r/Enneagram

apologies for the stupid question but I'm having a type crisis and stereotypes are kicking my ass.

basically, is it possible to be a 2 that doesn't really give? of course I see myself in every other aspect of the type 2, but not really this. I like to give advice, etc but I do not help others at my own expense compared to how I often see type 2's talk about their life experience. I don't really do favors for others or give gifts. I give myself and advice and emotional support. I also don't necessarily do it to receive anything (I usually get nothing in return anyways so I'm used to it... makes me mad but oh well.)

stereotypes are really kicking my ass so please try not to call me an idiot, I know my iq is decreasing by daring to ask this stupid question

So far the enneagram I’ve connected the most to is 9w1s (as a 4w5). But I don’t think they are ultimately the best fit as the same issues always show up between us. They are passive and want to check out and keep numb peacefully, and can’t handle occasional conflict/fighting or intense emotions well long-term as it hurts them too much in the end. Then they detach and leave. 4s need acceptance as well as passion but also someone who is able to handle them when they are intense or emotional if you know what I mean (I don’t mean it in an unhealthy way).

Which enneagram would actually be able to handle a 4 and be satisfied in the dynamic long-term?

When I was way younger, I thought I was this, that, the other. I could find a reason for anything to fit.

As I've grown, my typing journey has grown more discerning. I wasn't specific enough for four, though I was flamboyant and picky like one. I wasn't as composed or as methodical as 1, though I had bursts of nitpicking perfectionism like one. I was affectionate, jubilant and giving like 2, forward, could be intrusive with others, wanted recognition, but didn't meddle very much and seemed too impulsive.

My 2fix is strong, so don't get me wrong, it's there. But when u/Original_Assistance3 said 7w8... I went down a research rabbit hole

And will never be the same again 🤡🤡🤡🤡

When I say I recoiled so viscerally that I may as well have puked all my guts out at what I was reading. I'm THEE lil CLOWN ass Enneagram type. With the sadist wing. Yayyy. I have to face the fact that I LIKE being a bully and being mean 🥲 What do you mean I'm not just sweet and awesome and fun. I hate it here.

(I dont actually hate it here, I'm growing and thats good. Just complaining about growing pains)

Let this post be a resource for others deciding and evaluating between 2 vs 7 mistype

I’m not asking this for myself, I’m just curious what different people will say about this.

Feel free to include subtypes or whatever if you want.

Anyone else find themselves typing so many novelists as either 5s or 9s (and the occasional 3), based off their writing style, or how they use the main character as an avatar? (Or how well they follow genre conventions to basically give the reader exactly what they're looking for.) Is this a personal disease, or am I onto something? And, is David Sedaris a 6 with a 4 fix, or a 4 with a 6 fix? (I lean toward 4 with 6 fix.)

One thing I have noticed in Enneagram discourse since I have started is that there are major schisms in Enneagram theory.

In terms of discussion, people talk about Enneagram from an BHE/Enneagrammer/Luckovich understanding; others with Naranjo and his students; others with Beatrice Chestnut; others with Riso-Hudson.

I think this is great because this is just a pseudoscience (according to most psychologists in the field), but at the same time, discourse can be so messy here and unproductive

People approach the types with different theoretical foundations to pull from, and everyone tries to say the other is “wrong” or “misinformed” even though there really is no major authority on who is right.

For instance, I appreciate and find more fascination with Naranjo’s description and subtypes because they are just narratively compelling. He suggests that there are 27 archetypes, but they are grounded through 9 different passions and in those passions there are very different ways of expressing it. I like analyzing that in people and stories, and it actually has helped me in my own way

Alternatively, for people that appreciate Luckovich’s types, the Naranjo types are just straight up not comparable because they are more specifically based on the instinctual variants. In its own way, even though under their theory I am a different type, there is a bit of truth that can help me and others

Technically, neither is wrong because they are pulling from two theories, but it makes the discussion just nothing?

I know there are people that try to assert that one is more right than the other, but to be fair, I don’t know if that is valid because they aren’t recognized fully as real psychologists so the matter of it being right is like whatever ?

Anyway, I think it would be more worthwhile to directly state what theory you’re pulling from in discussions to avoid this strange tension and misunderstanding. Because this is kind of a large tent of people that aren’t totally aligned in theory…

Edit: As a kind fellow in the comment said, there is an importance to make the distinction between theories, and it is the reader’s onus to be able to determine the differences. I am not say it is not worth while—because we are all engaging in theoretical material so we need to be mentally to self-analyze and such—but the purpose of this post is to bring a communal awareness of this tension, otherwise it just seems strangely unaddressed.

