Introduction
If you read two authors attentively, you will see they do not say the same things. The ideas on this website do not claim to agree with major authors completely. I encourage people to read authors but I quote them selectively. A good summary of what I would call “orthodoxy”, without too much bend towards popularity, is this excellent website: Eclectic energies.
My understanding of the Enneagram does not rely much on books. They were the primary source some years ago. Then I went through a few significant changes of mind after observing people. The way I make sense of what I read is by first getting a picture of some important patterns. I try to find the types of people around me. Sometimes it takes a few minutes. But it can be an unsolvable puzzle and take years in some cases.
I had influences from many people. I cannot remember all the steps and changes of mind. When today I read books I am based on, I do not find exactly what I think. In the beginning, I used to discuss with people to consider several possibilities. It was never in a formal context, only with friends, colleagues, and family. People changed my perceptions of the types quite a bit.
I tend to observe physical expressions and behaviour in ordinary conversations: how do (some) 7s bite their nails, anxiously look away, change the topic, when the conversation shifts to something dark or worrying. I have seen the physical rigidity of 1s, not read it in any book.
I do not question the basics of the theory: the circle, centres, wings, and arrows. My perception of the centres is slightly modified but remains close to the usual ones. However, my perception of some types is significantly altered from the authors I am referring to. Here is a summary.
Type 1
I mainly reproduce standard descriptions. I insist on some consequences of resentment: grudges, touchiness, reaction to offenses. Resentment is for me the perfect word for type 1.
Type 2
I mainly reproduce standard descriptions but avoid words such as “accommodating”, “self-denial”, “needing approval” about type 2. They create too much ambiguity with type 9.
Type 3
My description is quite different from standard descriptions. I believe that what the American culture (or more generally the western culture) values about a workaholic mindset, wealth, making money, or perfect appearances have not much to do with type 3. I describe a rather soft version, emphasizing that it is a heart type and an approval seeker. This description also results from filtering out aspects of type 7 often associated to type 3.
Type 4
My description is close to standard descriptions. I avoid talking of connections to arts or aesthetics too much. What is sure is that most artists are not 4s. I insist on melancholy (pensive sadness) and envy. Some more unsettling aspects such as self-hatred, longing (missing, craving for something impossible to get…) are also fundamental to type 4.
I don’t think 4s are externally dramatic. I would say they have a constant inner drama, are emotionally intense, but are not externally dramatic. This applies to all subtypes, not just SP. SP 4 is temperamental more than dramatic. I cannot find the right word for SX 4.
Type 5
Type 5 is a point of major of disagreement: something does not add up. I have seen too many patterns usually attributed to type 5 in other types (mainly 1,9 and 7). I now consider what I read about type 5 with sceptical eyes. I believe descriptions of type 5 are not totally false but I suspect some essential traits are unknown for the moment. I am quite sure the patterns described about type 5 in most books are aspects of introversion or generalities about people with intellectual interests.
Type 6
My understanding of type 6 is very close to a standard one. Except about one thing: type 6 is not more difficult to see than any other type. But it is rare.
I am sceptical of some conceptions about type 6 such as civil servants, activists or heartless rationalists. I think these are too broad to apply to type 6 only. 6 is a natural cop, but real policeman are not 6s. Many patterns some people think falsely associated to 1 and truly to 6 are patterns I believe to be falsely associated to 6 and truly to 1. Typically “heartless rationalist”.
Type 7
I consider most descriptions of type 7 are very good. However, one key feature is missing: authority. I built my description around authority, connecting several known patterns to this central aspect: inferior/superior, trickster, narcissism, promoting one’s interests… Seeing the connection between type 7 and authority happened several years after capturing the more usual aspects. I see my take as a complement to usual descriptions rather than an alternative.
Type 8
I mostly wrote a standard description, insisting on morals and justice. The description has the main consequence to highlight the difference between 8s and 8-like 7s. I put aside the more hedonist aspects of type 8 (“indulging in their strong appetites”). While these tendencies exist, they are a low-level noise for 8s, leading to a long historical confusion with type 7.
Type 9
I agree with most things written about type 9. This type puzzles everyone. Authors have gone quite far in trying to capture the mysterious mindset of 9s, providing a good knowledge. It takes time to find the revealing insights, and time to understand them. This type is the most difficult to get.
The opposite of anything we can think about type 9 tends to be true about type 9. Understanding ideas such as “believer/doubter” or “over non-conformist” requires a lot of thoughts and remains fuzzy. Many 9s are sufficiently open and self-aware to describe the relationship to their type in the most truthful way. All in all, in spite of its puzzling manifestations, this type is the best known.
Enneagram Elements 