I have not yet seen this appendix of Naranjo's Character and Neurosis posted on the forum and figured that this resource is, while quick and dirty, very helpful in the straightforward distinguishing of different types based on their demeanor. That being said, it's more useful and less buzzwordy if you read the complete type descriptions found in the rest of the book. These can be found for most types as a stickied post in their respective sub-forums.
Small note: I changed the notation in order to make it more readable for people not used to seeing the types represented as roman numerals. Example: "I/III" -> "1 vs 3" for titles; "E VI" -> "type 6." Everything else is left as Naranjo wrote it. Enjoy feeling insulted! :]REMARKS FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS AMONG SOME PERSONALITY TYPES
1 vs 3: Though alike in regard to self-control and formality they differ in that type 1 is restrained and serious while type 3 is expansive and cheerful. Also, type 1 is more tradition directed; type 3, other-directed.
1 vs 5: Though both are controlled and perfectionistic they differ in that they identify more with the dignified or the guilty sub-self, respectively, and type 1 is assertive and straightforward while type 5 shy and inhibited in expression.
1 vs 6: The predominantly dutiful variety of type 6 may be difficult to discriminate from type 1; one difference lies in the greater assertiveness of the latter; another, the greater difficulty of the fearful in coming to decisions. Also, type 1 is more active.
2 vs 3: Though both share the concern for personal appearance and the thirst for attention, type 2 is comparatively free and spontaneous, while type 3 controlled, fearful of letting-go. Also type 2 tends to be invasive, type 3 more mindful of limits.
2 vs 7: Though both are seductive and hedonistic, type 2 is a truly emotional type, while in type 7 a warm amiability exists in the context of a greater independence and in a background of cool non-involvement.
2 vs 8: Though the proud can be impulsive, arrogant and disdainful, type 2 is definitely emotional while type 8 is active. Type 2 is predominantly seductive, type 8 more oriented to power and explicit dominance.
2 vs 9: While sometimes I have seen type 9 and type 2 confused in view of their generous disposition, no character could be called less histrionic and less egocentric than type 9, while type 2 is minimally resigned or routine-oriented, and type 9 is consciously disinterested while type 2 is manipulative and self-centered in his giving. Also, type 9 is patient; type 2, impatient. Type 9 “matter-of-fact;” type 2, romantic.
3 vs 4: As in the case of the distinction between 2 and 3, that of 3 and 4 involves the contract between over-control and emotional expressiveness. If the stereotype of type 3 is Barbie Doll, that of type 4 is a ballerina. Most distinctively, there is the contrast between the type 3 elated disposition and a greater contact with sadness in type 4—which echoes good and bad feelings about themselves, respectively. Though both can display an interference with spontaneity, this takes in type 3 the form of formality and in type 4 that of affectation. Also, comparatively speaking, type 3 is more intellectual and type 4 more emotional.
3 vs 5: These are difficult to confuse since type 3 is efficient and 5, in its otherworldliness, inefficient and impractical. Both can be called narcissistic in that sometimes type 5, just as type 3, seeks being and love through performance, but their style is different in that type 3 is more social and confrontive than the schizoid, while the latter avoids confrontation and social contact.
3 vs 6: These may be difficult to distinguish in some instances since type 6 can display much vanity and type 3 may be prone to anxiety. The content of this anxiety is usually different, however-more in connection to self-disclosure and separation in type 3; more in relation to making mistakes or not knowing what course of action to follow in type 6. Even though type 3 can be highly intellectual, his intellectual orientation is that of needing rational support for practical action, whereas type 6 generally is more interested in theoretical and metaphysical issues, beyond the practical. Perhaps more striking than the introversion-extroversion contrast between the types is the inner-directedness of type 6 vis-a-vis the other-directedness of type 3.
3 vs 7: These may be confused in that type 7 usually regard themselves vain and extroverted. Frequently the motivation to achieve is stronger in type 3, while in type 7 it is tempered by a self-indulgent aversion to effort. Also while type 3 may regard him or herself as an enjoyer, type 7 is more exactly a hedonist in that the desire for pleasure exists in the context of true permissiveness and little concern for social conventions. More decisive still is the contrast between them in terms of discipline vs. control and in that of permissiveness vs. control vis-a-vis others.
3 vs 8: These can occasionally be confused in that the type 3 individual may be aware of having developed self-assertive competitiveness in a vindictive manner, and may be both dominant as well as competitive. The main difference, as in the distinction between 3 and 7, is the impulsiveness and rebelliousness of type 8 in contrast to the typical self-control and conformity of type 3.
3 vs 9: While the contrast between these may be striking in terms of perceived achievement motive, both can be workaholics and both live on the surface of their being. Also, type 9 can be as unemotional as type 3 seems to be, and type 3 as affectionate as type 9 typically is. One difference between them is that type 9 is the most tradition-directed of characters, while type 3 the most other-directed; also type 9 character exists in the context of viscerotonia while type 3 in that of a somatotonic background. While both are practical, the former is relaxed, and the latter energetic and direct—not only in physical but psychological posture.
4 vs 5: Type 4 and type 5, sharing the bottom of the enneagram, share the under-dog identification that implies feelings of inferiority and guilt as well as a submissive tendency. While type 4 hangs on
to relationships in face of frustration, however, type 5 gives up, and while the depression typical of type 4 is—in line with its emotional background—one of grief, weeping and self-accusation, the depression of type 5 is a dryness and hollowness, a forlorness in which grief seem to have been buried under a layer of resignation. On the whole, we may say that type 4 is intense, type 5 the least intense of personalities after type 9.
4 vs 6: Perhaps the most striking difference between these types is the emotionality and expressiveness of type 4, in contrast to the intellectual centeredness and inhibition of type 6. They are not easy to confuse.
4 vs 7: The contrast here is between depression and elation, and also between guilt and the feeling of “being OK”. Type 4 also has more of a super-ego characteristic than type 7. In most cases type 4 expresses more anger than type 7, who is compulsively gentle.
4 vs 8: Though these types have much in common, there is a more emotional intensity in the former, and an intensity of the active life in the latter. Also anger in the former lasts longer, while in type 8 it is dissipated through its explosive expression. More important yet is the contrast between the impulsiveness of 8, that goes after what it wants, and the inhibition of type 4, whose strong desiring goes hand-in-hand with self-prohibition and an inward condemnation of over-desiring. As a consequence type 8 invades, type 4 complains or manipulates through suffering.
4 vs 9: The one feature in common between these characters is that they can constitute the background for depressive states. Even in these cases, however, type 4 goes together with a “claiming type” of depression, while in type 9 there is a depression of pure grief and passivity, in which we do not sense the dramatic element and the attention need of the former. Though both have received the label “masochistic”, type 4 is emotional and hypersensitive, type 9 practical and long-suffering, type 4 histrionic and type 9 phlegmatic.
5 vs 6: May be confused in virtue of the schizoid features of type 5 as well as the sad moods of the more avoidant subtype. Also type 5 can be, as type 6, distrustful, yet the distrust is more avoidant than even in the avoidant or phobic type 6 who is more dependent, more affectionate and generous, both in terms of availability and in the quality of being good hosts. Also type 6 is comparatively more disciplined, and takes external authority more into account, both in terms of submissiveness to conventional or actual authority, and dominance towards those lower in the authority hierarchy.
5 vs 9: It is possible to confuse these characters, for, in spite of the contrast between the hypersensitive introvert and the “undersensitive” extrovert, in both we may speak of resignation and self-forgetting. The difference is that between a resignation away from people (isolation) and a resignation with participation (contactfulness) which implies the contrast between a non-generous and an abnegated characteristic, respectively. Most characteristic, however, is the contrast between generosity of type 9 and the limited availability, cooperation and support volunteered by type 5.
6 vs 7: Type 7 is much more likely to be charming than type 6 and considerably more adaptable. The experience of anger, in the other hand, is more prominent in type 6. Most striking is the difference in regard to guilt as characteristic in the latter by its presence as it is in the former by its absence. Whereas type 6 has a hierarchical view of relations type 7 approaches people as equals and is little intimidated by authority. While type 7 is, in a broad sense of the word, a fear type, he is not prompt to anxiety as type 6, and fear is only a psychodynamic aspect behind compulsive gentleness.
6 vs 8: The distinction here is quite clear in terms of unassertiveness vs. over-assertiveness, and manifest fear vs. manifest fearlessness—except in the case of one of the subtypes of cowardliness, the counter-phobic character, in which the pursuit of strength and pugnacity may simulate the phallic-narcissistic character. One difference between them is the greater intellectual orientation of type 6—which contrasts with the anti-intellectual orientation that is more frequent in type 8—and also the greater presence of guilt and concern for intellectual authority, as well as a measure of introversion of the former, and the greater impulsiveness and indiscipline of the latter.
6 vs 9: One difference here is that of introversive-extraversive characteristic. Another related to the above, the predominance of an intellectual and sensory-motor orientation, respectively. While type 6 orients itself to hierarchy, type 9 rejects a hierarchical perspective. Also, while type 6, together with type 5, is the most inner-directed, type 9 is the most pure expression of tradition-directedness.
7 vs 8: The difference between these two characters may be conveyed in terms of the contrast between tender-mindedness and tough-mindedness. Though both are impulsive, the former is intellectual, the latter active. Also, while type 7 tends to be submissive, type 8 is dominant.
7 vs 9: These may be confused, because the passive and lazy characteristics, sometimes present in type 7, are interpreted as an expression of the type 9 ruling passion. One difference is that the intense fantasy life of type 7 contrasts with the lack of interiority of type 9. Another, the foxy astuteness and subtlety of type 7 which contrast to the lack of subtlety and the naïveté of the “Sancho Panza” syndrome. Furthermore the self-indulgence of type 7 contrasts markedly with the capacity of type 9 to postpone his desires and to over-adjust to the milieu. Furthermore, while gluttony leads to psychological complexification, however, psychological laziness leads to oversimplification.