Comments | maybe_not_so: Ambiguity

maybe_not_so

Ambiguity

Jul 02, 2006 18:21

About 5s being uncomfortable with ambiguity... I wish someone would explain, because I am not getting it. My natural view would be that everything is ambiguous. Shades of grey, not black-and-white. No truth, only interpretations. Something which is true within my framework might not be true within yours. And the interpretation might change tomorrow ( Read more... )

Comments 18

energeia5 July 2 2006, 15:04:54 UTC

It might depend on a combination of comfort zone and how interesting the issue is--some ambiguity is easier to tolerate than others, and some is actually really interesting, as well as the most truthful way to assess an issue. I see a drive for certainty as more 1ish than 5ish.

maybe_not_so July 3 2006, 02:15:07 UTC

Yes, true, it does depend on what kind of ambiguity it is. Intellectual matters - yes, you can play with it, feelings... probably another matter.

maybe_not_so July 3 2006, 03:24:32 UTC

Also thought I should add that 1s do not look for Answers, they look for Perfection. There is quite a distinction. My mother is a 1w9, and I have known several 6w5s closely. You would not confuse their issues (well, maybe could if the 6s had been Prussian - mine weren't).

energeia5 July 3 2006, 03:35:25 UTC

My Mom's a 1w2...and looking for both perfection and certainty--heavens forbid you disagree with her on something she's convinced she's right about. I grew up with the mantra of "you think too much, you analyze too much!'

Re: feelings--these generally seem ambiguous to me--or maybe that any given situation seems to give rise to a crop of them which needs to be sorted out--assuming I can actually figure out what they are!

Thread 7

bronzino July 3 2006, 03:41:55 UTC

I don't really get it either - is it said somewhere in the e-literature? Maybe in the sense that fives don't like to not *know*?

maybe_not_so July 3 2006, 03:51:48 UTC

This EIDB thread, the Val-heratyck discussion

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13155&whichpage=4&SearchTerms=5%2Cambiguity

bronzino July 3 2006, 04:12:31 UTC

hmm, looks like it might be referring to the not liking to not know aspect of fives or at least having clarity about ambiguity, if that makes sense. sometimes I feel there is a sense that I, and most people, skip over and don't even think much about most things - there is a sense of, not bothered to even find out if there is an answer or no answer i.e. ambiguity, to something, whereas fives will, more often, in comparison, and be more clear on the ambiguity, say.

just a suggestion.. heratyck can probably clarify if you ask anyway.

maybe_not_so July 3 2006, 04:19:12 UTC

Well, as long as thinking that most people are unbelievably incurious... that's totally true.

It seems to have been brought up in an odd context though. Never mind, I guess.

Thread 6

primalquarksoup July 9 2006, 05:50:35 UTC

In my case, it depends on what you mean by "natural view" whether or not gray is my natural view. Value judgments are a strong part of my nature that did manifest in black-and-white tendencies in my youth, and I can't say it's truly left me. But my current intellectual stance says that pretty much everything in the real universe is going to be gray, and this stance feels pretty natural or at least like second nature.

watchtowel November 17 2006, 17:27:10 UTC

I have very little expertise in Enneagram. I feel like I need to go take a cram course to even communicate intelligently here, but I thought I would throw out something. I have a need for preciseness in descriptions that can drive my friends crazy, but is very useful for software development. I wonder if it's ambiguous descriptions that 5s are uncomfortable with.

energeia5 November 18 2006, 03:33:11 UTC

I think it depends. Too much certainty can take all the life out of a nicely squishy concept. But in some contexts, vagueness or ambiguity is frustrating. Brings out the old "depends on what you mean by...." response that can annoy the hell out of people.

watchtowel November 20 2006, 01:23:50 UTC

Yeah, you've got the idea.

maybe_not_so November 18 2006, 13:46:59 UTC

Descriptions mostly suck. I think it's probably the law. The 6 descriptions definitely suck statutory decree. The truth is, no typology that relies primarily on descriptions is going to get very far. Descriptions by their nature are vague and widely open to interpretation. You need to get down to nuts and bolts, whatever they happen to be.