# Hate type names/labels



## Zibb (Jun 24, 2011)

Does anyone else strongly dislike the names/labels/stereotypes of the different enneagram types? I think it's a major source of confusion since they are the impression of type when viewed from the outside. When you embody psychological traits you are often not fully conscious of them, and may tend to think of yourself as what you try to be or what you have to actively will into being. I mean, who wouldn't want to be a "romantic individual"? And just what the heck is a "loyalist" anyway? (rhetorical questions)

These terms only deal with superficial qualities and completely disregard the storms underneath. I know they are intended to be neutral or somewhat positive but there needs to be more depth to them.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

In a way, they do reflect certain important traits in a concise way. For example, I prefer to call Six "The Loyal Skeptic", since it illustrates how the fixation on the holy idea of Faith can cover a wide range of behaviors.

Edit:

Some others I particularly like are...

Type One - The Reformer (it captures the general premise that Type Ones are fundamentally unsatisfied with the world and seek to change it)

Type Nine - The Mediator (it reflects both the Type Nine attitude and the Freudian association with the ego)


----------



## Olena (Jan 2, 2011)

Zibb said:


> I mean, who wouldn't want to be a "romantic individual"? ? (rhetorical questions)


And yet most descriptions post Type 4's as whiney, self-pitying, self-proclaimed tortured souls.

The only plus is we're supposed to be individuals and artistic.

Are there any...decent descriptions? One's that don't seem...biased?


----------



## PixieSaysHi (Oct 9, 2010)

What pisses me off is the stereotypes of the fives. If you aren't a geeky computer boy genius you can't possibly be a five. I think the stereotypes cause quite a bit of misidentifying. I thought (and tested, btw) as a 4 my entire life until I really started looking below the surface and realized I was actually a 5. 

So, yes, I agree. Overall I find the stereotypes to be a disservice.


----------



## soya (Jun 29, 2010)

Four as 'the romantic' is kind of off, because some people might read 'romantic' as "a sunny idealist", where the four archetype seems to be more the idealist who is disillusioned by reality's inability to meet their ideals. Also, "romantic" implies an others-focus, and a four is really self-oriented. 

I guess 'the individualist' is a bit better, but then type four needs attention and feedback from others (even if they're stubbornly individualistic). Five is more of a true individualist. I think all three heart types need others in some way.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

No. At the end of the day it's all fun and games.

And I know the question is rhetorical, but to be honest, I'd rather be shot through the stomach and hung up by my wrists than be considered a "romantic individual." Even writing the words makes my guts shiver.


----------



## soya (Jun 29, 2010)

JuliaRhys said:


> *Even writing the words makes my guts shiver.*


how romantic! :3


----------



## Quenjy (Jun 7, 2011)

Labels I don't like :

Type one : The perfectionist <- this just makes the 1's look like they all have an OCD, "the idealistic" would be more appropriate in my opinion.

Type six : The doubter <- Come on, I know we doubt a lot but this just makes us look like scared chickens with 16 different kinds of phobias. No wonder people don't want to be 6's after this ("So I think i'm a 5, a 4 or maybe a 9" "You sound like a 6" "A 6??? NOOOOOES MY LIFE IS OVER")

Type nine : The peacemaker <- Sounds like 9's are referees shouting "STOP FIGHITIIIING" as soon as they see a conflict between 2 persons. I think 9w8 can be like that but 9w1's reaction to an external conflict is more likely to be "let's get the hell out of here before I get involved"


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

Type 1: Perfectionist, Reformer, Judge, Crusader or Critic
Type 2: Giver, Caretaker, Helper, Nurturer, Advisor or Manipulator
Type 3: Performer, Motivator, Achiever, Producer or Status Seeker
Type 4: Individualist, Artist, Over-Analyzer, Mystic or Melodramatic Elitist
Type 5: Observer, Investigator, Thinker, Sage or Voyeur
Type 6: Loyal Person, Devil's Advocate, Skeptic, Guardian or Rebel
Type 7: Epicure, Entertainer, Optimist, Adventurer or Rationalizer
Type 8: Leader, Solution Master, Maverick, Protector or Intimidator
Type 9: Peacemaker, Mediator, Naturalist, Accommodator or Abdicator


I rather like the title “Devil’s Advocate” for E6, but I can understand why it isn’t widely used. A lot of people misunderstand what a devil advocate is. It’s _not_ just arguing for the opposing side or just being a pain in the ass. It’s about always questioning and always searching for the hidden; it’s about searching every corner, even the dark ones. 

But yeah, as an E6, I can’t really identify over-much with “The Loyalist.” At the end of the day, I’m loyal to nothing. My loyalty, truth be told, comes more out of a fear of abandonment. The title is a bit misleading.


----------



## Monty (Jul 12, 2011)

ive noticed this too. i dont particularly like the 5 wing 6 descriptions... most of them seem a bit biased and make us seem too dull and boring.


@_PixieSaysHi
_ i can relate. the stereotypes caused me a bit of confusion at first too


----------



## Holunder (May 11, 2010)

I like "The Enthusiast" for sevens. It captures the essence of seven in my opinion.

What I don't like is when sevens get confused with ExxPs. They're simply not the same, even though both might occur together. Many descriptions make that mistake at least part of the time.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

i prefer the following labels:

1: the 1
2: the 2
3: the 3
4: the 4
5: the 5
6: the 6
7: the 7
8: the 8
f9: the fast 9
s9: the slow 9


----------



## Proteus (Mar 5, 2010)

PixieSaysHi said:


> What pisses me off is the stereotypes of the fives. If you aren't a geeky computer boy genius you can't possibly be a five. I think the stereotypes cause quite a bit of misidentifying. I thought (and tested, btw) as a 4 my entire life until I really started looking below the surface and realized I was actually a 5.
> 
> So, yes, I agree. Overall I find the stereotypes to be a disservice.


I find the reverse to this is also problematic. Someone likes to fancy themselves as [insert archetype commonly associated with a type here] and thinks that this ideal of who they are (which in many cases is not even accurate or grounded in reality) _must _correlate with a specific type. Anything else wouldn't fit this notion of what they want to be, and is therefore incorrect. Picking a type based on what fits ones image, rather than reality leads to just as much misidentifying.


----------



## PixieSaysHi (Oct 9, 2010)

Proteus said:


> I find the reverse to this is also problematic. Someone likes to fancy themselves as [insert archetype commonly associated with a type here] and thinks that this ideal of who they are (which in many cases is not even accurate or grounded in reality) _must _correlate with a specific type. Anything else wouldn't fit this notion of what they want to be, and is therefore incorrect. Picking a type based on what fits ones image, rather than reality leads to just as much misidentifying.


Mhm, @Proteus indeed it can go both ways.


----------



## Nymma (Apr 24, 2010)

Urgh, tell me about it...I always had a distaste for romance, relationships bore me, and my system vomits anything "sentimental". The label "romantic" makes me think of all the girly girly gooey-eyed overly sentimental girls out there I don't tend to respect, which is rather judgmental of me, but anyway... when first testing as a Four and seeing the label, I originally thought I was a mistype, until I read the descriptions and understood the real signification of the Fours romanticization... I, like many, just tend to associate "romantic" with the overexpressive blurting of soap opera love. 

The labels for other types don't seem much better.


----------



## Muser (Jul 17, 2011)

PixieSaysHi said:


> What pisses me off is the stereotypes of the fives. If you aren't a geeky computer boy genius you can't possibly be a five. I think the stereotypes cause quite a bit of misidentifying. I thought (and tested, btw) as a 4 my entire life until I really started looking below the surface and realized I was actually a 5.
> 
> So, yes, I agree. Overall I find the stereotypes to be a disservice.


I don't mind 'the Observer' as it's actually a pretty profound and telling description. As a Type 5, I do desire (deep, deep down) to participate in the things I observe, but the role of the observer is how I deal with this fear. Of course, labels can only be so long. I'm satisfied with 'Observer'. 
I find that the geeky computer genius stereotype is annoyingly inseparable from INTPs and INTJs.


----------



## PixieSaysHi (Oct 9, 2010)

@Muser

Yes. I agree with you on that. "Observer" fits me perfectly and I don't mind that one at all. I can see how any five could relate to that description...it's when they get overzealous and start going with the more MBTI common stereotypes like you said INTP and INTJ (which, to be fair, makes up just over half of all fives) that gets me. Even then, not all INTP and INTJs are nerdy and love computers, either.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

PixieSaysHi said:


> it's when they get overzealous and start going with the more MBTI common stereotypes like you said INTP and INTJ (which, to be fair, makes up just over half of all fives) that gets me. Even then, not all INTP and INTJs are nerdy and love computers, either.


I think that this is one reason why some people type themselves as Fives but are really not, and some people exclude Five when it really is a possibility. One of the reasons I wrote my enneagram descriptions is that I wanted to address this very phenomenon.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

The names vary depending on the author & have no meaning beyond a tag line, so they don't bug me too much. Attempting to sum up a whole type with one word/short phrase is always tricky. I think a good idea for titles may be the core motivation, but then again, they have to be summed up briefly.


----------



## UmiJune (Jul 30, 2011)

I like "The Individualist" for the 4. 

I cringe at "The Romantic" but after I cringe if I think about it for a second I suppose it fits too. I have ideas of how things should go or be. I have fantasies about everything, but not like romantic roses and love fantasies, noooo not that kind. The kind of romantic I am is this definition:
*3.* impractical, visionary, or idealistic a romantic scheme

One pet peeve I am forming (besides using the term pet peeve) is when anyone stereotypes type 4's as Emo. This makes me very frustrated. I think it's more like the Emo scene was created by emulating a famous or influential type 4 more than it being a scene comprised of type 4's. I think this because I would never want to be a part of a scene like this. The Individualist... a group of emo's and me, I would be very unhappy in that situation. If you google emo and look at all the pictures you see people trying very hard to pretty much look the same as each other but different than society. Nah, I am different than society and different than my peers, tyvm. If I ever had an emo phase ( i am sure i did not ) and I noticed many others around me dressing and acting the same as me, my phase would be over that quick.

I'm just saying. Stereotyping the type 4 is never going to be right and I think stereotyping any of the types will never be right to everyone because even within our types we are individuals. It's just within our types we are alike in the ways we approach stress, how we protect ourselves...


----------

