# Enneatypes and their frequencies.



## newbie const (Nov 26, 2015)

I know there's a lot of thread about the matter..But I have decided to state my understandings through a thread.
Rarest enneatype:type 4 and 5.Some say that 8s are also rare..though I agree that 8w7 is rare,but 8w9 is not rare by real life standard.Overall rarest is 5w4.
Tritype:458 is supposed to be rarest.But unfortunately it isnt in the 1st place.I think 5w4/8w7/2w1 sx/so{If 2w1 is dominant then sx/sp} is the rarest overall..in all parts of the world..
Variant:Sx/so or sx/sp[depending on countries)


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

It is important to note that the majority of the people who are interested in the enneagram and show up for the surveys have a 4-fix, so there is a sample bias. In terms of rarity, I suppose 458 could be one of the rarest.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

It seems to me that 9s, 6s, 3s, and 2s are extremely common. The other ones all seem very rare... but who really knows.


----------



## ScientiaOmnisEst (Oct 2, 2013)

Quang said:


> It is important to note that the majority of the people who are interested in the enneagram and show up for the surveys have a 4-fix...


Seriously? Any idea why?


And to answer OP, I know the attachment types are most common, 6>9>3, from most to least common. As to everyone else, I'm not so sure.


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

ScientiaOmnisEst said:


> Seriously? Any idea why?
> 
> 
> And to answer OP, I know the attachment types are most common, 6>9>3, from most to least common. As to everyone else, I'm not so sure.


Because spirituality, arts, metaphysical systems is the realm of 4s. 4s describe their image as 'spiritual' according to the Faurve's enneastyle booklet and their latest survey.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

charlie.elliot said:


> It seems to me that 9s, 6s, 3s, and 2s are extremely common. The other ones all seem very rare... but who really knows.


2's may be common, but the majority of male 2's mistype as other types - often as 8's interestingly enough.

Also, it somehow makes sense that 6's are very common...


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

A lot of people say that attachment types are the most common, but in my experience at least, the types I've encountered most are 7s and 3s. It's very rare that I see 9s and 6s. Maybe that's an anomaly, but I also suspect that it's easy to justify others being attachment types, which may give the illusion of them being super common.

8s are quite uncommon though.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

This is impossible to calculate. For starters, everyone interprets the theory in different ways. Secondly, everyone has a biased opinion of themselves. Thirdly, nobody knows you well enough to be able to give you a good idea of what your type might be, and even if they did, this shit rolls on back to point number one. So who's to say? The enneagram is realistically a faulty tool that was created to help explain the differences between people by *using nine poorly defined boxes in which to cram the billions of people walking the planet*. Does the bolded sound like a good idea or a bad idea to you? I think it has bull shit written all over it. Props the to scam artists that are making money off this shit though.


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

Ace Face said:


> This is impossible to calculate. For starters, everyone interprets the theory in different ways. Secondly, everyone has a biased opinion of themselves. Thirdly, nobody knows you well enough to be able to give you a good idea of what your type might be, and even if they did, this shit rolls on back to point number one. So who's to say? The enneagram is realistically a faulty tool that was created to help explain the differences between people by *using nine poorly defined boxes in which to cram the billions of people walking the planet*. Does the bolded sound like a good idea or a bad idea to you? I think it has bull shit written all over it. Props the to scam artists that are making money off this shit though.


I don't agree with your last point. I wouldn't be wasting my time with this stuff if it was superstitious nonsense. That being said, I think there is a solid foundation with a lot of nonsense piled on top of it. Tri-types make the system less useful, because the more types a person can have, the more watered down and meaningless it becomes. It's the most meaningful when a person can have one, clear type. I'm dubious about wings, too. I'm undecided on whether wings might have any merit at all, but they definitely add confusion. Way too much attention gets paid to superfluous nonsense, but, underneath the nonsense, it's really brilliant.

