)]

P.S. Not sure whether to put this here, or in humor section…

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

OK, point taken, some of the Gospel Coalition’s points are maybe a bit on the weak side. And I will admit that my comparisons of the Enneagram and Myers-Briggs to astrology were a bit sarcastic. However, there is a valid point in making such a comparison. Specifically: could you MBTI/Enneagram enthusiasts please start citing some peer reviewed scientific studies to back up your case?

For what it’s worth, it’s not just the Gospel Coalition who are being dismissive of the Enneagram here – RationalWiki, the Skeptic’s Dictionary and WIkipedia are saying pretty much the same thing. Now I know we should probably take what we read on RationalWiki with a pinch of salt, but when scientific sceptics and certain concerned evangelical organisations are both saying that something is woo, I think it’s a pretty reliable assumption that it is, in fact, woo.

[AMWolfe (Andrew M. Wolfe)]

@jammycakes

could you MBTI/Enneagram enthusiasts please start citing some peer reviewed scientific studies to back up your case?

There aren’t any, and I don’t foresee it becoming more scientific. That doesn’t bother me, but I certainly respect that that’s not for everyone.

@jammycakes

when scientific sceptics and certain concerned evangelical organisations are both saying that something is woo, I think it’s a pretty reliable assumption that it is, in fact, woo.

I don’t deny that there are elements that are woo-y. I said as much, myself, higher up in the thread, although I had not yet been enlightened as to this wonderful new vocabulary word, “woo.” And I myself am very skeptical of the type of broad description used in a psychic’s cold readings that can apply to anyone. I don’t think that’s what you find in the Enneagram.

The essential insights of the Enneagram for me have been these, and they do not strike me as particularly susceptible to accusations of woo:

• that the core concerns that drive my personality may not be the core concerns that drive your personality,
• that I misread a lot of people when I assume the contrary,
• that, because these matters are core components of our personalities, they actually tend to have resonances in a lot of disparate areas of our lives,
• that, by correlate, the sins that I struggle most massively with may not be the sins that you struggle most massively with,
• that, by correlate, what may be easy spiritual growth for me may be extremely difficult spiritual growth for you, and vice versa
• that it is to my benefit to understand these differences so that I can increase my compassion, reduce my pride, grow in ways that are particularly difficult for me, and live harmoniously with different people.

Are there nine and only nine such groups? Who knows. Do they have to be in that order? Probably not. Is everyone really only a part of one or two groups? Probably not. And the extended version of the Enneagram that @Christy described from her mom’s book seems more woo-like. But the framework in general, I find very helpful. Again, I fully respect people who want their personality descriptions to be grounded in scientifically tested principles. Meanwhile, I won’t keep the lack of that from depriving me of some helpful insights into the people around me.

[Laura]

Yeah, I think it all depends how we’re using it. It doesn’t have to be solely either spiritual or scientific – just fun and/or useful. On the spiritual side, we should make sure it’s not contradicting core spiritual truths. On the science side, we should look and see what kind of research is behind it and not use it for things it wasn’t intended to be used for. But aside from that, I think those tests can be useful tools in moderation. I enjoyed looking at how different and similar my husband’s and my MBTI results were. Those results didn’t make us different or change much of what we did – they just helped describe and give a name to what was already there.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

From what I’ve seen, “woo” is just an insult word used most often by those who find something to be entirely lacking of any genuine scientific support, and therefore entirely unworthy of any further consideration until or unless that perceived shortcoming is remedied.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@jammycakes @Christy

@jammycakes

Myers-Briggs is probably best described as “Enterprise Astrology™.”

Yep and astrology is probably best described as ancient psychology. Its not the results which are so important as the activity of self-reflection.

@jammycakes

Yeah, anyone who doesn’t like New Age woo.

I put it in the same category as Christian woo, where I reserve judgement. I certainly don’t have any where near as much problem with either of these as I do with Christian provincial pomposity. I suppose you might perceive a similar attitude in science and there my respect demands evidence, for without it there is no real difference.

@Christy

Woo is salesmanship based on completely unprovable or unproven claims. Like that vitamin supplements or essential oils cure certain sicknesses. Or that chiropractics aids infertility.

Well the term refers to a feeling that the rhetoric employed smacks a little bit of magical thinking. EXCELLENT examples by the way. They demonstrate that the use of such rhetoric doesn’t mean that there is nothing of value in either vitamin supplements or chiropractics. It just means that you need to treat all the claims of rhetoric (including the Christians ones) with a few grains of salt.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

Now, if we can just integrate what essential oils enhances what personality type, so as to help with our deficiencies, we will better be able to balance our Chi.