# Any Writers/Artists Not Type 4s or 5s?



## Despotic Nepotist (Mar 1, 2014)

So, it seems to me that a lot of the more creative/intellectual people in society happen to be Type 4s or Type 5s. It is understandable, in my view, that most of the creativity would come from these types, as Type 4s are generally highly romantic individualists with a strong need to express themselves, whereas Type 5s are dominantly cerebral folk. 

So my question is, are there any famous people in the following professions who are NOT Type 4s and 5s and what would you type them as?


Writers
Artists
Philosophers
Scientists
Actors 

Keep in mind, that my knowledge of the Enneagram isn't astounding, so bear with me.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

Jack Nicholson is a 7, he's an actor, turned in the Shining, One Flew Over The Cookoo's Nest,Batman,Chinatown, As Good As It Gets. Leslie Neilson, of Police Squad!, and the Naked Gun Movies, and Airplane!, is a 7. I know what you're going to say, "Leslie Neilson a 7? Surely you can't be serious?" I am serious, and don't call me Shirley. Here what can you make of this? I can make a hat.... Moving on, David Lee Roth of Van Halen, Lou Gramm of Foreigner, John F. Kennedy is a 7. Our 7 philosophers are Timothy Leary and Ram Dass. I actually follow both.

Andy Warhol is a 3, as is Truman Capote, and Sting. Type 3s philosopher is Deepak Chopra. Your politicians are John Edwards, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Hope that helps for starters?


----------



## Despotic Nepotist (Mar 1, 2014)

For starters that helps. Although, I am not too overly fond of Deepak Chopra. What about JRR Tolkien? He seems like a 9w1 to me.


----------



## The Scorched Earth (May 17, 2010)

Ernest Hemingway, a Nobel Prize winning writer, was an especially lustful 8. His contemporary F. Scott Fitzgerald was an obvious 3w4.


----------



## Cosmic Hobo (Feb 7, 2013)

Gerald Durrell and Rossini, both men with a gusto for life and the finer things in life (food, wine and company), were probably 7s. 

Peter Ustinov? 

And I don't really see Mel Brooks or Robin Williams as a 4 or a 5.


----------



## The Scorched Earth (May 17, 2010)

I think Leo Tolstoy was a 1w9.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

The Scorched Earth said:


> I think Leo Tolstoy was a 1w9.


I'm pretty sure he was. His abstract rules for living created early in life sounds really 1w9. I also see Tolstoy disintegrating to 4 with episodes of existential despair later in life.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

knowledge827 said:


> So, it seems to me that a lot of the more creative/intellectual people in society happen to be Type 4s or Type 5s. It is understandable, in my view, that most of the creativity would come from these types, as Type 4s are generally highly romantic individualists with a strong need to express themselves, whereas Type 5s are dominantly cerebral folk.
> 
> So my question is, are there any famous people in the following professions who are NOT Type 4s and 5s and what would you type them as?
> 
> ...


1w9 can be pretty intellectual 

william f. buckley 
bucky fuller 
carl sagan 
ayn rand 
boris spassky 

just to name a few.


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

Loooads of musicians are 3s, 7s, and 1s.


----------



## Grad0507 (Dec 12, 2013)

I'm a 2w1. My second most dominant heart type is 4w3, but I can't even include it in my tritype since 2 wins. Oh, wait, sorry, I'm not famous [yet], but Taylor Swift is and she's 2w3.


----------



## Grad0507 (Dec 12, 2013)

Also, there's Lady Gaga. She's a 279, no of which are 4 or 5.


----------



## Juan M (Mar 11, 2011)

This right here is why i hate typism so much, YOU CAN HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH A GOAT MAKE A CLUB OF GOATLOVERS AND THERE WILL BE AAAALLLL KIND OF PEOPLE THERE, ALL THE SPECTRUM OF ENNEAGRAM AND MBTI TYPES. 


You can be whatever you want, just practice it.


