Mythmaking and the Evolution of the Enneagram, Part 2

Sharing my assumptions, biases, and intentions when using the Enneagram.

In Part 1 of this article, I wrote:  

“Rigor” in this case means that teachers define their terms precisely; make their assumptions, biases, and intended use of the system clear; and meet the requirements of any good model—it does not contradict itself and it describes what it claims to be describing. They need to be honest about the roots from which their teachings sprang, how and why they made changes to it, and the goals for which they are implemented.  

I’ll take a stab and practicing what I’m preaching in this second and final part of the article.  

This article is a bit more haphazard than part one; consider it a collection of reflections rather than a methodical proposition.  

1. On the temperamental and intellectual biases that shape my approach to the Enneagram of personality. 

My interest in metaphysics has diminished with age. Today, I am interested in ways in which we can cultivate wisdom, compassion, efficacy, and a sense of wonder and awe as practical tools for living in the world of the here and now. I find much more “spiritual” fulfillment standing in front of an El Greco or listening to Billie Holiday or reading David Deutsch than I do speculating about metaphysics or listening to others do so. The Neo-Platonic Essentialist metaphysics embraced by some admittedly intelligent people both inside the Enneagram world and out are not, to my mind, serious philosophy and they haven’t been relevant since Darwin. See John Dewey’s “The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy” for a good explanation of why (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294103277_The_influence_of_Darwin_on_philosophy). 

In general, I aim to be skeptical—open to anything but requiring that any claims made are supported by commensurate evidence or a robust rationale following basic epistemological standards.  

I attempt to present an approach to the Enneagram of personality in a way that can help people flourish in any area of life, but I believe that any language I use has to be as clear, precise, and concrete as possible. The language needs to be palatable to critical thinkers in the scientific and academic worlds as well as to my clients in the business world, not because they are incapable of grasping complex esoteric concepts but because they are very smart and call out bunk when they see it. Further, I think the clear, simple, and useful is better than the unnecessarily complex. I agree with Einstein’s Principle of Simplicity: “Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.” 

I believe that there is tremendous value in the falsification of weak explanations as a way to come up with better explanations. I again agree with Popper, who wrote:  

The question about the sources of our knowledge… has always been asked in the spirit of: ‘What are the best sources of our knowledge—the most reliable ones, those which will not lead us into error, and those to which we can and must turn, in case of doubt, as the last court of appeal?’ I propose to assume, instead, that no such ideal sources exist—no more than ideal rulers—and that all ‘sources’ are liable to lead us into error at times. And I propose to replace, therefore, the question of the sources of our knowledge by the entirely different question: ‘How can we hope to detect and eliminate error?’ (“Knowledge Without Authority”) 

I agree with Darwin’s idea that “to kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact.” 

I’m befuddled by currently popular but vague claims I hear popping up with some Enneagram teachers that we have both an “animal nature” and a “divine nature.” “Animal” is an astoundingly diverse category and the nature of animals is dramatically different from one animal to another. Humans are a specific kind of animal and have only the most basic impulses in common with, say, a prairie vole, so to refer to our “animal nature” is to say nothing. Likewise, “divine” is a broad word with lots of possible interpretations—it can mean whatever we want it to mean, so it means nothing. Such broad generalizations may carry a sheen of profundity, but they provide no clarity or actionable insights into the human condition. We have a “human nature,” and it’s complicated and contradictory. 

2. My perspective on “the Enneagram” in general. 

First, a word about models and explanations. 

I occasionally encounter Enneagram teachers who, oddly, object to using the word “model” in reference to the Enneagram of personality. People tend to glorify the Enneagram, acting almost as if we should hear the gentle plucking of a cherub’s harp at each invocation of the word. But, in fact, it is just a model. 

While the word “model” has many uses and definitions, the one relevant here is “a description or analogy used to help visualize something (such as an atom) that cannot be directly observed.” A model is a human construct that helps us understand natural phenomena. The best models are useful and sufficiently accurate representations of something that exists or occurs. And, for me, the best way to understand a model is to understand philosopher Karl Popper’s use of the word “explanation”—a conjecture used to solve a knowledge problem.  

And, for Popper, explanations are always tentative. They solve a knowledge problem but are always subject to revision and improvement when new facts arise or subproblems are identified. Good explanations are rigorous and robust, but they are also evolving. Evolving explanations lead to growth and increasing usefulness; static explanations (i.e., “dogma”) lead to fundamentalism and obsolescence.  

Thus, I consider the Enneagram of personality to be a specific explanation of some aspects of human nature and to be a more useful explanation of why people do the things they do than any other explanation I have encountered. This does not mean I think other models of personality are wrong or irrelevant—many of them are very good and useful. I just choose to focus on the Enneagram because it serves my needs better than the others. 

