The Nine Ways: On the Enneagram
theparisreview.org
The Nine Ways: On the Enneagram
1–10 of 46 posts
Re: The Nine Ways: On the Enneagram
#2I had to Wikipeda "ennegram", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enneagram_of_Personality
The types were most interesting to me, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enneagram_of_Personality#Nine_...
Re: The Nine Ways: On the Enneagram
#3I'm not sure how much stock to put in personality analysis in general, but of the ones I've tinkered with, the Enneagram has been the most helpful.
Re: The Nine Ways: On the Enneagram
#4You 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.
Re: The Nine Ways: On the Enneagram
#5You 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.
The Big Five and HEXACO models have proven pretty statistically reliable. But yeah, most any predecessors to those were complete ass pulls, often by people not really versed in the field (like Myers and Briggs).
Re: The Nine Ways: On the Enneagram
#6You 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.
The Big Five and HEXACO models have proven pretty statistically reliable. But yeah, most any predecessors to those were complete ass pulls, often by people not really versed in the field (like Myers and Briggs).
> But yeah, most any predecessors to those were complete ass pulls, often by people not really versed in the field (like Myers and Briggs).
Which is quite a shame because the underlying groundwork of Jung is quite interesting.
Re: The Nine Ways: On the Enneagram
#7You 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.
The Big Five and HEXACO models have proven pretty statistically reliable. But yeah, most any predecessors to those were complete ass pulls, often by people not really versed in the field (like Myers and Briggs).
Myers Briggs has a significant overlap with the Big 5. They’re mostly the same if you think about it from a Venn Diagram perspective
Re: The Nine Ways: On the Enneagram
#8You 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.
The Big Five and HEXACO models have proven pretty statistically reliable. But yeah, most any predecessors to those were complete ass pulls, often by people not really versed in the field (like Myers and Briggs).
What does "statistically reliable" mean in context of a multiple choice test of preferences and predispositions?
Re: The Nine Ways: On the Enneagram
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Big Five and HEXACO models have proven pretty statistically reliable. But yeah, most any predecessors to those were complete ass pulls, often by people not really versed in the field (like Myers and Briggs).
What does "statistically reliable" mean in context of a multiple choice test of preferences and predispositions?
Replicable, in this context.
Re: The Nine Ways: On the Enneagram
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Big Five and HEXACO models have proven pretty statistically reliable. But yeah, most any predecessors to those were complete ass pulls, often by people not really versed in the field (like Myers and Briggs).
What does "statistically reliable" mean in context of a multiple choice test of preferences and predispositions?
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.