# Tritypes classified by compliancy



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

I am a learner at this, but while studying the tritypes I managed to put them all into 7 categories.

Most of them don't tell you which mode is dominant - that depends on on the core and the wings. But they tell you something useful. For instance, non-assertive types will behave in certain ways, as will non-withdrawn types and non-compliant types, etc. Maybe other people can fill in the descriptions.


Triple-compliant 126

Triple-assertive 378

Triple-withdrawn 459


Non-compliant 358 359 379, 458 478 479

Non-assertive 125 145 146, 259 269, 469

Non-withdrawn 126 136 137, 268 278, 368


One of each: 135 147, 258 279, 369, 468

> [EDIT: I originally called the last group Balanced, but that is the wrong word for it]


----------



## periwinklepromise (Jan 26, 2015)

I like the idea of "non-compliant", etc, but the "balanced" label I disagree with. Yes, these tritypes have one of each for this particular triad consideration, but each of the "balanced" is a full triad elsewhere, ie 135 competency, 258 rejection, etc. Because of this, I don't think "balanced" is a great word for them. 

Furthermore, I don't see what this does to improve theory. What do you hope this classification system will accomplish?


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

i think it's an interesting take. i think 'balanced' means "balanced within the realm of the three mentioned"--everything takes on a different look when you bring more into the mix (so, ^, yeah, you're kind of right).


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

What's the rationale for 135 147, 279, and 468 being 'balanced' types?


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

Re. "balanced" - is it ok if I edit the OP to call it something else? I accept your criticisms. I just kind of threw it in at the end, and didn't think too hard about it.

Maybe "All Three" would be a better label.


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

Quang said:


> What's the rationale for 135 147, 279, and 468 being 'balanced' types?


I think only in the context of the compliant/assertive/withdrawn spectrum.


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

periwinklepromise said:


> each of the "balanced" is a full triad elsewhere, ie 135 competency, 258 rejection, etc. Because of this, I don't think "balanced" is a great word for them.


I am only a learner. That's interesting, but if we get into other descriptions, it might complicate all of them.

Is it true that each of the "balanced" is a triple of something else?


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Don't get discouraged by the comments here. I agree that "compliant," "assertive," "withdrawn," and "balanced" aren't necessarily the greatest terms to use in describing any kind of enneatype, however, this underlines how easy it is for people first coming to the theory to miss the contextual meaning of these terms. 

Generally speaking, adjectives that the enneagram uses to describe types (assertive, withdrawn, competent, positive, reactive, image, anger, etc) have a very specific meaning within the context of the theory that is often different than what everyday use of the adjective would mean. When we say "compliant" in everyday life, we typically mean someone who puts special emphasis on following rules established by an authority. When we say "compliant" in the enneagram we mean, specifically, that the type identifies with their Superego more than other types do which can lead to a wide range of behavioral traits. 

The 126, for example, is described by the Fauvres as being the "most militant" tritype on the enneagram. My mom is this tritype, and I would second that they have an edge to them and in fact can be _very _assertive in voicing their criticism of others, or reaction to something they believe to be wrong despite being a "non-assertive tritype." They are conventionally assertive - more so than many types - just not of what their instinctive desires are, and more of what they believe to be needed or right. 1's and 2's in particular are quite driven, persistent, and often quite proactive core types in practical matters where they feel something needs to be done to avoid a bigger issue. Just as, in contrast, many 7's report being too scattered to truly assert a single goal and stick with it despite being very much assertive in constantly seeking to fulfill their desires for stimulation. How can one be "assertive" if they sit around and fantasize about anime, playing video games, or buying clothes all day? Because they simply want to do what they want to do and do it without checking against their Superego as a "compliant" type would, thereby asserting their _own _desires more freely. You now see the discrepancy between conventional assertiveness and enneagram assertiveness. 

The logic of the OP's categorizations isn't wrong given the descriptors we have with this theory. It's just that what those descriptors mean is quite misleading as it stands.

All tritypes are "balanced" in my opinion since all tritypes have a heart, head, and gut type. A balanced person regardless of tritype uses all three centers to inform instead of relying primarily on one or two.


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

Figure said:


> The logic of the OP's categorizations isn't wrong given the descriptors we have with this theory. It's just that what those descriptors mean is quite misleading as it stands.


I'm not sure why you think it is misleading, as assertive/compliant/withdrawn is embedded in the theory. All I've done is draw out the fact that non- of each one has merit for discussion, and for grouping the types.

I realise that for a beginner, assertive etc may mean something else, but I haven't tried to change those meanings.

I admit that I didn't know exactly what they meant, but thought perhaps they related to the individual's approach to wider society and its norms. So that compliant means accepting and defending social standards, and assertive means imposing the individual's will upon them, in an effort to either change them, or to be permitted to ignore them. Withdrawn is a reaction where the person restricts the scope of their thinking, or of their world, by doing neither. (Is that right?)

In any case, the way that the tritypes fall neatly into 7 categories is what interests me. The meanings, as I've said, can be filled in by other people. The categories will help me learn them.

There is some similarity, for instance, between all non-withdrawn types, where they share common traits. For some people that may even be a defining motivation - that for some reason, they will do anything but withdraw - and for others it may be a result of other factors or a genetic predisposition, which happens to come out that way.


----------



## Tetsuo Shima (Nov 24, 2014)

Damn right. I'm non-compliant, and I don't care. Anything more positive just wouldn't be believable.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Pangelicus said:


> I'm not sure why you think it is misleading, as assertive/compliant/withdrawn is embedded in the theory. All I've done is draw out the fact that non- of each one has merit for discussion, and for grouping the types.


Your groupings are misleading not because of you, but because of the way the theory defines "assertive," "compliant," and "withdrawn," which again is different than the way those words are usually used outside of the enneagram. Also worth mentioning is that various authors (as described below) have different interpretations of which types belong in which triad. 

Just so you know, also, the enneagram was not developed to be a tool for identifying traits in others regardless of whether you are beginner or an advanced scholar of the theory. Various enthusiasts of the theory use enneatype to identify traits, but traits are not the fundamental basis of the enneagram. Instead, the theory outlines 9 ego structures and how the parts of each structure shape the inner perceived reality of each type and perhaps traits of compulsive habits, but NOT what external traits look like for each type aside from what is compulsive type behavior. 

Because of this, the "triads" are not necessary to know to understand the basis of the theory. They weren't part of the original canon of the theory; they were added later as a way of re-framing types. Neither, for that matter, is tritype a necessary part of the theory. 



> I admit that I didn't know exactly what they meant, but thought perhaps they related to the individual's approach to wider society and its norms. So that compliant means accepting and defending social standards, and assertive means imposing the individual's will upon them, in an effort to either change them, or to be permitted to ignore them. Withdrawn is a reaction where the person restricts the scope of their thinking, or of their world, by doing neither. (Is that right?)


Not quite. 

Compliant/Aggressive/Withdrawn are what is called the Hornevian triads, and were derived by some enneagram scholars (such as Claudio Naranjo) from the works of psychoanalyst Karen Horney. 

Horney did not directly study the enneagram, as the enneagram had not been articulated as a personality theory yet. She was a prominent psychoanalyst of the early 20th century, focusing mostly on neurosis and how the needs embedded in neurosis could be outlined and identified. She came up with the following three categories of neurotic "needs" as neurosis relates to people:

*Moving towards people* (need to embrace, need for affection, being loved by others, someone to mirror pleasantry)
*Moving against people* (need to confront, need for achievement, power, control, admiration)
*Moving away from people* (need for withdrawal, need for self-sufficiency, live inconspicuously, perfection of wellbeing, have well-founded borders from other people)

Horney would later rephrase these categories as: Compliance, Aggression, and Detachment. You can read more about the original Horney triad here, but notice that the verbiage used to describe each scatters each enneagram type across several categories - for example, "being in control of one's own destiny" as "away from others" despite being frequently attributed to type 8, which is an "aggressive" type. 

I believe Claudio Naranjo and Riso-Hudson were among if not the first enneagram authors to associate Horney's work to the enneagram. These authors associated 126 to Compliance, 378 to Aggression, and 459 to Detachment/Withdrawal in dialogue with Horney's theory. Other authors (also here) have also recategorized the types as 138 Moving Against, 276 Moving Towards, and 459 Moving Away to correspond with Horney's original works, in addition to a number of other triads such as Head (567)/Heart (234)/Gut (891), Positive Outlook (279)/Reactive (468)/Competency (135).

In other words, the types do not neatly fall into 7 categories, because it is very much in flux as to what those categories mean


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

Pangelicus said:


> There is some similarity, for instance, between all non-withdrawn types, where they share common traits.


this is what makes the enneagram interesting (to me at least). you can arrange the types in many different ways, showing how they are similar/unlike the others, to highlight or to isolate facets that wouldn't have stood out in your mind's eye to begin with. 
it provides many different angles to view people through, but this is also kind of the limitation of the enneagram (the same thing that makes it useful). 
just as the words we're using to describe tendencies of types change and morph depending on the context we throw them into, each of these types is at once one quality and of course that same opposing quality (only this discrepancy isn't really made clear, until we try to parse up the types by their 'qualities', in such ways that aren't already staples to existing theory--so, good thread), but... 

_(tl'dr)_i don't know that there isn't a single thing you could say that is untrue within enneagram contexts. 
you'd just have to find the correlating circumstances that would play on the mentalities of each type in such a way as to elicit a particular response--the 'situational key' to their mechanism of dealing with life. 
(i think that's something people forget: we're all still human and all still very similar in what we work with, it's just be reordered and shifted a bit from person to person)


----------



## periwinklepromise (Jan 26, 2015)

Pangelicus said:


> Is it true that each of the "balanced" is a triple of something else?


