# The Biggest Problem With The Ennneagram



## Giovanni (Nov 25, 2011)

I enjoy studying the Enneagram and I think it is a great tool for personal growth.
Problems? I would say two.
1. Assessing your type is not easy, as somebody already said, takes a lot of reading, studying, trying not to be influenced by tests results and to look at yourself in an unbiased way.
2. Once you have found your type... well, it's time to get to work and see what you can do to grow. The most challenging part. But the best one too.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Like @jdmn said, I think what doesn't help with the credibility of the enneagram is that too many traits overlap. For example 4 and 6 are pretty much parallel to each other even though they are not the same. The origins of each type are different but the manifestations of the orginal motive develop in very similar ways I think for say the 4 and the 6. I feel for those that continually come accross these loopholes and technicalities. What could be a simple system tends to actually be too complicated and at times contradictory. Yup, too many overlappings and vagueness in places. Its because of these reasons I have felt like abandoning the enneagram altogether.


----------



## sleepyhead (Nov 14, 2011)

I agree with a lot of others who said there's just not that much information out there. I'm glad I came to the Enneagram through books and not websites, because I think my early experience with it would have been much different. I think it's also important that people realize typing isn't something that can be done with a test - Riso and Hudson talk extensively about how easy it is to mistype and that it takes time and research to really figure out your type. 

I've also noticed on these forums that a lot of people who are newer to the Enneagram will open threads asking very specific questions about their behaviour, not understanding that what's important is their core motivations. I think some folks who are newer to it make the mistake of thinking that if you have the same type as someone, you'll act out behaviours or actions in the same way - but two people of the same type can look vastly different next to each other.

And lastly, getting off the websites and taking some books out of the library is such a different experience and is far more expansive than any of the websites I've seen so far.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

sleepyhead said:


> I agree with a lot of others who said there's just not that much information out there. I'm glad I came to the Enneagram through books and not websites, because I think my early experience with it would have been much different. I think it's also important that people realize typing isn't something that can be done with a test - Riso and Hudson talk extensively about how easy it is to mistype and that it takes time and research to really figure out your type.
> 
> I've also noticed on these forums that a lot of people who are newer to the Enneagram will open threads asking very specific questions about their behaviour, not understanding that what's important is their core motivations. I think some folks who are newer to it make the mistake of thinking that if you have the same type as someone, you'll act out behaviours or actions in the same way - but two people of the same type can look vastly different next to each other.
> 
> And lastly, getting off the websites and taking some books out of the library is such a different experience and is far more expansive than any of the websites I've seen so far.


Maybe if people were better advised on how to approach the enneagam it would be viewed and understood better. So maybe we ought to put more weight than previously on how somebody new should look at it, same with some of the advice when you start learning MBTI. Teaching people ways of approaching it before it just becomes something that is viewed in certain lights or based on specifics that arn't even relevent. And yes, I much prefer learning through books, it really does allow you to understand the essence better in depth rather than just going through tidbits of info.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

mushr00m said:


> Like @jdmn said, I think what doesn't help with the credibility of the enneagram is that too many traits overlap. For example 4 and 6 are pretty much parallel to each other even though they are not the same. The origins of each type are different but the manifestations of the orginal motive develop in very similar ways I think for say the 4 and the 6. I feel for those that continually come accross these loopholes and technicalities. What could be a simple system tends to actually be too complicated and at times contradictory. Yup, too many overlappings and vagueness in places. Its because of these reasons I have felt like abandoning the enneagram altogether.


The problem isn't with the theory itself, but with the descriptions. Behavious vary too much from individual to individual and descriptions tend to be "static". This "one size fits all" bs isn't working, people can not be boxed in. Descriptions need to be made more modular. Two people coming from the same motivation may act differently, the descriptions try to incorporate these and it ends up how it does. There actually is a need to be more general and vague or nobody would relate.

I can't relate fully to MBTI descriptions either and relate somewhat to all 16 types *shrug*. Imo just look at the motivation (the core) or the functions in the case of Mbti. Descriptions are shit, because we are all individuals and nobody is the exact copy of someone else.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Rim said:


> The problem isn't with the theory itself, but with the descriptions. Behavious vary too much from individual to individual and descriptions tend to be "static". This "one size fits all" bs isn't working, people can not be boxed in. Descriptions need to be made more modular. Two people coming from the same motivation may act differently, the descriptions try to incorporate these and it ends up how it does. There actually is a need to be more general and vague or nobody would relate.
> 
> I can't relate fully to MBTI descriptions either and relate somewhat to all 16 types *shrug*. Imo just look at the motivation (the core) or the functions in the case of Mbti. Descriptions are shit, because we are all individuals and nobody is the exact copy of someone else.


Thats true. Authors when writing up descriptions projecting their biases really doesn't help. 6's living on skidrow or more inclined to become alcoholics, please! 7's being hardcore hedonists! Some of the finer details authors add into descriptions just distorts and makes assumptions based not on the real world but speculations.


----------



## Sign of the Times (Mar 4, 2011)

Yes, I also think that a lot of descriptions can be very misleading. I think the Enneagram is a fantastic system but it is difficult to put into words since it is more to do with a wholistic system of archetypal energies than even "personalities" as such, which is I think why it can be so tricky to find your type and why people often think, well, that's not me, I'm an individual. 

I think it is partly a problem of terminology, and words by their nature are anyway very limiting and not always accurate indicators even with the best of intentions.


----------



## sleepyhead (Nov 14, 2011)

mushr00m said:


> Maybe if people were better advised on how to approach the enneagam it would be viewed and understood better. So maybe we ought to put more weight than previously on how somebody new should look at it, same with some of the advice when you start learning MBTI. Teaching people ways of approaching it before it just becomes something that is viewed in certain lights or based on specifics that arn't even relevent. And yes, I much prefer learning through books, it really does allow you to understand the essence better in depth rather than just going through tidbits of info.


I definitely think this is true. I came to it through work trainings starting with a workshop on the basics. At the time all the information was pretty overwhelming but I still have all my notes so as I starting learning about things more in depth I had a lot of reference material to go through. Our staff also got to go to a training with Tom Condon in September and that was fantastic. The particular training we did was "The Five Elements of Change" but I'd like to do one with him that's a bit more basic - he's really a great presenter and has such a great way of explaining things. 

I think there's a real misunderstanding in how the system as a whole works - people get really side tracked with wanting to find their type without understanding the whole interconnectedness of the system.


----------



## Genelez (Feb 23, 2012)

When people assume that the fundamental problem of your enneagram type must be your fundamental problem in general. o___O


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

I personally prefer the Enneagram to MBTI; much more interesting, and a much more effective route to personal growth. That said, I think the biggest problem with the Enneagram is the fact that there's very little material showing just how it ties all together (I'm sure there are plenty in books, but very little on the Internet, and most of those descriptions are misleading, once you start to understand the Enneagram on a deeper level).


----------



## Giovanni (Nov 25, 2011)

mushr00m said:


> Maybe if people were better advised on how to approach the enneagam it would be viewed and understood better. So maybe we ought to put more weight than previously on how somebody new should look at it, same with some of the advice when you start learning MBTI. Teaching people ways of approaching it before it just becomes something that is viewed in certain lights or based on specifics that arn't even relevent. And yes, I much prefer learning through books, it really does allow you to understand the essence better in depth rather than just going through tidbits of info.


I couldn't agree more. I think one of the problems is that most people just see the Enneagram as taking a test and having the result with your type. Probably would be useful to stress that a test is never a sure way to know your type, and that the only way is reading, knowing the types and their motivations and only at that point starting to guess which type could describe your motivations. It's a long way of studying, it's not about the tests, no matter how "scientific" and "reliable" they can be.
I think this should be stressed more, even here in this forum, maybe in a section especially dedicated to people that are new to the subject.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

*Some* problems, in no particular order:

~ Descriptions often take leaps of faith, make generalizations, or emphasize the extremes. It is *extremely important* to keep this in mind when typing oneself. The point isn't to relate to every detail, but to extract the overarching idea behind each type and relate to it as a whole, not as a description of *you*.

~ The wings, tritypes, and health levels make it extremely complicated. There are *7776 combinations* (69 984 including health levels). This isn't a bad thing (in fact, it explains variation between people of the same type), but it does complicate the discovery process.

~ People are too willing to take on their type's virtues and flaws as their own. Not everything the descriptions say will apply to you, and why should it? It's better to see how *each* type applies to you, recognizing the one(s) playing the biggest role.

~ People often acquire a good understanding of their *own* type(s), but a very superficial understanding of the other types. This is a breeding ground for stereotypes and type elitism. If one wishes to understand others in the context of Enneagram, one needs to understand *all* of the types in depth.

~ *The enneagram is not an be-all end-all of your personality*! It only explains a particular portion. It doesn't explain genetics, disorders, information processing, subjective experience, or individual variation. It's up to *you* to discover those things for yourself.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

My observations:

- Some people have a complete understanding of 1 or 2 types and seem to see correlations of those traits, motivations in almost all other types. There's significant amounts of over-lapping in Enneagrams as there is in MBTI and many people tend to over-look the over-laps when self-typing. 

- People ignore things like sx/so/sp variant stackings + Triad variations as well as Cognitive Function influences on a person's behaviour. 

- There's no accounting for cultural differences, past experiences. 

- Why is it absolutely certain that people can really be broken down into 9 types ... why not 10, or 15, or 20?

- Why are certain fears and sins specific to certain types only? What's the proof that there are only 9 possible "sins" one person can commit. Why is a 4 most likely to have envy as a "sin" and not "lust" .. what if a person's core motivation is to seek an identity of himself/herself but doesn't even feel jealousy?

- Who is the most authentic source? If there really is 1 authentic source and not others, then isn't it just like a religion being led by some sort of Prophet-like figure? I've heard some people comment on the authenticity of certain sources, while considering others inauthentic - especially considering that Enneagrams haven't even been accepted by a vast majority of academia as a solid typing system. Who's to say which is the most authentic and which is the least. A lot of that talk really sounds like Old Testament vs New Testament stuff. 

- A lot of stuff floating around are internet myths specific to type forums. 

I have more .. but I'll leave it at that.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

The only thing that can be kind of frustrating, though I don't know why since it's none of my business, is when you see people in denail about their type, or basing their type off of surface clues like, "Well, I'm smart so I'm a five", or, "I care what people think about me so I'm a three." I just want to say, no, go deeper, DEEPER, what are you really scared of, what are you hiding, what are you compensating for? And then they see their fear and say, "I don't want to be seen as always worried about being good enough or being seen as depressed, I'm not a four". And it's like, it's not what you WANT to be seen as, if you don't WANT to be seen ac ertain way, means there's a reason for that, means that's your fear, and then that's probably your type!! 
But I really love the enneagram, I'd play around with it all day if I could.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Also, I think wing theory may be bullshit. I mean, the type motivations are kind of assigned to number at random, right? I mean, we could as easily call a nine a six? So why is it that 9s wings are right next to it? If it's acknowledged that we can have all different kinds of motivations and some of each different enneagram type in us, then why can't other second highest e-type be on the total other side of the e-gmam? It is just too convienent and based in total illogic to say that it happens to be the number right next to you... and yet, I always kind of went with it because my second highest scores are always 3 and 5 so it kind of made sense... but then again, does that have anything to do with me knowing wing theory? I think trit-type may be a more accurate depiction because that is based on one type for each of the centers.. anyone with me on this?


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

adverseaffects said:


> Also, I think wing theory may be bullshit. I mean, the type motivations are kind of assigned to number at random, right? I mean, we could as easily call a nine a six? So why is it that 9s wings are right next to it? If it's acknowledged that we can have all different kinds of motivations and some of each different enneagram type in us, then why can't other second highest e-type be on the total other side of the e-gmam? It is just too convienent and based in total illogic to say that it happens to be the number right next to you... and yet, I always kind of went with it because my second highest scores are always 3 and 5 so it kind of made sense... but then again, does that have anything to do with me knowing wing theory? I think trit-type may be a more accurate depiction because that is based on one type for each of the centers.. anyone with me on this?


This is why tritype is in place. The wing doesn't have all that much of an influence. The abstract nature of the mind only allows us to speculate in theories. If you look at psychology  most of it is just that, speculation, which isn't backed up by proper scientific evidence. Some stuff just works, so we use it, but to be honest what is inside our heads in still a misery and it isn't like one can generalize like with physical stuff....because it doesn't work, there will always be some odd exception.

