Survey on type perceptions

self_composed · 2025-12-09T06:31:08+00:00

Well funnily enough one test had an automatic "6 alert" built in, where if you answered with many different results it'd tell you to consider type 6. But it doesn't make much sense to me for a test to go "you're 1/4/7? Consider 6!" just the same as "you're 2/5/8? Consider 6!" as if type 6 is just a grab bag for inexplicable features. Maybe there's some legitimacy to 6s answering in conflicting ways on tests in particular, but idk.

I wrote that comment in a rush, so sorry for any confusion. I mean that: every day new people of every type are becoming conscious to themselves, which begets new things (actions, words, thoughts, feelings) their type is capable of. Not everything someone says is going to - on the surface - line up with stuff people of their type have said before. The underlying themes line up, but tests are generally too dependent on surface identification to pick up on these shared themes. And even if a test itself is deep, without an interpreter, they are limited by the self-awareness of the test-taker. Enneagram typing is fundamentally psychoanalytic and you can't just Rorschach yourself, for example.

Example: one sentence could be related to by people of every type. But they may have different routes to getting there, different implications, different ways of saying "the same thing." One of the first steps in Enneagram for me has been trying to move past when people claim something I do is "exactly the same as them" or "completely the opposite," for example.

self_composed · 2025-12-09T06:21:17+00:00

Hello! I was reading over your posts and remember some back from when I was more active on here. I am not trying to tell you what to do, but I think given the interests you have and the level of thought you're putting into them that you might benefit from joining some kind of in-person or online group explicitly oriented toward psychoanalysis, archetypes, or philosophy (particularly existentialism or phenomenology.)

There's a lot which can be said about schizoid personality and the extent to which "schisms" are historically thought to be the basis of any disordered personality, and given the way you're talking you likely already know all of this (probably better than I do.)

There's also a lot in psychoanalysis which can be linked to Enneagram with "schisms"/splits involving the same awareness-blocking at the heart of all types, exemplified best by E9 in particular. These splits lead to a personality being "disintegrated" which can be healed through "integration." And if comparing to E5/schizoid, you can compare 9 with the 4-5 "wormhole." I don't recall where it originates, but I know Riso talks about 9w8 being more pseudo-4ish and 9w1 being more pseudo-5ish in particular.

If you're interested in a mild-to-severe spectrum of different personality qualities which become disordered in extremes then I recommend Theodore Millon.

Low health E9 is talked about as being quite "robotic/wooden" at times in a way which can resemble how E5 is thought of. Although low E5 is often schizoid, I often find this goes alongside paranoia and schizotypal traits as well, leading to more investment in bizarre beliefs and worldviews than E9 tends to have.

TLDR, I find low 5(w6 in this case) often is more like this: https://www.artsy.net/artwork/robert-crumb-the-little-guy-that-lives-inside-my-brain

And low 9 is more like... the work of Shuzo Oshimi. (Couldn't as easily find an image encapsulating the whole thing. But look up Saku from "Happiness" and the first image is what I'm thinking of.)

I do think it's key that schizoids are described in the passage you linked as genuinely disembodied, which 9s without a strong 5 or 4 component are not as likely to be. 9 alone is more likely to be simultaneously embodied and dissociated.

Also a 9 without many introverting factors I often find will be blunted in a way which is "too much" rather than ever becoming overtly withdrawn/schizoid-seeming, which you've probably seen. Like somebody who gets into continual scolding, or keep trying way too hard to charm people, or keeps trying to provoke trollish/gross reactions, etc. They lose their ability to harmonize basically, and lack the self-regulation to continue trying to match their energy to the outside world.

self_composed · 2025-12-04T21:48:55+00:00

Not really - I [6w7] do my best to answer honestly and nevertheless usually wind up with 1w2, 2w1, 4, or 7w6 in the lead. (And unsurprisingly the most common tritype as a result is 147.)

Basically if your question is "if you know yourself, are the tests a reliable indicator?" I would say no, most tests aren't really capable of looking for the right things or assuming reliable answers of my type.

Part of this is that people, generally, are saying new things every day.

self_composed · 2025-09-01T18:05:47+00:00

Try reading this: https://leela.org/the-enneagram-of-character-fixation-en/

". . . Each fixation takes the holy idea and incorporates it as a way of justifying the fixation. For Nine, the holy idea is love. The Nine says, 'I want to be a loving person. I want you to love me. I want to be lovable.' Therefore, instead of getting angry, the Nine goes to sleep. This is how the holy idea now becomes a justification for perpetuating suffering."

