Enneagram Archives — Exploring the ENNEAGRAM

The perceived but non-existent sameness AND inequality of the centres — how we got it backwards

Centres of intelligence, Types and typing

When it comes to the centres and type, there are some paradoxical misconceptions floating about in the Enneagram world. Ironically, out of the two major ones, one is about a perceived but non-existent inequality, and the other, paradoxically, about a perceived but non-existent sameness.

The imaginary inequality in centre access

The first misunderstanding is that, courtesy of which Enneagram type we belong to, we operate only or mainly out of one of the centres. In conversations about the centres in the Enneagram world — where we are talking about the gut, heart, and head as they exist in all of us, not referring to the centre triads — at some point, someone usually says: “But it’s different for different people. For some, this [whatever feature we are discussing] needs to come from the gut (or the heart, or the head).” But the thing is — no, it does not. Take agency, for example; our capacity to take action. In absolutely everyone, this is a function of the instinctual centre, or the gut. It is just one of the many things the instinctual centre provides for us. Saying that for some people agency originates in the heart, is like saying that for some, it’s actually the pancreas that cleans the blood, not the liver. It just doesn’t work that way. “Gut people” do not find love in the instinctual centre, while “heart people” find it in the heart. And “head people” most certainly don’t have “instincts” coming from the intellectual centre. Discussing things such as how different centres express compassion does not make sense. (How different people of the various Enneagram centre triads express compassion, however, is another matter. But half the time, these discussions focus on centres’ capacities, not people’s. And when they do focus on the people, they often fail to make that clear. Hence, misunderstandings about the centres themselves can thrive.)

Yes, our type has a particular relationship to the centres depending on our position on the Enneagram. In some ways, our personality will indeed tend to “manage” the centres a certain way depending on our type. And yes, this might mean we prefer some modalities — of inner work, for example — to others. In the average levels of balance, it also means we each scramble and compartmentalise the centres somewhat differently, strongly contributing to the typical functioning we see in average level types in action. But in themselves, the centres are the same in all of us, regardless of type. In that, there’s absolute equality.

Which is great news, of course, since, to truly listen and receive someone else, everyone is going to be accessing their heart. And since we are all equipped with one, we can all to this, too (albeit with varying success rates, depending on other factors 😊). Likewise, to move — in the room, as well as in life — requires access to the gut. And as we know, everyone moves, everyone has physical needs and urges, and we’re all, equally, use guided by our instinctual drives on a daily basis. And finally, everyone needs to use their head centre to even consider the future or to have an idea about something that is not here, now — endeavours which we all frequently engage in, again, regardless of which centre is our “home base” on the Enneagram circle. We possess them all, and we use them, too.

The seeming but illusory sameness of the centres as such

So the three centres work the same way in all of us. However, they don’t work the same way as each other. As we have seen, they each process different things, in different ways, with different capacities. And this includes their ability to incorporate information from the other centres. It is not a bounce-back-and-forth kind of trio; there more one-way flow here than we might have realised. (I have touched upon their differences somewhat in the article Heart and gut “distinguished” (at least for relatively creative, flowing and open minds 😉.) Briefly, one can see the centres as a bottom-up process, where each new centre, much like the instinctual drives, brings a new protocol. Since the old protocol (say, that of the gut) was in place when the new one (say, the heart) came online, the new one can “read” the information from the old one, but not the other way around. This puts them all in a quite unique place in relation to the other two. If you are interested in reading more about this, I unpack it quite thoroughly in Aspects of You.)

The fact that the centres are so different — that the gut possesses certain qualities that the heart and head do not, and so on and so forth for the others — sometimes has people respond with disbelief or accuse me of favouritism. “Why are you saying only the gut has agency? What about the heart types?” This is obviously because they are still holding on to the first misconception, as the answer is that the gut is the centre providing agency — and that, contrary to what they might think, we all have a gut so we can all move. Image types or types belonging in the intellectual centre (a k a “heart types” and “head types”) have gut centres, too. The centre you are “in” does not mean you only have that, or even that you have more of it. It only means that it’s the centre that your ego will tend to overidentify with and where the majority of your most stubborn issues will be found. (Also, the ego’s relationship to our home-base centre might affect our “vibe” or style, but this is a consequence of our ego preferences and does not signify more “access” to one of the centres.)

Misconceptions spawning confusing conclusions

The idea that one type sources everything from, or even through, a specific centre spawns some intellectual misconceptions on this topic (which, obviously and interestingly, all spring from the head, regardless of the “centre of the person” 😉), where people try to create a perfect symmetry for the centre, so that it looks “fair”; so that we each (despite the fact, as the belief may go, that we “do not have equal access to” all the centres) have access to equally impressive and not-so-impressive traits and skills. But this is an example of where the idea of equality is taken too far (and unnecessary so, since we do all have all three anyway) — a bit like someone coming into zoo insisting that all animals should be fed the same food, so it’s not “unfair”. But it would be unfair to feed everyone the same, since their needs and preferences are different. As long as we are talking about the centres as such, the differences are real.

But at the same time, the perceived (and equally mistaken) inequality of the distribution of the centres in different types opens up another bag of misconceptions. One is when I hear many people say things to the effect that they do not access all three centres on a regular basis. (An example would be a Seven who “doesn’t access” the heart on account of being connected only to the gut — type One — and back to the head — type Five — by the inner lines of the Enneagram model.) This is very seldom true. The centres all provide necessary bits of our life, and of our experience (just as the instinctual drives, which mostly operate under our conscious radar and which all work fine, despite not sticking out enough for us to notice them our conscious experience). However, sometimes, we have an overly narrow understanding of what a certain centre is or does, and our ways of thinking about ourselves can, in turn, help us keep that in place. This may have us go to that centre over and over to solve issues in our life which may well be coming from somewhere else (and therefore keep returning again). This, too, is something I cover in Aspects of You.