I use the enneagram mainly for self growth and nothing more. I was lucky and managed to accept being a 6 (reluctantly ofc, but the evidence was flying in my face the more I struggled against it and argued with others). It showed me that I had a problem and what I could do to fix it. So I did  and life got better. Now I catch myself when doing something i don't want to and overcome it, also I use my strengths to my benefit. Its really useful.

To be honest if type doesn't cause the individual some really shitty feelings like "Oh shit that is so me and I dislike this so much...what can I do to change it!?" <_< then that individual is lying to itself and hasn't found its type. Going down such a path is a total waste of time, same as having a label which does one no good....its just there for nothing, aka waste of time.

Every one of my types in the tritype is something I am, but don't like being. I really didn't want to be a 6 and E1 -.- I am because I recognized my rigidity and inability to "just let go and have fun"...I don't even want to talk about 4 and envy....<.< but yeah now i know I can go against it, all it takes is courage and willpower.


----------



## sleepyhead (Nov 14, 2011)

adverseaffects said:


> Also, I think wing theory may be bullshit. I mean, the type motivations are kind of assigned to number at random, right? I mean, we could as easily call a nine a six? So why is it that 9s wings are right next to it? If it's acknowledged that we can have all different kinds of motivations and some of each different enneagram type in us, then why can't other second highest e-type be on the total other side of the e-gmam? It is just too convienent and based in total illogic to say that it happens to be the number right next to you... and yet, I always kind of went with it because my second highest scores are always 3 and 5 so it kind of made sense... but then again, does that have anything to do with me knowing wing theory? I think trit-type may be a more accurate depiction because that is based on one type for each of the centers.. anyone with me on this?


Whether or not the wing theory is very accurate, the numbers were definitely not assigned at random. Each type is in a very specific spot corresponding to a number of different areas: passions, virtues, holy ideas, and fixations. Here's a summary of how the Enneagram in it's current form came to be. It's expanded upon a lot in _Personality Types.
Enneagram History and Origins: The Traditional Enneagram
http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/articles/Ncontribute.asp
_


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

- reliance on stereotypes in typings, these work for 70% of people but there are always outlier cases 
- lack of at least somewhat credible explanation for why there are 9 types
those are my main two frustrations with it


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

Mooncutter said:


> *The biggest problem with the enneagram* is that the 5w6 and 9w1 aren't true subtypes. Allow me to explain. A "true" subtype carry the characteristics of the secondary wing, just weaker and in integrated form with primary type. All subtypes do this, except the 9w1 and 5w6. I could elaborate on this a lot. But before I do, let me say the problem isn't huge.
> 
> *Since whatever characteristics of the "other"* subtype that isn't 9w8 have been projected into the 9w1. So the current description of 9w1 are good & correct since they are a compilation of observed reality. But 9w1 do not have traits of the 1. They are in every way like pure 9'es, and their description.
> 
> *Same with 5w6's.* They behave VERY much like how you describe pure 5's. A five who is creative, gotta be a 5w4, otherwise it's a 5w6. Yes.


I can kind of see what you're saying here, at least with 5w6's because very few people seem to identify with the subtype and because it seems less specific than 6w5 or 5w4. But what do you actually think is the mechanism for this problem? Is it the descriptions, indicating a failure to misunderstand the wing, or is it actually an organizational problem within the theory? I'd also like to hear why you think the same of the 9w1, as I only somewhat agree with your assessment there.

My problem with Enneagram theory is the conventional understanding of instinctual subtypes. People seem to treat them as a separate base-three personality system without really connecting it to Enneagram, to the point that they describe each subtype as having extremely distinct behaviors and rigid traits. A common description for sp/so, for example, will look just like a phobic 6 description, while an so/sx description may look exactly like an 8 description. I wish people would integrate the subtypes into their understanding of Enneagram in order to better understand how they filter the instincts that manifest in each type. For example, an sp 6 should be very different from an sp 2, because the self-preservation instinct is influencing the behavior of very different types. For an sp/so 6 (such as myself), the 6's needs that are concerned with the self come first, and then the 6's needs that are concerned with larger social order and convention. An sp/so 2 by contrast will focus on the self-preserving 2 needs (which differ greatly from that of the 6), and then of the socially-oriented 2 needs. This is something I wish got a lot more attention.


----------



## Tater Tot (May 28, 2012)

Some of the "Rules" made up for it just seem random. :laughing:


----------