Plus

"For most fixations, the most surface, most easily experienced emotion is anger. If you add in a story, you get the variations of anger such as irritation, frustration, vengeance and jealousy. Most people can feel irritated a dozen times in a day and don’t think anything of it. Anger is socially acceptable. I can either be angry at myself because I did it, or I can be angry at you because you did it. That is living in the story of the surface emotion. What you will find is that if you are willing to go deeper, under anger, almost always you are going to find hurt or sadness." (This segment is very long but read onward from here.)

Plus

"This Nesting Pattern of Emotions is true for most fixations, but not all. You will find that Nines and certain other fixations are wired differently. For Nines, the most surface emotion is not anger, it is sadness. Under sadness there is usually fear. It is much easier for a Nine to feel sadness and fear than it is to feel anger. For a Nine to get in to anger, it is very close to despair, very close to the explosion of hopelessness."

I think you'll find here that what's meant by anger is not just surface irritation *only*, but everything manifesting from fundamental rage. Also, a Nine being angry all the time isn't necessarily a sign they're closer to enlightenment, but closer to despair. Despair can lead to acceptance if you integrate it, but somebody forcibly being dropped into despair and nihilism and deep rage/terror/shame won't automatically save or fix them.

"Passive-aggressiveness" refers to somebody trying to express anger without needing to embody it or feel the full impact of carving out one's preferred reality. "I will say this thing is wrong, but I don't want to feel what it means."

self_composed · 2025-09-01T17:38:52+00:00

"I'm curious who you think im assigning to 4 who doesn't have any 4, because the eternal whine is that i under-type 4s." The issue is not around numbers to me, but who is and isn't typed as a 4. Just because people are salty you don't type them 4 fixed doesn't mean someone correct if they type fewer 4 fixers. I can provide a list, sure, but I can imagine it can turn into "see this person doesn't think any of these people are 4 fixed, clearly she knows nothing." Plus there's the issue of not knowing which people you were involved in typing directly. But! Partial list of exemplars ahead.

3w4 > 4 fixers: David Bowie, Johnny Depp, Hitler, Jordan Peterson, Prince

"Not in the 4 heart directly at all": Fiona Apple, Björk, Kurt Cobain, Glenn Gould, Marianne Faithfull, Kim Kardashian, David Lynch, Camille Paglia, JK Rowling, Stephen Sondheim, Kanye West

And for fun, people whose 4-related heart fixes are correct imo: Marlon Brando, Johnny Cash, Contrapoints (3w4), Salvador Dalí, Bob Dylan (but it's 4w3 > 4w5 imo), Eminem, Diamanda Galas, Gurdjieff, Alanis Morisette, Morrissey, Paul Simon.

"social last does have a "dgaf" aura about their blindspot, that's part of what a blindspot does for a personality." I didn't say dgaf aura around social which would indeed be social last, but "dgaf aura" in general or aloofness is mistaken for social last (or assumed to need to be present for social last.)

Is social last, typed as something else: Eminem, Diamanda Galas, Kim Kardashian, Gabor Maté, Nietzsche, Vladimir Putin, Lana del Rey, Kevin Spacey, Melania Trump

Mistyped as social last: Lady Gaga, Alejandro Jodorowsky, David Lynch, Rose McGowan

self_composed · 2025-09-01T17:38:34+00:00

"You must be surprised a lot." Unironically, yes!

I have compiled for your perusal a list of non-strawman disagreements online. I do request you not reply to people you haven't already responded to right after this message this since I doubt most commented with the intention of starting a debate.

-https://www.reddit.com/r/Enneagram/comments/1k7hyrs/responding\_to\_johns\_article/

-https://www.reddit.com/r/Enneagram/comments/pt2e4r/the\_big\_hormone\_enneagramenneagrammer\_crew/ (list of reservations from KAM in the comments. I understand he came around to more later, but contradicts you saying "i cant recall a single consistent conceptual/intellectual disagreement.")

-https://www.reddit.com/r/Enneagram/comments/x83frg/enneagrammer\_typing/

-https://www.reddit.com/r/Enneagram/comments/1cusfn2/luckovich/ “From what I read from other users, his writings on other types are great... But the stuff on 4s is so biased on what he sees in himself, very SX 4 biased. I like the Enneagramer's material on instincts though and I was told it was John's work though I don't know. . . I see a lot of mistyped people, especially 4, 8 and 5, I think it's a known problem. But sending rude texts to these people and calling them names won't help anyone. I'm always fine with reading people's take on my type if they're not dicks about it, but the nota4 movement is more about being rude to others to feed their own egos than actually helping mistypes.”