I have made deliberate adjustments to the version of the Enneagram I was taught to better meet my needs and the needs of those I work with, and I call my approach the Awareness to Action Enneagram to be clear that I have a perspective and some assumptions that differ from many of my colleagues. (It should be noted that, despite attempts to homogenize the Enneagram by some, most of the prominent Enneagram teachers have different perspectives from each other as well.)  

Beyond the Enneagram of personality, I don’t have much interest in ideas that are commonly associated with the diagram. Not because I am uninterested in metaphysics or “ancient,” proto-scientific principles for understanding the universe, but because I find the Enneagram as a process model to be, at best, weak tea and of little use as a set of explanations about the nature of reality. Primarily: 

• The Plotinian “Law of One”? A faith-based metaphysical assumption with little true explanatory value and no practical use that I can find. In Enneads, Plotinus wrote, “The One is perfect because it seeks for nothing, and possesses nothing, and has need of nothing; and being perfect, it overflows, and thus its superabundance produces an Other.” This might sound profound, but it is meaningless and useless—it stops the search for deeper understanding rather than encourages it while not actually providing any practical application. We might as well say, “Unicorns did it.” 

• The “Law of Seven”? I’ll leave it to the interested reader to Google this for an explanation of this “law;” I can’t bring myself to spend another moment trying to describe or explain it. In response to this law I can only muster a tepid “And with this I do what…?” 

• The “Law of Three”? This is the idea that there are generally three forces at play—an active force, a passive force, and a neutral or reconciling force. While hardly a “law,” it is a mildly useful heuristic (mental model), but it is old news. Plato’s dialogues were based on the idea of greater truth coming out of the examination of opposing ideas and Hegel provided a much more interesting take on this than anything Gurdjieff ever provided. While I don’t dismiss this idea as quickly as the other two, it’s a common insight. 

The idea of three centers as often taught in the Enneagram literature? A nice start but an oversimplification of how human nature operates. Done better by others (see my article on the topic at https://mariosikora.substack.com/p/why-we-dont-teach-the-centers-of).  

Gurdjieff in general? Some good stuff but usually done better by others and mixed with more than a little nonsense. I’ll encourage the reader to see Ichazo’s “Letter to the Transpersonal Community” and the relevant chapter of Anthony Storr’s “Feet of Clay” for evaluations of Gurdjieff that seem reasonable to me. 

Naranjo? Brilliant, but undermined by his attachment to an outdated, neo-Freudian idea of “instincts;” to neo-Fourth Way ideas on centers; and to a variety of “Age of Aquarius” ideas and practices. Still, however, the best and deepest descriptions of the maladaptive aspects of the nine Ennea-types in his essential (but flawed) book “Character and Neurosis.” 

Ichazo? His construction of the original Enneagram of personality was inspired genius—insightful, useful, and a major intellectual achievement. Beyond that, I find much of his publicly available work to be confusing and philosophically uninteresting.    

3. On what I am willing to claim when it comes to the Enneagram of personality. 

The list gets shorter and shorter all the time.  

There are three descriptive aspects of the Enneagram of personality that most capture my attention and are part of my approach: 

• The three instinctual biases. We don’t have “three instincts,” we have numerous evolutionary adaptations that influence the ways in which we prioritize some aspects of our psycho-biological lives over others. 

• The nine strategies. We each rely on one of nine adaptive strategies for solving our needs more than we rely on the other eight. I call this a “preferred strategy.” We use those other eight strategies to greater of lesser degrees in a way that makes us feel more adept at using our preferred strategy. For example, I, as an Eight whose preferred strategy is “striving to feel powerful,” tend to use the other strategies (if and when I use them) as a way of feeling more powerful. We use the strategies either maladaptively or adaptively and our goal is to learn to do less of the former and more of the latter. We should work to develop “flexibility of response” in the use of our strategies—the ability to respond to the world in the best way possible rather than to be trapped in outdated and ineffective habitual thoughts, emotions, and behaviors.  

• The nine core qualities. These are aspects of human nature that we possess innately. We all feel the stunting of each of the nine qualities, but we tend to feel the effects of the stunting of the qualities of our Enneagram point most acutely. The stunting of the qualities at the two connecting points is also profoundly impacting on us. 

My language for describing the instinctual biases and the strategies is unique to me, and my terminology grew out of long experience and experimentation. I do not consider my terminology to be the “correct” terminology; it is terminology that fits my temperament, biases, and perspective as well as helping me help my clients grow and flourish. If you prefer other terminology, godspeed. 

I prefer to focus on first principles and then extrapolate from them based on specific circumstances, and I encourage my clients to do the same. For example, Threes strive to feel outstanding and therefore think and act in ways that will support that need, but the specific thoughts and behaviors we see will vary from Three to Three. This does not mean that we can dismiss traits and behaviors as unimportant, but they need to be seen as data points in the context of broad patterns. In order to understand people we need to see the patterns over time. 