* * *

So the centres are much, much more than a basic and obvious bit of Enneagram theory that one covers quickly in the beginning before advancing to more complicated stuff. Besides offering a beautiful world of discovery, deepening our awareness of and relationship with them can serve to dissolve stubborn tangles in our journey, clear up a whole lot of confusion, and overall give more peace, freedom and clarity. Isn’t that something? 😉

I am currently converting recordings of my online course Going DEEPER — Inner Work with the Centres into an evergreen self-study course. If you are in the newsletter (sign up for free here), you will be the first to know when it’s available!

THE THIRD KEY: The specific realm of awareness for each instinctual drive

Enneagram, Inner growth, Instinctual drives

My “5 keys to understanding the instincts” are based upon what has come up in my instincts courses as well as my general observations in discussions around this topic, and I think they clear up some of the confusion in this area. If “the instincts” don’t make sense, in my experience, it’s usually because one of these has not been taken into account.

Today, I wanted to say something about the 3^rd key — the fact that each drive pertains to its own realm of awareness, and that it is incapable of relating to aspects outside of this realm. It’s like each drive has its own, limited-but-very-effective-for-the-job set of features; its own toolbox, as it were. But while for one drive the tools might be, say, actual tools — a hammer, a saw, a screwdriver — for another drive, the tools might be a set of torches for different size flames, whereas the tools for the third are letters and words. (It does not matter which instinct gets which toolkit in this illustration, obviously; I’m just trying to illustrate that they are intrinsically different. If we need to fix a broken appliance, words will be useless; if we are cold, no amount of carpentry devices will do us any good — et cetera. They cannot “adapt” to include something outside of their own realm of awareness.) And not only are these toolkits distinctly different — their actual, instinctual counterparts are also what gives each drive its own “flavour” and visceral or energetic fingerprint. But before I say more about that, let’s look at the three realms.

The drives, the realms, and their respective flavours

In short, instinctual self-preservation pertains to the awareness of self with an inward focus. Instinctual attraction, or the sexual drive, still pertains to an awareness of self, but with an outward focus. And social adaptation pertains to the awareness of others, including my place in relation to these others, as well as some collective aspects of life as a gregarious species.

As for grasping these different “flavours” or characteristics, from where I stand, this is essential for doing deeper inner work with the instincts. For one thing, they clearly distinguish the drives from one another. But also, and more importantly, they help us weed out or distinguish much of the psychological overlay that goes on — since we are not purely instinctual beings, but also in possession of emotional and cognitive faculties. If we realise through inner, actual experience that the sexual instinct is, indeed, about expansion of “me”, then we can notice when this happens — and we can also notice, when we want to establish a longer-term relationship or cosy up with our love interest on the sofa while learning all about them (for instance), there is something more going on than just “us doing our SX”. And so on, and so forth. The realms help us know what’s instinct in the first place, as well as what instinct it is.

(To make matters more complicated, some types’ ego personality like to twist their instinctual energy in tricky ways, such as when a Two leading with self-preservation starts cooking for everyone, or when Fours leading with sexual expansion spend dramatic ours passionately relating to their perceived other, missing half. But this only illustrates even more clearly that it’s imperial to know what’s what.)

“So I’m selfish, is that what you’re saying??”

At this point in the discussion, some people start getting squirmy or even indignant. “What do you mean, that the self-preservation drive is selfish and incapable of caring for others??”

Yes, I do mean exactly that. People that go on about how “each of the drives have their own way of” [caring for others/being intimate/enjoying food/WHATEVER] are operating out of the misunderstanding that the drives are equally positioned in relation to one another. They are not. But since we all have all three of them, this is not the discriminator that popular belief might paint it as.

So no, instinctual self-preservation is not registering “others”. And that still says absolutely nothing about the person who leads with the self-preservation instinct. If this is you, I’m not saying you are a selfish person. I’m only talking about the biological feature; the drive does not equal the person. And it’s the drive that has this limitation — not the people expressing it. So keep your shirt on.

Dominance is not “what you are” —
it’s just what we overdo

Likewise, the capacity for love and caring is not found within the sexual instinct. Not even a little bit. But since not only do we have all three centres in equal measure, but we also have all three drives present in working order, this is not a problem. Dominance — in type or drive — just says this is where our ego gets in with investments, hang-ups, and distortions. This is where the ego warps the natural, balanced flow of the feature in question. It does not say what we are capable of. If it did, “heart types” would be the only ones capable of love, and “gut types” would be the only ones with instinctual drives in the first place. This is clearly not the case. So, yes, when it comes to the drives, the first two instincts are, quite unequivocally, relating exclusively to ME. And no, this does not mean that “social firsts” are the only ones who are capable of relating to others in a meaningful way.

So us “leading with self-preservation” means we over-identify with it and likely over-prioritize it when it comes to our time, money, and other resources. We just, simply, like the feel of it! That does not make us incapable of caring for others or of being sexual creatures; we also do have an instinct for social adaptation as well as one for sexual expansion, wherever those may fall on our radar. (So, this is another thing: The stack is just the sticky-outy bits. But that’s actually key #5 and for another article.)

Whew. I’m glad we got that out of the way.

So what good is making this distinction?

If we can perceive the inner workings of self-preservation, attraction, and social adaptation, this means we can witness and relate to these drives operating within us in real-time (or likely, to begin with, as after-the-fact happenings, where we can choose to go back to the situation, feel into it and remember the experience with all centres involved). We will have a visceral, simple understanding of them, rather than a set of categories or a complicated teachings that only holds together (even if it holds together fine) by intellectual reasoning, and which we then have to make regular detours to the head to make sense of. When it’s about instinct, for inner exploration to actually work we need to connect to it within the body, and for that to work, we need to find clusters that make sense from a natural, body-based perspective rather than something that requires higher faculties to sort out.