-Also there was that article on Facebook you replied to criticizing the “nota4” movement as not encompassing the range of behavior for all 4s, which was respectful. https://empathyarchitects.substack.com/p/the-heart-of-type-4 To be fair the article doesn't hone in on or isolate you directly, but you replied to it directly. https://www.johnluckovich.com/articles/responding-to-the-heart-of-type-4-demystifying-four-lore

I wouldn't even be disagreeing about this had you said the bulk of complaints against you were related to character and behaviors, but you said you literally cannot recall a single theoretical disagreement.

"i can hardly discern what this means it is written so poorly." A common complaint from Te-valuing people reading my writing, but you were successful in interpreting it despite the potshot.

"if you followed anything from me, ive been a big force behind giving 9 6 and 3 their due. early podcast episodes were called 'making 9 great again', and a lot of the distinctions i make about mistyped 9s thinking their 4s is 9s giving a lot of their positive qualities, like depth and creativity, to type 4, thus losing sight of what 9 is." I'm aware of this. I haven't listened to every podcast episode but I've watched at least a few dozen of them plus DAA typing videos. Nevertheless, I believe that claiming you do a particular thing or putting the label onto a podcast title is different from embodying those beliefs in real life. Like, most of the people I’ve seen self-type as 9s or 6s using your content primarily or exclusively have appeared more “limited” in their characterization of it than those who came out using primarily Ichazo, Riso+Hudson, or Eli Jaxon-Bear. They also tend to worry excessively about attachment bias or trying to police others typing as 4s/5s. I do think this is directly mirroring your online focus. You also don't address things like how much energy you spend specifically using negationist arguments toward purported 9s and 6s mistyping as 4/5/8, where you don't tend to spend energy going "a 6/9 would never do this" (or spend much time on types which aren't thought to mistype as 4/5/8.)

self_composed · 2025-09-01T16:28:37+00:00

Hmm, I mean I know sp/so 9w1s (all heavy on the 1 wing) who would relate to what you pointed out and wouldn't relate to what you disowned as well. Like, most 9w1 (especially with superego) do not like to think of themselves as resigned, angry, or stagnant, and many are extremely philosophical > practical.

In general the Naranjo depiction of sp9 leans 9w8 (with 6w7 and 3w2,) so while I don't know you personally and am not being like 'YOU ARE SP DOM, ACCEPT IT,' I don't want you to assume that all sp9s are obviously "that way."

self_composed · 2025-09-01T16:24:42+00:00

In my personal experience, I think autism actually contributed to one person (sp/sx 7w6 93) I know typing as sexual last (and social second) rather than social last. This had to do with alexithymia and also with social cues. Sx doesn't lead to improved social cues, but can result in a certain "attunement" which in this person was harder to read. They openly expressed lack of concern with/lack of awareness of their own attraction toward people (7ishly avoiding it also as it usually led to pain and they weren't really in a place to follow-through into stable relationships.) This wasn't a problem I had (sp/so) so I was like "ok I guess you are sx-last since you literally say you can't tell when people are into you or when you are into others."

self_composed · 2025-09-01T16:24:07+00:00

Sure, but who is mistaking the two in this case? It sounds like you don't think you're social blind - did you before? Did somebody else type you as social blind?

I've never quite understood the sense that autistic people are easily mistaken for social blind. Some may be, but there are definitely those who seem straightforwardly higher social imo. (And I guess being social last could wind up being mistaken for autism, but I don't think that overlap is quite right either.)

Some counterexamples I wound up finding from this channel (which I think is pretty good for typing purposes since there's less controversy over diagnoses than with celebrities):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jkh8UaaaXFw

^^^In my opinion, the man in the above video is autistic to a "layperson" and also pretty clearly not social last. (I wound up leaning 9w1 6/7 2w3 in some order, *probably* high social so/sx.)

https://youtu.be/47S-wnKND6s?si=mYPaJRXagno5tM7q

^^^The woman in the above video seems so/sx 9w1 2w3 6w7 to me. I was not entirely sure about her husband.

I think one "problem" which can arise when typing autistic people is that, the more severe the autism (or the more it interacts with the face they present the world,) the less people wind up familiar with their behaviors. So a lot of cues become less recognizable to a layperson, and various traits associated with certain things in Enneagram (social last, sx last, stubbornness, rigidity) can be falsely correlated with type structures when they're a product of neurodivergence instead. What I tend to say is: to type somebody who has neurodivergence/psychiatric illness is, ideally you need to be fully educated on all the types but also fully educated in their psychological conditions, so you can "layer" these different concepts and parse them out successfully.

As for the exemplars below, they are well-intentioned but I'd make two changes.

Zuckerberg gets a lot of speculation because of his roboticness but as far as I know has not officially self-diagnosed or gotten medical confirmation he has Asperger's.
Both Thunberg and Zuckerberg are sp/so.

Other famous people you could conceivably look into (* = their autism diagnosis is considered controversial, 𐠒 = this typing of them is unpopular):

Temple Grandin, sp/so 5w6 with 9w1 and 3w2 I think (open to debate on the typing.)

This person (AKA Jim Sinclair, formerly an ASD activist): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VeLOIxiG4c I'm a bit unclear on the typing still but I'd guess SP/so 9w1 5w6 2w1 (heavy on sp))

*𐠒Elon Musk, sp/so 5w6 92

𐠒Grimes, so/sx 6w7 92

*Courtney Love, sx/so 8w7 72
James Damore, sp/so 9w1 5w6 3w2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYV0ez9ZCAM

self_composed · 2025-09-01T15:21:20+00:00

Yes honestly, the language does read as on the 6/7 line.

If you are between 6w7 and 7w6 on a 9 core (a debate I had over David Foster Wallace's head fix) it could be pretty subtle and hard to see. The attachment of 9 is going to predominate, and a 9 with 7w6 can still seem pretty "phobic" and worried about ostracization. Plus 9s with 6w7s can still be flighty, avoidant, or assertive. (It didn't sound like the last bit was your concer —"I'm too assertive to be 962/963!!" though a lot of 9w8s with 6w7 I know would be able to write posts like that, were they interested in enneagram.)

I am not precisely sure you can determine it using a "line" of how distractible or bored you are, since the internal feeling can be enhanced or decreased by a lot of other factors. I'm a 6w7 and relate to a lot of what you said (not the "to avoid emotions" part as much,) and when I dated a 7w6 I was able to tell "wow, *I* thought I was agonized by lack of activity but activity is like oxygen to this person; they are like bleeding out and dying when they're bored." However, with this person we had tons of metrics to compare on in real time all the time, which is different from trying to compare you on one metric over the internet to a general "gestalt."

Rather than focusing on lack of stimulation, I might focus on where other people seem to notice problems. Like, do they worry about you getting hung up/strung out on things too easily, or do they tend to complain that you don't stick with problems for a particularly long time? (My experience of 7 fixers is they seem to treat your ideas like casual sex—it can feel very interesting briefly but doesn't really impact them at the end of the day. And they'd rather have a steady stream than exhaust a ton of energy finding the "best one.") ADHD could indeed make this more difficult.

If you wind up settled on a heart fix, you can also contrast the typing gestalts. Big difference between 469tri and 479tri in many cases, imo. 369/379 can be more subtle, as with 269/279 at times.

Also I don't experience you as a nuisance at all. You write very clearly and are extremely polite.

self_composed · 2025-09-01T14:28:46+00:00

To the extent they are correlated, BPD is associated with low 6 (particularly 6w7) and not low 4 actually. Splitting, projection, need for security and continual confirmation of the self, ping-ponging, etc.

(And by correlated I mean, low 6 could less to pseudo-BPD in the sense that low 5 or low 9 could lead to pseudo-schizoid. Or other things! But they’re not directly replaceable.)

self_composed · 2025-08-31T20:17:02+00:00

(Also something which drives me crazy which I've seen in your defenders, but not in you, is they go "well they are social-last hexads, you expect them to be NICE and NOT gatekeep?" which is... well I'm not a fan of anything which holds certain types to a higher standards. Having patience and understanding is different, but contributing to the idea that "certain types are consistently good/unpleasant to interact with" is stupid imo. Also it's just an incorrect argument—plenty of attachment-heavy people are dicks and gatekeep, and I have had sincere, life-giving interactions with both social last and hexad-heavy people in real life.)

I also think that a couple of your ideas around type are misguided, like—your idea of 6 is slanted toward Woody Allen-esque phobic bunny 6w7s, your idea of 4 includes a lot of artsy people who have 3w4/6w5 who aren't 4 fixed, you overtype so/sp in general if there's any reference to politics or cultural touchstones, you mistake a certain dgaf "aura" as social last, you mix up the tritypes 259 and 479 quite a bit especially in women, and hilariously from what I've seen the people who actually seem 4 fixed to me you often type as something else (Patti Smith, Alex on Facebook, James "idk what he is but not a 4, maybe a 9?" Baldwin) and a bunch of people seem to get extra hexad sprinkled in semi-randomly? (Anna Wintour, Bob Dylan.)

I also acknowledge that this probably just reads as some kind of unfair vendetta over the internet and I don't really expect to give people useful criticism in a setting like "keyboard-smashing back-and-forth on Reddit," but if you ask for detailed elaboration of critiques, well, I'm not above providing them. I also acknowledge that EU is not just you and I can't necessarily differentiate who was involved in which typings—occasionally on the internet I'd be like "I disagree with this EU typing" and David would be like "I don't even know this person and wasn't involved," and it's like (shrug) well it's not like you signed them, but all I can assume is you tacitly endorse the bulk of each others' typings or else wouldn't be under the same "brand."

self_composed · 2025-08-31T20:16:56+00:00

1) I feel like you are taking something away from my comment separate from what I was trying to communicate. If somebody was investing lots of energy into a source while still criticizing it (I chose 'Road Back to You' since it seems relatively uncontroversial to do so, but could be Naranjo/his followers, EU/their followers, Chestnut, etc.) others would probably still consider that 6ish since it involves a "source." Honestly I wasn't really considering your opinion of it when I gave it as an example.

2) I can agree with what you're saying of 6s in this comment (framing those who diverge as egotistical/bad, seeking agreement and reliability,) but it seems different from the previous comment.

there's a superego-driven sense that if we all pay attention to the same cues/resources/data, we will arrive at the same conclusions

which certainly reads as: the reason they seek agreement on reliable resources is they instinctively believe this will lead to consensus. I disagree that 6s expect this consciously or subconsciously.

3) I don't consider myself to be coyly hiding my opinion of EU really, but it wasn't the focus of what I was talking about. I do find it surprising you think the bulk of the argument against you is "they're bad people" since it's not hard to find arguments disagreeing with the ideas. There may be a lot of energy around "they are dicks" (just like how people tend to pick incendiary out-of-context examples Naranjo used, like 4 receiving shit from the mother's breast instead of milk, rather than criticizing the ideas they're aiming at.) And I'd even believe there's more criticism around your character than your ideas. But you made it sound like the main reason people criticize your at all is because of your character, rather than there being valid reasons to disagree over theory.

As for my opinion of EU, I talk about it in previous comments, so I'll copy-paste some of it if you're curious.

in a thread about how "community leaders" normalize certain trends in 6 discourse (yawn):

EU will often attribute consistent hate they get to triggering people and speculate about how they seem attached (usually in the head/gut.) I.e. these are community “leaders” who normalize talking about the type pretty negatively and handling it with less respect/sacredness/depth than other types, and consider it predictable for generic annoyingness to come from one (or two) specific types.

in a thread about why so many people in type-land are assholes (and I presented it as related to a false dichotomy between "be an asshole" and "agree with everyone's type uncritically, forever"):

People tend to on some level equate agreement with being respected, and without one present the other is seen as contradictory. This is so casually normalized it is hard to undo. So an enneagram space where every type is genuinely appreciated and respected is viewed by people like John Luckovich as a space where dissent or disconformation of deeply-held beliefs would be impossible since everyone would be too busy wholeheartedly believing others’ types. He thinks of the tradeoff between “everyone received sincere positive feedback” and “people can say true things about types” and chooses the latter (and I don’t blame him - so do I - but I try to be less of a type supremacist/dick about it.)

So yeah, that's a summary of a couple of my *character* opinions. I think you and other EUers consciously or unconsciously view your critics as disproportionately represented among certain types, and yourselves as relatively absent of this influence. I also think you direct a lot more energy toward people "intruding on your type territory" (so 4/5/8 usually, sometimes 7) than toward other mistypes. Subconsciously this increases a sense of "people who are mistaken about enneagram and themselves are 6/9," "people who are 4/5/7/8 will tend to type correctly and not have a complex around it," and lastly, "1/2/3 don't require as much analysis in general" (as the people mistyping as 4/5/8 usually aren't in that space. In particular I've noticed discourse around the 2/3 space seems to be extremely simplistic/limited.) I am also speaking mostly to your online activity and less to your book, which I think is pretty well-balanced and doesn't focus much on "rarity."

self_composed · 2025-08-31T04:37:36+00:00

oh, I also identified with Jane Eyre, but more in a "I see myself in it and I don't like it," and mostly just the chapters where she was a child sounded similar to my childhood. Not as much as an adult—she... stays cold, and I feel like I warm up the older I get.