Any claims about what or how any given Ennea-type or subtype thinks, feels, or behaves should be tentative and qualified with words such as “often,” commonly,” “tend to,” etc. It is important to remember that everyone does everything some of the time and no one does anything all of the time. Avoid universal and absolute claims at all costs when describing the Ennea-types. 

Combined, the prior points means I am willing to say, for example, that a Type One uses the strategy of striving to feel perfect more than the other eight strategies; that there are certain patterns of feeling, thought, emotion, and behavior that we see more frequently than average in Ones than we see in people of other Ennea-types; and that each Type One expresses their personality uniquely based on a variety of circumstances and conditions but it is useful to see the link between the tendency and the expressed behavior.  

4. On what I am trying to accomplish by using the Enneagram of personality. 

On a personal level, I am seeking what the Greeks called “eudaimonia”—the ability to flourish and fulfill one’s potential. More specifically, I seek to cultivate those qualities I mentioned earlier: wisdom, compassion, efficacy, awe, and wonder. I seek to be more attentive to my experience in real time. I seek to reduce the suffering I experience and cultivate more joy in my life, and to reduce the suffering I cause others and help them maximize their joy if I can. Like Camus’ Sisyphus, I believe purpose and meaning are constructed in the face of an absurd existence rather than found. But even if I am wrong and there is a purpose to be uncovered rather than created, the only way to uncover it is to act as if we need to create it. Trust God but tether your camel, as the saying goes. The Enneagram of personality is a useful tool in helping one see and work to diminish the hold of the habitual patterns of feeling, thought, emotion, and behavior that make it more difficult to achieve these goals. Thus, I have made it part of my personal growth toolkit. 

On a professional level, in 1997 I transitioned from a career in corporate communications and joined a small consulting group that provided executive coaching and teambuilding services. I immediately saw that the Enneagram of personality, which I had been introduced to in 1994, was a powerful tool for that kind of work. I went off on my own a year later and have worked as an executive coach and leadership development consultant since. I use the Enneagram to help my clients do the same things in their work that I seek to do in my life—to develop greater self-awareness, emotional intelligence, and skillfulness as leaders and as human beings. I believe, based on experience, that self-aware and emotionally intelligent leaders are more effective in terms of both business results and in helping others flourish. The Enneagram of personality helps leaders develop these qualities. 

An approach to the Enneagram of personality that is clear, practical, and results-oriented and that doesn’t reek of woo is more attractive to (and thus more likely to be embraced and used by) someone who is pragmatic by nature, including people in the business world.  

5. On the evolution of my perspective over time. 

After graduating high school in 1981 I entered the Theological Seminary of the Reformed Episcopal Church, at the time an unaccredited graduate-level program, with the intention of entering the ministry. My complete inability to comprehend Greek and Hebrew, along with (more importantly) a crisis of faith, led to me departing toward the end of my second year of a three-year program and I eventually went on to study literature and philosophy as an undergrad after couple of years of wandering in the wilderness of the 1980s. While my religious faith faded away, my interest in philosophy, comparative religion, and spirituality only grew. Fancying myself a latter-day Larry Darrell (the protagonist of Somerset Maugham’s “The Razor’s Edge”), I spent the 80s and much of the 90s diving into most of the wisdom traditions of the world. When I was introduced to the Enneagram of personality, the “spiritual” trappings and tales of the Fourth Way held great appeal and I vacuumed up every book I could find on the topics.  

In time, however, they all left me unsatisfied. I still have high regard for many of these traditions—Buddhism (particularly Zen), Taoism, Indian nondualists such as Sri Nisargadatta, and the traditional Western religions. But there is always something missing for me, a claim too unsupportable, or a leap into faith too far for me to take. Though primarily a dabbler in these paths (other than in the reformed Protestant tradition), I have learned from each of them and greatly admire their adepts and practitioners. In time, however, my worldview came to be shaped by more mainstream Western epistemology, and, of late, I have been nearly obsessed with the work of the aforementioned Popper—exploring his work felt like a sort of homecoming to me.  

I share all this not because to establish my bona fides or compare them to others’, but because I believe Enneagram teachers should share their biases and worldview so readers and students understand the roots of one’s perspective. I also share it because I have been frequently criticized for jettisoning the so-called “spiritual dimensions” of the Enneagram of personality and I wish to point out that my doing so comes from a place of neither disdain for spirituality nor complete ignorance. The great spiritual traditions have tremendous value.  

But, while the Enneagram as a model of personality is the most useful tool I have encountered, as the foundation for an approach to spirituality or understanding the workings of reality it is, to me, neither intellectually compelling nor emotionally nourishing.