Distinguishing instinct from type in inner work

If I’m a self-preservation Two with strong bonds to my family and I’m trying to address my self-preservation drive in inner work, experiencing and witnessing it entangled with my Twoness will make for a confusing ride. The aspects of Two will have to be addressed in the heart and head, too — I cannot reach them all through the instinctual centre. But as for the instinctual impulses, they need to be handled there, and viewing them through an emotional or mental lens will just send me on a wild-goose chase.

… and sometimes, it’s tricky 😉

At one point on an instincts retreat with Russ Hudson, I commented that the Eightish qualities — both the essential aliveness and the passion of lust — blended together for me as an Eight leading with the sexual instinct. His somewhat unhelpful response was, “Well, you just have a double whammy.” And for some subtype combinations, this is obviously the case. Or, as a client phrased it, “It feels like my leading instinct is colluding with my type.”

For this reason, some subtypes, e g the social Six, or the sexual Eight, might find overlaps where the type structure in itself lends some bias towards the expression of a certain instinct. While it might still be pretty easy for me as an Eight or Six to distinguish whether I am in fact leading with the drive in question, when this is indeed the case, the overlap will be there. This means I’ll do well to explore some issues in parallel, as it were, looking at them both through the lens of personality and the lens of instinctual expression. I might find subtle differences in my personality’s preferences and the instinctual ones.

Remember: You are working with you, not with your type

Of course, we do not have to suss all this out to the finest detail to start doing inner work on these pieces of ourselves. I do not need any of these distinctions to be able to work productively with them. At least not in theory, and going into the work, just start with that which is apparent and explore as you go. It’s when we are on this journey of exploration, as we occasionally get stuck or confused, that we might find explanations and new light shed through these distinctions.

It might sound like hair-splitting to say that it’s you, not your type, that is on the inner growth journey — but in the light of what we’ve been talking about, maybe you see how there’s a difference? As I see it, the best work happens when we start with an open mind and dig where we stand. It is a little like driving by GPS navigator: it is much easier to make sense of whatever happens when we are already in motion than if we try to figure the whole thing out before we have even started moving. We need to have some momentum before the equipment can tell us whether our next turn should be left or right 😉

Behaviour, motivations, or “this thing I’ll just do first” — the true meaning of Enneagram types

Enneagram, Inner growth

In all the navigating between type descriptions, often we might fail to realise the important bit first: Our Enneagram type is not “what we do”. Neither is it our motivations for doing what we do (even if that’s usually a more productive perspective). We do a lot of things, and we have lots of different (and sometimes even conflicting) motivations. Approached through those filters, for some, it’s hard to see what the core is.

Most likely, we might resonate with multiple types — and then the perceived need arises for complicated type combinations and/or properties, to find what best describes us. But actually, the purpose of our Enneagram type isn’t to describe us. It is not a typology. It describes “types” — but we also need to understand what it is that type itself describes: a basic perspective that in turn feeds motivations and subsequent behaviours that constantly direct our attention away from reality. This is the perspective that, even if we want to engage in personal work, has the ego go, “Sure, totally let’s do that — as soon as I’ve addressed this thing first.”

“This thing” stopping us from being present now

What the “thing” is might not be immediately apparent to us, as it’s so tightly weaved into our perception of reality and “how things are”. So yes, we have aspects of most, if not all, types. We possibly see ourselves mirrored to a larger extent in a couple, or even a handful, of them. But the point of identifying the core is that this is the seat of our suffering; the fundamental, misguided beliefs and emotional structure that keep us from being truly present to ourselves, to others, and to life itself.

The irony, of course, is that this happens with the most innocent of intentions: to restore what was lost and defend against further suffering. So our job is not to nail down to the finest detail how we relate to every last aspect of the Enneagram. Nor is it to chastise ourselves for our flaws or attempt to edit the raw materials we were given so that we don’t have to look at the mess the ego is creating. Rather, it is to identify, sit with, and explore the expressions of the ego’s workings, so that we can find our way to this core — of misunderstanding, and of suffering.

This is not necessarily an enjoyable trip; for the ego, it’s a death threat. But it can be immensely rewarding, and in the process, we learn that the ego in itself isn’t the problem, but rather our identification, our blind faith in it. In fact, we learn that it was just a construct, all along — a tool for helping us navigate on our journey through this world, but which does not work well as a self-driving vehicle, let alone as a stand-in for our true being.

Curiosity killed the cat — and tamed the ego

So we can start being interested: Where am I putting my faith today? Right now? Just there, in the conversation with my co-worker? Yesterday, when I played with my child? And beauty is, there are no wrong answers. The point isn’t training ourselves to be a certain way; the point is being aware of what’s going on. Usually, this starts as a retrospective awareness, but then, our ability to pay attention gets nearer to the present, until we can be aware of what we do when we do it — and ultimately, before we actually do it; in the pause between the impulse and the action. Exploring this path, to an increasing extent we will indeed “be trained” — but not according our own schedule, and usually not in the way we might have expected ❤️

Words, context, and nuance — and one particular, natural talent that goes missing on social media

Enneagram, Inner growth

Recently, I saw an online meme saying: “The opposite of judgement is understanding.” And someone commented, “What about acceptance?”, to which the poster replied, “I can understand without accepting.”

I was about to reply, “I can understand and still judge” — but then I realised the ensuing discussion would require so much unpacking that I didn’t really have the time for it, much less in the social media format. I wanted to expand on it, though, and I find it is about words. Or, more correctly, about words, context, and the ever-present appreciation and interpretation of nuances which come quite naturally to most people in real-life situations, but so easily go missing in online settings.

