# Do we really need tritypes?



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

I'm becoming more and more convinced that tritypes are unnecessary. We already have core type, wings, subtypes, connections to stress/security points (which don't necessarily indicate level of health) and Jungian type, so is there any real reason to add tritypes on top of that? The things I've listed explain many of the differences between people of the same type, but the enneagram is not going to explain every last nuance of your personality. Tritypes just seem to confuse people, without adding anything very useful to the system. I've noticed a lot of people typing themselves by using tritype descriptions, and their reasoning usually goes something like this: "I'm not sure if I'm a 2 or a 4, but I found this 469 description that sounds like me so I must be a 4." Then if there are things about the core that don't fit, they use their fixes to explain it away. I'm learning a lot about myself by exploring my core/wing/instincts/arrows/cognitive functions, so I don't see how knowing my tritype would aid my personal growth and self-understanding. So... discuss. Agree or disagree?


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

I view the tritypes as describing our method of approach in dealing with each of the core emotions, and as ranking the prevalence of each of these struggles in our lives. For example, as a 694, my primary concern in life is dealing with anxiety/fear while dealing with anger/conflict, and then shame, is somewhat less prevalent in my life. My superego comes into play for the anxiety, while my ego dominates in areas related to two less significant core emotions in my life. What can be noticed from this is also how suppressed my id is -- without tritype, I would not have this insight.

I agree, however, that the way tritype is often approached is very poor, and as usual centers around the reading and interpretation of terrible online descriptions. And indeed, it can lead to a lot of type confusion, because it just adds a bunch more moving parts to the question of "what drives me? What makes me the way I am?", but I think that's where the strength of the Enneagram lies. It takes a lot of personal engagement with the theory and introspection about the self. It confuses people, and we probably shouldn't push it onto people and bewilder them when they first come to the theory (as core/wing is the best place to start), but I do think it is a very helpful and valid part to the theory.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Octavarium said:


> Then if there are things about the core that don't fit, they use their fixes to explain it away.


Whether or not there is something of value in tritype is not particularly relevant to this conceptual error.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

aestrivex said:


> Whether or not there is something of value in tritype is not particularly relevant to this conceptual error.


True, but my point is that tritype only seems to confuse people, without adding anything much of value to the system, so as far as I can see it's doing more harm than good.


----------



## Tater Tot (May 28, 2012)

I think the problem with tritypes is that people put too much importance in them. They almost treat it like it's as important and influential as the core type, which I don't agree with. The basic concept (having a way of functioning in each center) is nice, though.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> True, but my point is that tritype only seems to confuse people, without adding anything much of value to the system, so as far as I can see it's doing more harm than good.


On your one point that tritype adds to the confusion I agree. I think people need to first understand primary type before exploring these additional types indicated by tritype, wing, stress/security, instinct, etc. But it sounds like the problem is that some people seem to find a combination of types or additional concepts more clarifying for them. In fact, as I think I've mentioned before, Naranjo stated that if you don't match one of the three instinctual subtypes for a type then you're not that type. But what this really says to me is that the types are simply not defined and described well enough for everyone to clearly find the type that matches actual experience (the descriptions are too much a listing of behavioral characteristics that _might _be present for a given type instead of getting underneath the characteristics to inner experience).

On a second point, seems tritype is filling some lack in the system that I think could be better served by simply stating you are not a single type but a movement between types. Consolidate all these concepts for movements between types (wings, stress/security points, tritype, etc.) into a single coherent concept whose goal is to simplify and clarify instead of complicate and monetize (make money for their proponents). Too much effort spent making money off the system instead of further developing and refining it (why have a certification training program for a system that's not fully developed except to make money off of it?).


----------



## Kitfool (Oct 24, 2012)

I don't think it's very important. It's more like what FLAVOR are you? You're probably not going to actually have any of the motivations or fears of second and third type (at least no more than anyone else), but it does kind of say something about you. My fear/motivation is pretty much all 7. I also relate to the behaviors of a 2 and a 9 but not so much the motivations. Saying I'm a 729 is basically just saying I'm a rather generous and peaceful version of a 7.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Octavarium said:


> True, but my point is that tritype only seems to confuse people, without adding anything much of value to the system, so as far as I can see it's doing more harm than good.


Sorry but if the theory has positive value (which is arguable), this is the fault of the people misapplying theory and not the theory itself.

There is no shortage of theories with small positive value. If they all do more harm than good, and thus they should all be exterminated from everyone's minds, you would remove people's incentives to harness the collective knowledge spread across all these theories -- in other words, the search for a good one, and integrating into their own knowledge what is interesting while not taking it as fact. Puny minds might fail at the task of searching for their own truth, yet it does not make it less worth doing.


