EnneagramBias

This is where I write about the enneagram of personality Creative stuff: open-source-eschaton.tumblr.com Etc: currentbias.tumblr.com

[rubyleaf]

You know, when I see fictional characters who repress all their emotions, they're usually aloof and very blunt about keeping people at a distance, sometimes to an edgy degree—but what I don't see nearly enough are the emotionally repressed characters who are just…mellow.

Think about it. In real life, the person that's bottling up all their emotions is not the one that's brooding in the corner and snaps at you for trying to befriend them. More often than not, it's that friendly person in your circle who makes easy conversation with you, laughs with you, and listens and gives advice whenever you're upset. But you never see them upset, in fact they seem to have endless patience for you and everything around them—and so you call them their friend, you trust them. And only after months of telling them all your secrets do you realize…

…they've never actually told you anything about themselves.

[rubyleaf]

Adding onto this: characters who are so deeply repressed that they don't even realize they're not fine, or at the very least not supposed to be fine. Characters who do tell you about a situation they're in that should be bad, but instantly laugh it off saying they can handle it (spoiler: they can, in fact, not handle it). Characters who laugh with you and listen to all your woes and much later you learn that they were actually going through something at least equally bad at the time, but they wave it off and don't want to speak of it. Characters whose main coping mechanism seems to be "don't think about it" on endless loop.

Basically, the fictional embodiment of the "this is fine" dog.

[enneagrambias]

Accidentally incredible depiction of type 9

[8quincy8-deactivated20230304]

I wish I was sx/so..

[rinion]

Why

[8quincy8-deactivated20230304]

Energetic, magnetic, plus sp blind. They really draw you in

[enneagrambias]

Russ Hudson on the SP blindspot:

Overall, our life lacks structure & regularity. We may even resist them. We do things more randomly & our schedule tends to be more changeable.

Some of us may really lack self care -- avoiding medical & dental check ups, having haphazard relationships with exercise & rest, etc. We eat what we like w/o much thought about diet. We may also lack focus on resources, hoping others will handle this part of life. We get by.

We may avoid focus on domesticity. Our home may be more of a "crash pad" -- the place where I sleep & keep my stuff. We may even fear getting trapped by domestic life, seeing it as drudgery & heaviness.

It does not necessarily mean we are "bad" at handling money. It means we do not think about finances very much. We many not have a clear idea of what is in our bank account. We don't give our finances much focus.

When we don't focus on these money matters, it can lead to trouble. There can be a quiet panicky feeling when we are called upon to deal with financial affairs. Things like contracts & financial discussions can make our eyes glaze over even when they are for our benefit.

When Self Pres is our blind spot, the self attack is along the lines of "I am a flake. I do not have it together & I never will. I am not sure how to be an adult & I feel like an eternal kid. I don't know how the world works & I am not sure how to establish myself in life.”

We sometimes try to overcompensate by emphasizing how youthful we are, what "free spirits" we are, but in more vulnerable moments these assertions feel hollow & we are left with the helpless feelings. It is important to realize these voices are NOT true -- they are primal fears.

Every time we make efforts to address our SP blindspot, some variation on these fears & negative voices may come up. So we learn to recognize them, take a deep breath, let the fear pass through us, & discover our own way of dealing with this part of life with skill & love.

[abandonrun]

reverse hypochondriac i just ignore everything

[wonderwomemes]

???

[enneagrambias]

9w8_irl

[enneagrambias]

The triads that have been applied to the enneatypes as they also apply to the instincts

Because why not? These triads -- at least Karen Horney's -- were originally developed independently of the enneagram and then mapped to the enneatypes because there are nine of them that break neatly into various groups of three. But the instincts are also a group of three that I've found map just as neatly to these triads:

Self-pres:

competency outlook: what I can focus on to preserve myself and my sense of selfhood

withdrawn stance: building walls, turning away from the elements (psychological or otherwise), enclosing and protecting the self

rejection orientation: "providing necessary, important functions and becoming 'powerful' in my own right," to paraphrase David Daniels. Reality will reject my right to exist unless I do what I need to do to prevent my demise

