Feb 13, 2007
Seven Deadly Sins
This is a psychological posting, so doesn’t really fit into the usual Sciencebase categories, but I had to post about it anyway and give a mention to the amazing quasi-mathematical strips from Jessica Hagy, which you will want to check out, think Venn diagrams, charts, and graphs but amazingly clever and witty, and not a significant figure in sight, and this week touching on the links between the seven deadly sins.
Rather than being simply mystical or wiccan pointed stars enneagrams have been used in analysis providing a diagramatic representation of a personality based on nine types and motivations. Hagy’s enneagram reproduced below, instead focuses on the seven deadly sins and provides definitions of how each possible pair of sins combines to create a particular behaviour. Strictly speaking it should be a heptagram, or septegram, not an ennea-gram (ennea from the Greek for nine, hepta for seven). Deception and fear might have been added to the heptagram to make a true enneagram.
I don’t know if this kind of thing would stand up in psy class, but it’s a nice diagram and offers some rather intriguing insights into the human mind, including the notion of edible undies.
The image comes from this page of Hagy’s. I asked her how she came up with the enneagram, “I was just playing with the idea that everything under the sun is linked to everything else,” she told me, “The ‘7 sins’ card is just a verbal play on the idea.”
If there’s a psychologist in the house, I’m sure Sciencebase readers would be interested in your thoughts on this. What do you make of the seven deadly sins enneagram?
About David Bradley
Sciencebase FAQ
Click to contact me
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery
Add me on StumbleUpon
Poke me on Facebook
MyBlogLog Profile
View my Flickr photos
Pownce Page
Tumblr Newspage
BloggingZoom
Network with me on LinkedIn
Shout me on Digg
del.icio.us ne.ws
James Isaac Neutron said,
February 19, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Horrible, a disgrace to anything, there’s no connection
David Bradley said,
February 20, 2007 at 11:51 am
I’m sorry you feel this post is a disgrace to “anything”, although I’m not exactly sure what that means…yes, some of the connections made by Hagy are quite bizarre, but in terms of a modern cultural spin on the seven deadly sins I think they’re quite apt. After all, who is to decide what is sin in the first place and whether or not it’s a disgrace. The 7DS are not exactly a sacred didact that everyone must consider untouchable.
David Bradley said,
March 11, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Apparently, the Vatican has updated the 1500 year old list of seven deadly sins to encompass the zeitgeist. The now runs as follows:
1. genetic engineering
2. polluting
3. drug dealing
4. abortion
5. causing social injustice
6. pedophilia
7. obscene wealth
many people are not going to disagree with 2 and 3, 5 and 6, although any combination of those are common practice among certain sections of any religion. But, item #1 is a bit off, especially given its potential to preclude at least a few of sins 2-6. As to, item 7, who’s to decide what’s obscene? Is the accumulated wealth of any ancient organisation an obscenity or does it have to have been accrued in the web 2.0 bubble to be called obscene?
db
mark said,
March 11, 2008 at 2:37 pm
The chart is fantastic! But David, I’m not sure you can say “no one” would disagree with the inclusion of abortion as a mortal sin. Or obscene wealth, for that matter - some people might point out that the Pope seems to do pretty well for himself…
David Bradley said,
March 11, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Mark that was an error of typing to fast. I really didn’t mean to include 4 alongside 2 and 3! I’ve edited my comment. My allusion to the ancient organisation pre-echoes your mention of the Pope, at least that was my intent. How can an organisation that has spent two millennia accumulating wealth and power and, some would say, seriously abusing that position then have the right to list obscene wealth as a mortal sin? Ludicrous.
db
mark said,
March 11, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Sorry about that - you may be typing too fast, but I’m apparently reading too fast. : ) The social injustice reference is interesting though - I posted this news item on my site as well (though I hadn’t thought to put together a neat-o heptagram!), and a commenter made the interesting point that refusing international aid to people who refuse to convert doesn’t seem consistent with social justice. You could argue that an insistence on the immorality of condom use in AIDS-ravaged Africa isn’t either.
But then again, you could make a pretty convincing case for good old-fashioned pride and wrath, too. And isn’t greed a lot like “obscene wealth”?
David Bradley said,
March 11, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Nothing new under the sun, to be honest. Those original seven deadly sins were not really anything new at the time, were they, they just couched conventional morals in a new way. However, in this day and age, I really cannot see how anyone can justify the continued interference of those who sustain mythological world viewpoints in politics.
db
Jeff Flowers said,
March 25, 2008 at 1:42 am
I freakin’ LOVE the diagram! It’s damn clever!
David Bradley said,
March 25, 2008 at 7:51 am
All credit goes to Jessica Hagy, with thanks to her for permission to reproduce the image here.
db