I see it a lot online. This particular meme is not the point, obviously. It just makes a good illustration — because basically, we can read the words in it in two different ways, with two sets of eyes, as it were. Reading with the first set of eyes, we read from a kind of quantitative perspective, looking for hard definitions, and aiming to suss out differences of opinion. This is a very reasonable perspective, considering the statement of fact that the meme technically is. When we approach the words that way, we find all the ways where “understanding” is indeed not the opposite of “judgement”. We might think of someone who has done something despicable, and who has since provided an explanation (or excuse) for their behaviour which we can fully logically grasp, but which we do not agree with and consider, well, despicable. So we understand — as in, it computes. And we still judge. Ergo, the meme doesn’t make sense.

Looking to connect rather than divide

Reading the words with the other set of eyes, we approach them differently. We understand that whoever wrote them want to make us notice something, which they expressed by holding up understanding as an opposite to judgement — and so we turn inwards, with a perspective that goes something like, If understanding is the opposite of judgement, what kind of understanding are we then talking about? We realise that there are multiple interpretations of this word; it doesn’t only mean that something makes rational sense, head-wise. It could also mean something more heart-related, which we, for lack of a better term, might perhaps call “grounded understanding”. This is understanding in a way that looks to connect rather than divide (which does not mean to disregard facts or turn blind eyes to disagreements — but it does mean wanting to first establish which seeming disagreements are in fact such, and which are merely about interpretation).

This set of eyes doesn’t settle for the quick-on-the-draw, battlefield perspective where the one-single-definition interpretation is the “correct one” — despite fact that this makes the original statement look weird or wrong (not to mention, possibly not the as intended). This set of eyes stretches deeper, into the compassion of the heart — not because we are soft, or because we want to agree with everyone, but because we wish to truly communicate. This is an understanding anchored on the inside, where we put ourselves in someone else’s shoes, perhaps even with a sense of compassion that they themselves lack, for themselves or others. This yields a different way to read the word “understanding” — and it is, indeed, the opposite of judgement.

Interpretation and nuance

My point is that words in our everyday language have nuances, and moreover, that they need nuances for the language to be useful. I suppose some people would argue that words are supposed to be nuance-free and have absolute definitions. I think, however, that if we were suddenly thrust into a world where this were the case, we’d soon be enormously frustrated. We all rely, and language itself relies, on these nuances — and more heavily so than we realise. It’s just that sometimes, something within us seems to be in the mood for controversy and stubbornly refuses to play along, so that we can have something to argue about. And other times, it might be insecurities that have us reaching for absolutes, scared of any ambiguity that might leave us wrong-footed. Whichever is the case, though, the defended stance of the first set of eyes makes it hard to communicate efficiently.

Words in the Enneagram world

Now let’s move this whole dynamic into the Enneagram world, where a lot of the time we are attempting to describe, or understand, different categories. Our current times call for snippets, sound-bites, memes, and keywords — and so all these things are produced, either in efforts to distinguish yourself as a teacher with something short, snappy, and to the point, or to make others’ descriptions easily digestible, or just to inform. In one list, we might read that Threes compare themselves to others a lot. In another, we read that Fours are the masters of comparison, inevitably raising discussion about who is right and who is wrong. In one meme, connection is used to describe aspects of the sexual instinct; in another context, the same word is used in the description of social adaptation, possibly accompanied by a contemptuous sneer in the general direction of anyone using it in the former way. And so on and so forth. And this happens in an online climate, where response-times are short, tempers quickly run high, people compete to be “right”, and the old-fashioned, heart-informed set of eyes is not the norm.

“Do you want to be right, or do you want to understand?”

The old question, “Do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?” springs to mind, only with this slight twist. Because to a large extent I think it is our urge to “be right” that trips up the curiosity that might have otherwise lead to actual understanding; true communication, target than just “talking at” each other.

When we come across seemingly opposing statements, it is wise to remember that neither is necessarily wrong. (Obviously, we might encounter stuff that is incorrect, so it’s not that everything we see online is valid. Also, on a few counts, different teachers really oppose one another. But my point is that a lot of seemingly opposite teachings are not necessarily mutually exclusive.)

Back to the old mantra: Let it percolate

And most of all, we need to keep in mind that none of this, if we want to understand it in a way that is truly useful, can be learned through memes, or lists of attributes. That integration takes time. That words, while the primary tool for sharing this information, will only be helpful to the extent that we can hear them in context — and that this context might not even be fully developed within us yet. (And as we’ve seen, neither is it necessarily provided where we find the information, so we might have to go in search of it ourselves.)

And then, to complicate matters further, of course there are also contexts where layman’s language and professional terms differ (which we might not think of if we slosh about on social media and do not really know the linguistic home turf of the people we are speaking to), and where words have changed their meaning slightly over the years. So there are a lot of reasons to ask and probe, rather than just dismiss.

As it happens, I actually wrote a blog article a couple of years ago about the use of “comparison” as a descriptor for Threes/Fours, specifically, which you can find here. Also, I have one coming up on the concept of connection when discussing the instinctual drives. Over and over, I find myself drawn to exploring these distinctions, offering this much-needed context to the best of my ability, and directing our attention back towards truly learning something, rather than just debating language. To me, that is when we can understand, deeply and in all three centres of intelligence, what type, instinct and other such features even are. And, also in my opinion, it is only then that the Enneagram starts becomes truly helpful ❤️

• • • • •

Of course, there are situations where words really will make a crucial difference. There are contexts that a word is actually incorrect. This can be a sign that the speaker has actually misunderstood something (such as when someone refers to the sexual instinct as “emotional intimacy”). And sometimes, someone will decide to use language that just isn’t the norm, creating confusion that way. If I’m referring to something green and consistently describe it as yellow, everyone would probably agree that I’d better use green instead, as my current choice of words makes no sense and just confuses people.

About the need for “refined typing”: the relationship between type-identification, self-awareness, and inner work

Inner growth, Types and typing

“I find the Enneagram constricting and limiting, encouraging you to work with just one type. We do have all nine types within us; the really great teachers all say that.” Yes. And do you know what? They all, also, teach that one of them is going to be “your type”; if it weren’t, the Enneagram of Personality Types would be completely useless.