Sexual:

reactive outlook: the libido, lured by scent trails, sniffs first and asks questions later

assertive stance: pushing the edges of boundaries, trudging through the brush because you can

frustration orientation: "speaking to the possibilities of the ultimate integration of personality and spirit." The expectation of higher or more perfect states of libidinal consciousness

Social:

reframing/positive outlook: what we can focus on to create something larger than each of us individually, what qualities we can uplift or ignore

compliant stance: the greater good, the social contract

attachment orientation: relativity with the world, "how we connect on a down-to-earth, people-to-people basis in our daily lives." A basic, deep-down desire to connect/bridge self and other -- an inclusive attempt

What's the real difference between the attachment orientation and the social instinct if the social instinct has its own attachment orientation?

If we see the social instinct as a fundamental desire to connect and to network, I think we can get somewhere with this idea. The so-called attachment types, in their own right, do actually fear rejection, because it represents being cut off from part or all of something they could use as an anchor point for their identity.

It doesn’t quite make them want to claim relational power for themselves to the extents that we see from 2, 5 and 8, however, because it is these types that are actually anticipating rejection as a baseline reality of life and using that assumption to inform their strategy. The attachment types, on the other hand, do not have a clear picture of the self to be rejected in the first place without the other – as an object to attach to – as a reference point.

The question is if this attachment-oriented form of self-relativity underlies the attitude author John Lukovich describes the social instinct having of trying to prevent social rejection by becoming valuable socially. The fear of ostracization would be the side effect of the attachment orientation needing a reference point for its sense of self.

We see this in how types 3, 6, and 9 actually fear ostracization more than the rejection types, precisely because they anticipate joining with this relativistic current happening first, rather than outright being rejected for who they are. The rejection orientation, by contrast, has already internalized rejection as an inevitable fact of life.

References:

Dr. David Daniels - The Enneagram Triads

John Lukovich - The Instinctual Drives and the Enneagram

[enneagrambias]

Enneagram cosmology

The guts of the universal organism

The partial asymmetry of the enneagram reveals an overall orientation to the structure: with the lack of vertical symmetry offered by the hexad that surrounds the triangle, only one point -- 9 -- sits at the true horizontal center of the figure. This point -- and the two points on either side, 8 and 1 -- are like the roots of the tree of the structure and contain a basic form of the cosmology of the enneagram: a description of the universe as a living, universal organism.

It is these three points that act as respective centerpieces for the holy (or platonic) ideas that underly reality, according to AH Almaas and the Diamond Approach school's Enneagram of Holy Ideas1.

Love

First, in order for this universal organism to keep existing, it has to love itself. If you want to look at it another way, loving itself -- or being okay with existing -- is how it exists in the first place. It is through continually deciding to exist that the universal organism loves itself, and this is where we find the holy idea associated with point 9. In this way, everything is held together by a sort of foundational acceptance.

The lines from love (9) to faith (6) and harmony (3) complete the triangle at the center of the enneagram. Both of these are extrapolations of the basic idea of love: the faith inherent that the effort -- whatever it may be -- is worth it, and the harmony -- or adjustment to universal laws -- inherent in the act of self-creation.

Truth

When animals eat each other in the wild, it's not because they don't love each other. On the deepest level, the universe already knows what it is, knows that both predator and prey are forms that it can take, and knows that these are forms that it happens to be taking. 8's holy idea is a true recognition of the form that is being taken and that all forms that can be taken are true in their own right.

The lines from truth (8) to transparency (5) and will (2) form one half of the hexad that surrounds the triangle. Transparency is the extrapolation that all truth can be known, and will is the extrapolation that all truth can be acted upon.

Perfection

1's holy idea is a gnostic recognition that the universe is perpetually trending toward a state of self-completion, and that every change made is a change from an already-perfect state to a differently-perfect state. As AH Almaas writes, “we cannot add or delete anything to make [it] more perfect.” Or, as the physics of thermodynamics teach: energy can’t be created or destroyed, only transformed. In this way, mistakes are impossible, because nothing is ever truly imperfect from the point of view of the whole.

The lines from perfection (1) to origin (4) and wisdom (7) form the other half of the hexad. Origin is the extrapolation that everything depends upon the same source, and wisdom is the extrapolation that no matter what happens, all will go according to the best available plan.