Yep! 

135 is competency, 279 positive-thinking, 468 reactive. These are called the Harmonic Groups, theorized by the Riso-Hudson duo. Here is the link from their site explaining these classifications. As far as I have seen, this is a pretty popular addition to the general theory.

147 is frustration (many call it idealism), 258 rejection, 369 attachment. These are Object Relations designations, which were derived separately from the Enneagram and applied later, like the Hornevian groups outlined by Figure. This  is the site I was led to when I was learning about this section of theory, so it's a very basic intro. This is a less popular addition to the general theory, and it is pretty regularly disputed, _especially_ the naming of the groups.


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

That made very interesting reading, thanks.

I am somewhat bemused at the apparent lack of intellectual rigour in those Object Relations. I say "apparent" because I am only a learner. But - for instance,

- Rejection in 2 is given as a rejection of the feelings for self, to give them to other people.

I was kind of hoping for a similar thing for Head and Gut. But what there is, is -

- Rejection in a 5 is the rejection of feelings altogether, in favour of thinking.

Which isn't really the same thing, and could easily be looked at differently to re-categorise it as either attachment to thoughts, or frustration for always trying to deny them?

- Rejection in an 8 is the expected rejection from others, and the reaction to it.

Doesn't that miss out things like -

- Rejection of the head in favour of feelings

- Rejection of gut in favour of feelings, etc. in 6 combinations

- The denial of thinking for the self, in favour of thinking for other people.

- The denial of using instincts for the self, in favour of.... etc.

Or is there an underlying cohesion which I don't know about?



Figure said:


> 9 ego structures





> In other words, the types do not neatly fall into 7 categories, because it is very much in flux as to what those categories mean


Are they structurally related (which would facilitate useful comparative descriptions), or for instance, just 9 which have been observed? So far, I am under the vague impression that the Horney triad has a good logical basis, and it sounds more consistent than the Object Relations, but I am wondering. Is there a site where I read a formal definition of how the Horney triad makes sense of Enneagram, and why?

If the Horney Triad is a good basis for dividing up motivations, it suggests that all motivation is derived from your relations with other people. It doesn't seem to translate implicitly into motivations about survival, or with the world at large, or with spirituality, or other motive forces.

These are just my first thoughts, on reading your post.

But I can see why my categories aren't very useful. If there was more rigour in their definitions, it would be more useful.


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

Figure said:


> ...


One thing that strikes me about the Horney triad is that if you are moving towards people, your intentions lie on a scale of positivity for that person. That includes neutral intention in the middle, and degrees of + and - either side. The amount of positivity may vary a lot, and is being value-judged for each type, so that some are seen as + and some as -.

If you are moving away from people, does that also have useful distinctions?

Also. Horney classifies neurotic needs by social intention. Enneagram is shoe-horning that into a list of private motivations. (List or system?). I'm not sure if that's going to work 

I'll read those articles now...


----------



## periwinklepromise (Jan 26, 2015)

Pangelicus said:


> - Rejection in 2 is given as a rejection of the feelings for self, to give them to other people.
> 
> I was kind of hoping for a similar thing for Head and Gut. But what there is, is -
> 
> ...


You are right in that they are not framed similarly in this regard, but they are not meant to. 

The strengths of these types they offer to people in the hopes they will stave off rejection all align with the perceived strengths of their Center (heart, head, body), but their weaknesses do not have to align for this model. 2s do not see themselves as "rejecting" the Heart, the way you read it. There won't be symmetry there because that's not what is happening here. 8s do not reject the Body or their anger; 5s do not reject the Head; 2s do not reject the Heart - they simply avoid their _own_ feelings. "Rejecting"/denying/avoiding the "core" of each Center is a _very different_ discussion, hence its lack in this triad. And no, I will not go into it here. 

I was trying to stay clear of giving too much Riso-Hudson info, but their information does seem the easiest to work with for beginners so you can see what they think of the subject here. Maybe this will make more sense for you.

Note to bold: That Rejection is common to all Rejection types. That's what _makes_ them Rejection - they feel rejected and expect further rejection.


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

periwinklepromise said:


> Note to bold: That Rejection is common to all Rejection types. That's what _makes_ them Rejection - they feel rejected and expect further rejection.


That site I read is wrong, then - the one called "Object Relations" at the Enneagram Institute.

If the common theme is the expectation of rejection from others - I can see that in 2 and 8, but also in 3 and 4, and not necessarily in 5. As I understand it, 5 withdraws for study and thought, in fear of being overwhelmed by chaos.

(I am just trying to understand it, I hope this doesn't come across as combative)


----------



## periwinklepromise (Jan 26, 2015)

Pangelicus said:


> (I am just trying to understand it, I hope this doesn't come across as combative)


Quest for knowledge is cool and all, and I don't read your responses as combative, but we have sufficiently veered off-topic. Suffice to say, the "one of each" types for hornevian triads are not "balanced" in other lenses and triad systems.


----------

