Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Nine Ways: On the Enneagram

theparisreview.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: The Nine Ways: On the Enneagram

#41

Post by bitwize »

tgv wrote: post #39
knallfrosch wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Statistically reliable, in what sense? Let's just say that if astrology was reliable, people would follow their horoscopes.

Astrology has a great test-retest reliability. Every time someone tests your sign, the same answer comes out. That's what it means. Same for personality inventories: people's replies don't vary much over time. As astrology shows, that doesn't mean you can draw conclusions.

But star sign doesn't really correlate with personality traits. People with similar horoscopes can have vastly different personalities. People with similar Big 5 scores have similar personalities.

Re: The Nine Ways: On the Enneagram

#42

Post by popalchemist »

tgv wrote: post #4

You may like it or whatever, but don't think this is in any way objective, a trait which it has in common with practically all personality psychology.

Not all things fall under the purview of science, and not all things should. Whether someone makes claims of this being empirical is, for me and other pragmatists, aside the point: if it serves to help you understand yourself, or gives you some advantage in navigating interpersonal dynamics with others, it is valid. The proof is in the pudding. Nobody would question a literal pudding's empirical validity. They care only whether the recipe works.

Re: The Nine Ways: On the Enneagram

#43

Post by popalchemist »

dbspin wrote: post #14
darksim905 wrote: post #13

Regardless of how people feel about any of the personality frameworks and how well they describe human behavior, reasoning and makeup of the person -- it can be proven to be highly valuable in a day and age where people make judgements or seek to categorize and group people gauging how well they get along with those people. I am generally not a fan of labels, but, especially in our technology based field, as an INTP,…

I'm surprised to see such woo in a top comment on hacker news. The accuracy or theoretical underpinning of these 'frameworks' aren't contentious, they're non existent. There are solidly researched and evidenced personality theories developed and validated through quantitative research in academic psychology. These include the 'Big Five' trait approaches like MMPI and social learning theory. Astrology, Myers–Briggs an…

You, like most people, are unfamiliar with the metaphysical underpinnings and historical origins of astrology, so you have no real place to stand on the question of the validity of its claims. The only way you could is if you were intimately familiar with the topic.

Anyway, even if you take the metaphysical claims out of the equation entirely, as Carl Jung did, you can still derive great value from a system of thought-organization like Astrology. In Carl Jung's work he found that regardless of the claims about causation and personality, the symbological mappings of the zodiac represents something close to a map of cardinal archetypes, or you might think of them as psycho-social behavior blueprints that are intrinsic due to our evolutionary history and ALSO, as a secondary layer, culturally conditioned.

Point being... taking the stance you take, of accepting things only if they can be empirically proven, would prevent a person like you from ever gaining that insight / wisdom.

Your strength of intelligence is the greatest barrier to the growth of your wisdom.

Re: The Nine Ways: On the Enneagram

#44

Post by juped »

demondemidi wrote: post #22
juped wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means you can ask people on a questionnaire "are you open to new experiences" and then later offer them a new experience and get some papers off this incredibly shocking finding. Someday psychology might be a science but it isn't now; it just rejected its alchemical mystics like it saw the cool sciences doing, but without any paradigm to follow them.

Fallacy. Just because your preferred belief framework has no supporting evidence or research doesn’t mean an actual science that you don’t like isn’t actual science. In other words, you can create your own alternative facts but they still aren’t facts.

I am not sure what "preferred belief framework" you are projecting onto me, but you may be interested to note that I mentioned no such thing.

The findings of psychology tend to be unreplicable just-so stories, like all the findings so popular in pop-psychology books that failed to replicate in the 2010s, or journal-filling tautologies, like "Big 5" papers showing introversion correlates with introversion or what have you.

Alchemy reformed into chemistry. You can make real sciences out of mysticism. Psychology is not a real science reformed out of mysticism, it's just academic bureaucracy set up like the ones associated with real sciences, producing useless papers.

Please don't enact your personal psychodrama on random people on the Internet, or at least don't do it to me.

Re: The Nine Ways: On the Enneagram

#45

Post by demondemidi »

juped wrote: post #44
demondemidi wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fallacy. Just because your preferred belief framework has no supporting evidence or research doesn’t mean an actual science that you don’t like isn’t actual science. In other words, you can create your own alternative facts but they still aren’t facts.

I am not sure what "preferred belief framework" you are projecting onto me, but you may be interested to note that I mentioned no such thing. The findings of psychology tend to be unreplicable just-so stories, like all the findings so popular in pop-psychology books that failed to replicate in the 2010s, or journal-filling tautologies, like "Big 5" papers showing introversion correlates with introversion or what have…

> Please don't enact your personal psychodrama on random people on the Internet

I wouldn't dream of competing with you.

Re: The Nine Ways: On the Enneagram

#46

Post by dbspin »

popalchemist wrote: post #43
dbspin wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised to see such woo in a top comment on hacker news. The accuracy or theoretical underpinning of these 'frameworks' aren't contentious, they're non existent. There are solidly researched and evidenced personality theories developed and validated through quantitative research in academic psychology. These include the 'Big Five' trait approaches like MMPI and social learning theory. Astrology, Myers–Briggs an…

You, like most people, are unfamiliar with the metaphysical underpinnings and historical origins of astrology, so you have no real place to stand on the question of the validity of its claims. The only way you could is if you were intimately familiar with the topic. Anyway, even if you take the metaphysical claims out of the equation entirely, as Carl Jung did, you can still derive great value from a system of though…

This is simply a variation of the no true Scotsman argument. In other words a classic fallacy. For someone to dispute the claims of they must be intimately familiar with . Were they familiar with it they would obviously not discount it. If they discount it, they must not be familiar with it.

As previously stated - you can believe anything you like, and it may even be useful to do so. For example there's solid research that religious belief has positive health outcomes. However that has no impact on the truth value of any religious or other metaphysical belief.

Again, theress a strong academic quantitate (and parallel quantitative) tradition of cross cultural psychology. Tacking such questions from a more rigorous point of view - including comparison of epistemic and ontological traditions. I'd recommend Mac McLaughin's text 'Culture and Health' as a good starting point.

https://www.google.ie/books/edition/Culture_and_Health/VAbbA...

Post reply on HN