AH Almaas, Facets of Unity: The Enneagram of Holy Ideas (1998)

[enneagrambias]

Thoughts on Five's wings -- giving 5w6 some credit

5w6 is the 5 that is going to care about explaining and communicating things accurately and effectively. Getting others to understand provides a safety net by proving their competency, and the prosocial influence of 6 compels a belief that the truth inherently belongs to everyone. There's no point in completely hoarding it for themselves -- if they can get others to understand, they can help them be as discerning as they are.

5w4 will explain it the way they want to, and if you don't get it, you probably don't deserve to know -- or at the very least, you probably don't deserve their follow-up. Not as much effort is put toward getting others to understand exactly what they're saying, and they're fine being misunderstood by people that they already feel alienated by.

I sometimes see people claim 5w4 for the aesthetic before truly understanding how alienated 5w4 feels. This alienation motivates their contentment with not being understood by what they see as the common mind, the ostracizers, etc. Less "look how unique my takes are," more a felt resignation that they will never be understood, and embracing the sense of difference that comes from that feeling of alienation by keeping their truths either hidden or protected behind layers of unexplained hypernuance.

5w4′s audience for who they can trust with the truth, in other words, is more discerning. For 5w4 to stick around and meet you on your level is a feat indeed. 5w6, with their audience for the truth broadened by 6, becomes disturbed when others don't understand what they're saying, and feels motivated on some level to find a more effective way to translate what they're trying to communicate.

[enneagrambias]

Anger according to Nine

The dark and unflattering side of 9 is that anger informs everything they do, it's just buried so deep down that they have to learn how to be angry like a normal person. At the root of the stillness they seek is that emotion: anger at chaos. The fact that chaos exists is deeply offensive, but since the fight against such an impersonal force is over before it begins, resignation becomes the coping mechanism that keeps anger locked away.

It’s conscious enough that there's an awareness of giving up. It’s not a complete secret to themselves. It’s not easygoingness for the sake of easygoingness, but a dream deferred (or worse, a complete loss of self), and deep inside is a well of anger that has to be acknowledged about that. The more anger is felt at the cosmic scale of things, the less room there is for giving much of a shit about the smaller stuff. But when something is being asked of the 9, and they don't have access to that primordial energy in order to say no like they really want to, the gap between that desire and the perceived ability to say no is felt each time.

Growth becomes impossible unless the anger can be acknowledged for what it is, because only then can reality be forgiven for breaking what is supposed to be universal love into many pieces, forcing chaos and obligation. Recognizing this anger for what it is becomes as upsetting to a 9 as it is important for growth.

[enneagrambias]

The game according to Three

The view from Holy Hope/Holy Law¹ is that there are no exceptions to the way things work -- the same forces apply to everyone and everything all the time, which is something you can continuously count on. The distortion of this for type 3 becomes the discovery that there's no real such thing as cheating reality, only different ways of taking advantage of the reality that's already unfolding, and then positioning yourself within it.

This leads to over-identifying with the things you've done as a way to identify with anything at all. If there's no such thing as cheating reality, and you made this thing happen all on your own, that means you are objectively the best unless someone can do it better. In a paradoxical sense, it's recognizing that the rules are the same for everyone, but those same rules built you different/made you better: it's nothing personal, you're just the best.

This is also why the burnout is so diffuse at 9 if this feeling gets snatched, because there's really no one to blame -- other people were just playing the game like you.

AH Almaas, Facets of Unity: The Enneagram of Holy Ideas (1998)

[enneagrambias]

Loose notes on Diamond Approach’s ‘Enneagram of Holy Ideas’

8: truth, or the reality of the undying organism and its indominable nature (but refusal of the dying/vulnerable self) 5: transparency, or the omniscience (and redundancy) of the self as a pattern within patterns (and the isolation created from boundaries) 2: will, or the innate and sincere desire to make an effort (and control the narrative)

1: perfection, or the ideal that the organism can compose and complete change (but refusal of the uninhibited/chaotic self) 4: origin, or the focal point/singularity of self-consciousness (and simultaneous inferiority/superiority complexity) 7: wisdom, or the perception of the present moment and the world as whole and pre-perfect (and the fear of missing out on some part of it)

