A 3 Gets a Life

I know that I blog an unduly large amount about 3s. But they make themselves so darn easy to spot, whether it be on television (see this post), in politics (see this post), or in books (see this post).

My latest round of 3-spotting is in a book called Getting a Life. This text is a follow-up to a book called Your Money or Your Life, which is famous within the voluntary simplicity movement. The basic idea here is that you get rid of all your unecessary stuff, figure out how much you really need to live, and then get your activities back in line with your real values, rather than just chasing more and more money. I am reading this stuff beacuse, as a 5, I find the idea of spending as little money as possible very appealing.

Anyway, Getting a Life was written by Jacqueline Blix and David Heitmiller, a couple who followed the steps prescribed in Your Money or Your Life, and had their lives transformed. There is a section in Getting a Life where Jacqueline and David each answer the question "Who Am I Now?" -- meaning: now that I no longer have a career with which to identify myself, how do I identify myself? This question gets right at the heart of the 3 issue, and Jacqueine's answer is quite telling. Here is some of what she says:

"The issue of identity is one that I've always had trouble with. I've never been sure of who, exactly, I was, or was supposed to be. Early on in life I took cues from the media. I watched television almost every night when I was growing up. We lived close enough to Hollywood to feel its influence and I read Time magazine and the Saturday Evening Post as well as the Los Angeles Times. I began to think of myself through the eyes of these oracles that made the rest of the world real to me. I thought of my life in terms of the accomplishments or behavior that led people to be featured in the pages of a magazine or the front page of a newspaper, not in terms of what I liked to do or how I wanted to spend my life. Because I saw accomplishment from the point of view of a magazine article, my goals were impersonal, and had little to do with me and more to do with what other people might think was good or important. I looked outside myself to answer the question of who I was and what was best for me. Therefore, I believed success or accomplishment had to do with outward acheivements, appearances, and financial rewards, and judged all my efforts by these standards.

As I aspired, as all of us do, to find what is worthwhile in life, I sought answers in a corporate job, in a bigger salary every year, and in material acquisition. I was always trying to make myself into someone who could fit into the world I found myself in -- sales and marketing. I never asked if this world was suited to me, only if I were suited to it. Over and over I heard the message: Get out there and sell yourself and your product, don't take no for an answer, become your client's best friend, be outgoing, aggressive, jump on any and every opportunity, etc., etc., etc. In addition, my job required technical skills and knowledge, another area that I had little interest in and no real aptitude for. I wanted to be a technical consultant because it sounded impressive and, oddly enough, it was so foreign to my essence I wanted it all the more because I didn't trust my own talents or abilities... The problem was I didn't have the makings of a supersalesperson or a technical whiz, but I did want to fit in and keep my job.

This desire to be something in the eyes of the world also drove my academic ambition. If I couldn't be a business tycoon, then maybe I could be a brilliant professor and do important research. This first manifested itself when I began taking MBA classes in 1979, and then appeared full-blown when I went back to school and acquired three more college degrees, ending with a Ph.D. in communications... I was "successful" in all of these endeavors. I was awarded a teaching assistantship, got good grades, published an article in an academic journal, and completed a doctoral degree. What was missing during all of this, however, was a sense that I was doing these things in fulfillment of dreams that I held near and dear, that I was doing the above with a sense of purpose. I had more personal purpose in academic life than I had in business, but, overall, I still couldn't answer the question, 'Who am I?'
During this time I did an exercise in which I thought about what I wanted as an epitaph to my life. I realized that if I were to write about where my current ambitions would lead me, my life would look like this:

Jacque Blix took great vacations, had all good-hair days, wore beautiful clothes, was lean and toned, ate gourmet food, owned exquisite china and crystal, and never missed a sale at Nordstrom. She is sorely missed my the reatailers and credit card companies in the community.

The emptiniess of such a life prompted me to evaluate what I was doing, shedding activities and pursuits that seemed inauthentic along the way. Reading Your Money or Your Life gave a direction to this process. I haven't yet come up with some grand purpose for my life, althouh I have eliminated many aspects of my life that don't fit. (The idea of having a 'career,' dressing for success, pampered traveling, dining in trendy restaurants, and earning the income necessary to support these have all fallen by the wayside.) Even though I haven't discovered exactly what I am supposed to be doing in life, I seem to be having more 'success' just being myself. I have uncovered an interest and devotion to making my own life more simple and meaningful. In the process I have made new friends, achieved more piece of mind than I've ever had before, become more creative, and enjoyed everyday life more than I thought possible.The final irony is that in becoming more true to myself I have turned up in the pages of a national magazine and now have the opportunity to write a book, another long-held dream. I take this turn of events to prove what philosophers have been saying over the centuries about 'going with the flow' and 'not pushing the river.' As long as I was trying to be someone else, life was difficult. As soon as I let go and accepted myself, my life began to unfold in unexpected ways." (Emphases mine.)

As you can see, there are 3-ish themes throughout Jacqueline's story. First, there is the central quest for self-identity, and the common type 3 mistake of looking outside oneself, to oters and even to television and movies, to find it. This leads to image-consciousness, workaholism, and careerism. Jacqueline, like many 3s, abandoned her own true interests to pursue the goals that she thought would impress others. Emptiness and inauathenticity were the results.

In their book Personality Types, Don Riso and Russ Hudson describe personality type 3 thusly:

The personality type Three exemplifies the search for the validation of the self, and so Threes look to esteemed others to determine who they must be, what they must do, in order to feel valuable and worthwhile as human beings. With this particular focus, Threes frequently become successful in the eyes of their society because they make it their business to acheive those things which their peers find valuable... Threes stand to gain the most attention and success from the society, but also end up among its greatest victims -- estranged from their own heart's desire, empty, and emotionally isolated, while never knowing what has gone wrong."

Bravo to Jacqueline for having the self-awareness and the courage to reverse this pattern and make a better life for herself! May we all take a lesson from her.

As for Jacqueline's husband David, I think he is probably a 9. More about that in a later post.

Jesus is my Enneagram Teacher

Note: This was originally published on 12/1/07.
A simple comparison of The Enneagram Institute's "Chart 1 -- Personality Elements" (downloadable, for free, here) and Matthew 5:45-48 and 6:1-34 yields this rather pointed advice from Jesus:
To the perfectionistic, judging, in search of integrity, "I am right", identified with the superego - type: '[your Father in heaven] makes his sun rise on the evil and the on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous... be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
To the proud, well-intentioned, "I have no needs", getting his/her sense of value from other people's reactions - type: "Beware of practicing your piety before other in order to be seen by them... whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and the streets, so that they may be praised by others."
To the vain type who wants to be effective and who bases his or her value on performance and image: "Whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and the street corners, so that they may be seen by others... do not heap up empty words as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words."
To the melancholy type who doesn't "fit in": "Whenever you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces so as to show others that they are fasting... put oil on your head and wash your face so that your fasting may not be seen by others."
To the stingy, avaricious type who thinks he or she can understand by "witnessing" -- "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth... if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is unhealthy, your body will be full of darkness... You cannot serve God and wealth."
To the worrying type who fears being without support: "Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, what you will wear... Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them."
To the gluttonous, fixed on anticipated and planning - type who loses immediacy due to focusing on the future and thinks "if others gave me what I wanted, I'd be happier": "Do not [say] 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear?'... your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But strive first for the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own."
Jesus seems to have left out types 8 and 9, but Riso and Hudson did not.

What Is It About 3-ism?

