Personality Cafe banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,340 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
You don't have to even be a peacemaker or anything like that. Seems you just have to not really do or say anything and boom you're enneagram 9. Seems like a safety net type, kinda like 6.

Why are there such high-standards to be certain types but such low standards to being others?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
895 Posts
It's more that 9s and 6s are probably a lot more common. There is some mistyping probably, and some may lean on those types when they aren't sure of someone's type, but each Enneagram type has its own parameters. More people just fit into the parameters for 6 and 9.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,742 Posts
IME, the variations are greatest in types 3, 6, and 9 when compared to other types. For me, typing someone as 3, 6, or 9 is insufficient. The wing (or some other indication) is needed to identify which version of the type best fits (e.g., not simply 9 but 9w8 or 9w1). So, I'd agree with your thread topic. Half the time 9w8 is being described and half the time 9w1 is being described (or whatever identifier you'd like to use instead of wings).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
397 Posts
Why are there such high-standards to be certain types but such low standards to being others?
I don't really get that much here but in the FB main enneagram groups there is a lot of bashing of 3's, 6's and 9s. I even got banned from one of the groups for daring to challenge the whole 9 being a doormat stereotype. The other types didn't seem to care when 9's get bashed even if they claim that they like us. I'd say the 4s and 5's are Enneagram's equivalent to the Ni doms as in they are overrated.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,790 Posts
I don't really get that much here but in the FB main enneagram groups there is a lot of bashing of 3's, 6's and 9s. I even got banned from one of the groups for daring to challenge the whole 9 being a doormat stereotype. The other types didn't seem to care when 9's get bashed even if they claim that they like us. I'd say the 4s and 5's are Enneagram's equivalent to the Ni doms as in their overrated.
I haven't really dug around too many forums, especially recently, but it does seem like PerC is the most level-headed overall, which is kind of sad given that PerC is inundated with mistyped 4/5s (and Ns, of course). But when you consider that the place which is least biased is still biased as heck, it can almost get overwhelming to realize how biased the other places must be. And to realize how biased those places are, to then realize how limited the amount of Enneagram "enthusiasts" who can converse about types with equal (or near equal) respect is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
It's more that 9s and 6s are probably a lot more common. There is some mistyping probably, and some may lean on those types when they aren't sure of someone's type, but each Enneagram type has its own parameters. More people just fit into the parameters for 6 and 9.
I think this is only sort of explanation I've heard on the common saying that 'type 3, 6 and 9 are more common types' that is a relatively decent reason behind the fact why 6 and 9 (and 3), would be more common, simply because more people would fit and relate to it's description. Although what I do fear is the more that this label would 'explain' the less it actually says about the peope that use it to type themselves. What doesn't help is that even the intergration and disintegration lines from those three types all point to one another. So, not only is there great variance within the type, you even possess many traits of other types which also have a huge amount of variance within them. So in the end we end up with a huge amount of variance and a model that explains, well, relatively little. So not only are these types more common types, they are also far poorer labels.

As a personal example, I deeply relate to both 6 and 9. The essential fear of the nine feels like it's my own and the same goes for type six and yet my anxiety however seems free-floating and genuinly unhelpful. It is anticipatory in it's nature, but it requires no conscious thought. It does not fade until whatever has been anticipated has gone or I run out of energy. What it does not make me is very skeptical about others, I have easy time trusting them. Enneagram 6 is also supposed to be attentive and anxiety is supposed to help the six engage in a search for dangerous things, whereas mine just makes me more lost and thought, disconnected and purely stressed. I however, not truly passive, I quickly go up and down between a more withdrawn and reserved mode and a more active and impulsive and sometimes more nervous mode. In the end, it's the constant oscillation that keeps me at six. Which is ironic, given what I've said about the variance, but it's that variance within the type and within myself that keeps me at six XD. The Phobic and counterphobic labels are not doing it for me, though. Neither are the instinctual stackings.

IME, the variations are greatest in types 3, 6, and 9 when compared to other types. For me, typing someone as 3, 6, or 9 is insufficient. The wing (or some other indication) is needed to identify which version of the type best fits (e.g., not simply 9 but 9w8 or 9w1). So, I'd agree with your thread topic. Half the time 9w8 is being described and half the time 9w1 is being described (or whatever identifier you'd like to use instead of wings).
I do wonder, though. Is a wing more like sharing a bit of the essential fear and motivations that belongs to that type, or more a way to explain behavior away that is discongruent with a type? And if it is more like sharing this essential fear, doesn't the combination of these fears create a different sort of motivation within people?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thunal33

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,742 Posts
I do wonder, though. Is a wing more like sharing a bit of the essential fear and motivations that belongs to that type, or more a way to explain behavior away that is discongruent with a type? And if it is more like sharing this essential fear, doesn't the combination of these fears create a different sort of motivation within people?
For 3, 6, and 9 I use wing to indicate a subtype. It's not a matter of combining the primary type and the wing type but seeing a different pattern between the subtypes. For example, 6w7 and 6w5 indicate different subtypes of 6. The wing type is simply used to indicate a different subtype and may or may not actually have an influence on its own. Kind of like the attempt to distinguish two different 6 subtypes using phobic and counter-phobic (which IMO doesn't really work).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,405 Posts
You don't have to even be a peacemaker or anything like that. Seems you just have to not really do or say anything and boom you're enneagram 9. Seems like a safety net type, kinda like 6.

Why are there such high-standards to be certain types but such low standards to being others?
type 9 is kind of the combination of all types, able to mirror each to keep the peace. so from one perspective one could say "type 9 doesnt seem like its a type" ...

...however the combination of all the types, in such an even amount creates a result that is very predictably observable. The fusion of everything creates a new element all on its own.

And I wouldnt say that any type more than another would have 'high standards'...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
Type 9 as a core type is a reason why I prefer the subtypes because it is inaccurate in many ways. I know a few nines and tritype doesn't work for the variations. Wing doesn't work as well.

I prefer subtypes because it gives a better distinction for each of the variations (although it still needs refinement).

1. I know an INFP type 9 Sp/Sx; he is artistic, passionate, spiritual, and the only 'merging' that happens is with his interests and hobbies, not with people.

2. INTP type 9 Sp/Sx; he is abstract, philosophical and intellectual, and the 'merging' is with his ideas, again, not with people.

3. ENFP type 9 So/Sx; she is outgoing and talkative, energetic, adaptable, positive, etc. (not really 'slothful' at all).
 

·
Queen of Hearts
Joined
·
17,939 Posts
Why are there such high-standards to be certain types but such low standards to being others?
Yeah exactly, it's weird

"You think you're an 8, but have you actually started any major revolutions??"
"You're tired at work sometimes oh that's CLASSIC 9"

I understand where it comes from, 9 and 6 descriptions can be difficult to relate to and 9s and 6s can mistype, and some types (4, 5, 8 I think mostly) are relatable and enticing when you first look at the Enneagram, so it's backlash from that, and I do think this really is a pattern of mistyping

BUT it ends up creating a new weird dynamic where 9s and 6s are kind-of catch-alls, things that all or most humans share are ascribed to them, what the type actually means is lost, types like 5 end up looking like some ultra-elite club while 6 and 9 look like the mosh pit, think it even intensifies the problem of these types looking appealing, and even genuine members of these types might feel like they have to fake it to be seen as those types, which creates its own cycle, then the conversation isn't really about the types

So yeah there should be standards for all the types. Obviously statements like "You're not an X if you don't do Y" are problematic, but there should be an idea that if you don't hit certain boxes, you're probably not a 9 (or 6, or whatever)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
Since when were there standards?

Why does the type 5 sit around reading about enneagram 9? What more does he do?

See what I'm doing here?

Why does it matter? It's not like we are here to fit a mold or criteria.
 

·
(ノ´ヮ´)ノ*:・゚✧
Joined
·
5,108 Posts
"Peacemaker" kind of sucks as a name, but then again, language kind of sucks. It's reflecting the theme of reconciliation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
1) Sixes and nines are actually more common.

2) That said there are a lot of mistypes. Some people tend to type as one type (say 8 because we're all cool psychopaths everyone wants to be or... Something), and naturally people of a certain enneagram type can usually spot a mistype due to innate misunderstandings of the core issues. (I knew a one who claimed he was 3 though). Then there's naturally a push back, since some of those people can give X type a bad rap and a misguided attempt to pigeon hole someone into a different category, especially when they display superficial traits. Which brings me to:

3) Woefully superficial typing. The best way I think to type is to see which vice you relate to. Someone might seem like they don't care superficially about a given situation, or are somewhat anxious, so the first types that come to mind are nine and six. Someone might seem angry so they get typed as an eight. Someone sees themselves as intellectual so they type themselves as a five. Someone thinks they're artistic so they can see themselves as a four.
And this kind of superficial typing is the one that appeals to most people innately since it requires much less thinking. You have to actually look at a vice and see if a person displays this vice, and if not do they come close to displaying another? The only way to really tell is to (online) cross reference every post they make in a forum and try to spot the dominant themes that come up, not just the ones they present when talking to you. If you know them irl, watch how they live their lives.
How do they react to stressful situations? Narcotization? Running towards more pleasant prospects? Withdrawing to mull it over?
How do they percieve themselves? Is there a disconnect between their words and the tone of their posts?

But that's usually too much work for people, and stereotypes usually make things easier.

4) There'll be fads where certain types get glorified and alternately attacked. For a while people here were insistent that ISTP 8s didn't exist and now they're everywhere. People tend to play into stereotypes online.


Your best resources for enneagram are writers IMO. Maitri, Palmer, Naranjo, Risk, Ichazo etc. Janet Levine also gives helpful descriptions of classroom dynamics involving the enneagram.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dangerose

·
Registered
Joined
·
940 Posts
i relate to this SO MUCH ugh. 9 doesn't seem like anything, it is so boring and bland. at least type 2, 3, 4, 1, 7, 8 all have much more interesting and exciting profiles. for 9 you just have to...exist? there is more criteria for the other types, you have to actually possess personality traits. i would rather be a 2 as it seems like fun
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
653 Posts
i relate to this SO MUCH ugh. 9 doesn't seem like anything, it is so boring and bland. at least type 2, 3, 4, 1, 7, 8 all have much more interesting and exciting profiles. for 9 you just have to...exist? there is more criteria for the other types, you have to actually possess personality traits. i would rather be a 2 as it seems like fun
Nine definitely encompasses personality traits - their descriptions are just among the more mundane and less amazeballsy ones. It's one reason I like referring to the average Big 5 profiles of 241 people Enneagram Institute staff typed in a live setting: Knowing the system I get a good, condensed portrait of what people of different types are like without the interference of Enneagram writers' own issues with describing people. R&H knew what they were looking for with Sixes, for example, but couldn't pin it down - as a result their Six descriptions ended up being all over the place without ever quite hitting the mark. Yet the Big 5 profiles of their typees match very well with what their books and misidentification sections tell about the types in terms of action, demeanor and lived experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: idoh
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top