9: love, or the bedrock for the interrelationship of the organism's inevitable selves (but refusal of the defined/solidified self) 6: faith, or the strength to admit weakness and seek cooperation (from the hibernating psychosis of predator and prey) 3: hope, or the clarity and simplicity of the object as law (and the subjective pitfalls of self-standardization)

[enneagrambias]

The gut triad, why wings matter, and the contradictory dynamics of interconnectedness

You can think of each point on the enneagram as the unique dynamic formed by the points it's connected to. This makes the triangle at the center and the people that embody it rather unique, since the sources of their worldviews directly overlap each other’s, forming a sort of Mexican standoff of motion and priorities. They are placed with less of a grasp on their own inner directive and approach each moment in a more generalized way.

With the intersection of the psychology of object relations with the enneagram, there is a new meta told by what Riso and Hudson call the dominant affect triads (attachment: 3-6-9, frustration: 1-4-7, and rejection: 2-5-8)¹. Only one of these groupings does not contain a connection point to the others, and it's again the triangle at the enneagram's center. It's because of this odd triad out that wings are not only an essential facet of the fully-expressed enneagram, but the very thing that ties it all together. The more time you spend with the types outside of this triangle, the more you may observe that their proximity to another triad (and the possibility of a wing in that adjacent triad) is not arbitrary, but a feature.

2 and 7, for instance, are closer to the gut triad because they are each the ‘guttier’ type in their respective triads. In other words, they’re closer than their heart and head cousins to knowing what they want -- even if they struggle with how -- and going after it. They both experience more immediate access to the gut triad, and each have a wing to the other’s gut line -- for 7w8s and 2w1s, the conflicting gut energies that result can be quite revealing, and a particularly apt example of how the enneagram captures the contradictory nature of people. Down at the enneagram’s nadir, on the other side, we see that 5 and 4 share a wing to each other, each being the most avaricious and self-distancing version of their triads.

In the cosmology told by the more spiritual enneagrammists such as AH Almaas² and Sandra Maitri³, 9 is more or less where it all begins. It's the center of the body or the gut triad, and each type in this center -- 8, 9, and 1 -- is the respective centerpiece of its dominant affect triad. We see that 9 immediately splits into its heart and head constituents (3 and 6), while its wings, 8 and 1, immediately split into 2 and 5, 4 and 7 respectively.

Oscar Ichazo originally coined the term 'trifix' to denote that one has a predominant fixation in each of the centers⁴. One can end up embodying a 1-2-7 or a 4-7-8 or even a 3-6-9 trifix as one’s motivations as a person and ego develop, cascade, and crystallize into adulthood. The most controversial aspect of trifix that I usually see discussed is that it’s too complicated or contradictory, lessening the meaning of what each type means. But people are messy and contradictory, and only when you embrace this does the enneagram become a lot more dynamic and free to more accurately describe that messiness and contradiction.

The foundational premise of the enneagram is, after all, the circle it’s contained within, which signifies that we already contain all 9 of these ways of being on some level. The whole thing is already there inside the collective unconscious. What we call someone’s 'type,' then, is the natural consequence of developing fixations, as an animal, that become recognizable and consistent enough to be worked with. It’s because we’re animals that we don’t really have a say in this matter, it just happens to us. It’s a language, and a powerful one, that we can use to communicate the different and common responses that we have to our existential predicament.

References:

Don Riso and Russ Hudson, Understanding the Enneagram: The Practical Guide to Personality Types (2000)

AH Almaas, Facets of Unity: The Enneagram of Holy Ideas (1998)

Sandra Maitri, The Spiritual Dimension of the Enneagram: Nine Faces of the Soul (2000)

Oscar Ichazo, Interviews with Oscar Ichazo (1982)

[enneagrambias]

Type essentialism vs type existentialism

Part I: type essentialism vs type existentialism

In brief, the philosophical ideas of essentialism and existentialism deal with whether or not things exist arbitrarily.