----------



## Choice (May 19, 2012)

Juan M said:


> This right here is why i hate typism so much, YOU CAN HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH A GOAT MAKE A CLUB OF GOATLOVERS AND THERE WILL BE AAAALLLL KIND OF PEOPLE THERE, ALL THE SPECTRUM OF ENNEAGRAM AND MBTI TYPES.


Yeah, but probably most of the 1's would only be hanging around to collect evidence for the cops.
--

@OP, JK Rowling appears to be a 9.

Roy Lichtenstein, artist, web labeled 7


----------



## Despotic Nepotist (Mar 1, 2014)

Juan M said:


> This right here is why i hate typism so much, YOU CAN HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH A GOAT MAKE A CLUB OF GOATLOVERS AND THERE WILL BE AAAALLLL KIND OF PEOPLE THERE, ALL THE SPECTRUM OF ENNEAGRAM AND MBTI TYPES.
> 
> 
> You can be whatever you want, just practice it.


I actually started this thread for the complete opposite reason. My friend, a sometimes annoyingly typist 8 (I still love you Type 8s), claimed that writing and art was "wussy stuff" for "weak" Type 5s and 4s only.


----------



## Doll (Sep 6, 2012)

A LOT of actors/performing artists are more likely to be type 6 or type 7 rather than type 4 or 5.


----------



## 7rr7s (Jun 6, 2011)

Some fine writers weren't 4s or 5s. Fitzgerald was a 3, Hemingway was a 7, pretty sure Lord Byron was also a 7 as well. 

Plenty of musicians aren't 4s or 5s either. Miles Davis was an 8, Elvis was a 3 along with Madonna, Iggy Pop is a 7. Interesting thing with Miles is he was probably 873 too. 

Andy Warhol was a 3.


----------



## Despotic Nepotist (Mar 1, 2014)

The Scorched Earth said:


> Ernest Hemingway, a Nobel Prize winning writer, was an especially lustful 8. His contemporary F. Scott Fitzgerald was an obvious 3w4.


What precisely makes Fitzgerald a 3w4?


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

Ringo, Connecticut Ave. in DC, DuPont Circle, the Reagan Assassination Attempt, Press Secretary Jim Brady lies on the ground, also in DuPont Circle, the Hilton. The painting of the Reagan Assassination Attempt was 1 of 31, out of 178 entered, to be selected for a Nationally Juried Show. I'm a 7w8, then 7w6, my weakest function is the 3w4. So, I'm hear representing Head ,and, Body triads.


----------



## The Scorched Earth (May 17, 2010)

MindPersonified said:


> What precisely makes Fitzgerald a 3w4?


His novel The Great Gatsby is about the "self-made" man. Gatsby was born in humble circumstances and reinvented himself to become one of the richest men in New York. A 'rags-to-riches' story, which is very much a 3 narrative.


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

Juan M said:


> This right here is why i hate typism so much, YOU CAN HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH A GOAT MAKE A CLUB OF GOATLOVERS AND THERE WILL BE AAAALLLL KIND OF PEOPLE THERE, ALL THE SPECTRUM OF ENNEAGRAM AND MBTI TYPES.
> 
> 
> You can be whatever you want, just practice it.


have you ever made love to a goat?


----------



## Roshan (May 17, 2013)

@*ScientiaOmnisEst,

(sorry, I don't know why this won't unbold... )
**
I am arguing something like if f I tell you that in this forest we have many animals and many of them are raccoons and you say "I heard something in the forest, it very well could be a raccoon", you're basing it on something. If you say, "I heard something in the forest, Is there any possibility it could be anything but a raccoon?", you're basing it on nothing but your own mind's desire to paint broad patterns over reality for the sake of mental comfort, flying in the face of reality, full speed ahead. I was thinking about this on the train last night before I saw your last post and I was thinking that I would even go so far as to call this kind of thinking an example of "the 9 in us all", and now I see that you type as a 9. So at this point tbh what's interesting me most is what this exchange between us might reflect about the differences between 9 and 6.

Not saying I'm right and you're wrong; really, I'm not. Just saying it hits at a fundamental difference in the 9/6 ways of languaging things and viewing the world. (Holistic as opposed to granular thinking, it has been called... ).