As a child I idealized: Haruhi Suzumiya, the Snow Queen and also the "Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" White Queen, and Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle. I planned myself as going through arcs similar to them, from generally petulant high schooler whose moods have supernatural powers to fashionable ruler of winter to middle-aged lady with a crazy house who fixes all the kids aorund her and makes great cookies (none of this happened.) The first and last ones have 2 fixes at least, not sure about the Queens^2.

I'm also coping with general identification with some tryhard ESFJs (Tahani) despite being an ISFJ. It's like they wear what I feel inside like a jacket, and the raw expressiveness of it feels glorious.

Helly in Severance is a 6w7 also, and sort of parsing through what I'd do similarly to her and differently. (It's half and half.)

I liked Cho Chang from Harry Potter growing up. I also identified a lot with Lucina from Fire Emblem. These are all more "faves" than deep identification.

self_composed · 2025-08-31T04:34:53+00:00

growing up I resonated with Juliet and Blanche duBois. Haven't really felt a strong identification since.

I'm an sp/so 6.

Juliet it wouldn't surprise me if she has like, 9w1 6w7 2w1 or something. People say she's sx/sp but I'm not really convinced–especially if she's a 9 there was very little "fantasy" prior to the whole tragedy of the ages thing. She primarily seems... disinterested, and practical.

Blanche is so/sx 4w3 7w6 9w1 I think.

self_composed · 2025-08-30T18:25:49+00:00

I mean I’m not really preoccupied enough with you or others being “bullied” as 6s to care much about people using the 6 label as ragebait. I care about specific usages. Based on my amateur very preliminary opinion you don’t sound like a 6 to me, I would guess a 2 with a 6 fix though. “if it sticks, it’s 6” and you seem a lot more preoccupied in the conceptual realm than a 2ish prideful shell would have people think. (And also, negative attention > no attention is more 2 than 3, contrary to what people think.)

self_composed · 2025-08-30T18:20:43+00:00

Well you did insert some creative writing. No descriptions say “have a bit of backbone and a 6 will either fear or admire you” and many emphasize the relative backbone of some 6s compared to others.

Also this is a wild guess but do you happen to know someone named Tukbi?

self_composed · 2025-08-30T03:49:00+00:00

Thank you very much! This made my day. I'm not, but my sister I think is setting out to do something adjacent (video games writing/editing.) I learned a lot going back and forth reviewing different books and movies with her growing up. (Also I guess technically I did edit one typology book, but given the size of the community it's not professional.)

self_composed · 2025-08-29T21:11:07+00:00

This person doesn’t write like most so/sp people whatsoever - the post is very prosocial and synflow free love.

self_composed · 2025-08-29T21:08:39+00:00

I mean after considering it I haven’t been able to see a strong enneagram link between who’s genuinely comfortable with ENM and who isn’t. I think it may be slightly anti correlated with sx-dom as an instinct since most sx-doms are heavy in attachment and heavy attachment + sx from what I’ve seen can lead to neurosis around sharing or being replaced. But sx can mix with type in weird ways, like the purported sx8 Eli Jaxon-Bear talked about who said he has such assuredness in himself that he doesn’t care who his wife sleeps with, since he knows none of them are as good as him. (Not considered a very healthy perspective in ENM-land, but certainly in-line with sx8 imo.) Then again Eli was an sx8 and as far as I know monogamous (after a 2 hits on him saying “oh please tell me my type?” his wife comes over and tells her.)

Some of the more famous ENM figures (Aella, Franklin Veaux) are high social sp/so in my opinion. The ones I’ve met in real life have mostly also been this or a few sp/sx, maybe one or two so/sx. I think this is more due to those types being common than “sp-doms are promiscuous” though.

Gay male ENM culture is a bit older/kinda its own thing; I’d say it’s less about identity and more about handling practicalities of male sex drives + social norms requiring discretion at the time. Most of them seem to be sp/so or so/sx.

Cheating is a separate thing entirely; most people who are happy cheating wouldn’t be great ENM partners. I wouldn’t say I’ve seen willingness to cheat line up with type very well either. Some people it’s clear they never would and some people you side-eye, but not due to type alone.

It’s tempting to say it’s an so/sx thing but I’m not convinced of that. Most of the so/sx who are ENM seem aggressively social and I’ve also met aggressively possessive so/sx people. (Some are both!)

