The Enneagram is a big topic. Some books on the subject run well into the hundreds of
pages. There are many different
ways to approach the boatload of information that describes the Enneagram.
Most Enneagram books approach this information from the perspective
of self-help. That is, these books
introduce the theory assuming that the reader is interested in personal growth.
As the Introduction stated, that is not the assumption of
this book. I am not expecting you
to be engaged in self-discovery.
If that's your sole interest, then I urge you to read the Enneagram
books of the experts. Among those
books, I would recommend the Enneagram authors cited here.
This book is directed at the reader who is interested in
learning if there is anything to these personality theories. Are they just theories pulled out of
thin air with no basis in science?
Or is any of these theories reflected in the sciences? When it comes to human personality, the
relevant science is neuroscience.
Now, if in addition to this interest, you are also
interested in self-discovery, then we are now in the territory of bonus points.
In this book, you are going to learn about some provocative brain research that
seems to be revealing the biological foundation of spiritual growth.
Don't get me wrong.
Most of the scientists doing this brain research seem oblivious to this
effect of their research. Their
PhDs were not granted in the field of spiritual growth, nor do their research
grants, books, or papers seem to mention spiritual growth.
It seems that discovery of the biological foundation of
spirituality will turn out to be one of those beautiful unintended side effects
that actually benefits mankind.
It's the reverse of the dynamic informing other scientific discoveries
like DDT and Thalidomide (i.e. discoveries with disastrous unintended side
effects).
This book aims to trace the nature of this beneficial
unintended side effect. But first
things first. Before we get there,
I'll have to start by boring you stiff.
That is, before this book can proceed any further, you'll have to
acquire a working knowledge of the Enneagram basics. Without an understanding of these basics, little of this
book may make much sense to you.
But you may find that learning these basics is boring to you.
This chapter introduces the main concepts of the
Enneagram. This chapter is not
geared toward your self-discovery.
Its purpose is one thing and one thing only: to set the table for the
rest of the book. In setting the
table, this chapter simply steps through the concepts. Standing alone, perhaps these concepts
may not seem particularly gripping. The part that I submit is rather compelling
follows once you have become comfortable with these concepts.
So, unless you are an insomniac and your current remedies
aren't working, don't read this chapter when you're settling down for bed. With that, I give you Chapter 1.
The Nine Types
The fundamental principals of the Enneagram are that there
are nine personality types, and that the personality of each of us is of one of
the nine types. In the usage of
the Enneagram, these personality types are assigned numbers: One, Two, and so
on, to Nine.
According to the theory, each of us harbors only one type of
personality. For example, if a
person is a Five, the person is not also a Nine or a Two. Also, if a person is a Five, he will be
a Five from at least early childhood through the remainder of his life.
The next two chapters explore some details of this model.
The purpose of this exploration is to demonstrate that the nines types can be
described as nine different patterns of the following four mental states:
optimism, pessimism, aware fear, and unaware fear. For example, toward the end
of Chapter 3, you will see that an Eight can be described as [optimism, unaware
fear], a Five as [optimism/pessimism, aware fear], and a Two as [pessimism,
aware fear/unaware fear]. Don't worry if these descriptions seem confusing
right now. The next two chapters will hopefully clear things up.
Although this book relies on these mental state descriptions
of the types, the Enneagram authors instead use common descriptive labels. The
labels used by some leading authors are as follows:
|
Type
|
Riso/Hudson
|
Palmer 2
|
|
Two
|
The Helper
|
The Giver
|
|
Three
|
The Motivator
|
The Performer
|
|
Four
|
The Individualist
|
The Romantic
|
|
Five
|
The Investigator
|
The Observer
|
|
Six
|
The Loyalist
|
The Trooper
|
|
Seven
|
The Enthusiast
|
The Epicure
|
|
Eight
|
The Leader
|
The Boss
|
|
Nine
|
The Peacemaker
|
The Mediator
|
|
One
|
The Reformer
|
The Perfectionist
|
Enneagram
Type Labels
Critics of the field say that these labels are too vague and
ambiguous. I would agree with this criticism, but so would the Enneagram
authors. These labels are meant to serve only as a starting point for
understanding the theory.
Another criticism of these labels concerns their positive
spin. In the culture of early 21st century America, most all of the
labels in the above table seem to be complimentary, rather than pejorative. For
example, if a person were to sincerely describe us as a "Leader" or "Observer"
or "Giver", most of us would feel complimented rather than insulted.
But these positive labels fall short because, as is
explained toward the end of this chapter, the types differ only along the
negative vector. That is, as the types acquire characteristics that are more
and more negative, they become more and more different. Conversely, as they
move toward the positive, they become more similar. Accordingly, the more positive the labels, the more vague
and indistinguishable the types. For example, one can easily imagine an
Observing Leader who leads by Giving.
A more accurate set of labels for the types might look
something like the following:
|
Type
|
Label
|
|
Two
|
Complaining Martyr
|
|
Three
|
Con Man
|
|
Four
|
Drama Queen
|
|
Five
|
Wallflower
|
|
Six
|
Coward
|
|
Seven
|
Flake
|
|
Eight
|
Bully
|
|
Nine
|
Lazy Bum
|
|
One
|
Prude
|
More
Accurate Enneagram Type Labels
These labels are more
distinguishable. For example, it's difficult to imagine a Bully, who is also a
Complaining Martyr, but at the same time, a Wallflower.
Although negative labels like these may more accurately
distinguish the types, the Enneagram authors don't use them. I suspect one
reason they don't is that few would buy their books if they did. Although the Wizard
of Oz had a lovable Cowardly Lion
character, how many of us in present-day America would want to pick up a
self-help book telling us that, at our core, we're a Coward?
Another likely reason the authors don't use these negative
labels is that they seem like permanent judgments even though they're not that
at all. For most of us, those negative labels describe us only during our
relatively rare worst moments. The rest of the time, most of us are just
regular people trying to get by. But when pushed and pressed, the Enneagram
theory says that we tend to follow the pattern of our own type. To others, that
pattern looks a lot like one of the negative labels above.
Variability Within the Types
Though each of us is of only one type, this is not to say
that all people of our type share the identical personality. Within each type, there is infinite
variability of specific personalities.
One source of variability within a particular personality
type is gender. A female One will
typically be quite different in many respects from a male One. Another dimension of variability is
culture. A Korean Eight and an
American Eight will probably seem rather different in personality. Similarly, birth order likely affects
the shades of personality. A
middle child Four, a single child Four, and a last-born Four may well seem
different.
Given the popularity of the Enneagram, I would suspect that
authors are currently writing about how gender, culture, and/or birth order
provide variability within Enneagram type. Other dimensions of variability are also probably being
pursued.
Three variability factors addressed by the Riso/Hudson and
the Palmer books are "security", "wings", and "development". The next three
subsections address these factors.
Security
"Security" concerns how our personalities shift during times
of security, and times of insecurity.
A Seven who is feeling secure will seem quite different from a Seven who
is feeling insecure.
According to the theory, when we are feeling secure, we
"move into" a different particular personality type. Similarly, when we are feeling insecure, we move into yet
another particular personality type.
For example, when a Seven is feeling secure, the Seven moves to Five;
when insecure, the Seven moves to One.
"Moves to" does not mean "becomes". The Seven does not become a Five when
secure. The Seven merely adopts Five-like attributes during these times.
This concept of "security" is captured in the symbol that is
most popularly associated with the Enneagram.
Enneagram Symbol
In the diagram, the arrows represent the security
"shifts". Moving in the direction
of the arrow represents a shift due to a feeling of insecurity. Note the arrow running from Seven to
One. Moving in the direction
opposite to the direction of the arrow represents a shift due to a feeling of
security. Note the arrow running
from Five to Seven.
Wings
"Wings" refers
to how a personality can straddle two types. Riso/Hudson methodically lays out this aspect of the theory,
describing how each personality type has two wings. For example, Nine has wings of Eight and One. A Nine-with-an-Eight-wing will seem
consistently different in some significant respects from a
Nine-with-a-One-wing.
According to the theory, every individual Nine falls
somewhere along a continuum ranging from Nine-with-an-Eight-wing, at one end,
to Nine-with-a-One-wing, at the other end. A Nine-with-an-Eight-wing is a Nine whose personality is
infused with a number of Eight-like attributes.
A question arises whether an individual Nine can, at
different moments, fall at different points along the continuum between Nine-with-an-Eight-wing
to Nine-with-a-One-wing.
Riso/Hudson says that this is possible, but not common. Although "there may be a number of
individuals who are equally influenced by both wings," "the vast majority of
people that we have encountered have a dominant wing." [43]
The popular Enneagram symbol does not capture the concept of
wings. The following diagram
attempts to do this.
Wings
Think of this diagram as a dartboard. We could toss a dart at the board. Wherever the dart lands, we have hit a
particular personality type, with a particular wing, of particular
dominance. The personality type is
defined by the particular "pie slice" in which the dart lands. The direction and dominance of the wing
is defined by how close the dart lands to an adjacent type.
Development
"Development"
is about the level of fear a person is experiencing. At different levels of development, two different Eights can
appear so different as to seem opposite. According to the theory, the levels of
fear for each type range from extreme to none.
The nature of the fear to which the Enneagram applies is
both physical fear and ego fear. Ego fear is the fear of being
disadvantaged, where that disadvantage does not impact physical survival. Physical fear impacts physical survival.
For example, say you are driving on two-way street, and a
car in the on-coming lane suddenly
swerves into your lane and bears down upon you at high speed. If that happened, you would likely
experience physical fear as evidenced by increased heart rate, and increased
skin conductance.
Now say you are driving on a highway, and you are in a long
line of cars crawling toward an exit.
Say further that you are stopped, and you take a moment to search for
something in your glove box. In
the meantime, a space has opened up in front of you, and a car that didn't wait
in the long line merges into the exit lane directly ahead of you. You lift your eyes to the road just as
this other car is pulling in ahead of you. If there was no physical danger in this situation, but you
still felt upset, then this would likely be an instance of ego fear.
Although the Enneagram applies to both kinds of fear, the
vast majority of expert analysis in the field is devoted to individual patterns
of response to ego fear, rather than to physical fear.
One possible reason why experts devote so little attention
to physical fear is that physical fear complicates the issues. Ego fear is something we can do without
and, by definition, not impact our chances of physical survival. In contrast, a person wholly without
physical fear is not long for survival.
But how much physical fear is healthy? In what circumstances?
The Enneagram experts do not address these questions. Why? Perhaps it's because the answers to these questions are tricky
and the experts already have a lot of ground to cover in their books.
Or maybe the experts believe if that ego fear could be
transcended, then these questions about physical fear would have obvious
answers. When should we respond
with fear? If we had only physical
fear, but no ego fear, the answer would be trivial. Answer: Whenever we feel fear. How much fear?
Answer: Just as much fear as we feel.
As a matter of usage, Riso/Hudson use the term "health" to
reference the levels of ego fear.
So a personality at a level of extreme ego fear would be called
"unhealthy" in the Riso/Hudson framework.
Moderate ego fear is called "average health" and minimal ego fear is
called "healthy". This book uses
both terms — health and ego fear — interchangeably.
Because the Enneagram is a theory of both ego and physical
fear, Riso/Hudson's choice of the "health/unhealth" terminology is somewhat
unfortunate for capturing the full breadth of the theory. If the consideration is limited to ego
fear, then the terminology is quite apt.
High ego fear is unhealthy; low ego fear is healthy.
But the terminology does not work with physical fear. Significant physical fear — including
the corresponding autonomic responses — is probably a healthy response in
life-threatening situations.
Nevertheless, this book will use the healthy/unhealthy terminology where
appropriate.
The notion of healthy/unhealthy level of development is
among the richest in the Enneagram.
At the levels of extreme ego fear, the Enneagram explains and predicts
the pathologies that plague individuals and society. Notably, the theory assigns different pathologies to
different types.
For example, while an Eight may have little chance of
developing schizophrenia, or of experiencing suicidal depression, an extremely
fearful Eight may well make the nightly news as a cheerful serial
murderer. Similarly, while an
extremely fearful Five may hide from the world in his isolated cabin as a
paranoid schizophrenic, the Five need not worry about the onset of multiple
personality disorder. If this
aspect of the Enneagram is valid, the implications on treatment, not to mention
insurance,
are profound.
At the levels of extreme ego fear, the various personality
types are quite different. But at
levels of no ego fear, the opposite is true. This is the level of "self-actualization". At the level of self-actualization, the
different personality types begin to merge into a single human type beyond the
fears of ego.
As with wings, the popular Enneagram symbol does not capture
development. The following diagram attempts to do this.
Development
Again, if this diagram is a dartboard, and we toss a dart at
it, the position of the dart indicates the level of health. The closer to the center, the
healthier; the closer to the edge, the unhealthier. The closer to the edge, the more different the types
become. At the extreme edges,
where the grayscale turns black, lie the particular classes of mental illness
associated with each type. In the
center, at the white dot, all types begin to merge into a single,
self-actualized, human type.
Self-Actualization
The notion of self-actualization is the point at which the
Enneagram begins to overlap with the theories of Abraham Maslow and that branch
of psychology known humanistic psychology. Under his personality theory, Mr. Maslow proposed that all
humans were subject to the same hierarchy of five innate needs. In order, these
needs are: (1) physiological needs (e.g. food, water); (2) safety and security
needs; (3) belongingness and love needs; (4) self-esteem needs; and (5)
self-actualization needs.
Unlike the Enneagram, Mr. Maslow's theory does not
distinguish between different types of personalities. All people are thought to progress through the same
hierarchy of needs.
But like the Enneagram, Mr. Maslow's theory presumes a
single, most healthy state for all humans. This state he called "self-actualization".
Under Mr. Maslow's theory, common characteristics of
self-actualized people include: (a) more efficient perception of reality; (b)
acceptance of self, others, and nature; (c) spontaneity, simplicity, and
naturalness; (d) problem-centered; (e) detachment:: need for privacy; (f)
autonomy: independence of culture and environment; (g) continued freshness of
appreciation; (h) peak or mystic experiences; (i) social interest; (j) profound
interpersonal relations; (k) democratic character structure; (l) discrimination
between means and ends; (m) philosophical sense of humor; (n) creativeness; and
(o) resistance to enculturation. [473-479]
The first element — "more efficient perception of reality" —
matches the Enneagram's take on illusion.
According to the Enneagram, the greater the level of ego fear, the
thicker the filter of illusion for each type. So at the healthiest level, the illusion filter is thinnest,
and so the types experience the most efficient perception of reality.
According to Riso/Hudson's version of the theory, the
healthiest level is called "The Level of Liberation". Riso/Hudson describe this level as follows:
By confronting and surmounting the Basic Fear (which arose in
early childhood in the process of ego development), the person becomes
liberated and moves into a state of ego transcendence where he or she begins to
actualize the essential self.
In addition, particular spiritual capacities and virtues emerge,
different for each type. This is
an ideal state, and the individual is at his or her healthiest, attaining
balance and freedom. [465]
For each type, Riso/Hudson proposes the following behaviors
and attitudes for each type:
|
Two
|
loving unconditionally, altruistic
|
|
Three
|
authentic, inner-directed
|
|
Four
|
life-enhancing, life-embracing
|
|
Five
|
visionary, participating
|
|
Six
|
courageous, self-reliant
|
|
Seven
|
satisfied, appreciative
|
|
Eight
|
heroic, self-surrendering
|
|
Nine
|
indomitable, self-possessed
|
|
One
|
wise, accepting
|
Collectively, these healthiest Enneagram behaviors and
attitudes dovetail nicely with Mr. Maslow's observed characteristics of
self-actualized people.
To the extent there exists a difference between the two, the
difference is that, according to Riso/Hudson, consistent differences still
exist among the types even at the level of self-actualization. In contrast, under Mr. Maslow's theory,
the state of self-actualization is the same for all people.
This difference seems too fine to be relevant. Certainly, perusing the Riso/Hudson
list of behavior and attitudes, it becomes difficult to imagine how a person
could harbor the behavior and attitudes of one self-actualized type, but not
those of another. If someone is
courageous and self-reliant, would they not also be indomitable and
self-possessed? If the latter,
would they not also be wise and accepting? If so, why not also loving unconditionally and
altruistic? And so on.
Perhaps neuroscience can provide the answer. Assuming we could even find two
self-actualized people, researchers might be able to closely observe their
brains, looking for appreciable differences.
A Doorway Into Science
The concept of development highlights a core aspect of the
Enneagram that renders the theory appropriate for merging with science —
neuroscience in particular.
Development proceeds along different levels of fear.
This is the "single big box" into which the Enneagram puts
the entire human race. It is the
big box of fear.
Both Riso/Hudson and Palmer2 make clear that each of the
personality types is driven by a particular fear. In fact, the core distinction between any two personality
types is between the nature of the fear that defines each type. Toward the end of the book, on page
470, in the Appendix, Riso/Hudson explains:
This fear is the fundamental insecurity that the type is trying
to "solve" or at least repress.
There is one specific Basic Fear for each type .... To a large degree, the Basic Fears are
universal — we have all nine of them in us — but the Basic Fear for our own
type is more powerful, more entrenched, and more responsible for most of our
behavior ... . Often, a person
will not be conscious of her Basic Fear,
but will recognize some secondary fears layered over it more readily. ... You can
also see these Basic Fears as variations of a more central and pervasive fear
found in all of the types ... the fear of nonbeing, of not existing. In a
way, each Basic Fear can be viewed as a particular variation of this deeper,
more general fear. (emphasis added)
In tying the theory to generic fear, and specifically, to
unconscious fear, Riso/Hudson kicks the door wide open into neuroscience. In characterizing this generic fear as
being one of "not existing" (read: "survival"), Riso/Hudson leaves a hanging
curveball for evolutionary psychology.
But after building up this anticipation, Riso/Hudson ends
pretty much right there, saying nothing further on the subject of science.