Note: This was originally published on 1/9/08.
On Sunday, The New York Times ran an article by Noah Feldman entitled "What Is It About Mormonism?" (Shockingly), the article is not about the Enneagram per se, but it does end up making a lot of sense to those of us who look at the world from an Enneagrammic perspective.
The article focuses on Mitt Romney and the possible difficulties his Mormonism will cause him in attempting to secure the Republican nomination for President of the United States. In doing so, the article summarizes quite a bit of Mormon history.
My commentary on the article will focus on the tripartite 3-ish-ness of Mitt Romney (commented on as a 3 here and here), Mormon culture, and American political culture. In doing so, I will summarize many of the main points of the article, but you might want to read the whole thing.
According to the article, the Mormon image is pro-business and socially conservative, in line with everything Republicans profess to like. However, a large chunk of Republican voters say they will not support a Mormon candidate for President. The basic problem is two-fold: a matter of evangelical Christians perceiving Mormonism as non-Christian or at least heretical, and a matter of bigotry.
According to Feldman, this lingering bigotry is fueled by "the disconcerting split between [Mormonism]'s public and private faces." Check out this icon of Type 3, created by the Enneagram Institute:

Feldman goes on to explain: "The church's most inviting public symbols [The Enneagram Institute's "Overview of Type 3" describes 3s as "image-oriented, emphasizing style over substance, symbols over reality"] -- pairs of clean-cut missionaries in well-pressed white shirts -- evoke the wholesome success of an all-American denomination with an idealistic commitment to clean living. Yet at the same time, secret, sacred temple rites and garments call to mind the church's murky past... Mormonism, it seems, is extreme in both respects: in its exaggerated normalcy and its exaggerated oddity." To me, it is the exaggerated normalcy that resonates so strongly with type 3.

In order to maintain an appropriate, electable image, Romney will find ways to emphasize the normalcy of his faith without evoking its oddness. Like a good 3 and a good politician, he must spin the facts. More from EI's type 3 overview: "Politics is becoming less concerned with principles or the use of power for the common good than with the display of personalities. Politics serves public relations, selling candidates with their calculated positions to a public which can no longer tell a fabricated image from a real person."

The largest public statement Romney has made about his faith has consisted of: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind." Here's Feldman's take on it: "Romney presumably calculated that speaking about Jesus Christ in terms that sound consistent with ordinary American Protestantism would reassure voters that there was in the end nothing especially unusual about Mormonism." (Why, Mitt Romney! How "pragmatic and calculating"! See Personality Types, page 99.)

Another example of the Romney spin on religion, from Feldman: "Romney has felt the need to minimize the centrality of Mormon scripture by saying he reads the Gideon Bible when he is alone in his hotel room on the campaign trail.

The formulation may be seen as a clever hedge: to the ordinary Protestant listener, it sounds as if Romney is saying that he reads the same Bible they do. To the Mormon insider, however, Romney is simply saying that when he travels to the hotel and finds himself, presumably, without a handy copy of the Book of Mormon, he reads the text of the Bible that can be found in the drawer beside the bed...

This is a perfect example of esoteric public speaking: the attempt to convey multiple messages to different audiences through the careful use of words. Something similar is perhaps contained in Romney's outspoken admiration for Rick Warren, the megachurch pastor and best-selling author. To the general audience, the message is the embrace of an evangelical who is as mainstream as it gets. To a Mormon audience, however, the praise is presumably intended at most as a suggestion that it is possible to learn from the remarkable organizational and evangelizing effects of a well-known public figure."

There are aspects of Mormon identity which can help Romney win the nomination. According to Feldman, "In the elite East Coast worlds where Romney has made his career, Mormanism signifies [among other things] professional competence... [and] the systematic overrepresentation of Mormons among top businesspeople and lawyers affords LDS affiliation a certain cache..." In Enneagram literature, type 3 is the type most associated with professional competence.

Still, there is a difference between respecting Mormon individuals or Mormon culture, and respecting Mormon religion. Many Americans believe that Mormonism is a false religion, and that the Book of Mormon lacks authenticity, and they would have a hard time voting for a Mormon President. This attitude is, according to Feldman, "a complicated outgrowth of the tortured history of the faith's relationship to mainstream American political life over the [last] two centuries..."

Mormonism is a secretive religion; the details of its theology and its rituals are kept from outsiders. (In her book Leaving the Saints, type 3 exemplar and ex-Mormon Martha Beck describes her Mormon temple wedding -- and how she was sworn to secrecy about its particulars. For more info on Beck, see the second half of this post.) Feldman attributes this secrecy to two sources -- internal theology and external persecution.

On the theological front, Mormon founder Joseph Smith claimed to receive revelations that were to be shared with only a few people. The doctrine of plural marriage (no longer practiced by mainstream Mormons) is probably the most famous of these secret revelations, and Smith kept it to himself until after his death. Another revelation, which Smith shared in one of his last communications before his death, resonates strongly with Enneagram type 3.

Quoth Smith: "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man..."The natural outgrowth of this idea is the Mormon tenet of the perfectibility of mankind into divine form. This is close to the 3's goal of becoming "a human ideal, embodying widely admired qualities." (Understanding the Enneagram, page 80.)

Alas, Smith, according to Feldman, "was denounced as a charlatan, an impostor, or worse." Calling someone a "charlatan" or an "impostor" is a pretty specific insult, and it fits with type 3's association with the sin of deceit. Certainly, the allegation that Smith wrote the Book of Mormon himself, rather than discovered it when its location was revealed by an angel, comes up over and over. (Two interesting articles on the Book of Mormon, one pro-angelic revelation and one con, are here and here.)

As Mormonism grew under Smith's leadership, Mormon communities in Missouri and Illinois began to be violently persecuted by their neighbors. Smith himself was gunned down by a mob. Smith's successor Brigham Young led the Mormons to Utah, where things were safer. For a while, Mormons openly practiced plural marriage. However, the practice was soon outlawed by the federal government.

One might characterize the Mormon reaction as "deceitful." They said one thing (In 1890, the president of the church advised Mormons not to enter into unlawful marriages), but did another (plural marriage continued in Mormon communities in Utah and elsewhere.)

Feldman writes, "This period of resisting persecution by living outside the law taught Mormons that secrecy can be a necessary tool for survival. As one apostle (there are 12 who guide the church) later put it in a speech recounted by the historian Kathleen Flake, 'I am not dishonest and not a liar... [but] we have always been taught that when the brethren were in a tight place that it would not be amiss to lie to help them out.'"

Feldman recounts another moment of deception in Mormon history. In 1903, the people of Utah elected Mormon apostle Reed Smoot to the House of Representatives. Since many believed that his association with the Mormon church disqualified him to take office, a series of hearings were held on the Senate floor. Then-president of the church Joseph F. Smith (a nephew of the original Joseph Smith) testified and, according to Feldman, "sought somewhat unsuccessfully to conceal both the continuing practice of plural marriage and his own status as seer and revelator."

Soon after, at Smith's urging, Mormons really did stop practicing plural marriage and Smoot took his seat in Congress.

Thereafter, Mormons sought to appear more politically and theologically mainstream. According to Feldman, "The Mormon path to normalization over the course of the 20th century depended heavily on this avoidance of public discussion of its religious tenets... the less said the better about the particular teachings of the church..." Feldman continues, "Another part of the Mormon assimilationist strategy was to participate actively in politics at the state and national levels. The condition for political success was that nobody asked about the precise content of Mormon religious beliefs and the Mormons themselves made no particular effort to tell."

My concern is that, by de-emphasizing the particulars of their faith, Mormon culture has fallen into a type 3 trap. Consider this quote from page 154 of The Wisdom of the Enneagram: "In the headlong rush to achieve whatever they believe will make them more valuable, Threes can become so alienated from themselves that they no longer know what they truly want or what their real feelings and interests are... as Threes learn to pursue the values that others reward, they gradually lose touch with themselves. Step by step, their own inner core... is left behind until they no longer recognize it."

However, this strategy has won Mormon individuals more and more success in politics and business. Over time, writes Feldman, "Mormons began to succeed in national business and came to be seen as exemplars of the patriotic American ethos." Enter Mitt Romney, Mormon Presidential candidate. Writes Feldman, "Precisely because Romney is so accomplished, so telegenic, in short such an impressive candidate, it may be a slap in Mormons' faces if he finds that he cannot garner the support of conservative values voters... Even if the charge against Romney were that he failed because he was a dissimulating phony, that would hardly be an improvement for the church, given the similarity of that charge with the historical bias against Mormon secrecy."

Although truly miraculous events would have to occur before I would give Romney my vote (I will be voting in the Democratic primary and almost certainly for the Democratic nominee), my personal hope for him is that he keeps (or recovers) a strong connection to his inner core. The culture of his faith tradition, the atmosphere of American politics, and his own psychological predispositions will likely make it difficult.

Romney just came in second in the New Hampshire Republican primary. He congratulated John McCain, who "outcompeted" him and repeatedly compared the situation to getting a "silver medal" when you'd rather have the gold.

Perhaps he could take a page from Hillary Clinton's book. After unexpectedly winning the Democratic primary in New Hampshire (after tearing up in public and reportedly "finding her voice"), she said that the Presidential campaign is not a game; it's about people.

Authenticity can go a long way with the right crowd.

Remember Brad?

Hey, do guys remember Brad Spencer? He's the nice guy who writes the Enneagram Book web site. Back in January, he wrote a post for this blog about Obama's Enneagram type. (Check it out here.) He thought Obama was a 3, and I have been leaning in that direction as well, but in January, most of y'all claimed Obama was a 9. Does everyone still feel that way?
Is Obama more like this:

Enneagram Type Three

Or this:

Enneagram Type Nine

?

These badges, by the way, were created by Brad and you are welcome to add the badge representing your type to your blog or web page. (I have added the badges for my type and Mary Beth's type to the sidebar of this blog.)
Go to www.enneagrambook.com/badges/ for the html code.

A Pair of 3s?

Way back when, Mary Beth typed politician John Edwards as a 3. Today's New York Times seems to corroborate. It contains an opinion piece by Gail Collins titled "Ken Doll in Lust" and is basically saying that after hearing about other politicians' sex scandals, Edwards should have used that knowledge to handle his own better. Despite the word "lust" in the title, the article is actually about deception, and contains plenty of evidence supporting the 3 theory.
Here it is, if you want to read it in its entirety:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/opinion/09collins.html.

Here's the first statement in the article that makes me think 3:

"As to why he did it, Edwards blamed 'an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe that you can do whatever you want.' ” This is apt, as type 3 is the type most associated with narcissism. Quoth Riso and Hudson's Personality Types: "Average Threes are the most narcissistic of the personality tpes.... Narcissists care principally about themselves -- and about other only to the degree that they reflect well upon themselves. They remain intensely self-centered, with a limited ability to empathize with anyone else's feelings or needs. That is why they have little capacity for love and why -- once they have become narcissistic -- average Threes have little capacity to form lasting, mutually satisfying relationships. Relationships are one-sided because both parties are in love with the same person -- the Three."

And then this, from the NYT piece:

"His 2 a.m. visit with the woman, Rielle Hunter, at a Beverly Hills hotel last month was a secret mission to keep her from going public about their liaison, the briefness and meaninglessness of which cannot be stressed too often. " (emphasis mine) I find this statement interesting because it indicates that the affair itself was a lie, since I suspect Edwards gave Hunter the impression that their relationship was, in fact, meaningful. Edwards seems to be defending himself by saying "I wasn't really lying to you -- public wife, etc. -- all that much; I was actually lying to her -- big time!"
Continuing with the article, "Edwards met Hunter in a bar in New York in 2006, and paid her $114,000 to follow him around, documenting his every move for campaign videos." How could a 3 reasonably be expected not to fall in love with a person employed to take pictures of him? And then, in the same paragraph:

"Said videos were posted, then mysteriously disappeared from the Edwards Web site, with officials muttering something about campaign finance rules." This might be a little dishonest.
As for the videos, "They exist today on YouTube, where you can see the candidate sitting on his plane, grinning like a hound dog in heat, while he tells Hunter that he doesn’t want to be 'some plastic Ken doll that you put in front of the audience,' and pokes himself in the chest while announcing, 'I actually want the country to see who I am — who I truly am.' " This just about speaks for itself, doesn't it?

From Personality Types:

"Because Threes adapt themselves to the desires and expectations of others to validate themselves, they can lose a clear sense of who they actually are... because their sense of their authentic self becomes increasingly blocked, average Threes begin to engage in internal 'pep talks' to convince themselves that they actually are the outstanding person they are trying to become."

Back to the NYT article:

"If Edwards’s political career is toast, it will be because he has always seemed to be less than a sum of his parts: the position papers, the 'Two Americas,' the photogenic grin, the supersmart wife. The only piece of the package that consistently disappointed was the man himself. He wasn’t a very good running mate for John Kerry, and as a presidential candidate, he always struck me as being about 2 inches deep."

Personality Types on how Threes can appear to others:

"Fear of rejection causes average Threes to abandon themselves as they search for the 'right combination' of factors which they believe will enhance them and make them more acceptable... there is an element of slickness, an emotional hollowness about average Threes because much of what they say and do is not a true reflection of who they actually are. 'Who they are' is becoming ever more difficult to identify, both for others and for themselves."

And a final word from Collins:

"how much less damage would have been done if the offender had taken the inventive tactic of not lying."

And now, lest you think we don't know our audience and realize that what you really want is to know Barrack Obama's Enneagram type, I am ready to do some public speculating. Obama is something of an enigma. Mary Beth and I wonder whether he is a 3 or a 9. We also occasionally wonder whether he is a 1 or a 5. We feel that types 2, 4, 6, and 8 are right out.
Continuing with the tactic of using op-ed pieces from The New York Times, here's one by David Brooks about Obama:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/opinion/05brooks.html

While you can find plenty here that will support the 9 theory or the 5 theory, here's the stuff that seems like 3 to me:

"He became a state legislator, but he was in the Legislature, not of it. He had some accomplishments, but as Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker wrote, he was famously bored by the institution and used it as a stepping stone to higher things." (emphasis mine)

And this:

"He has not had the time nor the inclination to throw himself into Senate mores, or really get to know more than a handful of his colleagues. His Democratic supporters there speak of him fondly, but vaguely."
3s are famous for not having long-lasting relationships, despite their apparent popularity.

And, finally, this:
"Obama’s 'Dreams From My Father' is a journey forward, about a man who took the disparate parts of his past and constructed an identity of his own."
Identity formation is an issue of the heart triad.

Here's my question:

If 3s are shape-shifters who lose their identities trying to give people what they want; 9s are ghosts who merge with others' agendas trying to avoid conflict; and 5s are blanks screens reflecting others' desires, trying to not be seen, what is Obama? Anyone have a theory?

I will go on the record now as saying I think John McCain is a 6 -- counterphobic, 5 wing.

A Fairly Clear History of the Modern Enneagram

Continuing with the IEA conference, Mary Beth and I next attended a session called Historical Evolution of Enneagram Theory. This was probably my favorite session of the conference. The speaker was Patrick O'Leary. Here is part of his bio:
"Patrick H. O'Leary, M.S., M.Div., co-authored the first Enneagram text, The Enneagram: A Journey of Self-Discovery, in 1984... O'Leary integrated his studies in environmental biology, physiology, psychology, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), individual counseling, spiritual direction and organizational development into his understanding of the Enneagram. He began offering various seminars on the Enneagram in 1972."
O'Leary is both a scientist and a theologian (he is a 3 and as is typical, seems to have changed course many times throughout his life, but in this seminar, he was emphasizing his scientific point of view.) As such, he attempted to trace the history of the development of the modern Enneagram using evolution as a metaphor. (i.e., ideas were passed from person to person in a "genealogy" and "tested by the environment" via lawsuits, etc.) I tried to follow the main thread of this "genealogy", but at times, O'Leary sketched out some interesting offshoots that "became extinct." I will not discuss those here, as my goal in recounting his presentation is to clarify the events leading up to the Enneagram materials and schools that are available now.
O'Leary was an interesting speaker in that he could provide a first-hand account of events that I have only read about. He noted that he had met all of the key figures (other than Gurdjieff and Ouspensky) in the development of the modern Enneagram. Here is the history, as O'Leary recounted it:
The first important figure was G.I. Gurdjieff, a mystic who gathered ancient wisdom. Gurdjieff had the Enneagram symbol, but was concerned primarily with cosmology (an attempt to explain all things), not psychology. Although he did develop "the work" -- a system of spiritual transformation, he never applied the Enneagram symbol to psychology. We only know about Gurdjieff second-hand, primarily through P. D. Ouspensky.
According to O'Leary, Oscar Ichazo learned about the Enneagram from a Gurdjieff group. (This point was disputed by an individual in the seminar; I will write more about this issue later.) Ichazo then took a group of disciples to Arica, Chile. An American group of 60 people (known as "Chile Peppers") also came to study. The Arica Institute, which still exists, was formed in Chile. It was Ichazo who first connected the Enneagram to psychology. He added the fixation/ passions and virtues to the diagram.
One of those who studied with Ichazo was Claudio Naranjo. Naranjo is a psychiatrist and he connected the Enneagram to modern psychological understanding. Interestingly, it was he who added the arrows connecting points 3, 6, and 9 on the Enneagram diagram. These arrows were not present in any earlier version of the diagram and ran in the opposite direction of the ones we see now (indicating the directions of integration and disintegration for the primary types). When asked about the arrows later, Naranjo said they were "a doodle."
Naranjo left the Arica study group before the teaching was complete and went to Esalen in California. He began teaching in the San Francisco Bay area and Helen Palmer learned from him. Naranjo was using panels of exemplars of the types, which Palmer observed. Today, she is the primary practitioner of this method of teaching.
Robert Ochs, a Loyola University professor, also studied with Naranjo. In 1971, Ochs taught a graduate class on Religious Experience. Patrick O'Leary and Jerome Wagner were students in that class. As student questions along the lines of "Who am I?" and "Why do I have problems relating to others?" began to emerge, Ochs began to talk about personality types 1 - 9. The material was compelling. Religious Experience II became a course in the Enneagram.
O'Leary described a great excitement about the Enneagram among these students. Much like myself and Mary Beth, they had hundreds of acquaintances in common, and thus, hundreds of exemplars of the types to study and discuss.
O'Leary noted that Ochs did not want the information about the Enneagram to be disseminated casually. However, he did decide to open the teaching up beyond the Loyola campus by offering a class over spring break in 1972. A group of Jesuits from Milford, Ohio attended. This group included Richard Rohr (author of The Enneagram: A Christian Perspective and Experiencing the Enneagram) and Maria Beesing. Another group of Jesuits, these from Toronto, were also in attendance. Don Riso learned about the Enneagram from them. Later, Riso would found The Enneagram Institute and bring in Russ Hudson as a co-teacher.
(Note: See the comment thread concerning the accuracy of the previous paragraph.)
From studying with Ochs, O'Leary had produced a series of handwritten notes. He was also doing some counseling and using the Enneagram types in role play with clients who then asked about how he came to his understanding of personality. O'Leary's notes began to be photocopied. Some of the people who got ahold of them were missionaries, and in this way, knowledge of the Enneagram spread around the world.
Eventually, O'Leary joined with Maria Beesing and began teaching a series of workshops. Robert Novosek was a student who took detailed notes. Together, the three of them wrote the book The Enneagram: A Journey of Self Discovery. (Here, we have the 3 - 6- 9 arrows in their current form.) Published in 1984, this book was the first to bring the Enneagram to the public at large. (I will have much more to say about the surprising history of this book in a later post.)
In 1988, the Arica Institute sued for copyright infringement. In 1990, the suit was dismissed with prejudice and the writers were ordered to acknowledge Ichazo's contribution.
Riso and Hudson published their book Personality Types in 1987. Palmer followed with The Enneagram in 1988.
Today, we have three major schools of Enneagram thought in the United States: (1) Helen Palmer teaching with psychiatrist David Daniels on the West Coast, (2) O'Leary and Beesing in the Mid-West, and (3) Riso and Hudson on the East Coast.
At first, these authors. teachers did not communicate much with one another. However, this changed in 1994, when Palmer invited them all to attend an Enneagram conference in Stanford. 1500 people met there. The IEA was founded shortly thereafter, in 1995.
O'Leary went on to talk about "mutations" to Enneagram theory that are still needed. In particular, he talked about the need for more intuitive ways to self-discover type. With this, I heartily agree.

In Praise of Hypocrisy in Politics

David Runciman questions our habit of looking at political candidates for signs of sincerity or hypocrisy here. He argues that the ability to craft a political mask that can carry one through various situations is a sign of political skill rather than a weakness. He also contrasts hypocrisy with bull-headedness (which seems something of a false comparison to me, at least when he allies "hypocrisy" with the ability to question one's personal convictions.) He has a book coming out later this spring on political masks in history.

That's What HE Said

Yesterday, I speculated that when Bill Clinton spoke at Nashville's Fisk University, he would likely talk about civil rights or race relations, as well as why his wife should be the next President.

Clinton very briefly acknowledged MLK day and that Fisk had played host to Martin Luther King back in the day, and then segued into stumping for Hillary. He said she should be the next President because she has the right vision and the right plan, and he made a pretty convincing case for it.

Promises made by Bill, on behalf of Hillary, for the citizens: truly affordable health care for everyone, job creation in the area of developing sustainable energy, taking global warming seriously, getting off of foreign oil, cheap electric cars, home mortgage interest rates staying the same for 5 years, a 90 day freeze on foreclosures, restoration of the Pell grant to its maximum level, withdrawal of troops from Iraq as soon as it's safe and possible.

Also, apparently, they like Hillary overseas and she has successfully worked with Republicans to pass bills in the Senate. She has been a real force for positive change in people's lives.

So basically, that's what he said.

The 3-ish thing he did was slip up a little and talk a lot about what "me" and "we" was gonna do, rather than what she was gonna do. It was in the air, though. One person in the crowd asked a question that started with, "If we elect you... um, Hillary..."

He also, apparently, did this 9-ish thing before arriving in Nashville. And yes, if you were wondering, he did seem well rested.

Politics Round-Up

We did not start this blog to talk about politics nor are either of us political junkies, but I am finding this year's race much more interesting than usual. Also, the two most common search hits this blog gets are What is Obama's Enneagram (or MBTI) type? and What types are compatible?

Here is a collection of articles and observations relating politics and the enneagram that I've collected over the past week.

Here is David Brooks on How Voters Think, which is about the tail wagging the dog (in this case, that we make emotional judgments then come up with rational reasons afterwards.) The article speaks to why personality is one of the big things we are looking for when we consider the candidates.

IF you live in or near Nashville, and IF you want to see Bill Clinton, he's speaking tomorrow night (Monday, Jan. 21) at Fisk University at 6:15. Call this number: (615) 254-2200. I'd call it now because I imagine it will fill up. You have to RSVP with your name. There's a web link to sign up, also, although when I tried it wasn't working yet. Here it is: www.HillaryClinton.com/Nashville.