Essentialism is the continuation of the idea that there is a fundamental essence to every 'thing' that can be called a 'thing' (Plato's 'forms'). Existentialism counters this by saying 'things' only exist emergently. That is, existence precedes essence, and things need to exist first before they can be said to have any kind of 'form,' and the essence, if there, is nothing but an emergent property of the way things are arranged.

Is there an Essential Chair that bestows all chairs their 'chairness?' Rather, is the concept of a chair separate from actual chairs-in-themselves? Is each chair merely a collection of atoms arranged in such a manner that they provide enough resistance when a hominid sits on them, which we then call 'chair'? Or is there something more fundamental at work that produces the concept of a 'chair' in our mind's eye before the first chair is built? Let's extend this question to types.

Is a type 9 a type 9 because there is some essential '9-ness' that people can either have or not? Or is a type 9 a type 9 because they possess a collection of traits that correspond well enough to a collection of traits people have already observed in others and themselves and called '9'? And is integration and disintegration between the types merely the inevitable result of either overcoming these traits (even in bursts) in the first case, or those same traits reaching their breaking point before the psyche compels itself through homeostasis to return to the path of least resistance, the habits of mind being maintained that produce the 'type' in the first place?

If types are essential, then they are like curses placed upon us, or genes that give us disorders that we then need to grow around (pardon the crude analogies). If types are existential, they are merely the product of happenstance and habit, even if the habits started before we could really realize it.

Part II: type signaling

Self-identifying as a type is arriving at a type that you think is a best fit. But that's the important bit -- it's merely a best fit. What this implies is that each type is representing a collection of traits, however rooted these traits are in a common archetype. Further, claims are made that dip their toes into developmental psychology -- that these are traits that emerge out of developmental factors. Even in the more esoteric approach to enneagram, loss of contact with the 'Holy Ideas' that each type is associated with carries a developmental aspect -- that is, the loss has to happen somehow.

When we self-identify as a type, we are essentially signaling to others, 'these are the traits I identify with, and these are the traits you should expect from me. You now have a general expectation for my personality based on knowing my full tritype and instincts.' It's often pretty damn accurate, and I think a large part of the reason people stick around in typology communities. So long as there's just barely enough room leftover for human individuality, I have witnessed people -- myself included -- actually enjoy being characterizations of their type, because it makes them feel understood and that they have a 'place at the table' of human experience.

Inevitably, however, we run into people who display traits that don’t seem consistent with their type, and we try to explain it through the framework. These explanations may even be true -- either entirely or to some degree -- but it's too easy to forget that we already have all 9 archetypes inside us. The types act as fixations along a wheel of archetypes that is dynamic enough for us to experience all of the types (or all of the fixations) on it, whether or not there's a clear connection point between them (like 8 and 1, which are opposite ways of dealing with anger but share no direct connection point). It's just that more consistently than not, we will fall back on traits we are used to exhibiting, and that seems to be all this really is at the end of the day.

Type existentialism, then, in opposition to type essentialism, affords us more room for either growth or individuality, because it chooses not to assume that these are inherent qualities of ourselves that we are mapping, but merely habits of the deeper psyche.

[enneagrambias]

The enneagram meets Maslownian ‘being’ and ‘deficiency’ qualities

The following chart, created by John Fudjack, outlines the enneagram types according to their respective Maslownian ‘Being’ qualities (B-qualities) and ‘Deficiency’ qualities (D-qualities):

Maslow distinguishes two fundamentally different ways of being-in-the-world. In fact, his entire psychology is based on this distinction. In the first way of being-in-the-world, one operates out of what he calls a ‘deficiency mode’.One’s actions are motivated by a neediness that compels one toward acquisition of what one thinks will assuage one’s needs. In contrast, those individuals who operate according to the second way of being-in-the-world feel an inner completeness, and are at one with themselves, at peace. Their actions are not motivated by a sense of inner deficiency, but rather are experienced as overflowing out of this inner sense of completeness. Maslow refers to these two psychological realms in abbreviated form as the D-realm (short for Deficiency-realm) and B-realm (Being-realm). The self-actualizing individual, of course, lives more often in the B-realm, and acts according to ‘B-values’ (such as the ‘love’ which Krishnamurti likewise associates with the realization of inner completeness in the above quote). Both 'perfection’ and 'completion’ are listed by Maslow as amongst the B-values that the self-actualizing individual embraces. The 'peak’ experience that is characteristic of advanced self-actualizers is, among other things, an experience of the state of perfection and completeness. [Source]

The Growth Points

As we follow the pattern, we see that:

1’s growth, to overcome their D-quality of pedantry, is seeing the sacred in the ephemeral/what is transcendentally joyful about the present (7’s B-quality).

2’s growth, to overcome their D-quality of ontological insecurity (not knowing who they are without others), is reaching a state of insight into their own emptiness (4’s B-quality).

3’s growth, to overcome their D-quality of fraud and self-deception, is seeing through their own illusion and its ties to the illusions of others (6’s B-quality).

4’s growth, to overcome their D-quality of fascination with formlessness and nihilism, is reaching a state of completeness and fulfillment with themselves (1’s B-quality).

5’s growth, to overcome their D-quality of profound emotional indifference, is tapping into their inner and ultimately emotional power (8’s B-quality).

6’s growth, to overcome their D-quality of extreme doubt, is reaching a state of conciliatory/empathetic skill -- tuning into the ways that people really can be trusted despite their drawbacks (9’s B-quality).

7’s growth, to overcome their D-quality of spiritual or material gluttony, is reaching a state of equanimity and fulfillment with that they already have (5’s B-quality).

8’s growth, to overcome their D-quality of tyrannical desire, is reaching a state of total compassion (2’s B-quality).

9’s growth, to overcome their D-quality of overcompromise and indolence, is reaching a state of spontaneously appropriate action (3’s B-quality).

If you’re looking for how, that’s a whole different ballgame ;D

[enneagrambias]

The triangle sorcery of enneagram

Shame/identity-projection/heart center

In the heart triad, 2 and 4 are characterized by the ways they lean from the controlled and collapsible image that characterizes the 3 -- 2, directly toward the other with what they already have (pridefully reframing their flaws), and 4 toward themselves with what they perceive to lack (honing in on their flaws with a spiteful envy). Pride sits closer to the gut, sure of its need, while envy sits closer to the head, unsure of its need. Both are connected as two sides of the same process, with 3 at its vain intersection, navigating the sandbox world of egos and looking for a place to plant their flag.

Fear/overthinking/head center

In the head triad, 5 and 7 are characterized by the ways they lean from the fearful compulsions and reactive doubt that characterizes the 6 -- 5 toward the inner depths of mind to master an understanding of reality (before reality outplays and overwhelms them), and 7 toward the widest breadth of external possibility, fearing the very possibility of deprivation from some novelty or opportunity (and seeking the quickest hack or easiest plan). 6 is caught in the paranoid landscape between the fear of not knowing something and the freedom of not needing an answer.

Anger/boundary/gut center

In the gut triad, 8 and 1 are characterized by the ways they lean from the deep repression of anger over the violation of the basic boundary of being born without consent, and overattachment to calm that characterizes the 9 -- 8 expressing anger openly, experiencing confrontation and reactivity as a lifeline to inner vitality, and 1 trying to carefully control their relationship to what angers them, channeling it into a perfectionist quest for the most correct way to be or see reality. 9 at the center of this struggle over reality has to show up to their anger about the fact that stuff really do be happening.

But what’s up with this triangle

The triangle provides an example of the seemingly ironic aspect of integration for these types: how can 6 learn to trust their gut by integrating qualities of the type least in touch with their gut? But that’s part of it – 9 is the most out of touch with their gut because they’re too in touch with their gut. 9 is overwhelmed by the reality of reality because they’re so sensitive to reality to begin with and learn how to dissociate or numb themselves because of it. However, it’s that openness and sensitivity to reality at the gut level that 6 needs to truly calm their compulsive doubt, rather than the comparatively overwhelmingly decisive energy at 8 or 1. Similarly, 3s require that point most sensitive to their minds (and most distrustful of coming to conclusions on their own) to take an honest look at themselves, and 9s require that point most sensitive to their image of themselves (and most believing their ego to be independent) to become actors in their lives rather than letting life happen to them.