This is a discussion on Introduction to the Enneagram within the Enneagram Personality Theory Forum forums, part of the Personality Type Forums category; Originally Posted by suicidal_orange Isn't this contradicting itself? The double-negative in the second paragraph means it is possible to have ...
@suicidal_orange, apologies if I was being snippy, I've been under some stress this week. I'll try to better explain the issue.
Tritype works by having ONE type from the main triads: image (heart), fear (head), and anger (gut). With these triads only, you cannot double-up: being 239 or 561, and so on, is not possible. It's these triads that the Enneagram starts off with. They're the most basic.
However, the other, slightly more "advanced," triad groups--Hornevian, Harmonic, and Object Relation--have no rules when it comes to double- or triple-tritype. Let's take some valid tritypes:
359 - double competency (35x), double withdrawn (x59)
278 - double positive-outlook (27x), double rejection (2x8), double assertive/id (x78)
468 - triple reactive
258 - triple rejection
If you take a closer look at these more "complex" groups, you'll see the basic groups being considered, too. To be triple reactive, you need one heart (4), head (6), and gut (8) type. This is the same for all the "advanced" triads: there's no double- or triple-heart/head/gut type in any of them. That's exactly why it is possible to double-up on those, because if you do, then you can't double-up on the basics.
Last edited by Paradigm; 02-09-2013 at 02:59 PM. Reason: typos in triple reactive
Correlations, don't know how much this comes from evidence, statistics or research but I found it awesomely interesting.
There's several problems with correlation "studies," the main one being mistypes. There's a ton of reasons why people mistype. Here's an example: The ExxP types are often correlated with type 7, but it's more likely the types simply share traits. Same with NT 5, NF 4, SJ 6, etc... They share stereotypical behavioral traits, frequently glossing over the motivations driving them.
However, I do agree with the notion that there's certain Enneagram types which are more prevalent in an MBTI group. INFPs, for example, are often 4, 6, or 9; ESFJs are often 2, 3, or 6. But to say/imply this is a hard and fast rule, that INFPs are only 4/6/9 or that ESFJs are only 2/3/6, that's where I get really frustrated at how wrong it is. This is--or has been--a relatively common claim/belief, and I wish to dispel it.
Last edited by Paradigm; 03-18-2013 at 12:33 PM.
can you clarify at all about lines of integration/disintegration and the correlating points of security and action/stress?
I'm reading Helen Palmer's 'understanding you and the others...'
And her perspective seems different from what other sources explain. She mentions the 'security integrators' and how there is preference for this in the community to integrate to our security point.
Am I reading into this correctly? I'll use core 6 as an example.
First: that disintegration is not inherently a bad thing; a 6 will always act in response to stress in a 3ish manner, and if comfortable and secure in life, will act in a 9ish manner. Likewise, a 5 wing going to 7 under stress, and so forth.
Second: And how and why they act will be based upon their level of health at the time. So it seems the emphasis should be being at healthier level, which correlates to integration
Third: Integration is not strictly achieved by going towards the security point. Thus a 'highly integrated 6' is simply not embodying the best parts of 9/ or a very disintegrated, unhealthy 6 who looks like a 3.
That integration is achieving higher aspects of ALL types connected to the core: 3, 9, 7, 1; that disintegration is taking on all lower aspects of all relevant types.
Four: The lines of integration to 9 and disintegration to 3 thus seem confusing: Because that implies that a 6 only disintegrates to 3, 7 or 1. Which makes taking on unhealthy aspects of 9, 5 and 8 impossible because 6 doesn't disintegrate to them.
The only way it makes sense is if you rename them the "line to security" and the "line to stress/action" which I think Palmer alludes to. Because that way there is no overwhelming preference to integrate just to your security type: integration is a 360 degree process, and so is disintegration.
Five: If you were to look at the whole process as one big diagram (as I've seen on some sites) with all 9 health levels stacked on top of each other in a cylinder, that the process of individuation/integration is a vertical one, level by level, taking on the attributes of every type along with it, especially those directly connected to core. That, to get healthier, a 6 simply doesn't try to get back to their security point (9) at the same level of health, although I imagine it helps move them up a few levels.
Am I correct in understanding this? I favor Palmer's theory more than other sources I've read. I find this interesting, because I've mistyped as 9 under the guise of 'I was a disintegrating/unhealthy 9 who acted like a 6'
But according to what I understand from Palmer and my own guesses, a 9 will always act a little bit like 6, a little bit like 3, especially if they are comfortable or at stress; that the stress point isn't a bad thing, if it was, how would we cope? Thus it must have redeeming qualities. It serves a function, but our fixation can let that coping mechanism runnith overboard and take on negative traits of the stress point.
There's various theories on (dis)integration, and it's up to you to decide which theory works best for yourself. I tend to stick with the common "3-6-9" lines, whereas some people aren't especially sold that those lines are accurate. I do think typing via these lines will get you into more trouble than its worth, and it's better to look at your life as a whole than at one period when you may have been (un)healthy.
I like the theorists who suggest that going to our integration point can be done when we are too comfortable in our life. "Security point" is a great way of putting this. We get into certain behaviors that seem good on the outside, but in reality lead to stagnation.
I've read that some believe true integration involves embracing all types of the Enneagram as a part of yourself. We naturally push certain things to the back of our minds, and achieving true health means not rejecting these anymore.Yeah, that sounds about right. We have so many influences that it can be hard to pin down where they come from.But according to what I understand from Palmer and my own guesses, a 9 will always act a little bit like 6, a little bit like 3, especially if they are comfortable or at stress; that the stress point isn't a bad thing, if it was, how would we cope? Thus it must have redeeming qualities. It serves a function, but our fixation can let that coping mechanism runnith overboard and take on negative traits of the stress point.
Some believe we go to our stress point before the really bad unhealthy behaviors begin. So a 6 would go to 3 before acting like RH's lowest levels of health. This makes sense to me, as the mind will protect itself at all costs, and making a "detour" to our stress point would be another way of coping.
Right. I think for me, I've spent so much time looking within that I see influences from wings and other types, because strictly learning about my security/stress points wasn't enough to explain what I observed my whole life.
i.e., my brother told me recently 'you're starting to get like me' (very argumentative and openly expressing anger) and he's an 8. And I don't doubt I have some connection to 8 that is now being triggered more.
I also have had a point in my life where my self-image was very similar to a 7: I am an explorer, an experiencer, savoring all the good things in life.
Alas, as you say and I agree - Looking at the bigger picture is more important than what I observe at any specific point in time.
I respect both parts of the security integration vs stress integration arguments. Because I can see how one can disintegrate (stagnate, lose touch with themselves) when in a really secure, numbing, comfortable environment.
I can also see how they can integrate from this, if they 'wake up' a bit.
The stress integration I like because Palmer along with Gurdjieff call it stepping on people's toes, or pushing their buttons. Going right to the weak point in order to spur growth; to confront your strongest fears or dislikes and become aware of them. That by doing this, you can move beyond what you avoid and achiever higher qualities of that point.
Obviously, I think we all know how a lot of stress (people constantly pushing our buttons) in life can make us really disintegrate as well.
Yey, exactly the information I was looking for. Best source in the whole www I think :D.
Sorry for the silly question but where can I know my types?
I mean a direct link to the test D: