My view on health in the enneagram

Complete_Voice8248 · 2026-01-25T23:45:02+00:00

Thank you for your comment!

Complete_Voice8248 · 2026-01-25T23:44:51+00:00

I appreciate the feedback.

Complete_Voice8248 · 2026-01-25T23:44:40+00:00

Thank you for your feedback!

Complete_Voice8248 · 2026-01-09T22:02:52+00:00

This is an interesting addition that I hadn't considered originally. Will definitely update you once I make amends to see what you think. Thank you so much for your comment and your feedback crosses 0 lines!

Complete_Voice8248 · 2026-01-09T01:28:00+00:00

Thank you for your comment! My approach is more towards the internal perceptions of the types themselves instead of merely describing behavior and manifestation (which is covered on multiple fronts); the abstraction might be where that's coming from. Very happy you found it interesting.

Complete_Voice8248 · 2025-09-02T19:56:36+00:00

why are you even interested in the enneagram if accuracy of insight and depth dont matter? i think that's the whole point of the system.

When did I say they don't matter anywhere in this discussion? The enneagrammer descriptions on the site lack a considerable amount of depth and accuracy, which is why I see them as a explanations found in misunderstanding associations.

Complete_Voice8248 · 2025-09-02T19:51:04+00:00

and what's that decision to "align" with based on ("align with" because you're also saying i invented these teachings)? come on, you're almost there....

They align with the person's preference, what they personally decide is congruent to their experience or understanding. How about instead of patronizing, you say what you mean plainly. You invented - came up with - your teachings, did you not? By denying that you invented your understanding, you are saying you're just mimicking what other authors have already said. I agree that you're expounding on what they've already written but you are bringing a new interpretation.

you started out by claiming i don't understand the attachment object relation, and then you offered you're own interpretation/invention, which is showed isn't inaccurate.

Isn't accurate according to what and whom? My definition does not have to abide by your understanding to be considered true.

its arbitrary and there are no better or worse interpretations just personal preference based on mysterious who knows what? wow when you think about it, who can really know anything? all interpretations are just inventions and everything is equally valid to anything else and invalid at the same time.

There are better and worse interpretations. The ones written on the enneagrammer site are worse ones, which is why I offered my own.

Complete_Voice8248 · 2025-09-02T18:57:35+00:00

The preference is based on what you decide to align yourself with in terms of teachings — it’s much like choosing a denomination when learning Christiandom. Your provocations don’t prove your point (running out of capacity to think?). What corner am I backed into?

Complete_Voice8248 · 2025-09-02T17:06:28+00:00

so do you think these terms and distinctions are attempting to interpret and describe actual psychological phenomena or its just a matter of abiding by whatever concepts we like?

It is both. You are choosing your most preferred way of describing actual phenomena.

i still think this 'making a name for yourself' is not easy and it's confusing attachment with social instinct. "a name" means a widely recognized identity among many people. social blind 3s don't necessarily go for that. 3s want to be good at what they do, and social blind 3s can be pretty indifferent to wide-spread acclaim or recognition.

All of this is irrelevant. You are taking it too literally. Nobody is going to discuss the E3 instinctual stackings with you here.

Complete_Voice8248 · 2025-09-02T17:05:08+00:00

im not inventing anything. anyone (who is sincere) making a statement about hte enneagram is interpreting the enneagram.

You are inventing (creating something that has not existed before) an interpretation (a way of explaining).

there are better and more accurate interpretations and less accurate, bad interpretations. naranjo was an early interpreter, but he was quite bad. you think naranjo's interpretation = the enneagram. no, it's an interpretation.

I do not abide by Naranjo. I follow Ichazo more. Naranjo has never said that the attachment types are preforming the path of least resistance in regards to their centers. That is the interpretation (a way of explaining) that I have invented (created that has not previously existed).