I do think that statistics would be unreliable, because there are a whole lot of people out there that are lousy at typing. The system works, but people cannot apply it reliably. I disagree that typing other people correctly is impossible. I think that a lot of times, an expert can type somebody better than that person can type themself. But the problem is that it's impossible to objectively resolve a typing dispute. So people can argue forever.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

nburns said:


> I don't agree with your last point. I wouldn't be wasting my time with this stuff if it was superstitious nonsense.


My statement wasn't an attack on your person. That being said, this is evidence that favors my first point. You interpret enneagram theory to be one way, and I interpret it to be another. Neither opinion on this theory is right or wrong. We just have different perspectives and interpretations of this system. 



> That being said, I think there is a solid foundation with a lot of nonsense piled on top of it. Tri-types make the system less useful, because the more types a person can have, the more watered down and meaningless it becomes. It's the most meaningful when a person can have one, clear type. I'm dubious about wings, too. I'm undecided on whether wings might have any merit at all, but they definitely add confusion. Way too much attention gets paid to superfluous nonsense, but, underneath the nonsense, it's really brilliant.


Sounds like you have a lot to explore yet. Good luck on your journey!



> I do think that statistics would be unreliable, because there are a whole lot of people out there that are lousy at typing. The system works, but people cannot apply it reliably.


Would you be so bold as to say that your interpretation and understanding of the system is reliable and can be applied reliably? 



> I disagree that typing other people correctly is impossible.


You jumped to a conclusion here. I never said it was impossible, just that there's no way to know for sure because there are so many inconsistencies with how people define the system. 




> I think that a lot of times, an expert can type somebody better than





> that person can type themself. But the problem is that it's impossible to objectively resolve a typing dispute. So people can argue forever.


This is an interesting opinion.


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

Ace Face said:


> My statement wasn't an attack on your person. That being said, this is evidence that favors my first point. You interpret enneagram theory to be one way, and I interpret it to be another. Neither opinion on this theory is right or wrong. We just have different perspectives and interpretations of this system.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you have a lot to explore yet. Good luck on your journey!


That sounds very presumptuous.



> Would you be so bold as to say that your interpretation and understanding of the system is reliable and can be applied reliably?


I do think that the system itself is true. Whether it can be applied reliably by real people is another issue.



> You jumped to a conclusion here. I never said it was impossible, just that there's no way to know for sure because there are so many inconsistencies with how people define the system.


People interpret the system in many different ways, but I think that there is only one truth. It's like, in the 1800s people debated whether light was a particle or a wave. Neither side could persuade the other through argument. But, in the 1900s, the question was finally resolved beyond a shadow of a doubt, and now everyone agrees. So lack of agreement doesn't mean there is no answer.



> This is an interesting opinion.


Thanks.


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

Quang said:


> It is important to note that the majority of the people who are interested in the enneagram and show up for the surveys have a 4-fix, so there is a sample bias. In terms of rarity, I suppose 458 could be one of the rarest.


That's interesting. Where did you get that info?


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

screamofconscious said:


> That's interesting. Where did you get that info?


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

Here are direct links to the above images, so the charts are not so f'ing hard to see.
=)

https://scontent-arn2-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...0_10153394518737359_6180745188333576725_o.png
https://scontent-arn2-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...7_10153394518802359_5537892731886017040_o.png


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

nburns said:


> Here are direct links to the above images, so the charts are not so f'ing hard to see.
> =)
> 
> https://scontent-arn2-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...0_10153394518737359_6180745188333576725_o.png
> https://scontent-arn2-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...7_10153394518802359_5537892731886017040_o.png


Thank you for going to the effort of finding those links. What test is that from? Who wrote it? What kind of measures were taken to ensure accurate test results?

@Quang
You see, I'm mistrustful of the data mostly because it relies on self reporting. Here's an article that discusses why self reporting is problematic.

The dangers of self-report - Science Brainwaves

But self reporting isn't the only issue. There'squestion of the credibility of the test writer since we don't know who they are, how well they know the material or what scientific methods, if any, they used.

I don't really believe that more 4s are into the Enneagram. I think someone slapped that spiritual label on 4and it stuck. (The Fauvres, I think but could be wrong). Naturally, anyone who sees them self as spiritual would relate to 4 on a test that was written where 4 is emphasized as a spiritual type.