On the subject of Hillary Clinton, I saw a clip of her appearance on the Tyra Banks Show that highlighted her 1-ishness. Tyra (I'd say 3w2), on the subject of Hillary's role in the Lewinsky situation, asked "Were you embarassed? I would be embarassed." And Hillary said "Well, sure, all of that, but also, I was, I was praying so hard, and thinking so hard, about what was right to do." (This is one-ish because she's saying her primary reaction to the situation was a consideration of what was right.) Tyra asked her whether women who find their husbands are cheating ask H. Clinton for advice, and Hillary said, yes, all the time, and she tells them they have to do what is right for them. Which is a very healthy answer for a 1 (shows the focus on rightness without even a hint of black and white thinking or rigidity.)

In our very first blog post, Cindi predicted we'd rehash the Lewinsky scandal; it's only taken two months for the prediction to come true (ok, it's not a rehash per se.)

Which brings us to Bill Clinton. As you may know, while Riso and Hudson type him as a 3, others (Tom Condon, the Fauvres) consider him a 9. This article about his anger issues suggests 3. (The article discusses a Vesuvius of anger, and although the 9s anger is like lava underneath because it's so repressed and denied AND dissociated from, I haven't seen the 9s letting their anger out like a volcano, and I certainly have never known of a 9 who drove someone else to have to take antidepressants, which this article says happened with George Stephanopoulos as a reaction to Bill Clinton's anger.)

Mitt Romney's anger was also mentioned this week -- there is a clip of him expressing some anger towards a reporter who challenged Romney's rather legalistic (but correct) definition of whether any lobbyists "ran his campaign." There's been a lot of talking and writing about Romney's seeming fake -- he's not where most of the rest of us are on this continuum. Here's one from a guy who knows Romney personally and doesn't consider him fake; here's one speculating on what ABOUT Romney seems fake -- he suggests it might be, of all things, his hair. Nancy Giles wins the "not mincing words award" for just coming out with it and saying Romney seems like a sociopath. After calling Huckabee "freaky" (for trying to combine the Constitution and the Ten Commandments into the "Constimandments") and McCain "long in the tooth" and "frail," she is asked "Nancy, you admit that Mitt Romney looks pretty good right?" She responds "He does but I worry about him in deep ways; I almost think he's a sociopath; he flips with the wind. The only thing steady about Mitt Romney to me has been his faith; he believes in his faith but he's switched up on all his positions and staring people right in the face... I don't trust him farther than I can throw him." (I think she meant psychopath, at least in the way I usually think of it -- I think of psychopath as the very unhealthy 3, the American Psycho or Tom Ripley or Ted Bundy type, a really good faker, and the sociopath as more of the unhealthy 8, the antisocial type. These categories are confusing, not least because I don't think either of them is in the DSM-IV. Here is a discussion of the difference; good luck. I believe this is what qualifies as a "clear" discussion of the difference. That said, I don't think he's a psychopath, of course, and neither, really does Nancy Giles, I don't think. But I see what she means and I think most people do. Part of his problem is I think he's running on a message that he doesn't entirely believe. I don't think a person can be a popular governor of Massachusetts AND truly be conservative enough to win the Republican nomination. Or, maybe this year he could have, but too late, because he's already set his course.)

Still on politics but not about the candidates: Chris Matthews of Hardball. I've always loved him. He's a good example of a 6: the questioner or the devil's advocate. He loves asking questions and getting to the truth; and specifically, loves poking through any BS.

Also, and this is completely off-topic, but Ron Paul came in second in Nevada: completely unexpected, and yet it's getting no media attention that I can see.

What's Your Greatest Weakness?

I'm happy to report that last night's debate went to suit me. Both Clinton and Obama seemed like great choices (and Edwards seemed pretty sharp some of the time, too.) They all stood together, were very collegial, and denied that there was any conflict between them about race. Read about it here and here.

I did see some evidence of enneagram type. For one thing, Obama may or may not be a 9, but he's clearly running on a 9 platform: bringing people together. Here's a quote:

"And what we really should be focusing on is, you know, who's got a vision for how we're going to move the country forward? And I believe that right now, the only way we're going to move the country forward is if we can bring the country together, not just Democrats but independents, Republicans who have also lost trust in government, and we are able to push aside the special interests and the lobbyists, and we are truthful to the American people and enlisting them in changing how our health care system works, how our economy works, what our tax code looks like. "

The most revealing point in the debate, Enneagram-wise, was when the three candidates were asked about their greatest strengths and weakness. Obama's strength sounds like a 9's strength, and echoes the quote above. He said: "My greatest strength, I think, is the ability to bring people together from different perspectives, to get them to recognize what they have in common and to move people in a different direction." This sounds like the peacemaker. In response to this, Clinton suggested that as a management model, setting a vision and bringing people together reminded her of George W. Bush's model, and she suggested she would be a more hands-on manager. Obama did my favorite thing, which is to not get defensive but to calmly say that that's not the issue: in this case, that George W.'s problem wasn't managerial efficiency, it was an inability to listen to differing perspectives:

"But I think that there -- there's something, if we're going to evaluate George Bush and his failures as president, that I think are much more important. He was very efficient. He was on time all the time and, you know, had -- (laughter) -- you know, I -- I'm sure he never lost a paper. I'm sure he knows where it is. (Laughter.) What -- what -- what he -- what he could not do -- what he could not do is to listen to perspectives that didn't agree with his ideological predispositions. What he could not do is to bring in different people with different perspectives and get them to work together."

So Clinton and Obama look at George W.'s management style, the 1 sees lack of a 1 strength, holding people accountable, and Obama, possible 9, sees lack of a 9 strength: the ability to listen to various perspectives.

What's even more revealing of enneagram type than people's strengths? Their weaknesses. Let's start with John Edwards. Edwards relied on the old interview stand-by, using what is actually a strength as your answer for greatest weakness. C'mon, Senator Edwards, even Michael Scott knows this trick.

"I think weakness -- I sometimes have a very powerful emotional response to pain that I see around me. When I see a man like Donnie Ingram, who I met a few months ago in South Carolina, who worked with for 33 years in the mill, reminded me very much of the kind of people that I grew up with, who's about to lose his job, has no idea where he's going to go, what he's going to do -- I mean, his dignity and self-respect is at issue, and I feel that in a really personal way and in a very emotional way. And I think sometimes that can undermine what you need to do."

So his greatest weakness is he's compassionate? Maybe if he'd said "I'm a weepy pansy-boy" I could have bought it as a weakness, or if he'd explained how empathy for others had gotten in the way of getting things done, but as presented, I can't see how this is a weakness.

Hillary, to her credit, gave a weakness that was really a weakness, and a 1-ish weakness at that: impatience and frustration. Here is the quote:

"I get impatient. I get, you know, really frustrated when people don't seem to understand that we can do so much more to help each other, and sometimes I come across that way. I admit that. I get very concerned about, you know, pushing further and faster than perhaps people are ready to go."

Hillary is a 1w2, and you can hear the 2-ish theme here as well. Impatience and frustration with other people not trying hard enough (very 1-ish), and not going far enough to help people (2.) Her strength was 2ish as well: she talked about her desire to help Americans, especially children, and her track record of doing so.

