Is the Enneagram Scientific Progress or Regress? | Jay Medenwaldt | TEDxNWC
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- The Enneagram is common in society as a tool to better understand ourselves and others. Many people use it to determine compatibility or learn more about their personality type. However, this test can sometimes do more harm than help to our personal lives. It allows people to make instant judgments about people they just met or justify dislike of certain personality types. This talk shows the psychology of the Enneagram, and how stories surrounding the it can reduce people to a number, and perpetuate harmful ideas that lead to negative consequences among family, friends, and society as a whole. Dr. Jay Medenwaldt is currently an assistant professor of psychology at Northwestern College, IA. He served in the Air Force as a behavioral scientist for nine years before earning a PhD in social psychology and an MDiv in apologetics, ethics, and biblical studies. His research and ministry work focus on how psychological factors affect religious beliefs. His forthcoming book examines the enneagram through the lens of science and Christian theology. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
yes, empirical validation and comparison are important to me, it's a good point. I feel that he fails to understand that the Enneagram works on a different conceptual level. It focuses on core motivations and developmental paths, which are not the primary concern of the Big Five. He presents some valid critiques, particularly about stereotyping and reliability yes, also his analysis misses the deeper spiritual and psychological layers that the Enneagram (the most interesting part to me). It’s a tool for transformation, not just categorization.We need people like you though, to bring this side of the mirror. Good job.
Good job, Jay! Thanks for doing this and for your research.
Great work Jay!!! I am so impressed! I appreciate your work and research so much!
Thank. You.
Thank you, Dr. Medenwaldt!
Pragmatism can be harmful.
Great comparison of the Big Five to the Enneagram. If people understood how tests like the Big Five were created, they wouldn't be duped by the Enneagram's pseudoscience. Thank you for your excellent summary of how the Big Five was developed.
Confirmation bias on your part.
What has modern scientific research on personality done to help the modern person? If anything, mainstream psychology is doing more harm than good so I don’t know if I trust the research experts anymore.
Academic psychologists are pretty good at identifying or describing aspects of human psychology (including, but not limited to personality). They're good at prescribing solutions in some areas, but not others, and terrible at communicating research to practitioners (counselors) and the general population. As a result, much of popular level psychology doesn't actually align with what the research experts know and recommend.
5:53 "However, the Enneagram only shows limited correlations with the Big 5."
I have proof that it shows fantastic correlations with the Big 5.
I think the book from Riso and Hudson * wisdom of the enneagram* is one of the most accurate information books you can get since years...And yesss the real first known human that shared it openly was Gurdieff, who mentioned to have received it from a Soufi master 😁
Kind of.
A few criticism of this: 1) the enneagram does allow personality to change. It is a system built entirely around that. 2) I'm going to have to disagree with what you said about ones, I imagine certain subtypes of one will vary in Big 5 Scores drastically (you can't look at it on a whole-type level): for example, sp ones could be very high in neuroticism or agreeableness. 3) It may lack inter-rater reliability, but the enneagram is not a 'test.' Of course, tests are extremely inaccurate. You have to look at the core 4. There is no other way to be typed.
No the enneagram is not considered scientific. In many ways it is unfalsifiable. But this dude also demonstrated an issue in psychological research whereby we only allow funding towards accepted theories and approaches (in this case the Big 5) and don't allow consideration or looking into anything else.
If enneagram has helped people (which I know it has) there is no reason to attempt to bring it down. People using it for harm like ostracism, discrimination, stereotyping, and break-up reasonings only understand enneagram in a very surface-level way (like this guy, from the impression I got- I mean come on, he was talking about tests being used to determine a type, he clearly isn't as familiar with it as he claims.) I do not believe that enneagram needs to be widespread and surface level as otherwise misunderstanding could cause harm, but for those who see benefit in it and understand it deeply there is nothing wrong in using it to guide you!
It may not be scientific but it is very powerful.
Thanks for watching. I'm curious why you think the enneagram is not scientific or falsifiable?
The numbers were assigned by a spirit guide (meaning a demon), so it has ties to the occult. People say their astrological signs are powerful, but that doesn't mean they're true.
@@JayMedenwaldt There’s no objective, standardized way to verify the accuracy of one’s highest score on a test. While it’s recommended to research after taking the test, this is a subjective process.
It can’t predict future behaviors. Science is a tool of prediction.
In the study I have, the Enneatype 1 correlates with conscientiousness and agreeableness, not conscientiousness and extraversion as Jay said. And this is good, because the type 1 is represented in the Enneagram as being conscientious and agreeable, especially the former.
The non-correlations are valid, as the Enneatype 1 is not correlated with extraversion, neuroticism and openness, which is predicted by the Enneagram type 1 description.
Thanks for watching and commenting. The Hook et al. (2021) review of Enneagram research noted that 9 studies have looked for a correlation between the Enneagram and Big 5, so depending on which one you look at, there results will be different. I relied on the results from the review for what I said about the correlations for Type 1s, although I just noticed I made a mistake about extraversion, which is listed in that review as correlating with Type 2 in 9/9 studies. In the review, only conscientiousness is consistently correlated with Type 1. Looking at my database of studies, Type 1 is usually negatively correlated with agreeableness although sometimes there's no correlation of a positive one. Which study do you have? I'm looking at Bartram & Brown, 2005; Delobbe et al., n.d.; Giordano, 2008; Newgent et al., 2000, 2004; Stevens, 2011; Yilmaz et al., 2016; Yanartas et al., 2022.
@@JayMedenwaldt My “study” is personal experience.
@@Mal1234567, how do you know your personal experience is representative of the entire world population and also not affected by any of the 100+ psychological biases that affect our judgments?
@@JayMedenwaldtBecause as an e-type 5 I know how to separate my cognitive biases from my cognitive judgments in order to obtain objectivity.
The problem with these typing systems is that you can never be 100% sure of someone's type in the cohort. Did the studies account for bias in the test-taking? Did the studies attempt to ascertain that the individual had identified the correct type? Are there biases implicit to the tests themselves? How accurate are the personality tests in determining type?