----------



## RepairmanMan Man (Jan 21, 2012)

All I can say is that I find it to be extremely accurate in my life, and I likely wouldn't have ever accepted my core type without it. If we got rid of tritype theory, I'd honestly think the enneagram had no relevance to me and give it up entirely. Core 6 by itself just doesn't work, and believe me, I've spent the last year _trying to make it_ work.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Tritype has been a big struggle for me personally, finding my core type and my instincts has been much easier. I do think tritype has _some _legitimacy to it, in the sense that, we _will _relate to other types despite having a core that represents our primary fixation. Plus, I do think the two fixes can add some flavor to the core. I just don't think it's helpful. For me, tritype was more like a game of let's-try-to-find-the-ways-in-which-I'm-different-from-other-4s.

A few reasons why I think tritype should be worked on further:
*
1.* People can focus too much on the fixes to explain the ways in which they don't fit a certain type. 

*2.* There's not enough clarification on how tritype works. How do the fixes function? Do you move from center to center as one way of coping fails? Does every fix deal in its own way with the primary emotion of each center, such as the image fix dealing with shame and the gut fix dealing with anger? There's not enough literature, so it's all vague and up for interpretation.

*3.* Tritype literature seems significantly more behavioral/vibe oriented. It doesn't focus on motivations as much as it explains how a certain core type will come across. The 478 is the assertive Four, the 528 is triple rejection, etc. It's basically just another way to describe you beyond your core type. 

*4.* Finally, and this is my biggest issue with tritype, it's too limiting. Do people REALLY have *one *way of dealing with anger, *one* way of dealing with shame, *one *way of dealing with fear? Sure, there might be a consistent pattern across time, but people grow. This is why it's encouraged not to take tritype too seriously, at least in the beginning, and instead focus on the core. It's really what's most important, and describes you well enough while allowing room for individual differences.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Short answer: No, we don't need tritypes. 

Long answer: No, we don't need them, but I've found them fun to explore and useful at times. There's nothing inherently wrong with the theory itself. Only how people use it. If you are new to Enneagram, you should not be studying tritype theory, not because it's very complicated, rather that it can be confusing in conjunction with learning Enneagram at the same time, which is incredibly complex. People misuse tritype as a crutch, as a way to justify their type. If you can't be a type without tritype to explain why you're that type, you're probably not that type. I learned this one the hard way. 

There are problems with the theory, such as, tritype can be explained by a couple different theories that doesn't even require tritype. Like my 3-fix. Without tritype, I can explain my connection to this type by a) the fact that 5 and 3 are both competency types, or b) I'm social-first. My connection to 8 can be explained by integration. Or a 9-fix could be explained by 5 and 9 being look-alikes, and both withdrawn types. Another problem with tritype is that there's just not a lot of good information out there. My own understanding of tritype is becoming more and more my own theory. But I like the fact that I can make my own theory and draw my own conclusions. I like tritype because it shows that people have more than one facet. But the problem about people needing to be reminded of this stems from a more general problem of people letting these typologies define them. 

I really enjoy exploring tritypes, but I can say that we don't need them with confidence, because, if I had to, I could drop tritype right now, and just be a 5. Just as I could drop my wing, and my instinct, and the stress/growth lines, and just be 5. If you can't do that, you need to go back to the drawing board and reexamine your core type.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

The only useful thing I get from the tritype theory is that it does explain the other unhealthy aspects of someone that the core doesn't always cover although a lot of the time I find problems stemming from the combination of core and fixes, they can work together. Fixes also help to fill in the gaps. And because we have 3 types of neurosis corresponding to each centre, it opens up avenues to work on, so im not just seeking work on my core issues only but my other fix's neurosis. 
However, working simply on my core issues before working on anything else is something im not sure whether to go with, it seems right to work on one thing at a time. Its up to each individual how they wish to use the system to self develop and apply it to their set of complex issues. I don't see any real reason why it shouldn't be used, especially for self development purposes. Id say its mostly counterproductive in the early stages of typing.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

aestrivex said:


> Sorry but if the theory has positive value (which is arguable), this is the fault of the people misapplying theory and not the theory itself.
> 
> There is no shortage of theories with small positive value. If they all do more harm than good, and thus they should all be exterminated from everyone's minds, you would remove people's incentives to harness the collective knowledge spread across all these theories -- in other words, the search for a good one, and integrating into their own knowledge what is interesting while not taking it as fact. Puny minds might fail at the task of searching for their own truth, yet it does not make it less worth doing.


I never said any theory should be "exterminated from everyone's minds". Rather, what I said was that tritypes cause confusion, but don't add much of value to the enneagram, so the theory seems pointless to me because, as far as I can see, it only serves to distract people from the deeper aspects of the enneagram. I'm not about to campaign for the censorship of tritype discussion.



holyrockthrower said:


> All I can say is that I find it to be extremely accurate in my life, and I likely wouldn't have ever accepted my core type without it. If we got rid of tritype theory, I'd honestly think the enneagram had no relevance to me and give it up entirely. Core 6 by itself just doesn't work, and believe me, I've spent the last year _trying to make it_ work.


Maybe you're not a six, or maybe you've had problems with bad descriptions, or maybe you don't see it in yourself. I don't want to start another argument about your type, because I honestly don't know why you don't relate to the type that you claim is your core. So, I'll just say that as a general principle, I agree with @madhatter: "If you can't be a type without tritype to explain why you're that type, you're probably not that type." When I typed as a 6 I was more interested in tritypes because I needed something to explain the type 1 issues in my life. I still think I have some 6ish traits, but they can be explained by other things; both 1 and 6 are superego types so there are some commonalities there, the doubting and questioning come from Ti and Ne, and my anxiety comes from being the sp 1 subtype. I don't feel the need to have a 6 fix. My heart fix was more difficult. Several people have said they think it's three; I'm having serious doubts about that, but since this isn't a typing thread there's no need to go into the reasons. I think I have a strong connection to 4 (I don't think having a strong connection to your stress/security point necessarily indicates that you are healthy or unhealthy) and I guess I could call that a 4 fix, but I've found it more useful to explore that connection in terms of the stress arrow rather than thinking of it as a fix.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

IMO:
If you don't like tritypes, don't use them. Just state your preference respectfully. There's no reason for the trend of saying "tritypes are stupid and no one should use them." (No, I'm not talking about the OP, but about previous users on both PerC and EIDB.) 

If you do like tritypes, use them. Just don't mess it up for everyone else. That means learning about your core type properly first and not over-relying on tritypes to explain _everything_.

If you want a bit of extra reading... http://personalitycafe.com/enneagram-personality-theory-forum/116492-tritype-theory-yay-nay.html


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

I don't like them because my knowledge of them comes from the Fauvres, and Katherine is very explicit that they follow a "sequence," such that one type ostensibly "moves on" to another. _A 123 would start with 1, then become more X like a 2 after exhausting the wing of 1, then do Y like a 3. _Either I haven't caught the process at the right point of its beginning, am making errors in when the mode shifts (which I doubt since my "tritype" is very different), or they simply do not always "move onto" the next step in a set sequence. I am skeptical of the alleged type dynamics of tritype theory. They seem very rigid despite describing a very organic, complex environment. 

Additionally, I do not think the functionality of wings and stacked fixes is very well-explained. There is no central definition of a second or third fix, to my knowledge, that would give a definitional structure to, for example, a second fix wing to a third fix core type while trying to observe your own patterns. Yes, you can make sense of it by using the "before and after" proximity rule, but I still think it's very confusing, and makes me suspicious of a system that is over-systematized. Especially since tritype deals with nuance, not core type. (Or does it? I don't think that's particularly clear either). 

In short, some people type by identifying signals and plotting them within a conceptual system. It is very difficult to do this with tritype because the system is either incorrect, or because it is not clear enough in stating where to plot what you notice. It just says "123 and 124 are different, you can see when they talk to each other." Well, yeah.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

Paradigm said:


> IMO:
> If you don't like tritypes, don't use them. Just state your preference respectfully. There's no reason for the trend of saying "tritypes are stupid and no one should use them." (No, I'm not talking about the OP, but about previous users on both PerC and EIDB.)
> 
> If you do like tritypes, use them. Just don't mess it up for everyone else. That means learning about your core type properly first and not over-relying on tritypes to explain _everything_.
> ...


Fair enough, I can see how the OP could've come across like that, even if you weren't actually referring to it; it was hardly an intelligent critique of the theory. I'll post something more in depth when I have more time.


----------



## Doll (Sep 6, 2012)

Tritypes elude me so often that I just get frustrated with them and contemplate abandoning the theory entirely... but then I always go back to it, and consider another side of it, because I find the idea interesting. I don't think everyone can operate in one way all of the time, or be consistent with their main type all of the time. I think tritypes are good for explaining why you would start to act differently, or react in a different way than how you previously have because you already know your instinctual reaction will be ineffective.


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

I like tri-types a lot, actually. To me, it makes a lot of sense that a person would have a primary way of dealing with self-image, a primary way of dealing with anxiety, and a primary way of dealing with anger. It's hard for me to imagine consolidating it all into one type. It gives a well-roundedness to the theory.


----------



## RepairmanMan Man (Jan 21, 2012)

Something funny I notice is that we've all got tritypes in our signatures, even those who think the theory is bunk.


----------



## Sonny (Oct 14, 2008)

holyrockthrower said:


> Something funny I notice is that we've all got tritypes in our signatures, even those who think the theory is bunk.


Lol.

People like to be categorised, it seems.

I dislike tritype theory on the whole, especially because of they way it's used, it spreads the Enneagram meaning too thin and explains things away in inaccurate ways imo. I don't mind if they're used as "flavours". Too often I think people use tritype theory to explain why they're a "different [core type]" rather then actually figuring out if they are A. mistyped, or B. misunderstanding.


----------

