| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
enneathing
Member
Australia
518 Posts |
 Posted - 03 Nov 2009 : 05:59:41 AM
|
Okay, so this is supposed to provide some kind of evidence pertaining to whether The Enneagram is scientifically valid or not... Not sure if it's been mentioned here before:
http://petersavich.com/PersonalityAndTheBrain/
Is there anything to this? TBH, it's really out of my realm of understanding, so I can't tell whether there is or not.
I'm curious. Is there anyone who can explain whether this is valid or not? I'd be interested to hear.
|
|
|
Abi
Member
USA
3837 Posts |
Posted - 03 Nov 2009 : 06:30:02 AM
|
I came across that site a few years back and found it interesting...tho I'd have to dig out my file/notes to comment further.
I do find it somewhat telling, however, that he still has not added to the project since then.
Meanwhile, have you read the similar article on this site?
http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/articles/NArtTina.asp
|
 |
|
|
enneathing
Member
Australia
518 Posts |
Posted - 04 Nov 2009 : 01:24:59 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Abi
I came across that site a few years back and found it interesting...tho I'd have to dig out my file/notes to comment further.
Notes eh? 
I do find it somewhat telling, however, that he still has not added to the project since then.
Telling how?
Meanwhile, have you read the similar article on this site?
http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/articles/NArtTina.asp
Yes, I had read that. The guy who wrote that e-book on personality and the brain seems to be getting at something else though, which I find harder to understand. I think I understood that article on this website alright, but they didn't mention anything about the pre-frontal cortex from memory. What I'm wondering is, would it be possible that further scientific research on this guy's theory prove the scientific validity of The E?
|
|
|
|
.ron4
Member
9125 Posts |
Posted - 04 Nov 2009 : 04:01:34 AM
|
enneathing,
Science is about observation and experimentation and isn't that what
each of us are doing here with ourselves and others to prove this E
theory.
Science says that a certain part of the brain is used in our functions
but can you see it in the brain, no. But with testing it and getting
the same results proves science.
Science has located places in the brain where these functions are
being sent from and that might be ok if your going to cut it out
and replace it with a new part so you can stay alive longer maybe.
We already know the ego is a necessary part of the psyche so do
we have to find it in the brain to prove it exist ?
ron |
|
|
|
Abi
Member
USA
3837 Posts |
Posted - 04 Nov 2009 : 06:08:48 AM
|
"Notes eh?"
I take notes on most everything.
"Telling how?"
Telling that in the years since I read his work he still hasn't posted anything on Part Three.
"... the scientific validity of The E?"
Can't help you there. The way the E is popularly presented doesn't hold much interest for me anymore.
If I come across my old notes and think there's anything that would interest you, I'll post it here.
|
|
|
|
enneathing
Member
Australia
518 Posts |
Posted - 04 Nov 2009 : 06:37:14 AM
|
Thanks Abi
What don't you like about the way the E is popularly presented? |
|
|
|
radical_ed
Member
1314 Posts |
Posted - 04 Nov 2009 : 3:20:29 PM
|
enneathing,
Thanks for posting the link to the book. I read the first few chapters. The most original, insightful part (chapters 7-9) have not been written. It has been 4 years, so I can only presume that this is an abandoned project, which, frankly, is too bad.
I know you didn't ask me about how I believe the Enneagram is popularly presented, but I've got an opinion about it, so I'll throw it in just to see how you'll react. The way the Enneagram is popularly presented is as a psychospiritual path toward self-development. In other words, it combines a bit of psychology with spiritual ideas. There also tends to be a bit of collectivism thrown in the mix. This is fine if you're religious and collectivist. But if you're an individualistic atheist like me, this would make you feel a bit uneasy when you look into it.
I find the Enneagram to be useful for personal development. R&H's advice to relax and be accepting of self and others has proven to be very useful in my life. I don't buy into the personal enlightenment and improvement of collective consciousness bit. I've thought about it, I've read about it, I've inquired about it on this board and off. The result of me being collectivist and religious, in my personal experience, is that I give my own personal power away to "society" and "God", whatever those two terms mean in practice. I prefer to maintain my own power, thank you very much. And if you think that's just ego talking, well, you have a right to be wrong. And you've got a right to believe I'm mistaken. Just don't force your beliefs down my throat. If I want to know what you think, I'll ask.
__
Radical Edward
sx/sp 7w8 ENTP
Why the hell not? |
|
|
|
Abi
Member
USA
3837 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2009 : 04:41:24 AM
|
"What don't you like about the way the E is popularly presented?"
Perhaps utilized would have been a better choice of word than presented. My bad.
In any case, words spoken better left unsaid.
Please forgive me. |
|
|
|
Classi
Member
331 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2009 : 05:07:18 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by .ron4
We already know the ego is a necessary part of the psyche so do
we have to find it in the brain to prove it exist ?
ron
Because we just have to
I don't think there should ever be any limit on science, the anti-cloning, anti GM protests[blocked due to guideline #4 violation]me off. They have some hippy protect mother earth gaia mentality going on when their beliefs are merely throwbacks from our oh so recent Judeo-Christian stewardship of the earth past.
And the balls been set in motion so any debates are just setting things back 10 years or so, our lives are already so unnatural that we're pretty much headed to a bio-cyber enahanced human race in two centuries give or take. There are always innocent ways of dressing up research.
I never really got the whole religion vs science dynamic. In my mind they should be working towards the same goal, and I don't think they would be in conflict if it were not for the evolution clash. I'm not unwilling to believe in things we can't prove, if the history of science can teach us anything its that the world is infinitely mysterious. I actually do think its pretty obvious there's alot more to us than most scientists at present would be willing to acknowledge, I'm even willing to believe in the possibility of something like a "God". But the whole watchmaker arguement never sat with me. Watch's must have a watchmaker, who made the watchmaker then?? And what exactly were we doing before we were born if we are eternal?? Now my head's full of infinite questions for the rest of the day, but it's funny that there are ghosts, meaningful impossible coincidences, moments where you can read another person's mind...I will be curious and open minded to the end
Maybe it's just my five wing talking but I think we have to know everything!!!
PS In no way aimed at Ron4, I just like to ramble
|
Edited by - Classi on 05 Nov 2009 05:09:21 AM |
|
|
|
ChristineK
Member
17 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2009 : 08:16:04 AM
|
Science vs religion has always interested me. Even Einstein had some interesting quotes that have me wondering about his feelings on the subject. I mean, he was one of the greatest scientists ever, yet after reading his following quotations it seems that he also had spiritual/religious undertones.
What do you think??
(All Einstein quotes)
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
'There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.
Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
Imagination is more important than knowledge...
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
Three of my favorite Einstein quotes, unrelated to the subject but still great:
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
The ideals which have lighted my way, and time after time have given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Kindness, Beauty, and Truth. The trite subjects of human efforts, possessions, outward success, luxury have always seemed to me contemptible.
The ideals which have lighted my way, and time after time have given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Kindness, Beauty, and Truth. The trite subjects of human efforts, possessions, outward success, luxury have always seemed to me contemptible.
Albert Einstein |
|
|
|
radical_ed
Member
1314 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2009 : 08:34:36 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChristineK
The ideals which have lighted my way, and time after time have given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Kindness, Beauty, and Truth. The trite subjects of human efforts, possessions, outward success, luxury have always seemed to me contemptible.
Albert Einstein
I had heard of all of those quotes before except for this last one. I think this last one is most telling. Einstein, for all his genius, could not seem to figure out -- at least from this quote -- that the pursuit of Kindness, Beauty, and Truth and the pursuit of effort, success, and luxury are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
__
Radical Edward
sx/sp 7w8 ENTP
Why the hell not? |
Edited by - radical_ed on 05 Nov 2009 08:36:21 AM |
|
|
|
awakening
Member
USA
1761 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2009 : 08:40:29 AM
|
Robert Sapolsky has some interesting views regarding science, psychology, and religion. This isn't completely on-topic, but I think it's close enough to warrant a mention. He seems like 5w6 so/sp.
http://blip.tv/play/AYGHoAKXoHo
|
Edited by - awakening on 05 Nov 2009 08:42:53 AM |
|
|
|
J
Member
1250 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2009 : 5:41:38 PM
|
Approaching something with a "force to fit" kind of perspective is suspicious. Good scientists look for evidence to refute their theories, not support it. I think personality goes beyond just the prefrontal and amygadala but I agree those areas play a role. I think there is an old thread on the debate of these areas with John, Abi and myself.
INTJ
5 sx
Idiosyncratic/SelfSacrificing/Concientious
Empath/Healer/Evokateur
The three words that best describe you,
are, and I quote: "Stink. Stank. Stunk."
|
|
|
|
Abi
Member
USA
3837 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2009 : 8:10:35 PM
|
"I think there is an old thread on the debate of these areas with John, Abi and myself."
Aaahhh...the good ole days. 
|
|
|
|
enneathing
Member
Australia
518 Posts |
Posted - 06 Nov 2009 : 01:39:14 AM
|
Okay you're making me feel left out here. 
Was the thread related to link I posted or was it just about how the E relates brain science?
And yes, I also have some qualms about the way the E is popularly utilized Abi, though they may not be the same as yours. |
|
|
|
Abi
Member
USA
3837 Posts |
|
|
Art_Skidmore
Member
13305 Posts |
Posted - 06 Nov 2009 : 9:10:45 PM
|
too bad
how sad
you can
draw an enneagram and place a pencil at
point 9
draw an arc inside the circle to
point 1
continue from
point 1
draw an arc outside the circle to
point 2
continue from
point 2
draw an arc inside the circle to
point 3
continue from
point 3
draw an arc outside the circle to
point 4
continue from
point 4
draw an arc inside the circle to
point 5
continue from
point 5
draw an arc outside the circle to
point 6
continue from
point 6
draw an arc inside the circle to
point 7
continue from
point 7
draw an arc outside the circle to
point 8
continue from
point 8
draw an arc inside the circle to
point 9
continue from
point 9
draw an arc outside the circle to
point 1
continue from
point 1
drawing an arc thru
points 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,
back to point 9.
hurrah! almost enneagramic neuroscience.
now imagine cutting the outer circular and holding an end in each hand straightening the circle with its arcs....suddenly you see....an enneagramic helix representing yourself....
hurrah! your enneagram neuroscience.
|
Edited by - Art_Skidmore on 06 Nov 2009 9:15:18 PM |
|
|
|
.mary1
Member
50 Posts |
Posted - 06 Nov 2009 : 11:39:02 PM
|
Yes, 'we' need to know e-ver-y thing but I don't .
Is that wrong ?
  
ron |
|
|
|
.ron4
Member
9125 Posts |
Posted - 06 Nov 2009 : 11:47:12 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by .mary1
Yes, 'we' need to know e-ver-y thing but I don't .
Is that wrong ?
ron
Mix up, my bad.
ron |
|
|
|
Classi
Member
331 Posts |
Posted - 07 Nov 2009 : 02:53:56 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by .mary1
I don't .
Is that wrong ?
Who am I to say? you're free to know as much as you want to
Personally I'm glad that after the wheel was invented, the general consensus wasn't "Ok, that's enough now" |
Edited by - Classi on 07 Nov 2009 04:13:43 AM |
|
|
|
Art_Skidmore
Member
13305 Posts |
Posted - 07 Nov 2009 : 07:04:59 AM
|
a balanced helix creating itself
vs
a scrambled helix destroying itself.
|
|
|
|
.ron4
Member
9125 Posts |
Posted - 07 Nov 2009 : 5:34:03 PM
|
I think we should still burn witches and sacrifice humans, oh
yeah I forgot, we still do.
|
|
|
|
.ron4
Member
9125 Posts |
Posted - 07 Nov 2009 : 7:59:50 PM
|
No, I'm not being personal about anyone except my own
caveman attitude.
Ron Green
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Combining The Enneagram with Neuroscience?