That said, I will grudgingly admit that the typings of famous scientists through exemplars have almost all been as 5s (pure scientists, not applied; although some of them are no doubt wrong and I am of the Einstein 9 school of thought--thickheaded youth, dreamer, curved universe, put everyone at ease, etc.). Then I will admit that if you started by noticing the science typings and were more interested in them than the arts, or understood science better, or....something, that you might then make a false analogy and think "If scientists are 5s, then artists must be 4s". And that would be based on something other than dreaming cognitive maps for forever kindergartens.

Grudgingly, I said. There's a big difference between science and the arts. Science has a "method" which is obviously going to appeal to a certain sort of person only; the arts are very different. Just what is "a writer" anyway? What would be the relationship of the writings of say, William Blake to Louisa May Alcott? Are journalists writers? Why not? Where do you draw the line? Ditto actor. Is Lindsay Lohan an actor? Who is closer--Lindsay Lohan and Marilyn when she first started, or Marilyn and Sir Lawrence Olivier? And artists? (as in "plastic arts"). Is Walt Disney an artist? Why not? Goya drew cartoons.

I also believe you are underestimating the extent to which the OP meant all. But be that as it may, 

The Enneagram Institute Discussion Board - The Perfect Writer*


----------



## Roshan (May 17, 2013)

And this is a great posts on philosphers by a really brilliant guy on eidb, Thomg. With the caveat that that means "Western philosophy". Is Lao Tzu (probably a 9) a philosopher? If not, why not? And also, the French post-modernists are heavy on the 7 (Derrida, for example, was a 7--the idea of the text as a game....). And another caveat that many people type Heidegger as a 6w5, and the Fauvres ascribe the Philosopher "archetype" to the 1-4-6 tritype (in whatever order) and the Researcher to 1-4-5. Not to say the Fauvres are the be-all and end-all, far from. "Archetype" as they use it for their tritypes is itself somewhat of a misnomer. But there is relevance here to the issue of philosophers and type. Contemporary Western philosphy, moral philosophy aside, is a head thing, and Type 6 is very influential, as primary type or on its wing.


ember

1814 Posts








Posted - 12 Aug 2012 : 04:58:11 AM   [HR][/HR]dnimon, I agree that different kinds or streams bring up different strengths. However, it seems pretty clear to me that philosophy is dominated by headtypes, then by gut types, and least by heart types.

I think Aristotle and Plato are both 1's, Aristotle triple competence with a 6 wing on his 5 fix; Plato, more poetic, with 4w3 and 5w4 fixes.

Hard to type Socrates, as Socrates is Plato's puppet, and 1 influenced as a result.

It seems as if 1's are the foundationalists in philosophy, and the 5's come along and destroy. Creation (1's - Aristotle, Plato, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel) and destruction (5's - Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Mauthner, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Rorty). Of course, doubt can itself be foundational (Descartes - 5w6), or at least trigger foundationalism (Hume's 5w6, strong w6, skepticism, triggered Kant into constructing his Critique of Pure Reason).

At the moment, 5's are in the ascendancy .... but having said that, the academy is still essentially ploughing Kant's field (Kant is a 1), who in turn was ploughing Plato's (another 1).

I think other types are just as able to do philosophy, in particular 6, 7, 8, 9 --- but most other types besides 5 and 1 have the good sense to not waste their time on it.


The full thread:

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=27683#.VD_IJ_nF_94


----------



## ScientiaOmnisEst (Oct 2, 2013)

@_Roshan_

Well, my Nine typing is recent and who knows, it might still be wrong, but time will tell. I admit you're quite correct in the "an artist must be a type Four" assumption being incorrect. I don't dispute that. Is is oversimplifying, you're right. But it is a rather common one, easy for a novice to mistake for accurate or at least find justifiable. 

I agree with you more than OP. As I said before, I'm just trying to clarify where OP is coming from, due to having made the same mistake (in this very thread, even) and wanting to correct it.

And while you seem to think I'm underestimating the original post, I think you're distorting it and blowing it way out of proportion.


(Also, cool stuff on that philosophy thread. Might take a look later)


----------