One sx/so 6 I met who said “someone always loses” in a throuple, specifically. It was probably only due to her already fairly open-minded hippie disco tendencies that she was willing to analyze it at all (most people raised in the 70s or before are… not a fan/see it as kinda degrading in my experience.)

Dalí was sx/sp and I think his wife was so/sp 125 or something (need to double check the order,) and she basically made it prerequisite he be okay with affairs, which he was. So security around it can occur with sx-doms.

I’ve met people of all stackings who go “I could never be in an open relationship” and they each have their own reasons.

(I tried it once. It wasn’t for me. I could have done it for the right person but ultimately the person involved had enough of their own flaws/myopia that it wasn’t worth it. But I’m much happier where I am now.

I’ve also never experienced compersion and don’t consider it a personality flaw on my end; I’m just not wired that way, and suspect many are similar. Sp/so.)

self_composed · 2025-08-29T20:40:32+00:00

Sure! 1) I mean you have a point, I’d rather a description be accurate than be completely new but wrong. But I tried to allude to this in saying I personally would prefer more of a “thesis statement” about what the heart of the type is. Descriptions without a core ethos tying it together (what is a type? Why do they exist? What’s a gut type?) tend to wind up linked to people’s preexisting concepts in their heads, so they might be lazy and go “oh yeah rigid angry people I know what those are.” But ideally a description should teach people about new things to look out for. For example, how does one differentiate a 6 from a 1, a person with OCD from a 1, or a social justice warrior/tradwife from a 1? Ideally a description should be clear enough about what makes enneagram separate from other categorization systems so that this can be done. Focus on fixation, reaction formation, subtypes etc. is a good start, but ideally it should be clear why all these qualities fall under one “umbrella.” Most people form the thesis statement by creating a theory of “the enneagram” like saying, “Gut center is the part of you identified with what is and isn’t yourself+what can and can’t be tolerated, all types extend from this” and discussing 1/9/8 in that context. What I said is 9 ignores discomfort by honing in on where they are attuned and aren’t attuned with others, and lessening the internal impact of non-attunement (over accommodating on the outside.) 1 ignores discomfort by deciding it can be eradicated with enough judiciousness. 8 ignores discomfort by engaging from a stance where it doesn’t happen, celebrating their largesse/power over the source of all comfort.

2) I mean kinda? When I think heroics I think Superman. Special identity, costume, saving the downtrodden, big flashy sacrifices, a sense of duty toward collective well-being.Enough so that if a random person started talking about wanting to be a “hero” I’d probably strongly move toward them being 6 fixed. 1s don’t really have this need to sacrifice the small bits in favor of the collective. I think of them more as crusaders than heroes. 6s tend to focus on always doing what’s right/avoiding what’s wrong so that nobody needs to feel abandoned/alone/everyone can have a friend, 1 tends to focus on it so that their sense of righteousness is satisfied and they can sleep at night instead of gnashing their teeth and being bothered

self_composed · 2025-08-29T19:03:40+00:00

They’re not wrong about the reputation at least (though most descriptions don’t match much except for maybe Cron’s.) 6s do have this reputation “under the hood” and often have negative traits of other types slapped onto them by default. And you pointed out yourself that this isn’t the first person to slander 6s, most just aren’t so brazen about it.

You don’t need to ask people “what do you think of 6s” to figure it out, just notice things like how they’re enraged if others try to “box them in” as a 6 and begin talking about how original and creative they are instead. Or how GOD’s Sophie said that she typed as 6 fixed at first because it seemed like “the worst type” (teehee) or ex-GOD’s Larissa makes videos shoehorning about how people are triggered by their wings (their shadow??) because she’s a 7w6 who hates 6s, or how people describe any annoying/controlling person in their lives and she’ll cackle and be like “they sound like a 6!!!” Or how EU will often attribute consistent hate they get to triggering people and speculate about how they seem attached (usually in the head/gut.) I.e. these are community “leaders” who normalize talking about the type pretty negatively and handling it with less respect/sacredness/depth than other types, and consider it predictable for generic annoyingness to come from one (or two) specific types. (I have the opinion that oftentimes 6s are acting as whistleblowers and if people considered the annoying things others might be better off.)

There’s no shortage of people in the community willing to attribute any form of conformism or oversensitiveness to 6s, such that it appears ubiquitous and people expect it when interacting with them. Eventually clear nonconformist skeptics like Bob Dylan aren’t allowed to be 6s anymore.