Now for Obama's weakness: He can't keep up with paperwork:

"And as I indicated before, my greatest weakness, I think, is when it comes to -- I'll give you a very good example. I ask my staff never to hand me paper until two seconds before I need it, because I will lose it. (Laughter.) You know. The -- you know. And my desk in my office doesn't look good. I've got to have somebody around me who is keeping track of that stuff. And that's not trivial. I need to have good people in place who can make sure that systems run. That's what I've always done. And that's why we've run not only a good campaign but a good U.S. Senate office. "

Now this quote doesn't prove he's a 9; it might indicate he's a Myers-Briggs N and maybe a P or at least not a strong J. But I find it to be something a 9 is more likely to say than a competence type (1, 3, or 5), for instance. I don't see a 3 as likely to be comfortable saying he can't keep track of a sheet of paper or keep his desk organized or that he needs a handler.

Obama reminds me of Bill Clinton. Some people consider B. Clinton a 3 (Riso and Hudson), others a 9 (Condon, Fauvre.) Clinton definitely has some markers of a 3 (called Slick Willie, the womanizing problem), but Obama lacks these. So until I see some evidence otherwise, my going theory is that Obama is a 9 who happens to have a very nice smile.

Hillary Clinton not guilty of racism; Guilty only of being a 1

The most recent poltical tempest-in-a-teapot involves Hillary Clinton's statement that "Dr King’s dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.” Having seen Hillary Clinton this Sunday on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, I think she means to stress that it is hard work and wonkishness that actually get things done in government (rather than that MLK didn't do much, which she clearly doesn't really believe -- or, at least, seemed very convincing as she talked about how she didn't believe it.) Sen. Clinton's tactic on Meet the Press was to emphasize that she has more years of experience than Obama and to stress how hard she has worked in the Senate. This is a typical E1 line of reasoning. Russert kept trying to get her to say something negative about Obama (or even better, something racist) but she would not. Russert asked a question about Sen. Clinton having said she was a workhorse as opposed to a showhorse; he asked whether she was implying that Obama was a showhorse. She said no (I couldn't tell whether the truth was no or yes, but I didn't get the feeling she considered him a real workhorse like herself.) She said that within the culture of the Congress, Senators are considered either workhorses or showhorses, depending on whether they spend their time writing legislation, attending committee meetings, etc. or whether they spend their time going on talk shows. She said people expected her to be a showhorse (because she was famous and former First Lady), but she came to the Senate ready to roll up her sleeves and get to work (and she implied that everyone was pleasantly surprised.)

So this is how most 1's do, stress how hard they work. Hillary doesn't go on and on about how she works hard and others don't and either it's not fair or the others are morally wrong (which is how some 1's do), but it seems that she's chosen to position herself as a harder worker than Obama (sort of a Substance vs. Style comparison. And, of course, IF he's a 3, this makes perfect sense.) Another thing 1's often do is discuss principle; I didn't see Sen. Clinton do that, but I suspect that's because her principles and Sen. Obama's are really similar; if she wins the nomination, I would expect to hear about principle in the general election campaign. Tonight there will be the first debate between just Clinton, Obama and Edwards; it will also be the first Democratic debate I watch this election season and of course I will be on the lookout for any signs of Obama's Enneagram type.

To veer away from the Enneagram a bit and focus more on just politics, I am dismayed at the way race has entered the discussion in the past week. Questions on the table are: why did Clinton imply that MLK didn't do much but Lyndon Johnson did? Did Bill Clinton imply that Obama's White House hopes are a fairy tale? Was Bob Johnson wrong to refer to Obama's admitted youthful drug use?

I was lucky enough to be sent the YouTube video of Bill Clinton's supposed "rant" against Obama before I heard that it was supposedly "racially insensitive." I say lucky because I was able to see it fresh. My thoughts were that it wasn't a rant; that it was a collection of organized, thorough, convincing points spoken in an angry tone! It didn't seem to me to have anything to do with race. And yet, by the next day, Donna Brazile was saying B. Clinton's remarks were racially offensive. (I do admit that it would have been insulting had Bill Clinton referred to Obama as a "kid," which was one of Brazile's points, but I don't think he DID call Obama a "kid." If he did, please include a link to it, or a quotation, in the comments section below.) Bill Clinton's remarks have nothing to do with race; they are all about Obama running on a platform of having opposed the war since 2002, but in fact, he has not consistently opposed the war throughout those years. Here, judge for yourself: Bill Clinton on YouTube.

Obama has been quoted as saying that H. Clinton's remarks on MLK and LBJ are "unfortunate." (So does Edwards but I don't care about him; I am trying to decide between the other two.) Here's what Obama needs to do. DISTANCE YOURSELF FROM THIS. I mean, distance yourself from people who read racist remarks where none were intended. Even better, come out and say that the remarks don't seem racist. This will go a long way. It will not hurt you with black voters to do so. It will not hurt you with white voters. It will make you look high-minded. It will allow people to feel like maybe we're getting beyond some of this. On the other hand, if Obama buys into this AT ALL, many white people will start to feel threatened. Why? Because people don't like to feel like they can't say something negative about a black person without being accused of saying that negative thing BECAUSE that person is black. I feel like Obama is in a position to possibly win this election if he's able to come off as above this. It is no secret that the Republicans cannot find a really compelling candidate that they can all agree on, while most Democrats like both Clinton and Obama, and would be happy to vote for either. It's also no secret that many Republicans are not very happy with President Bush. I think Obama might be more liked by independents and Republicans than H. Clinton is, and the possibility is there of taking some votes from lots of independents and some Republicans. You know who is even more tired of identity politics than I am? The Republicans. America wants to like Obama. We haven't yet seen any reason NOT to like Obama. And I think many Americans (including some Republicans) feel embarassed by how America has been looking lately (because of President Bush, the common perception that we'll invade any country we feel like, the weakening of the dollar, among other reasons) and are looking for a way to show that America and the Bush administration's policies are not one and the same. I think there's the feeling that voting for an African American as our president would send the message to the rest of the world (many of whom are not white) that we are not so bad (while voting for a female president, while arguably even more progressive a step, might show part of the world that we're the secular devils they knew we were all along.) Unfortunately, having to hear comments unrelated to race called racist for four years is a reason not to vote for Obama, even if he's not the one making the comments. I want a president who is willing to give the other person's comments the benefit of the doubt when they seem generally well-intentioned. It will be interesting to see what Obama says on this issue in tonight's debate.

Back to the Enneagram: There has been some speculation that Obama might be a 9 rather than a 3 (or a 1.) I kind of hope so. History is usually kind to 9 presidents (Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan.) Ford, for example, was chosen because he was popular with members of Congress in both parties, and because it was thought that his presence would be healing (and I think it was.) I think our country could use some healing now.

Also? Tim Russert came off as kind of a jerk.

Obama's Enneagram Type by Brad Spencer

Did you know that when you reach a website through an internet search, the site owner can see what you searched for (and what city the search came from)? Well, it's true, and we have our fingers on the pulse of the two main things people want to know about the Enneagram. Clocking in at a strong number 1, you want to know what type is compatible with yours, or whether a particular type is compatible with yours. Our number 2 most popular, and gaining, only started the day after the Iowa Caucuses: since then, there's been a steady stream of people who reach this site by searching for Barack Obama's personality type. I can see why; I wish I knew myself, as I expressed in this post, and this one. So when Brad Spencer who writes the website Enneagram Book contacted Cindi and me about swapping posts, one of topics we suggested was Obama. That's the topic Brad chose; more about his site after his artcle:

---------------------------------

Obama's Enneagram Type

When Cindi and Mary Beth approached me with the idea of writing down my thoughts on Obama's Enneagram type, I thought that the idea of guessing about Obama would be fun. Even though I haven't kept up with the races too much, I have seen a bit of Obama, or at least enough to give me an idea of where he's coming from. Based on the speeches I've seen of Obama, I'm going to have to guess he is a 3w2 or 2w3. Now, of course you want me to back it up, so I'll give it my best shot:

Most people in politics are a Type 3. Having lived with many type 3's and known many 3's very closely, I can assure you that they are the type built for politics. The 3 is always making small talk, putting people together, and consulting their inner stylist. In order to make it to the top of the political totem-pole, you have to be concerned about how others perceive you and work to make people like you. Welcome to the world of the Enneagram Type 3.

So why a wing 2? Well, Obama has always come off to me as somewhat of an underdog. And I don't think that's a mistake. Often times, Obama has been heard saying things like, "This is all about the voters. I don't even want to be here, you've put me here." This is classic 2-speak. It's all about the other person, except that the other person is supposed to be forever indebted to the 2 for taking the role on.

Alright, so I'm aware that all of this sounds like I'm just beating up on the types. That's not my intent; not at all. But my tongue-in-cheek description of the types is because of the way I approach the Enneagram, which I discuss on my website, EnneagramBook.com. I think that each of the Enneagram types, which are also known as fixations, are just in the way of us being more open, free, and able to communicate with ourselves and others in a truer way. That's why we study the Enneagram, to break free of the shackles of our fixation.

My point is, although it might sound harsh toward Obama, I really like the guy and think he'd make a good President. Hell, I can't think of a better President than a 3 wing 2. And, I fear the day they put a 7 like me in office.

-Brad

http://www.bradleyspencer.com, A Columbus Ohio Web Design Firm
http://www.enneagrambook.com, Musings on the Enneagram

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Go check out Brad's site. Apparently, Brad is writing a book about the Enneagram, and is taking submissions of writings from people as representatives of their types, both for the book and for the website. He also has a list of good links for Enneagram beginners and various original articles, including one on the five most common objections to the Enneagram.

GOP Candidates, Buffy Villains, and Enneagram Types

Check out the article "The GOP Primary Field in Buffy Villains" on this blog. It pairs the GOP candidates with the Buffy the Vampire Slayer villains they most resemble, and then explains why. Of course, I immediately wondered if this document could provide valuable clues to the personality types of the candidates (or the villains, if you prefer.)
Previously, in her article "Election 'o8", Mary Beth speculated about the Enneagram types of various political candidates. Mary Beth said she thought Fred Thompson might be a 5, an 8w9, or a 9w8. This article pairs Thompson with The Judge, and they really do sort of look alike. The article's description of the two as "a lethargic mess" who "didn't accomplish much" supports the theory that Thompson's personality has a 9-ish component. (Sloth is the vice associated with type 9.)
Mary Beth said Mitt Romney was a 3. The article pairs Romney with Mayor Richard Wilkins and says "They're both clever and generically slick politicians, programmed to appeal to middle America." If that's not type 3, I don't know what is.
Mary Beth said she didn't know what type Rudy Guliani was, but that various people were typing him as a 1 or a 7. This article pairs him with Angelus (the evil version of Angel), who is typed as a 3w4 on the Enneatrek site.
And last, but not least, I know you're dying for our insights on the personality type of Duncan Hunter. Mary Beth didn't speculate about him, and I don't know anything about him, but he is paired with Adam, who has a 5-ish/8-ish vibe to me. Seriously, when he walks up to a human boy, asks, "How do you work?" and then dissects him to find out, my heart just skips a beat. He is the only Buffy villain I have ever had a crush on.

As Promised, Resolutions for 3s and 4s

Tips for a better 2008:

Type 3:

1. Cut down on the "little white lies".
2. Let your accomplishments speak for themselves.
3. Spend more time with the people you love.
4. If you are an employee and the law requires that your employer offer you a break, take it. They have that law for a reason.
5. Work on a project that has nothing to do with your personal ambitions.
6. Be sure you are working with people, not against them.
7. "In their desire to be accepted by others, some average Threes adapt so much to the expectations of others that they lose touch with what they are really feeling about the situation. Develop yourself by resisting the tendency to adjust to others' expectations. It is imperative that you invest time in discovering your own core values." (Riso and Hudson, Understanding the Enneagram, 335) Might I suggest that you read Finding Your Own North Star (previously blogged about here and here), and follow the suggestions therein? It will help.
8. Take note of the things other people are good at -- and praise them for it.
9.Use your energy for the good of the group as a whole. Be a real "team player".
10. Lower your expectations for success and acclaim.
11. Identify an area of your life where you are honestly in over your head and tell someone about it; they may be able to bail you out before it's too late.
12. Stop comparing yourself to others so much. Your life is your life, not a game with winners and losers.

Type 4:

1. Question your desire to base a permanent identity on an ever-changing set of feelings.
2. Go to work every day, even if you're not in the mood.
3. Plunge in before you're totally ready.
4. Go to bed and get up at the same time every day.
5. Exercise regularly.
6. If you find yourself imagining what you'd like to say to someone, call them up and say it for real. If it's something you shouldn't say, try putting it out of your mind.
7. Find someone -- either a friend or a therapist -- to whom you can talk openly.
8. Get involved with a community service organization.
9. Let your parents off the hook; at a certain point in adulthood, complaining about them excessively just becomes unseemly.
10. When you feel misunderstood, make one more earnest attempt to communicate.
11. If someone seems critical of you, double-check to see if their remark is intended as a critique. If it is, you be the judge of whether the criticism is true.
12. Speak more kindly to yourself.

5s and 6s are up next.

Riso and Hudson on the Enneagram versus one-size-fits-all advice; plus, Diet advice for 2s

Wise words from page 2 of The Wisdom of the Enneagram:

We believe that most self-help books are not necessarily wrong, but merely
incomplete. For example, even with a basic topic like weight loss,
there are many possible reasons why a person might have a weight problem
or issues with food -- a sugar sensitivity, or excessive fat in the diet, or
nervous eating to repress anxiety, or any number of other emotional
issues. Without identifying the specific core issues that are causing the
problem, no solution is likely, no matter how great the effort.

The self-help author's prescriptions are usually based on methods that have
worked for him or her personally and reflect his or her own psychological
makeup and personal process. If a reader happens to have a similar
psychological makeup, the author's method may be effective. But if there
is little "match," the reader may be misled rather than helped.

...

This diversity explains why what is good advice for one person can be
disastrous for another. Telling some types that they need to focus
more on their feelings is like throwing water on a drowing man. Telling
other types that they need to assert themselves more is as foolish as putting an
anorexic person on a diet. In understanding ourselves, our relationships,
our spiritual growth, and many other important issues, we will see that type --
not gender, not culture, and not generational differences -- is the crucial factor.

Web MD has sent me some advice, including diet advice, that seems custom-made for 2s:

Most of us secret believe that good people, especially women, take care of
others first. They wait until everyone else has a plateful and then take what's
left. Unfortunately, most of us make decisions based on our ideas of who we
think we should be, not on who we actually are. The problem is, when we make
choices based on an ideal image of ourselves -- what a good friend would do,
what a good mother would do, what a good wife would do -- we end up having to
take care of ourselves in another way. Enter food.

Read the entire article here. Some of the advice in this article might be somewhat relevant for other women, or other compliant types, but it seems custom-made, and dead-on, for the 2.

I see in the extensive Riso/Hudson quotation above the hint that it might be helpful to have a collection of self-help articles, reviews of books, and personal stories that might be helpful or of interest to people of the particular types. I think that's something the blog format is able to do, because after we've been writing for awhile (and updating daily), we will eventually have amassed quite a collection, sorted by type. For example, click on 3, and one post that will come up is Cindi's from yesterday about (among other things) Martha Beck, who writes about issues of bringing your life in line more with the true self than the persona. (I have read two of Martha Beck's books, Finding Your Own North Star and Leaving the Saints, and would recommend them both, not just to 3s by any means, but to anyone interested in bringing their life more into line with their true values. I don't think any personality type has cornered the market on this issue! Also, she is a funny, delightful writer.)