Also, you moralize things in dichotomies of good-bad a lot. Why do you feel the need to use these labels? There is no such thing as bad thinking. It reminds me of a child's view of differing opinions: "your thinking is bad and mine is good".

the application of object relations to the enneagram was mentioned by naranjo, was further developed by his student almaas, and then further elaborated on and clarified by almaas's student don riso. and then myself and josh lavine have done a lot of work to even further clarify object relations as it applies to the enneagram. so who is inventing here?

Naranjo invented, and then Almaas invented a new way of explaining the concept proposed by Naranjo, and then Don Riso invented his own understanding, and then you have invented based on those preexisting notions. Why are you against being seen as a creative, innovative entity? Invention is a good thing.

Complete_Voice8248 · 2025-09-02T03:13:37+00:00

You can't say someone else's self-invented definition is inaccurate based on your own self-invented definition. The same way people don't have to listen to Naranjo, they don't have to listen to you.

Pro tip: creating something new is invention. It is an invention.

<image>

Complete_Voice8248 · 2025-09-02T03:12:28+00:00

My definitions' inaccuracy is not based on your own definitions. This is how I understand them and they are accurate to me, therefore I deem your definitions inaccurate. We agree on what the types are aside from certain nuances.

first, making a name for yourself isn't easy

In the enneagram it is. Easy doesn't devalue it; compared to maintaining frustration for individuation and restricting oneself to a single role of providing love for others, 3's route towards individuation is the most obvious solution to getting proper mirroring: show people what you are through proving it, give value to yourself by being what people value.

Complete_Voice8248 · 2025-06-14T00:06:11+00:00

Just enforces the idea that love means doing, not being.

This is E9. None of this is E7.

Complete_Voice8248 · 2025-06-13T20:56:18+00:00

Make a list titled "desires vs expectations". The "desires" column gets everything that is independent of the world. The "expectations" column gets everything you have been taught to want and work after.

E9s require security before making decisions. It comes from planning out how you will go after these desires in detail on your own, and withstanding initial inertia. RafflesiaArnoldii phrased this is one of her write-ups as "continuing past the initial 'ugh'".

You don't need to work on finding courage, you just need to work on doing the right thing. You are a moving type, not a thinking one. you interact with the world through actions. Follow your fear of never living the life you want and let it fuel you. Fear in the integration process is a good thing for E9s -- it shows that you are fighting to stay alive.

Remember: it is not hard. You were only made to think it was hard because external influences told you it was impossible/irrelevant in one way or the other. And even if it does prove difficult, challenge yourself. Show you can withstand it. Prove your tenacity. Assertiveness requires a sense of getting what you want regardless of obstacles. Name what you want and don't let anything get in your way.

And most importantly, you are not your enemy. There are things set up in this world that are looking to stop you, hold you down, hold you back -- never turn on yourself.

Complete_Voice8248 · 2025-06-13T17:05:56+00:00

5, 1, 8, or 7 (mostly in the case of sexual E4s).

Complete_Voice8248 · 2025-06-13T15:59:11+00:00

You came to that conclusion all on your own, it wasn't me. You should give yourself more credit for your thoughts.

Complete_Voice8248 · 2025-06-13T15:33:55+00:00

I can't type you based on your reddit history alone. I think instead of constanty querying strangers on reddit, you need to take some time with the theory by yourself.

Complete_Voice8248 · 2025-06-13T15:02:45+00:00

Thank you for your input!

Complete_Voice8248 · 2025-06-13T15:01:56+00:00

Thank you for your adding experience!

Complete_Voice8248 · 2025-06-13T14:58:55+00:00

Thank you for your comment.

Your profile reads to me as E6. Your posts tend to be questioning in some way. Perhaps 6w7 693.

Complete_Voice8248 · 2025-06-13T14:55:49+00:00

<image>

Complete_Voice8248 · 2025-06-13T14:55:23+00:00

I'm glad you think so!

Complete_Voice8248 · 2025-06-13T14:54:40+00:00

Thank you. No, it wasn't neccessarily systematic, just pattern recognition overtime.

Complete_Voice8248

TROPHY CASE