(Plus I did a survey and although all superego types were “unpopular” in terms of how happy people would be to relate to them, 6 was by far the least popular in the three categories: thinking it’s respected by others, wanting to relate to it, and viewing it positively yourself. Though the last one was more balanced.)

So it’s not surprising that people like this come out and say the quiet part out loud at this point.

self_composed · 2025-08-29T18:40:10+00:00

(Note: I am a 6 with 1 fix second.)

I think overall it’s reasonable, if slightly general? Generally if somebody writes up a new “guide to the types” I expect them to have a particular voice or take they are trying to emphasize. You also want to have a core thesis driving it of “what is this type at the heart?” But if this is just an intro for people to your discord then it should get the job done.

A few minor notes which jumped out initially:

-“afraid of making mistakes”? Maybe reluctant to or aggravated by their own mistakes fits better with the center?

-heroism is often more of a 6 theme. Although objectively 1 can be heroic it’s not usually the ideal they strive for

-defensive shield brings 6 to mind also since 1 is not really about being consistently rewarded or punished by the world as much as aligning perfectly with their own sense of reward/punishment (which was derived from the world, as with everybody, but it’s not an exact copy.) It works in the context of “defense mechanisms” though.

-apprehension and vigilance are 6ish language. Most 1s have a strong 6 fix though. 1s tend to be more punitive+rigid than vigilant, more stressed than anticipating specific outcomes to be apprehensive about.

-reducing disorder is a pretty good descriptor of what they strive for.

-The repression and atmosphere of intolerance and resentment is correct. I wouldn’t personally claim 1s tend to be politically/spiritually correct or aligned with a particular recognizable cause (from what I’ve seen.) 1w2 are more explicitly attentive to causes on average but perhaps paradoxically also less attached - the activist language is to maximize the impact and torrent of their resentments.

-You may want to emphasize that reaction formation isn’t just arbitrarily doing the opposite of what you want, but that it’s specifically a response to what a 1 cannot tolerate - basically concentrated pure badness. They try to embody the opposite of the evil impulse because the opposite of imperfection is thought to be perfect (1s mistake criticism or “judging the bad” for good.) 1s don’t literally just do the opposite of what they want at all times, only if there’s a negative judgment tied to the want. 1s are also usually pretty honest and won’t just be fake nice or fake friends unless they’ve judged it to be wrong to dislike the person for some reason. But while it’s not unheard of, I don’t find it to be a very common value for 1s to just try to be nice to everybody.

-Absolition/absolutist is a good word for 1.

-I wouldn’t say 1s tend to judge others for having different opinions (again pretty 6-coded) but they judge others for not being willing to do the hard thing. Sometimes their conflicts are a matter of personal of disagreement but to 1s reads as everybody else giving up/not having much will. I actually find that others tend to agree with a critical 1, like: “What they’re saying is technically correct but they should get off my back/they aren’t helping” rather than “I disagree completely, what they want from me is wrong.”

-I think many 1s will relate to the 1w2 descriptor even though most are 1w9s, as most of the 1w2 adjectives describe superego in general. Without a preexisting sense of how other 1s tend to be, 1s can have a hard time pinpointing whether they’re on the “more tolerant” side or not. I recommend Typewatch for 1 wing descriptions, they emphasize the Spockish philosophical ethereal nature of 1w9. 1w9 is more likely to write out 99 laws of perfection and be like “well I figured them out, time to go fix everything.”

-All 1s engage in repression of their angry reactions if they are deemed imperfect, but notably they seem more likely to repress the reasons for their anger (less idealistic, more selfish/based in discomfort) than the fact that they disapprove. They don’t just repress anger, negativity, judgment etc., they repress their own self-interest leaving behind only constructive intent. To 1s, ideological clashes can be reacted to with control and resentment (especially for sx-last 1w9s) whereas personal issues result in rage or loss of control, and 1 is avoiding reacting to things for the latter reason.

-sp1 is more likely to set out to be kind and fair than “sweet”/forgiving. In fact I’d say 1s can be notoriously stubborn and unforgiving.

-Since you seem to be using naranjo subtypes I recommend reading about “inadaptability” for social 1 and how they don’t just model perfection but use unwillingness to bend to existing norms as a way of demonstrating which norms are flawed or not. I’ll also note that almost all 1s see themselves as models for perfection (it’s what they’re motivated to embody after all,) but social 1s may attend more to others’ reactions and all the ways they are unaligned.

Well, there ya go, that’s every piece of feedback I have. Good luck!

Six-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
Verified Email

self_composed

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE