An INTJ Reviews the Enneagram

Good news, everyone!

So, I’ve spent a lot of time in the world of MBTI, researching my type of INTJ. As a result, I want to know more about myself and personality typing, just in case MBTI doesn’t cover it all. So, for Christmas I asked for the book The Essential Enneagram by David Daniels, M.D. and Virginia Price, Ph. D. Initially, the Enneagram seemed pretty straightforward, but when I started to dig deeper, I found that the Enneagram differs greatly from MBTI, including its premise for the existence of personality type and the ultimate goal of the system. I found much of the Enneagram highly objectionable, and it didn’t help that I couldn’t accurately type myself. Therefore, I have prepared this blog to illustrate some of my problems with the Enneagram. Just be warned, this blog has a word count of 5,300+. This is going to take a while. Anyway, this is an INTJ reviews the Enneagram.

What is the Enneagram and The Essential Enneagram?

So, let’s begin with the basics: what is the Enneagram? According The Essential Enneagram, it is “a powerful and dynamic personality system that describes nine distinct and fundamentally different patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting” (1), which, is something I call into question later regarding Type 5 (The Observer) and 6 (The Loyal Skeptic). Also, that basic definition doesn’t make the Enneagram sound all that different from the MBTI, but just wait. Anyway, the Enneagram gets its name from the words “ennea”, Greek for nine, and “gram” meaning a figure or something written, hence the nine-pointed star that diagrams the nine personalities.

Regarding the origin of the nine personalities, the book reads:

“Each of the nine patterns is based on an explicit perceptual filter and associated driving emotional energy… These patterns determine what individuals of each personality type pay attention to and how they direct their energy and behavior. Underlying each of the nine patterns is a basic proposition, or belief, about what we need in life for survival and satisfaction.

Each one of us developed one of the nine patterns to protect a specific aspect of the self that felt threatened as our own personality was developing.” (1)

I apologize for the large block quote, but it’s necessary as there are a number of extraordinary claims in this text, and they are layered on top of each other. The basic claim of the Enneagram is that our personalities developed in response to a threat or fear that we identified while developing our personality, and found a means of coping with it. This is very different to the MBTI’s claim of cognitive functions, and it’s a claim I struggle with.

As I said in my intro, I found it difficult to type myself using the Enneagram. I’ll get into more detail further below, however the short version is I originally thought I was a Type 5, but the “Basic Proposition”—the “underlying” basic belief that gave rise to the type—didn’t appeal to me. And in fact, I found the “Basic Proposition” of all the types to be problematic to some extent. But as I said, more on this later.

Anyway, let’s look at the purpose of the book. According to itself, The Essential Enneagram is a “simple and accurate way for individuals to identify their Enneagram personality type” and use it as a “guide for further personal, professional, and spiritual development” (2). This doesn’t sound all that different from why people look into the MBTI, but then in the last paragraph, it says this:

“Please bear in mind that the purpose of the Enneagram and this book is not to label you but to aid you in your journey of self-understanding and self-development. Remember that you are a human being that just happens to have a personality type… By knowing your Enneagram personality, you can become aware of the habits of your personality that limit you, and you can free yourself from those habits.”

I specifically pulled out this quote because I find a couple of things objectionable about it. Firstly, it claims that we are human beings that just happen “to have a personality type” and that the system and book are not designed to label anyone. I find this objectionable because it seems to demonize the idea of having a personality, especially a labeled personality. I don’t understand how having a personality is a bad thing, or how it is that we just happen to have a personality. This differs greatly from the MBTI which claims personalities are the result of our cognitive function stacks, which implies that the MBTI types are a part of our natural cognitive development. And that would mean that our personality types are inherent to each one of us, which would mean there’s nothing directly or overtly offensive about having a personality or being to label one’s own personality. It’s simply a part of your natural identity.

My second objection comes in the last sentence where it says “By knowing your Enneagram personality, you can become aware of the habits of your personality that limit you, and you can free yourself from those habits”. Again, this is something one can do with the MBTI as well, however, when I later dig into the methodology of how the book claims to do this, you will see a huge disparity between the two typologies. To put it simply here, Enneagram is designed to help you transcend your type. This isn’t done by fulfilling your type, but rather through escaping your type. You’ll see what I soon mean by that.

How is the Enneagram Test Administered?

Honestly, it’s not that different from MBTI. The book has you read nine short paragraphs that describe each of the types and then tells you to list your top three choices, and then to flip to the type description pages and see how much of the description jives with you.

Also included on these pages are your personality’s “Connected Types” and “Non-Connected Types”. The Non-Connected Types are merely the “Most Common Look-alike Types” to your type, which is to say the types that bear some sort of resemblance to the type you have chosen. It is even possible that you chose the wrong type and that one of the non-connected, look-alike types is your type. So, for instance, if you think yourself a Type 5, your non-connected, look-alike types are 1 (The Perfectionist) and 9 (The Mediator).

Meanwhile, under the Connected Types, you have two “Wing” types, a “Security” type, and a “Stress” type. The wings are simply the types next to your type on the diagram. If your type is 5, then your wings are 4 and 6. Also, it isn’t unusual for your type to be influenced by one or both of your wings. This is why you sometimes see people identify themselves as a 5w4 or a 5w6. They’re basically denoting their main type and which of their two wings influences them, although I do wonder how someone would denote his type if he thinks himself influenced by both of his wings.

Continuing on to Stress and Security types, this is not as easily understood. I mean, stress type is defined as the type you “shift into when you feel stressed and pressured or when you are mobilizing for action” (14), while your security type is when you “shift toward when you feel relaxed and secure or, paradoxically, when you feel overwhelmed or exhausted”, but knowing what your stress and security types are is no easy matter. The best way of knowing what they are is to use an Enneagram diagram with your security and stress types clearly shown by a couple of arrows. The arrow that points toward your type originates from your security type, and the arrow pointing away from your type is pointing toward your stress type. For example, if you are a Type 5, your security type is 8 (The Protector) and your stress type is 7 (The Epicure). Basically, if you’re a Type 5 who is feeling relaxed or exceptionally overwhelmed, then you may act like a confident, justice-seeking protector who may be prone to intimidation or dominance. But if you’re feeling stressed or getting ready to take action, then you act more like an exuberant pleasure-seeker who can be inconsiderate and self-serving.

Now, I can understand if you are confused, but try to keep all of this in mind as I am trying to make a point here that shall be revealed shortly. But before that, let’s go into the characteristics of Types 5 and 6.

Types 5 and 6

As I said before, I originally thought I was a Type 5, but there are certain aspects of Type 6 that seem to describe me better. Why is that? Well, both types are very similar to my MBTI type of INTJ. So, what are each type’s characteristics?

Looking at Type 5 first, the book first gives myths about each type. Some of the myths about Type 5 are that they are “stingy” and “overly reserved” (37). The book then explains that 5s are not stingy, but rather “unwilling to be sharing of self when they experience too many emotional claims or intrusions”. Some of this definitely sounds like INTJ-like behavior, but I question that claim about emotional claims and intrusions. Anyway, the book continues with adjectives describing each of the types. 5s are described as self-sufficient, knowledgeable, investigative, objective, and thoughtful, but also detached, remote, miserly with feelings, and overly private. Again, that all sounds like a bog-standard INTJ. But wait until you hear about Type 6.

The myths surrounding 6s is that they are exceptionally shy, pessimistic, and untrusting. But then the book explains that 6s “often face hazards and difficulties fearlessly to prove themselves capable” (42), and that they can be trusting as they gain confidence in a person or situation. And some of the adjectives that describe 6s are trustworthy, loyal, responsible, and persevering, but they can also be skeptical, overly vigilant, and sometimes challenging. This also describes INTJs pretty well. And interestingly, there are two descriptors that applies to both 5s and 6s which were inquisitive and analytic, which again, both describe INTJs pretty well.

So, which is it? Am I a 5 or a 6? Well, unfortunately, we have to look a little deeper at the type descriptions. The type descriptions are broken down into four sections: “The Basic Proposition”, “Principal Characteristics”, “Stress, Anger, and Defensiveness”, and “Personal Development”. I’m not going to go into the Principal Characteristics and Stress, Anger, and Defensiveness sections because they both pretty accurately describe INTJs. I also won’t bother with Personal Development because it basically recommends to do the opposite of whatever is in the Basic Proposition section. And besides, the Basic Proposition, as I highlighted above, is at the center of my gripe with the Enneagram. So, what is the “Basic Proposition”?

Remember that the Enneagram says personalities are actually reactions based on a belief that we formed about life, mostly as a defense mechanism to ensure we could live life to what we perceived as its fullest extent. So, each Basic Proposition is broken down into three statements: “The fundamental principle I lost sight of”, “What I came to believe instead”, and “The adaptive strategy I developed as a result of this belief”.

So, beginning in numerical order, Type 5’s missed fundamental principle is “There is an ample supply of all the knowledge and energy everyone needs,” which gave rise to the counter-belief of “The world demands too much from people and/or gives them too little, potentially leaving them depleted,” and that resulted in the adaptive strategy of “I learned to protect myself from intrusive demands and being drained of my resources by becoming private and self-sufficient. I did this by limiting my desires and wants and by accumulating a lot of knowledge. I developed a sense of avarice, but only for things I could not do without” (38).

Now, when I first read the Basic Proposition, it didn’t really register. But the more time I had with the book, especially when reading the personal development strategies, this fundamental principle, counter-belief, and adaptive strategy started to stick out in my mind, and not for good reasons. I came to realize that this Basic Proposition didn’t describe me at all. Sure, I am private and self-sufficient, but it’s not because I’m afraid of losing my “resources”. As a result, I became very critical of the Enneagram because this part couldn’t have gotten me more wrong. At the time, I didn’t question the possibility that I had gotten my type wrong because everything else was spot on. It wasn’t until I started writing this blog that I realized I may have mistyped myself. After all, one of the things the writers tout is the accuracy of this system, having tested its principles on 970 volunteers. So, I gave Type 6 a look.

Again, the Principal Characteristics and Stress, Anger, and Defensiveness were spot on. But what about the Basic Proposition? Well, the forgotten fundamental principle is “We all begin with faith in ourselves, in others, and in the universe,” which gave rise to the counter-belief of “The world is unpredictable and hazardous, hence people often can’t trust one another”, and the created adaptive strategy is actually one of two designed “to seek security and certainty as a substitute for basic trust and to avoid feeling fear”. The first strategy is “Phobic or accommodating stance: While I became doubting, vigilant, and questioning, I also learned to obey authority and to avoid perceived threats and hazards”. The second strategy is “Counterphobic or challenging stance” and begins like the first, but finishes with “I also learned to defy authority and to battle perceived threats and hazards” (42). So, what is the verdict? Am I a Type 6? Well, the Basic Proposition started off sounding good, but I actually use both adaptive strategies in my life. I challenge those things I don’t like or think could be better, and avoid the things that I know I can’t change or don’t care about. So, to be honest, I don’t feel like I could call myself a Type 6. So, what does that mean?

All Types?

Meeting with disappointed results regarding Types 5 and 6, I decided to rifle through all the Basic Propositions of all the types, and guess what I found. Amongst the adaptive strategies, I found beliefs that more accurately echoed my own beliefs in Types 1, 3 (The Performer), 4 (The Romantic), and 8. However, I did not always agree with the forgotten fundamental principle or the counter-belief. Even stranger, I agreed with the counter-beliefs of 7 and 9, although I disagreed with the fundamental principle and adaptive strategies. And I don’t gel with any of the Basic Proposition of Type 2 (The Giver), but, to some extent, I can see INTJ qualities in all nine types. Sometimes this is due to the types not being different enough from each other, i.e. 5 and 6, and other times it’s only one adjective or merely the adaptive strategy. To be perfectly frank, I can actually see some of the Enneagram types reflecting each of the INTJ’s cognitive functions. Type 4 is Ni, 6 is Te, 8 is Fi, and 7 is Se, while Types 1, 3, and 5 all describe the entirety of the “INTJ experience”. And it’s only in a few spots where I can see hints of INTJs in 2 and 9. So, what does this mean that you can see INTJs in all nine types? Well, I have a few theories.

What’s Wrong with the Enneagram?

1. The Enneagram Sucks

I know it’s not sophisticated, but it could very well be true.

Like I said, I can see myself in several of the Enneagram types without trying, and it seems to me that there isn’t enough of a difference between Types 5 and 6 to make them their own types, which flies in the face of the claim that the Enneagram “describes nine distinct and fundamentally different patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting”.

Also, there’s the flaw of the Basic Proposition. The claim of the forgotten fundamental principles is both insulting and brazen. It’s insulting in that it suggests that people are missing a fundamental principle of the world, but mostly it’s brazen because it assumes these fundamental principles are fundamental. In other words, we’re supposed to take them as basic universal truths. But, how does whoever came up with the Enneagram know that the forgotten fundamental principles are universal truths? Further, how positive is that person and proponents of the Enneagram that the counter-beliefs and adaptive strategies are accurate as well? I’ve only had the book for three weeks and I already have major doubts about the most basic claims of the Enneagram, especially to its most basic claim that personality evolves as a reaction to denying the existence of a fundamental principle. The Enneagram sounds like someone is trying very hard to make an argument for the nurturer in the classic debate of nature versus nurturer. Sure, the nurturer does matter, but so does nature. Case in point: one of the INTJs that follows me on Instagram is married to an ENTP and their kid is an ENFP. Now, that kid may become a very Thinking-oriented ENFP due to his upbringing, but he’ll always have qualities and personality quirks that don’t mix with his parents’. Another argument for personality being nature is that the kid is an ENFP—a kid­. I doubt the Enneagram is designed to deal with children due to the fact that children don’t have enough life experience to form beliefs about the world or strategies for dealing with the world.

2. The Essential Enneagram Sucks

Again, not very sophisticated, but it gets the point across.

After posting part of my blog on my IG page, someone commented about a different way to interpret security and stress types, and that’s when I realized that I may have just gotten the wrong book. Maybe the Enneagram works, but the authors of The Essential Enneagram don’t understand it as well as they think. I can’t be completely sure because I only own one source on the Enneagram. I may very well be missing crucial details regarding the Enneagram, and so by only looking at it through one source, I only have one perspective to work through. I may simply need to do more research.

3. The Enneagram is More Dynamic than Initially Thought

When discussing the security and stress types and how they affect the main type, the book reads “Although the existence of connected types influencing your actual personality type tends to complicate the process of identifying your correct type, they also make the Enneagram system of personality a rich and dynamic system” (14). Perhaps this system is more dynamic than initially touted or thought. Like I said, I can see myself in Types 5 and 6, with influences in 4, 7, and 8, and 1 and 3 aren’t that far off either. I’m sure to some Enneagram practitioners that sounds about as rational as when someone claims to be an ambivert to an MBTI practitioner, but the rules to the Enneagram system of typing don’t seem to be as hard and as fast as the rules for typing in MBTI. Some could call this sloppy, but it could also be a form of dynamism. I highly doubt though, because many of the positive qualities of the Enneagram types don’t seem that different from each other, but anything is possible.

4. I’m a More Developed Individual/INTJ than the Average Person

The Essential Enneagram and the Enneagram seem to be both designed for personal development. Remember, on page 2, it is says that the “the purpose of the Enneagram and this book is…to aid you on your journey of self-understanding and self-development”, and that “By knowing your Enneagram personality, you can become aware of the habits of your personality that limit you, and you can free yourself from those habits”. Basically, the Enneagram doesn’t think much of personality typing and wants to free you from it.

With that in mind, it could be possible that because I know the habits that limit my development, and/or because I know of the limitations of being an INTJ and because I pursue development as an INTJ, I may be farther along the path of personal development than the average person who picks up The Essential Enneagram. That’s why I’m able to see myself in so many of the types, because I am no longer bound by the limits of Type 5 or 6. That could even mean that all properly developed MBTI types don’t require the Enneagram as it is of no use to them.

5. No Suitable “Conversion Rate” between MBTI and Enneagram

And this theory basically defeats the last sentence in my last theory.

Anyway, my theory here is that you may not be able to convert MBTI into Enneagram, or vice versa. That would make some sense since MBTI is a bit more complex. It has 16 personalities and the Enneagram only has nine. Further, the 16 personalities spring from eight cognitive functions instead of rejected philosophical “truths”, meaning the two systems are fundamentally different.

What’s more is that I have seen INTJs type as all sorts of things in the Enneagram. There’s a girl whose name I don’t know, but she wrote an article called “The Four Subtypes of INTJ” where she defined four subtypes of INTJ based on varying results from the Enneagram. She said she had only ever seen INTJs typed as 1w2s, 1w9s, 5w4s, and 5w6s. The problem with that is that another INTJ who follows me on IG claims her Enneagram type is 4w3. And to be honest, I can understand every single one being an INTJ. I can even see INTJs typing as 4w5, 6w5, 6w7, and 3w4. And due to this variance in INTJs, that could mean a couple of things. Firstly, it demonstrates that INTJs are indeed not stereotypes and all the same, and secondly, that it’s possible that the Enneagram may be incomplete. It could be possible that the Enneagram is unintentionally designed to recognize the strengths and weakness of INTJs uniquely, and as a result, because there are only nine types, the Enneagram lacks recognition of the strengths and weaknesses for the other MBTI types, which would further prove my point that there is no “conversion rate” between the two typologies.

6. I’m Wrong

Lastly, I could be just plain wrong about the whole system. Like I said, I have only had The Essential Enneagram for three weeks and have had to peruse by myself. When I got into MBTI, I had the help of 16Personalities.com, and I’ve been involved in the community for the past five years. My knowledge and understanding of the MBTI far exceeds my knowledge and understanding of the Enneagram.

Additionally, when the theories and strategies for personal development in this book were being tested, they were tested on 970 volunteers, all of whom worked with a coach and took a 10-week class. Again, I’ve been working by myself and for only three weeks. This gives me a new appreciation for the struggle MBTI newbies go through. The amount of new information can be overwhelming, and due to the way the human mind works, we are biased towards rejecting new and unfamiliar ideas on the basis that they are new and unfamiliar.

It’s possible that with more time and more resources, I may recant some of the scathing things I’ve said in this blog and may finally understand the system. After all, I did once think the cognitive functions were crap. Although, for the time being, I have a bad taste in my mouth regarding the Enneagram, and for more reasons than just what you’ve read here.

Other Parts of the Enneagram Not above Reproach

As I said, there are other reasons why I can’t get behind the Enneagram. In the section regarding personal development, they have several strategies, practices, and principles to keep in mind. Some of these I didn’t disagree with, such as the first two of the three laws of behavior. The three laws of behavior are:

1. Wherever your pattern of attention and energy go, your behavior follows.

2. To change your behavior requires self-observation of your pattern of attention and energy.

3. Although self-observation becomes easier as you practice it, it never becomes habitual. Self-observation requires continuing practice.

As I said, I don’t disagree with the first two because I have observed these in my own life. Whatever I think about, I tend to think about more, resulting in me usually performing an action associated with what I was thinking about. Case in point, you think about a song, it gets stuck in your head, and to exorcise it from your brain, you listen to it. As for the second rule, I agree that you need to be aware of your own actions if you want to change them. However, I disagree with the sentiment that self-observation never becomes habitual. I don’t think the person who wrote these laws has ever met an INTJ.

Another set of principles that I don’t necessarily disagree with are the three survival behaviors. According to the book, “Human evolution requires three basic survival behaviors, referred to in the Enneagram as the instinctual sub-types” (77). They are listed as the self-preservation, social or group, and one-to-one or intimate subtypes. Basically, your attention and energy goes toward issues related to each subtype. For self-preservation, it’s things like safety, comfort, protection, food, and shelter. For social, it’s things related to community and group membership like personal role, social acceptance, status, and fellowship. And finally, for one-to-one, it’s about issues related to intimate relationships, like sexual intimacy, attractiveness, and union. All these make sense to me—I can believe that humans are driven to seek personal security, social security, and intimate security due to our evolved behaviors. However, where we go next, things get a lot weirder.

Like I’ve said before, the Enneagram seems to treat personality development as some sort of mystical experience instead of psychology. This can be seen in the “The Guidelines for Optimal Learning” which include a breathing technique that’s basically meditation and involves allowing oneself to have an “open, receptive, compassionate heart, beginning with yourself” (71). (Again, whoever came up with this has never met an INTJ, or even an ENTJ for that matter.)

Further, the Enneagram postulates three centers of intelligence, heart, head, and body, each one corresponding to three of the Enneagram types. And each center focuses on a need, love, security, or worth, respectively, and corresponds to a negative emotion, distress, fear, or anger, respectively. After that, it gets into “Three Life Forces” that we “all operate from” and are “inherent within us” (76). They are the Active, Receptive, and Reconciling forces. Active force is for taking action, receptive force is for receiving and processing others’ actions, and reconciling force has to balance the two. Here’s my problem with those though: I’m not saying that people aren’t active, don’t receive, and don’t try to reconcile discrepancies in their lives, but all three actions require energy to do, and energy is one and the same no matter the application, so why are there three separate “life forces” rather than three separate “living actions”? Honestly, they sound made up to make the whole Enneagram system sound more mystical than it really is.

And speaking of being mystical, the book then goes into the “Three Levels of Knowing and Learning”. They are:

1. Knowing Based on Your Habit of Mind—Incremental Learning

2. Knowing Based on Conscious Awareness—Reconstructive Learning

3. Direct Knowing—Transformational Learning

“Habit of Mind Knowing—Incremental Learning” is based on your type and is determined by the core beliefs and the attentional style of your type. It happens through the senses and requires little awareness as it happens through your habitual thoughts, feelings, and sensations. “Conscious Awareness Knowing—Reconstructive Learning” requires you to consciously observe your thoughts, feelings, and sensations so you may question and reflect on your usual assumptions and biases generated by your type’s core beliefs, adaptive strategy, and attentional style. And finally, “Direct Knowing—Transformational Learning” harnesses the specific energy of your type and uses it as a transforming agent to transcend your type and requires that you be willing to experience life from a perspective that is not based on a fixed position or identity, enabling you to experience life without the distortion or bias of type. So, what issue do I take with these?

Again, this is more mystical mumbo-jumbo that seems to be aimed at you ultimately denying your personality type and being all types. While MBTI does maintain the position that all types have all cognitive functions, it doesn’t practice the idea of transcending one’s type. This is likely due to the idea that MBTI is rooted in psychology, meaning our types are linked to the way our brains are/have developed, making our personalities inherent to each of us.

Now, if you have the same questions I do, then you’re probably wondering what sort of lunatic came up with all of this. I started wondering that myself and looked it up on Wikipedia. I know it’s a questionable source, but this is what I found.

Generally, the origins and history of the Enneagram are up for debate, but modern theories are principally derived from an Oscar Ichazo, a Bolivian “psycho-spiritual teacher” from the 1950s and a Chilean psychiatrist named Claudio Naranjo from the 1970s. I don’t know about you, but I already have alarms going off in my head at the mention of “psycho-spiritual teacher”. I’m not saying that our psychology can’t affect our spirituality, or vice versa, but I wouldn’t say they’re linked.

Furthermore, in that same Wikipedia article, I found out that Enneagram has been criticized as “pseudoscience”, “subject to interpretation”, and “difficult to test or validate scientifically”. I know that MBTI has gone through the same scrutiny, but I have turned up articles suggesting its legitimacy in support of its cognitive functions. Also, the fact that I’ve had a great deal of trouble discerning my type seems to lend credence to the claim of “subject to interpretation”. But that’s not all.

On Christmas morning, when I unwrapped this book and told my mother what it was about, she said that some Christians think typology is akin to New Age beliefs and the occult. I thought that claim was crazy…when I first heard it. But having read The Essential Enneagram and knowing its origins, I can see why Christians would think that. Further, the Catholic Church (for those who don’t know, I’m a practicing Catholic) has made a couple of statements regarding the Enneagram.

In 2000, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine produced a report saying the Enneagram warranted scrutiny, stating, “While the Enneagram system shares little with traditional Christian doctrine or spirituality, it also shares little with the methods and criteria of modern science… The burden of proof is on proponents of the Enneagram to furnish scientific evidence for their claims”. And then in 2003, the Vatican released a statement saying that when the Enneagram is used as a means of spiritual growth, it “introduces an ambiguity in the doctrine and the life of the Christian faith”. Basically, what the Church said is that there’s no scientific proof for the accuracy of the Enneagram and the burden of proof falls to its practitioners. And furthermore, it shouldn’t be used as a method for spiritual development as it may lead some Christians astray.

So, where does that leave us? And where does that leave me?

Conclusion

Well, besides being the longest and most intellectually intense blog I’ve ever written, things do not bode well for the Enneagram. Due to its questionable history, fundamentals, and philosophy, its confusing application, and the criticism it has received, I cannot back the Enneagram as an actual form of typology. I will admit however that I have spent limited time with the material, but I am an INTJ, and we have a strong bullshit-detector.

Further, I utterly disagree with its philosophy regarding personal development as it pertains to personality type. Do INTJs need personal development? Sure, but we can do so within the confines of our cognitive functions, meaning, while we reach higher levels of our being, we are still able to retain what makes us special and unique—what makes us INTJs. Every MBTI type can.

Furthermore, a number of MBTI types (Intuitives, but especially intuitive thinkers, but especially-especially introverted, intuitive thinkers) are already pretty aware and mindful of who they are, and no amount of introspection has ever resulted in them being anything other than they are. It has only resulted in a fulfillment of who they are, because they are not limited within the confines of their personality. Although, some limitation can occur based on how they perceive their personality. But, ultimately, there is nothing wrong with Intuitives—or any of the MBTI types. We are as the good Lord intended us to be. The goal of typology is not transcendence, but harmony, which can only be achieved through acceptance of our cognitive functions and utilizing them when it is appropriate to do so and within their appropriate roles.

Ergo, Enneagram kinda sucks.

For those of you who are proponents of the Enneagram and think I’ve got it wrong, I would like to hear from you. Please comment down below with reputable sources of where I may go and learn more about the Enneagram and further investigate it.

Thank your for your patronage.

Follow me on Social Media:

FB: https://www.facebook.com/bryanclaesch

IG: https://www.instagram.com/bryanclaesch/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/BryanofAllTrade

Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/bryanclaesch/