People who see themselves as spiritual are naturally attracted to the Enneagram for its mystical aspects. So you you'll find a lot of people claiming 4 in their tritype.

I do agree that they're very rare though.


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

screamofconscious said:


> Thank you for going to the effort of finding those links. What test is that from? Who wrote it? What kind of measures were taken to ensure accurate test results?
> 
> @Quang
> You see, I'm mistrustful of the data mostly because it relies on self reporting. Here's an article that discusses why self reporting is problematic.
> ...


The source for the survey conducted was by Enneagram Explorations (Katherine Faurve and David Faurve) and the results are based from the respondent's self-report of their tritype from the tritype test. The measures are also questionable, because their methodology for their research hasn't been disclosed.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

nburns said:


> That sounds very presumptuous.


If you say so.



> I do think that the system itself is true. Whether it can be applied reliably by real people is another issue.


I don't think it's a complete system at all, and I think people's thought processes and motivations are much more fluid than enneagram could ever give us credit for. I don't think all people have one main goal in life, and that it's going to be one of the nine focused motivations described in the enneagram. People have all kinds of different motives for the things they do, and they do not always point back to one motivation. 



> People interpret the system in many different ways, but I think that there is only one truth. It's like, in the 1800s people debated whether light was a particle or a wave. Neither side could persuade the other through argument. But, in the 1900s, the question was finally resolved beyond a shadow of a doubt, and now everyone agrees. So lack of agreement doesn't mean there is no answer.


I'm going to have to disagree with you. The closest you're going to get to figuring out personality is through studying genetics. That's a tangible science, and even then, there are still a lot of environmental factors that one would have to consider when trying to apply it to personality studies. If there were more science behind the enneagram, it would be easier to get behind it and stay behind it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I would really like to know where the opinion that the attachment triad types (369) are the most common come from, and that 4 and 5 are the least common, since there is pretty much no statistical way to factually validate either claim and if one actually goes out and make some personal observations unreliable as anecdotal evidence ultimately is, it still seems to be that neither claim is actually true. 

I also think that environmental factors play a huge role in one's personal observations as trying to type people at a gym will probably lead to very different results compared to a yoga class compared to a college class compared to a political meeting and so on. 

Based on on my own experiences, I do happen to know more 6s than I do other types, but I also know more 5s than I do other types, and I know more 7s than other types. This of course looking at my friend list and looking at these people's self-typings that I happen to ultimately agree with. My extended list is of course not statistically relevant by far, but it does make some interesting indications about people nevertheless. So why this prevalence for head types? No idea. Could be that I get along better with head types, could be that the subjects I am also interested in tend to also interest head types, but it could be a mere coincidence.

Another problem I do see a lot is that people tend to use 6, and to a degree also 4 and 5 and perhaps 9, as blanket statement types when they genuinely do not know what type the person is but they still feel compelled to make some kind of type suggestion for the person in question. Because there is the idea that 6s in particular, are so diverse, there's also the widespread belief that if you do not know what other type the person must be, they must surely be a 6. It becomes a one-size-fit-all type which is just wrong, because 6 is actually very distinct with its own core issues. 

At some level every type possesses infinite variety based on the people who are that type and since no person is exactly the same, so will neither the type quite be. This is pretty elementary tbh, but people fall back on logical shortcuts anyway.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

Ace Face said:


> This is impossible to calculate. For starters, everyone interprets the theory in different ways. Secondly, everyone has a biased opinion of themselves. Thirdly, nobody knows you well enough to be able to give you a good idea of what your type might be, and even if they did, this shit rolls on back to point number one. So who's to say? The enneagram is realistically a faulty tool that was created to help explain the differences between people by *using nine poorly defined boxes in which to cram the billions of people walking the planet*. Does the bolded sound like a good idea or a bad idea to you? I think it has bull shit written all over it. Props the to scam artists that are making money off this shit though.


i've begun to look at it as if the value is the fact that they catch patterns in the 'rise and fall' of a person so to speak; almost energetically. 
this and mbti, and every other one. i think it's most beneficial aspect is that it can be used as an imprint on which to think of oneself. and then you can notice where it deviates and where it aligns (almost like seeing oneself by proxy). and whatever you get from that is of personal significance. 
something to abstract from when introspection is needed? has value, but in a more fluid way. also as 'operational'/as superficial as used. 
i guess just the different ways imaginable to interpret oneself, or oneself from many different perspectives, is what stands out to me as potentially worthwhile.


----------



## ScientiaOmnisEst (Oct 2, 2013)

Entropic said:


> I would really like to know where the opinion that the attachment triad types (369) are the most common come from, and that 4 and 5 are the least common, since there is pretty much no statistical way to factually validate either claim and if one actually goes out and make some personal observations unreliable as anecdotal evidence ultimately is, it still seems to be that neither claim is actually true.


I think the idea of attachment types being common comes from how they're supposed to be the most "basic" types; I recall one explanation that hexad types are ways of "not being" attachment types - Eight and One are ways of not being Nine, etc. So you would expect the most basic, fundamental types to be the most common. 

I don't completely get the idea of Six as the "everyman" type either. I mean, I kind of do, since existential fear and insecurity are truly fundamental, human things - though I think R&H's characterization of Six as being a mess of contradictions didn't help. I mean, every human being has contradictions. No one is a perfectly consistent character type. 

With Four and Five...I never heard of these being the rarest types until this thread actually. Though now I have to wonder how this is related to the perception of these two type as deep, brilliant, and perceptive misfits. Naturally such specialness isn't common!


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

Night Huntress said:


> I recommend reading Almaas and Maitri... I think they do far better jobs at representing what Enneatypes are truly about. R&H make some good points, but are flawed in several places.


I rely on R&H to back up my points on here mainly because they have a good website. They are not perfect, but you can generally see where they're coming from.


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

screamofconscious said:


> 6 is such a conflicted type, I have a hard time pinning down qualities like this, but when words like conformist are used, and that is a powerful word to use with a 6, you end up getting 6s who disagree. What they're not seeing, is a further explanation that 6s may choose a variety of beliefs that are non-conformist, but blend in and conform to their belief system, whatever that may be.


Indeed. Type 6 is one of the most complicated enneagram types to pin down and identify (including their diverse microgestures), due to their ambivalent, vacillating, contradictory nature. Labeling people as type 6 as 'comformist' is erroneous, because the very core of this type is to seek certainty, safety, belonging, and one of the strategies to achieve this is by adopting an ambivalent (obedient/rebellious) stance towards foreign authorities, groups, and beliefs. Type 6s are known to habitually doubt, question, and 'test' new beliefs and people, in order to ensure that *the unknown* is something they can turn their backs to (experience taught Sixes that the unknown=danger). Hence, the loyal and faithful quality of Sixes arises, when people pass their 'trial'.


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

nburns said:


> So? 6s disagree with _everything!!!_





screamofconscious said:


> Nuh uh! :tongue:


I rest my case.
:smilewoot:


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

nburns said:


> I rest my case.
> :smilewoot:


Yes, we're an argumentative bunch but my point still stands that unless you expand on the terminology, you're unlikely to get a positive response from a 6.


@Quang
I'm not sure about a 6ish need to turn ones back on the unknown. At whatever level of health, we are normally very alert to dangers in the environment.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Oh goody! I feel rare!


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

screamofconscious said:


> Yes, we're an argumentative bunch but my point still stands that unless you expand on the terminology, you're unlikely to get a positive response from a 6.
> 
> 
> @Quang
> I'm not sure about a 6ish need to turn ones back on the unknown. At whatever level of health, we are normally very alert to dangers in the environment.


What I meant by "turn the back to" is that the 6 is going to keep questioning things to see if something is credible/valid/reliable/worth believing in.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

screamofconscious said:


> Yes, we're an argumentative bunch but my point still stands that unless you expand on the terminology, you're unlikely to get a positive response from a 6.
> 
> 
> @_Quang_
> I'm not sure about a 6ish need to turn ones back on the unknown. At whatever level of health, we are normally very alert to dangers in the environment.



