It just occurred to me that over 90% of the posters here are almost certainly "fives" as described by the Enneagram system. (And being fives, I'm sure you all know what that means! - i.e., raise your hand if you don't have a stack of "to be read" books that's twice as high as you are!)

At any rate, HPL is without question a "five." CAS is probably a five also, but he does have some "four" elements. Perhaps a five with a "four wing" or maybe a four with a "five wing"?

Just a whimsical post, hopefully I'm correct in assuming you know what the hell I'm talking about! Any ideas?

1. The stack of books thing certainly applies to me.

2. I nevertheless had to look "Enneagram" up.

3. I am almost certainly not a "five."

I'll have to check mine after I get my E-meter out of my tomato.

The attempt to categorize human personalities is something CAS despised, as indeed he held all forms of "psychoanalysis" in contempt - however, if one were to use this thing on Ashton, he falls squarely in the 4 category -
I cannot envision why you think the posters here are mostly 5's - very curious indeed - perhaps you could expand upon those characteristics that lead you to that conclusion -

Calonlan,

Yes, I suppose Smith does fit pretty well into the "four category". (And of course, the distaste for "categorizing people", is itself distinctly "fourish"!) He does exhibit certain "five" characteristics, however, such as reading the dictionary/encyclopedia from cover to cover. (Which would perhaps put him into the "five wing" group.)

I do realize that CAS had in general a negative view of "psychoanalysis". However, I would have thought him more receptive to the ideas of someone like Carl Jung. (Was he actually familiar with Jung, and if so, to what extent?) At any rate, I would assume that Jung's approach would have been more congenial to Smith - than, say, the crass reductionism of the Fruedian school.

In general, I think the Myers Briggs Personality Test (Based directly on Jung's "Psychological Types") is the most sophisticated and interesting of the various personality indicators. However, even though the Enneagram has something of a "pop psychology" feel, I have to admit that I do find it remarkably accurate as far as it goes. But I'm just a casual "devotee" myself, and understand why it would have less apppeal to certain people.

As far as this site is concerned, I do get the sense that there are a large number of "fives" here, though I wouldn't be surprised to find a good number of "fours" as well. As far as the former are concerned, "fives" tend to have an affinity for such things as scholarship, "specialized knowledge" (particularly in esoteric and arcane subjects, i.e., obscure Athur Machen essays for instance), etymology, linguistic nuance and "word play", etc. Fives are also the quintessential "completists" ("How long is it going to take before I get volume five of Smith's collected stories?!" How annoying that my version of Le Fanu's "collected stories" should be missing one tale", etc., etc.)

HPL was in many ways an extreme version of the five. This is strongly indicated by the fact that he would pursue "specialised knowledge" to the detriment of his day to day existence. i.e. he would spend days at the public library researching his ancestral coat of arms, but was completely mystified when it came to such questions as "how one becomes an elevator boy and earns ten clams per week!") For me, these tendencies are what constitute a significant part of Lovecraft's charm.

At any rate, I don't want to make too much of this. Like I said, I'm just a half skeptical dabbler myself. But I do find it interesting to try and "place" people - especially when they are new acquaintances or literary figures who appeal to me. So take it with a grain of salt. I just thought I'd throw it out there in the hopes that someone might find some amusement in it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 30 Oct 10 | 01:03AM by Dexterward.