Social 2. Lack of gratitude for someone's support system, insistence on staying melancholic or being a victim, and I hate being personally taken for granted. Whats your type and what are your top three pet peeves.

my candidates: sp9 and so9; sp6 and sx6

I'm on some really terrible medication right now, but it has really brought out all of my negative thoughts and made me realize my true type. I always kind of related to 4 but didn't think I was emotional enough or whatever and thought it was just a strong wing or fix. Plus the constant "you're probably not a 4" talk in enneagram communities kind of steered me away. But now that I think about it, the envy/sense of lack has been such a strong theme throughout my life and has prevented me from living life and appreciating things as they are. I thought I was too different, that my problems were unlike anyone else's. I could never be on par with them, so I just sort of accepted my defeat and moped in the corner while I watched everyone else have a good time. I didn't want to compete with them because I assumed it was a losing battle anyways, and for the preservation of my ego I clung to myself. With all the time I had spent in my corner I had decorated it to my liking and saw it as all there was and would ever be. I had tried to find the logic behind it all, but there was no logic there. Of course there wasn't. It was all neuroticism. When people tried to tell me what was wrong and how to fix it, I would nit-pick the things that I felt didn't quite fit for my situation specifically. I have so much disdain for everything outside of myself. Just the way life goes on for them without feeling what I feel is enough to rub salt into the wound.

I keep hearing that the e4 is all about a fear of being ordinary, but it feels to me based on what I think is a degree of 4 in myself and in those close to me the core fear is more being misunderstood, and having your perspective suppressed or misjudged when people interpret it in a conventional and shallow framework. Based on that hearing that the e4 is all about trying to be different (and even envying the individualities of others rather than their ability to be accurately perceived as individuals) seems alienating and like it completely misreads that the core fears of being an e4 are the desire to be genuine and seen authentically for it, not to preform. Based on that I’d actually probably want to be more common in my emotions if it makes it easier to be understood authentically, and I fear more having my personal significance ignored rather than not having any. Am I misguided here? Are these thoughts not e4 thoughts but something else?

I am not a 1. I just don’t care much about “right” and “wrong” . I have never worried about being a bad person, or that people would I think was a bad person. I wouldn’t say I’m immoral, I just see morality as a scale that’s so circumstantial it’s not relevant to most of my decision making.

I feel like most SX5 descriptions tend to paint us as hopeless romantics desperate for true love, but to me, that reads more like a SO4.

In actuality, SX5s tend to look a lot more like SX7s because avarice, combined with the sexual instinct, compels the SX5 to merge with a higher ideal or cause that is typically beyond the scope of reality. Furthermore, as a SX5, some of my favorite artists are SX7s (i.e. Björk, Charli xcx, Grimes, Jane Remover, Kate Bush) because guiding their artistic expression is an emphasis on innovation and constant intellectual stimulation, which I deeply resonate with. In essence, SX5s are nonconformists. Their approach to intellectualism can be fairly bizarre, occult, and unsettling, but unlike SX7s, who can easily bounce from one idea to the next, SX5s are far more dogmatic and protective of their chosen idea or person.

In many ways, SX5 is a highly-intellectual character whose strange, lofty ideas can often transcend the SO5's ivory tower, but in addition to their ability to reach new intellectual heights, SX5s are earthly creatures who are far more in touch with their 8 line of integration than the other 5s, giving them the license to explore their erotic side as well as transform their sexuality into a major site of intellectual inquiry and exploration. A great example of this is Homura Akemi from Mahou Shoujo Madoka Magica. Her love for Madoka influenced her to chase an idea that wound up destroying and entirely upending the exploitative magical girl system.

Speaking of lines of integration, SX5s also possess many of the key traits of 7s and 8s such as raucousness, assertiveness, playfulness, novelty-seeking, eroticism, romanticism, charlatanism, and congeniality. In fact, SX5s are the most friendly, flirty, and personable among the E5 subtypes. I've personally been mistaken for an 8 (not a 4) in real life.

While the sexual instinct allows the SX5 to expand in response to the psychological constraints of avarice, the SX5 can swing to other side of the pendulum, falling into intellectual obscurity and becoming even more avaricious in an attempt to safeguard and validate their eccentric ideas, and by extension, themselves. Unlike the other E5 subtypes, who proudly assume the role of the detached observer, SX5s don't readily buy into this illusion. In fact, they are aware that self-concept and external truths are deeply intertwined, which is reminiscent of the old adage espoused by Rene Decartes, "I think; therefore, I am." There is a mutual recognition at play between ideas and identity, so the SX5s inclination to embrace such fact enables them to passionately defend not only their truths, but also the truths of the world. As such, the SX5 is more likely to reject ideas that are not fully-embodied and tethered to the real-world. This attitude can render SX5s solipsistic and delusional, but it can also make them more grounded and present in truth and reality.

Just as the title says, I'm a bit conflicted about how people usually type themselves. I have a bunch of questions if y'all don't mind answering.

Is it based on their external behavior and their interactions with others or is it how they are internally?

If it's either of them then how would someone type themselves if they are a bit conflicting or contrasting who they are inside vs how they appear like?

And how would mental illnesses or diagnoses affect your typing. like for instance, hypothetically you're diagnosed with anxiety, how would you separate it from typing yourself since e6 is all about anxiety (and head triad in general)

My apologies if these questions sound dumb feel free to answer them