But here is where people tend to go wrong if they explore the Enneagram type fishing pond before first encountering — and practising navigating — the inner work fishing pond: They expect finding your type to be the be all end all of the inner journey. “Bang, here’s your type, now you know it all, and if you just stick to this awareness and follow your recipe, life will proceed to be just peachy.”

This is, quite obviously, not the case. But when people believe it is, they get their knickers in a twist over subtypes and tritypes and wing theory and line movements, as if figuring out these things were what stood between them and liberation. And to a varying degree, these things can be really useful — but the truth is, what stands between ourselves and liberation is, in fact, inner work. This means cultivating presence with and awareness of ourselves; exploring our instinctual, emotional and mental impulses, reactivity, and patterns. That is the ticket to increased freedom, not self-defining to the finest detail. (Keep your shirt on, we can still meaningfully do that. And with much more ease, too. So keep reading.)

The Enneagram is just a map

The thing is, the Enneagram does not, specifically, tell you to conduct your inner work in a particular manner. It just offers us this amazingly to-the-point map of the human psyche and shows how, within us, “type” springs from its psycho-spiritual, essential roots into particular forms of ego-patterns. That’s all (and it’s a lot!). Also, its various components and the insights it rests upon springs from the actual arena of self-discovery and quite hardcore inner work. So, in a manner of speaking, going in, this is assumed to be a given. Although nowadays, that is usually not where people are coming from learning about it.

What this means, though, is that you were never meant to “work on your Enneagram type/s” (either in singular or plural form); you were meant to work on you. And I’m not just splitting hairs; there’s actually a difference. The you that you need to work on will contain all kinds of patterns, beings assigned to all kinds of types. It will also contain a bunch of patterns, traits and qualities that have nothing to do with type whatsoever. The latter are qualities like being empathetic/intelligent/thrifty/inclined to be untruthful; things that have nothing to do with which Enneagram type you are. But all of it comes with the package that, on this journey through life in a physical body, you call “me’.

A bag full of patterns

Thus, what we get when finding our type is a bagful of ego patterns, tendencies, manipulations, and misconceptions handed to us with a loving note saying, “Look in here, darling — here, you are likely to find the format of most of your crap.” And if we grow our understanding of the model and the deeper, inner workings of “type”, we will also be able to see more clearly where these patterns stem from, which in turn can give us very valuable hints on how to go about our inner work.

However, nowhere does it say: “Here, and only here, are the issues you are allowed to work on.” We are not required to first chart our type (or tritype, or subtype, or any combination of traits and tendencies) and only then do the work for that type or combination. We are meant (I mean, if we are interested in the first place, of course), to self-explore; to increase our self-knowledge and understanding and awareness. In this endeavour, type can offer immensely helpful pointers, which is beautiful. (And refining “type” in various ways can, too, of course.) But when we do approach the work from this direction, never will we erroneously believe that we have to access our issues through “type” to be able to work on them. No. When an issue presents itself, go ahead. When an ego-pattern crops up; dive right in. Or, you know — find a coach, therapist, model, technique, group, teacher or whatever appeals to you to safely cultivate that needed awareness and inner connection. That is how we grow.

And right there on the journey itself …

As a matter of fact, through this work — cultivating, crying, laughing, seeing, doubting, re-framing, hesitating, rejoicing and connecting with all aspects of ourselves — all our desired specification will become apparent to us. To the extent that you are interested, all the components and labels will find you, and now they will make sense. In their own time, and when you are ready.

And it also just so happens, that looking at traits like the centres of intelligence, the instinctual drives and the levels of balance can help us both find our core type (as well as any “extras” that we might find fascinating) and find all kinds of issues and patterns that we might want to explore more closely. Again, this is why I gravitate to this kind of work: I love moving in the Enneagram world, and I so appreciate the Enneagram of personality for showing us ourselves so beautifully (and uncannily truthfully). But I also want to always offer the inner work-aspects first, not as a “work on your type” kind of model but more as a “get to know yourself” model ❤️

Stress, change, “disintegration” and growth: reflections on the inner lines and the directions of the arrows

Enneagram

We hear A LOT of opinions about the arrows, a k a the inner lines, of the Enneagram. The specific directions of stress and integration are a “debunked myth”, according to some opinions. According to others, the directions of the arrows are still relevant. So, what gives?

When confronted with this kind of conflict, I usually want to probe deeper, as my experience is people often haven’t quite agreed on what exactly it is they are discussing. The question the of inner lines is no exception, so here I’ll attempt to untangle some of the confusion. My basic position and understanding is that yes, we do potentially move in both directions in both “stress” and “growth” — but that does not cancel the fact that the arrows do indeed have a profound meaning. It just depends what particular filter we are applying. For the discussion below, I’m going to focus primarily on “stress movement”, as that is usually both more useful and easier to see, but the reasoning goes both ways. But first, I need to briefly say something about the Enneagram symbol as such and the mathematics behind it.

The symbol, maths, and meaning

Depending on your level of Nerd, you might or might not be familiar and/or fascinated with the mathematics behind the Enneagram symbol. (Yours truly is both familiar and fascinated, but I can’t recount the whole thing here as that would just provide too many rabbit holes. You might google it, but let me warn you: there are all qualities of sources out there, and I gave up trying to find a to-the-point and not too creative account of them.) I will refer to bits of it below, but again — there is plenty of information out there if this is your thing.