Sixes are experts at sussing out what could possibly go wrong. They are in fact instrumental in their ability to do this. Be good the sixes in your life, they will return that in spades.


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Sixes are experts at sussing out what could possibly go wrong. They are in fact instrumental in their ability to do this. Be good the sixes in your life, they will return that in spades.


I'm not sure 6s are the best at this. Between my dad and me, I think I'd be better at predicting how things could fail.

6s are useful, though. They have good follow-through and they're dependable, so you'd want them employed at your business. They are also good in crises. I used to work in a hospital, and it was truly inspiring to see them take command when a patient started crashing.

I figure that they won't disagree with me when I'm flattering them, but we'll see...


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

nburns said:


> I'm not sure 6s are the best at this. Between my dad and me, I think I'd be better at predicting how things could fail.
> 
> 6s are useful, though. They have good follow-through and they're dependable, so you'd want them employed at your business. They are also good in crises. I used to work in a hospital, and it was truly inspiring to see them take command when a patient started crashing.
> 
> I figure that they won't disagree with me when I'm flattering them, but we'll see...


Is your dad phobic, or counter-phobic? 6w7 or 6w5? Instinctual stacking?


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

nburns said:


> I'm not sure 6s are the best at this. Between my dad and me, I think I'd be better at predicting how things could fail.
> 
> 6s are useful, though. They have good follow-through and they're dependable, so you'd want them employed at your business. They are also good in crises. I used to work in a hospital, and it was truly inspiring to see them take command when a patient started crashing.
> 
> I figure that they won't disagree with me when I'm flattering them, but we'll see...


Maybe you're just smarter than your dad. I'm pretty damned good at figuring out what could go wrong. 

As for dependabilty, not at all at lower than average health. In a crises, we're Cowardly Lions or lions in our own right.


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Is your dad phobic, or counter-phobic? 6w7 or 6w5? Instinctual stacking?


I don't get into all of that extra stuff. For instinctual stacking, possibly sp/so/sx. I'm not sure how sx would play out, so sx could be anywhere. Social 2nd seems like a safe bet.

Come to think of it, he's pretty attached to my mom, so perhaps that's sx.

I showed him the Enneagram and he thought he was a 5. This is probably because he does computer work and he views this tinkering side of himself as being his entire personality. He's clearly not a 5, but the fact that he identifies with 5 may shed some light on his self-image.


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

screamofconscious said:


> Maybe you're just smarter than your dad. I'm pretty damned good at figuring out what could go wrong.


It's possible. I'm motivated to predict what might go wrong, because, as a 9, I just don't want to deal with anything going wrong. So I head it off if I can.



> As for dependabilty, not at all at lower than average health. In a crises, we're Cowardly Lions or lions in our own right.


I think that, in most cases, a type's greatest strength becomes their greatest weakness when they are going to pieces. So 6s may be the most dependable under good circumstances and the least dependable under bad. I don't really know.

6s are known to be good in crises. Ex: I think Giuliani is a 6, and he looked really good on 9/11. When something unexpected happens, 6s don't have time to confuse themselves. So they have unusual clarity.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

nburns said:


> I don't get into all of that extra stuff. For instinctual stacking, possibly sp/so/sx. I'm not sure how sx would play out, so sx could be anywhere. Social 2nd seems like a safe bet.
> 
> Come to think of it, he's pretty attached to my mom, so perhaps that's sx.
> 
> I showed him the Enneagram and he thought he was a 5. This is probably because he does computer work and he views this tinkering side of himself as being his entire personality. He's clearly not a 5, but the fact that he identifies with 5 may shed some light on his self-image.


The "extra stuff" explains a lot of nuances that otherwise cannot be adequately explained. 

The wing preference will indicate whether he tends more towards phobic, or counter-phobic, as will his trifixes. The instinctual stacking also plays a role for sure. 

My own 6 wing is more CP due to my social dom, and 8 trifix, for example. I regularly scan the room when in public, and rarely ever sit with my back to the exits. This might also have been encouraged by my military training.


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

nburns said:


> It's possible. I'm motivated to predict what might go wrong, because, as a 9, I just don't want to deal with anything going wrong. So I head it off if I can.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, but you're forgetting that our sin is cowardice.

I should warn you that flattery is very hit or miss for me. It must be genuine but in equal perspective to the bad. Otherwise, I call shenanigans at best, feel disdain at worst.


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

screamofconscious said:


> Yes, but you're forgetting that our sin is cowardice.
> 
> I should warn you that flattery is very hit or miss for me. It must be genuine but in equal perspective to the bad. Otherwise, I call shenanigans at best, feel disdain at worst.


Do you agree that Giuliani is a 6? Because, he did look good on 9/11.


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

tanstaafl28 said:


> The "extra stuff" explains a lot of nuances that otherwise cannot be adequately explained.
> 
> The wing preference will indicate whether he tends more towards phobic, or counter-phobic, as will his trifixes. The instinctual stacking also plays a role for sure.
> 
> My own 6 wing is more CP due to my social dom, and 8 trifix, for example. I regularly scan the room when in public, and rarely ever sit with my back to the exits. This might also have been encouraged by my military training.


I'm not sure why, but I'm just not interested in explaining everything. The root type is all I care about. But I strive hard to get it right.


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

@nburns 
He did. As for his type, I haven't paid much attention to him. R&H have him typed as a 1 though. They're pretty good at typing people, imo.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

nburns said:


> You sound a tad bit hostile and I daresay that could be what people are referring to when they criticize your communication skills. This is an issue 8s can have, plainly. See if you can't work on toning it down a bit.



Yeah, I get that. Which is funny cuz I'm really not. I guess why I have hard time understanding exactly what people expect from my communication skills is that everyone I know is constantly in a bad mood, hates everything and is down right mean-spirited.

I think that actually has something to do it. Because when I am not around them, everyone thinks I'm a "Delight" and I have no trouble making friends at all.

Soo yeah...that's a bit of conundrum.


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

screamofconscious said:


> @nburns
> He did. As for his type, I haven't paid much attention to him. R&H have him typed as a 1 though. They're pretty good at typing people, imo.


R&H are frequently right, but I've disagreed with them often enough that it doesn't concern me. In fact, I think you can probably infer a lot about their biases from the mistakes they make typing famous people.

For example, they've typed Hitler as a 6. However, I've watched a lot about Hitler on TV of late and the more I watch the more plainly I can see that Hitler was a 4.

They type Ronald Reagan as a 9, but this doesn't feel true. Reagan was more likely a 3.

They type Kurt Cobain as a 5, but I am pretty darn sure he was a 3. 5 doesn't even seem close.

Einstein is the most obvious 5 ever, right? But I am leaning toward 9. He promised his future Nobel Prize money to his (soon to be ex-) wife to get her to go away. When the prize money came through he in fact gave it to her. Something about that just seems 9ish to me. I mean, how often do you win a Nobel, and he was willing to sacrifice the entire prize money for the sake of having a conflict-free separation.

Their list of famous 5s actually looks like a disaster. Jane Goodall? I'm not sure about that.


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

nburns said:


> R&H are frequently right, but I've disagreed with them often enough that it doesn't concern me. In fact, I think you can probably infer a lot about their biases from the mistakes they make typing famous people.
> 
> For example, they've typed Hitler as a 6. However, I've watched a lot about Hitler on TV of late and the more I watch the more plainly I can see that Hitler was a 4.
> 
> ...


The most accurate way to type someone's enneagram type is to investigate their autobiographies, dairies, writings, public image (facebook profile), gestures, and language to understand their internal perception. What phrases do they normally use? How do they describe themselves as children? The core enneagram type defense mechanisms manifest themselves already at childhood. You need their input!

*A common newbie mistake is to judge someone's enneagram solely based on their external behavior*, because the enneagram is about motivation not behavior, and any type can fulfill any roles (e.g. any type can commit crime), however the reasons WHY they do it differs. So if you are typing someone without the considerations into our their instinct and tritype comes into play, it is likely that you are going to end up with a shallow analysis of their fixes rather than their core type.


----------

