Do We Have To Prove Our Claims About the Enneagram? (BONUS)

In this bonus episode of the Awareness to Action Enneagram podcast, Mario Sikora, María José Munita and Seth "Creek" Creekmore revisit the pattern of expressions and the instinctual biases. Creek asks Mario why his view on the pattern of expressions is exempt from the falsifiability standard.

“Once we’re agreed on the definitions, which may be different from other people, and if you’re using a different definition, then that’s fine. What I’m suggesting doesn't apply to different definitions, but to these definitions, to all the empirical experience I have over 25 years, it holds up.” -Mario [10:26]

“I’ve seen people who for different circumstances have developed skills and habits that are different to what we understand through the pattern of expression or it has to do with their preferred strategy. There are different reasons. And to me, it doesn’t really matter because if we go back to understanding that the Enneagram is a model, and they’re all wrong, but some are useful. This part of the model, the pattern of expression, is useful most of the time, and I think it’s valid for that reason.” -María José [11:40]

“The more I’ve gotten into the Enneagram, the more I’m less interested in being a ‘Enneagram person,’ but rather just a skilled user of the Enneagram that is more focused on the flourishing of myself and those around me.” -Creek [16:26]

TIMESTAMPS

[00:01] Intro

[02:20] Mario’s view on pattern of expression not falsifiable

[07:24] Mario’s observations on instinctual biases

[10:47] Non-intentional focus of attention

[14:40] Leaps of inference

[19:02] Outro

Connect with us:

Awareness to Action

Enneagram on Demand

Mario Sikora:

IG: @mariosikora