Anyway. Suffice it to say that the lines within the symbol aren’t just a cool pattern that someone thought looked good; they are a result of mathematical divisions by the numbers 3 (for the equilateral triangle) and 7 (for the hexad), relating back to the law of three and the law of seven, on which the geometrical symbol is based. When we observe patterns relating to the Enneagram which are somehow informed by this mathematical or geometric structure of the symbol, these are usually worth exploring. If patterns are “discovered” that have no correspondence to the maths or symmetry of the symbol, interestingly, they tend to turn out flawed. But when they do line up, which is the case with the stress/integration patterns, there is usually something to them. When I then come across expressions of an opposite view that also seems to have merit true, my question is not which one of them is wrong, but rather how they might both be correct — and if there is a possibility that different camps are not really referring to the same thing. With the arrows, there are a number of different perspectives we can take, but I usually don’t hear them distinguished or accounted for in the discussion. Also, there is terminology wrinkles to be ironed out. But let’s start with the perspectives.

Basically, there are two fundamental camps in this discussion: the one where we can move both ways in both “stress” and “growth”, and the one where the specific direction of the arrows has significance.

Coping strategies — a “we move both ways” perspective

Our type’s connection in two directions with two other types is not random, and both these types have a significant energetic relationship to the point they are connected to. Varying individually, we can “shunt” to either arrow point in reaction to everyday or even prolonged stress. We can picture our procession through time as a car on the motorway. As long as the road is level, the personality, too, stays on the same levels of balance (a k a the Level of Development). But now, we are facing an incline (either descending or ascending, depending on how we continue the analogy). It will be hard for us to comfortably continue without increasing the power moving us forward (i e continuing with and increasing the volume of our personality’s usual tool-kit), so we either need to do that or start looking for a plan B.

For plan B, we can picture the arrow points as two side roads for us to veer off into. They will have different qualities, but both will offer an alternative to the incline while ultimately still bringing us forward. And as far as the levels are concerned, we generally do not both move sideways (i e, borrow strategies from an arrow point) and fall down the levels (i e, add more energy to the personality strategy) at the same time. The ego/personality tends to resist a change in level, so when pressure builds, we might shoot off into on of our arrow directions instead. This means that if we “react sideways” in stress and borrow tools from an arrow point, we will be borrowing them from the same level of balance as we are generally acting from. Another way to put this would be to say our arrows function a bit like the valve in a pressure-cooker, relieving pressure that would otherwise have forced us to a lower level.

In this way, it’s completely correct that we move (or actually, we do not in fact move at all, but rather copy certain tools and keep carrying them out with our own core personality end agenda) in both directions for both stress and growth, not just one. It’s also clear to me that the extent to and way in which we do this varies strongly with each individual. Some egos will first resort to “bouncing in the elastic band”, level-wise, without exercising their arrow points too much; others might slide into a third option, such as leaning more heavily on a wing. The ways we prioritise our safety hatches vary individually.

The path of least resistance — a “specific directions” perspective

For this part of the discussion, the maths becomes relevant — as well as nuanced, correct type descriptions. The brief version of the mathematical background for the stress/integration discussion is that the series of numbers going in the direction of the arrows (1-4-2-8-5-7 and 9-6-3) reflect decimal chains on the maths side and a kind of law-of-least-resistance, reactivity-wise, on the personality side. Very briefly summarised, if we see each type as an energetic approach to life, ourselves, and the world we live in, we also find that each type can be seen as a reaction against the type before it in the sequence*. The contained, principled, and self-reprimanding approach of point One is a counter-reaction to the excitability, hedonism and focus on instant gratification that we can see at different levels of point Seven. At point Four, however, it’s the impartial and contained self-restraint of point One that is reacted against with passionate, intuitive self-expression and brooding self-involvement. And so on, and so forth, for both the hexad and the triangle. (If you are curious about this, I recommend reading Sandra Maiti’s book The Spiritual Dimension of the Enneagram and the section on “The Soul Child”.)

This means, staying with our example above, that there is already a built-in resistance in Ones to welcoming Sevenish traits in themselves, as these feel like they go against the grain — and of course they would feel that way if point One to a large extent is a reaction to what point Seven represents. In contrast, the One’s “movement” along the direction of the arrow to point Four is like water following the path of least resistance, which is what egos in reactivity tend to do. The already pre-existing idealism and strive for perfection, along with the notion that I’m the only one really seeing the need for improvement, can have the normally objective and restrained One lapse into bitterness and a “woe is me” attitude, complete with moodiness and temperamental outbursts.

All this does seem familiar, doesn’t it, as a description of the One? By contrast, the version where the One reacts to adversity by going on a gluttonous bender, rushing from one form of stimulation to the other (to exaggerate the possible Seven style reaction at the lower average levels) is not what we’d generally expect. (We might see that, too, though — stay tuned 😉.)

The arrow points as built into the type description

As you see, the set directions of stress and integration (although this nomenclature needs at least some unpacking and possibly further updating; see below) kind of already show in the core type description. An Eight floating about in the average to unhealthy ranges will already be at a level of low-grade, constant “stress”. To a varying degree, s/he might express qualities typically associated with point Five, such as being secretive, feeling increasingly insecure (although still reacting in a very Eightish manner to this insecurity), keeping mentally occupied, showing anarchistic tendencies, feeling rejected, isolating, shutting down — all Five-flavoured qualities but still well within the Eight type description, without the Eight really having to “move” anywhere.

Another way to view this is if we see the Eight as suspended on an axis between two poles made up of Two and Five. If we increased the measures of pressure and tension and simultaneously decreased inner freedom and relaxation — which is basically what happens in “stress” — it’s pretty clear that if anything, the Eight would typically slide further towards the average/lower Five pole and away from the higher Two pole, not the other way around.

Again, it will vary how many of these qualities show up in the Eight, but generally, down the levels, they will definitely be more common than their Twoish counterparts: being ingratiating, sentimental, whiny, clingy and trying to fabricate a manipulative “closeness”. (This does not mean Eights can’t still act out their “point of security”; see further down.)

By the same token, a Three in the average to unhealthy realm might show some qualities that would normally be associated with a Nine at those levels: adapting to others, smugness, resistance and being conciliatory, placating, and unrealistic, sticking their head in the sand or downright dissociating. We can see how there things even “fit” with the Three overall — much more so than the strength-in-equality comradeship, passive-aggressive behaviour, strong reactivity, rashness, unpredictability, cutting others off, and being blind to their own accomplishments that we can see in Sixes. (The Three might still feel these things, but they would be strongly unlikely to show. The same goes for the Eight/Two above.)

In this way, the “stress point” is definitely a specific direction. But since aspects of it come online so soon (if we view the levels in a fall-from-grace perspective), and also show up very differently in different individuals (with regard to both quality and strength) we rightfully do not necessarily consider that “moving” anyway. We just see them being average, reactive Eights, Threes, and so forth.

“The point of security”

There is also a dynamic we might adopt average-level aspects from the other point, the would-be “point of integration”, too — i e, the scenario that I described as unlikely. When this happens, we are utilizing what is sometimes referred to as the “security point”. On the Enneagram model, this is obviously the same point as that of growth/integration (a k a the heart point), i e type Two for the Eight, type Six for the Three, and so on.

The dynamic behind the security point is that we might, after all, borrow the ego-tools of this point for less noble reasons than growth — but we do not do that unless we are in a secure relationship or situation where we feel we can vent, fall apart, shut down, act out, be needy (or whatever it is about for us) without it backfiring too badly. This is where the strong and decisive Eight might turn indirect and needy with people they really trust, or where Threes go into a full-on stress-loop over their inadequacies and need talking down by a close friend or significant other. (Obviously, these are just examples and the individual variations are countless.) Or we do it in secret altogether, such as when a One really does go on a bender, secretly indulging in the things that s/he is publicly loudly condemning.

As I said in the beginning, we can see a similar schematic for inner growth in the other direction, which includes identifying “the missing piece” — another phenomenon identified by and term coined by Don Riso and Russ Hudson — but, as we still have plenty of ground to cover here, I’ll leave that bit for another time.

So we can see that it is kind of built into each type that expressing the average-to-unhealthy attitudes of the stress point points to more imbalance and relative unhealth, whereas expressing the healthy attitudes of the point of integration type points to increased balance. Of course, this does not mean, however, that expressing the healthy attitudes of ANY type wouldn’t point to growth, or that the expression of any unhealthy attitudes could ever be a positive development.

So how does all this add up? To clarify that, we need to address the issue of arrow nomenclature; that is, we need to agree that there are multiple aspects of “stress” and “growth” and when and how we are referring to which one.

The terminology tangle

Originally, the directions of the arrows were said to represent “integration” and “disintegration”. On account of especially the latter being considered a bit rough on the digestion, other terms were introduced to better explain what we were talking about. Only, it turns out “we” were talking about several things, possibly without noticing. Factors we could be referring to in this discussion, all relevant but still distinct from one another, are:

stress — increased pressure or ego provocation, in the moment or over a day; anything a more severe everyday challenge to a series of smaller ones. Stress is whatever increases the load on the system, and it can be shorter or longer term. The opposite of this stress could be relaxation and expansion which could in turn be the result of various degrees of personal growth, or not 😊. As you can tell, it’s a wide term.
compromised psychological balance — this is when defences are wearing down and we are “doing worse”, mentally and emotionally. (We are not necessarily experiencing it as such, depending on our level or self-awareness. But from the point of view of ego identification, it’s getting stronger.) This entails a fall down the levels and the corresponding changes in attitudes, reactivity and coping strategies. The opposite would be a move up the levels, signifying increased psychological balance and lessened ego-identification.
change that profoundly affects core type patterns — these are changes on the positive side, and this is when part of our basic type structure shifts. The opposite would not really shift anything, but rather just wedge us harder into the grooves of our ego-identification and agendas, with an increase in whatever coping strategies and reactivity we generally have going on.

Let’s look at these one by one and see how they fit into this framework.

Stress

This was discussed above under “coping strategies”. The concept of stress probably does not need too much introduction these days, since we constantly hear about stress, different types of stress, and its effect on mind and body. This is, again, where we each have our individual coping mechanisms in place: those offered by our core type as well as other types whose attitudes we have easy access to, might they be represented by arrow points in either directions, a wing, behaviours modelled for us by authority figures when we grew up, or all of the above. The order in which we will deploy them varies with the situation and/or depending on our personal leanings; some people utilize several of these, whereas others tend to fall back on just one or a couple of them.

If the stress is persistent and we lack the inner space to transmute the reactivity, thus continuing to escalate our core type’s reactivity, we are likely to fall down in the levels. (And if it is persistent enough, if whatever set(s) of defences that we deploy does not ultimately provide said space for transmutation, in the end this will happen regardless.)

Compromised psychological balance

This is a longer-term decline. Maybe we suffer from depression, feel increasingly put-upon by others or the world at large, sustain a severe blow to our self-esteem, meet with a series of failures, experience increased levels of anxiety due to unprocessed psychological material, or something else that makes us grow less resilient, more ego-identified, and generally the worse for wear.

Here, too, it’s possible that this shift comes with the use of various “ego resources”, again depending on individual leanings. However, it will also include an actual shift, levels-wise, and therefore most likely some expression of the attitudes of the stress point, in the way they they are built into the core type as discussed above. Sometimes we spot them as actual expressions of the stress point, but they might just as easily be overshadowed by other ego defence lines that are being activated, so that the sum total doesn’t necessarily show a lot of stress point action to speak of.

Change that profoundly affects core patterns

Here, we need to step out of the land of regular psychology and plant one foot in psycho-spiritual terrain. The understanding of each type’s core identifications and challenges really goes beyond psychology, even though it can be expressed pretty well in psychological language. When we start looking into the essential aspects of each type — and the loss of contact which leaves a metaphorical wound, giving rise to the type passion — it gets clearer what bits of the personality structure are relatively minor aspects, more subject to individual variation, and which aspects are the major, core aspects that hold the type-pattern in place.

If we go back to our point One, we could see how it is built to counteract the excitability, rashness, and gluttonous hedonism lurking at point Seven. (Sevens, don’t worry; none of us sound great when presented in our lower-average glory from the point of view of our stress point — to which we, of course, represent the point of growth. If point One had been able to take in the gifts and blessings of point Seven, the resistance would have been superfluous in the first place 😉.*) This way, point Seven is a threat to the very core of point One; its reason for being, if we’re being a bit dramatic about it. It’s clear why this is a major thing, and why integrating the balanced, healthy aspects of point Seven would mean a fundamental shift in the One’s inner structure. This is what integration means in the arrow teachings. It is not just any growth or maturity (which, again, can resemble any of the points and does not have to look the same for every One), but the nature of realisation that shifts the core structures of the One’s inner prison.

“Disintegration”: another kind of opposite

The interesting thing about this is that when we look at the Four, the One’s point of stress or “disintegration”, that offers a kind of opposite, too. From the rationality and self-restraint of the One to the emotionality and self-indulgence of the Four. (Again, Fours — needless to say, this is not meant to provide a comprehensive picture of point Four, but only to illustrate how its average-to-lower qualities contrast to the One’s overall characteristics.) So, just like the arrow to Seven, the one to Four represents a kind of contrast to the One package. Why, then, is that not a point of integration, too?

It goes back to the core-of-structure aspect. While the One’s resistance to gluttony, frivolity, and impulsive behaviour is a part of this core, the rationality and self-restraint are merely consequences of this, and the failure to hold up these qualities (as the One ego would see it) and resorting to emotional self-indulgence (e g) instead only changes the method, not the goal, as it were. From where the One stands in the Enneagram curriculum, the sliding over into Four makes it harder yet to see, question and soften their core attitudes. (This is not all there is to say here, though. Stay tuned.)

This means I actually don’t think that disintegration was that bad of a term to begin with. Sure, it’s a bit hard to understand and we could use a more approachable word — but also, by now, we can see that “stress” does not really cover it. Because what integration and disintegration are gauging is basically how deeply entrenched we are in our type’s core attitudes and beliefs and, thus, how close to liberation. Those are very type-specific. “Stress” (and, by all means, “growth”, too) by contrast can be anything — type-related or not.

Distinguishing your growth from your, er, growth

So this is basically it. We can talk about growth (or its opposite) on all manner of planes. If I’m afraid of public speaking, it would likely constitute growth for me to overcome that. This growth has nothing whatsoever to do with Enneagram types, core or otherwise. Then we have individual personality growth, which has to do with our personality patterns but which varies depending on our individual cocktail of experiences, leanings, preferences, and habits. (This is where we can grow — or the opposite — every which way, arrow-wise, and obviously even outside of the arrows, or the entire Enneagram.) This is still growth, and brilliant, as it stands to make our life all kinds of easier. It’s not nothing — I mean, at all. It is precious, freeing, and worthwhile.

But then there’s what might perhaps best be called the transformation of core structures. We need to integrate the healthy aspects of our growth/integration/heart/security point, specifically, at some stage, because it is the antidote to our core suffering: the basic, fundamental misunderstanding that we are consistently operating out of (sometimes with the help of other type expressions). Unless and until we do, we will still, to some extent, live from this misunderstanding and experience the suffering that it gives rise to.

The “final” stop when it’s the real deal

In their work with types, levels and understanding their dynamics, Don Riso and Russ Hudson also recognised something that they called “the missing piece” — the final stop, as it were, on the personality’s journey towards liberation. Even after the whole process of letting ourselves be subtly permeated by the liberating attitudes of the high side of our growth point (which to a large extent is about connecting with our true heart, whichever type we are and wherever we are located in the centre triads), we still have to integrate one more aspect for the balance to be complete.

This final step is offered by our so-called stress point. As a Six, even as I have integrated the Nine qualities of grounding and being with whatever arises, countering my core Six patterns, at point Three, I get access to inner direction and real self-esteem. As an Eight, even as I have integrated access to my heart and vulnerability at point Two, at point Five I learn that the experience of emptiness is not annihilation, but freedom, as well as find my rightful place in the grander scheme of things. And so on and so forth, for all the types.

Everyday growth vs true transformation

But again, there’s growth, and then there’s growth. These things play out both “in order” (chronologically in our life and geometrically on the symbol) and holistically, with parallels and overlaps. The Eight can access aspects of emptiness, and lots of other worthwhile insights and qualities, from type Five at any time (just like he or she can express higher insights from any point). This is where a lot of people arrive back at the “we integrate in both directions, so the arrows are obsolete”-view. But the point is, what I am integrating will not be the missing piece, that is, will not have that same final-insight impact, have I not first integrated my way up the levels to find my true heart (for all the types, in different guises) and see through the shackles of my ego. It is only once I have genuinely made myself at home in the higher-healthy levels (including integrating the high end of my growth point) that the missing piece can hit all the way home. Before that, at best, I am only trying it on for size.

*) Please note that this does not mean that we will have issues people whose type is our point of integration. Ones will not by definition dislike Sevens, and Fours won’t necessarily have issues with Ones — and so on. These are attitudes and defences in the basic ego-structures, not predictions about whom you will like or not.

Whew. As a wise man once noted, “there are a lot of levels to talk about something on”, and this is certainly true for the inner lines of the Enneagram symbol and the directions of their arrows. Hopefully, I have succeeded in expanding the topic from the flat, black-and-white expression of “are the directions true or not?” to a deeper understanding of how they are indeed relevant, and how this still doesn’t negate the fact that we can “move” either way in both meaningful development and constricting reactivity.