Enneagram

salles wrote:I definitely like to psychoanalyse, in my own way. eg. my manager, someone I have mentioned previously. I would never try and guess her Enneagram type as a means to understanding her nature.
I judge/analyse her, based on her behaviour and based on her family circumstances, the kind of drama she attracts, her triggers...etc...
She is two faced and has sociopathic tendencies; is easily triggered when her lack of self worth is challenged. That is all I need to know in order to predict her behaviour and act accordingly. She responds to humour and for that reason we get along, mostly.
I admittedly spend time analysing her because she has the power to make my time at work hellish.

So you're doing what she is doing?

Seili wrote:So you're doing what she is doing?

I'm doing what normal people do. Dream fighting, without bloodshed... quite innocuous

I think normal people do what I do. Nothing. Unless they bump into something peculiar, like you ogling. So what you're doing could be just a self-fulfilling prophecy.

salles wrote:Dream fighting, without bloodshed... quite innocuous

Ooou..

To quote Manners..
wish I knew what you was talking about

Ogling means ' to stare at in a lecherous manner' fyi.

Such a misplaced comment, from you And Manners.

Seili wrote:You've got a PD if you can't comprehend the variety of reactions people get, and the why's they occur.

I don't have a PD, and honestly...I don't understand your responses to my posts. There is some sort of massive miscommunication. I mean, feel free to keep interpreting as you see fit. Do you want to fess up to ESL, ASD, or a thought disorder? You aren't schizoaffective are you? Honestly, I wish the best for you and I think you need medication.

You just did it again.

poxalis wrote:Honestly, I wish the best for you and I think you need medication.

So condescending.

Yet again, nope. Cheap tricks, troll. Go feed from someone else. I don't play with fish tacos.

solemnlysworn wrote:

Greebo wrote:I tested only a few points less on Four than I did on One, so I decided to have a read through the chapter on Fours. Surprisingly when it’s not being presented in some idealised way I find the Four description extremely relatable

One is the security type of Four so it's common that they'll score together quite closely.

Per the Enneagram, the greater access a person has from their primary type (in this case One) to their connecting point types (for a One, to Four and Seven), the less rigid and fixed, or the less 'boxed-in', a person is, as SS is pointing out.

I have a fairly high Four score as well.

solemnlysworn wrote:8, I wonder if you might recommend any others. Of course, I'll give these another read to refresh my memory because I've forgotten nearly everything that isn't in broad-strokes

I'm surprised by your reading list already. It's quite the splay. You're reading Naranjo who is considered the father of the Enneagram. He's a Chilean psychiatrist and a bit of a weird duck as many brilliant people are. He just died. I never met him. You're also reading Sandra Maitri who learned directly from and with Naranjo at the very beginning - her approach is more a spiritual approach than a psychological approach; for that reason, I quite like her but she's not everyone's cup of tea. -
I think you're discovered well on your own.

Just to clarify and add to something you said in another post - the Enneagram's basis is psychological - it was originated and formulated by two psychiatrists, one who taught the other. One of them brought it to the West and their early students broadly formed two groups: those with a religious/spiritual interest, and those with a psychological interest. From those early groups, it then went into the Catholic church via the Jesuits who'd been trained and began to be used (or hotly repudiated) by religious orders, and it equally went into psychological networks with students becoming teachers and adding to the system. It's onus was never a religious one, though I would say it was a psychospiritual one.