Back to 2s and dieting: I see 2s as a group as having more trouble with weight gain than any of the other types (taken as a whole.) The Web MD article hits on what is probably the key reason (use of food to soothe oneself and calm unconscious anger about having to sacrifice onself for others). I've also observed two other trends. Deprivation is not a big part of 2 thinking. Neither is following a set of rigid or even objective guidelines. I see 2s who have the ability to go without lunch and go without breakfast in the service of work or in the service of dieting; unfortunately, studies show that this does not actually help one lose weight. I do know a 2 who has been able to follow a diet and exercise plan for over a year; he looks great. Perhaps significantly, though, he is an INTJ, atypical of 2s. Also, as Cindi mentioned two days ago in her New Year's Resolutions for 1s and 2s post, getting enough sleep is often an issue for 2s; I've also read that getting enough sleep is good for keeping one's weight in line.

Self Help with a Sense of Humor

So, I was in Borders today, spending my post-Christmas madly turning gift cards into actual gifts, when I saw a new magazine -- Going Bonkers?. I conceded that maybe I was, so I sat down with my cold-brewed marble mocha to give it a read. (Oh, how I long for the days of the simple, yet elegant, mocha freeze!)
Going Bonkers? styles itself "the self-help magazine with a sense of humor." And it does have a sense of humor, too. It has New Yorker-style cartoons (one pictured a patient on a therapist's couch saying, "Actually, I just came here to lie down. I can't get any rest at home") and Reader's Digest-style reader-submitted jokes. You can submit your own at the Going Bonkers? site.
Oh, and there are self-help articles, too. The basic formula is that they lay out a common problem -- your kids are too demanding, you have low self-esteem, you have a crush on a friend -- and then give you some not-too-specific, common sense solutions. For instance, "The Radical Cure for Self-Deception" is, you guessed it, honesty.
Speaking of self-deception versus honesty, an excellent self-help book dealing with that topic is Martha Beck's Finding Your Own North Star. Its theme is letting go of the false, socially constructed self and the life it has built for you, in order to embrace the true self and the life you crave. It's also really funny. For instance, early on in the book, Beck is talking about encouraging people to quit jobs they hate, and she realizes that her readers might feel some resistance to this idea. So, in the voice of that resistance, she writes, "Thanks for sharing, Yoda, but I have a real life. I have to pay my rent. I have a cat to feed."
To see how she responds, you'll just have to read the rest of the book. I suspect that Martha Beck is a 3. Her body of work (including a wonderful memoir, Expecting Adam, about giving up a success-driven lifestyle in order to find bliss in raising a child with Down syndrome) pretty much constitutes a recovery manual for 3s (and anyone with type 3 issues).
Click here to read Beck's columns for O Magazine.

TV Round-up

As Cindi has mentioned previously, we gather with friends each Monday night for the ongoing project of watching the Buffy the Vampire Slayer series in its entirety. We're now about halfway through season 4. One common thread that runs through a lot of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes is metaphor made flesh; for example, a female teacher who preys sexually on teenage male students turns into a human-size praying mantis, and a mother who pushes too hard for her daughter to succeed is portrayed as literally a witch. (Thanks to our friend Rick, both for making this observation when we were way back in Season 1 and also for organizing the Buffyfest in the first place.) Our most recent episode, Superstar, reifies the narcissism of the unhealthy 3. The split between the two parts of the personality (the idealized image and the impoverished and rejected true self within) are acted out a la The Picture of Dorian Gray, Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde, and Forbidden Planet. Superstar may have been my favorite episode so far; it's certainly one of my top few. And Cindi has written about the episode in detail here.

Another show I've been watching a lot of lately is Monk, and I've seen some Enneagram styles portrayed in that. In case you're not familiar, Monk is a detective with obsessive-compulsive disorder. He was thrown off the police force for psychiatric problems, but is still a great detective, maintains a warm relationship with the force, works as a consultant for them, and hopes to be reinstated one day. He's riddled with fears: of germs, heights, glaciers, spiders, and, as is often mentioned, milk, among many others. His 1-ishness is portrayed as giving him an edge because he's able to walk into a crime scene, survey it, and see what "doesn't fit," i.e., inconsistencies. At the same time, his germophobia, hand-washing, and compulsive need for order are played for laughs. It is my impression that a real-life person with as many of the unhealthy 1 traits as Monk has would in no way be as sheerly LOVABLE as Mr. Monk is. (I have very little expertise or experience with OCD, so read the last comment with a grain of salt.) I read Monk's character more as an amalgam of 1-ish obsession with order and 5-ish avoidance than as straight 1. Judith Searle discusses The Police Story as an example of a 1 narrative in this excellent essay on Story Genres and Enneagram Types. She writes: "Related One genres are ... the police story, in which the law enforcement professional is the hero who tries to restore the moral order to society. Examples of the police story include The Silence of the Lambs, The French Connection, Serpico, and Prince of the City." There's also a Great Detective archetype who's 5-ish (Sherlock Holmes) and 6-ish (Columbo): a head-type figuring things out. (Many Monk episodes even start by showing the viewer how the crime was done, borrowing a page from the Columbo playbook.) Returning to Monk: two other characters represent clear Enneagram styles: the Captain, Leland Stottlemeyer is an average-to-healthy 8 (gruff and forthright), while another homicide detective, Randy, is a phobic 6 (self-doubting, insecure, submissive) and plays a typical 6 role, the sidekick. [In one episode, Mr. Monk Goes to the Dentist, Randy drops off the force because the Captain doesn't believe he actually witnessed a murder while under sedation in the dentist's office. Randy goes back to playing in the band (The Randy Disher Project) he formed in seventh grade and makes a music video of the song Don't Need a Badge. In the video, you can see Randy acting counterphobically, singing "I don't need a gun to make me feel strong; I don't need a captain shooting me down all day long; I don't need your mustache, don't you condescend to me; I don't need a badge, cause baby, I am free." In that same episode, the Captain tells someone on the phone that Randy is the single most annoying human being he knows... then he sees Monk walk by gargling because of his fear of the dentist, and says "except, of course, for him."] The other main character, Monk's assistant Natalie, has no apparent Enneagram type. She plays an Everywoman role.

One thing I like about this time of year is the End-of-Year Best-of Lists. In the TV category of MY End-of-Year Best-of List, one show would have crushed all competition, had there been any competition to speak of. That show is Mad Men, an AMC original series that aired for 13 episodes over the summer. It's been renewed for a second season that will start next summer (or that was the plan before the writer's strike, anyway.) It's set in 1960 in a Madison Avenue ad agency. Each episode is set in a different month of 1960. (It occurs to me that that's impossible since there are 13 episodes and 12 months but... close enough.) There are two MAJOR themes in the show: one is how different life was in 1960. Everybody smokes constantly, and they drink at work, and all the married men fool around and chase women, and sex roles are very rigid, and the sexism is extremely overt, and all black characters are in subsurvient roles. The other major theme is character, and specifically, the mysteriousness of character. Our main character (both hero and villain), Don Draper, is a 3, and not just any 3, but an imposter literally pretending to be someone he's not. Another of the main characters, Pete, is also a 3, and in fact, even the characters who aren't 3s have a 3-ish feel, partially because surface traits are very valued in this world (that they're in advertising is no accident.) I don't know the Enneatypes of the two main female characters, Peggy (Don's secretary) and Betty (Don's wife), but neither is healthy and both are very internally contradictory. (Peggy is sympathetic and the viewer roots for her, but we don't feel that we understand her. There are some seriously odd behaviors there, including a huge chunk of denial. Betty is a little less sympathetic: she's a Seven Sisters grad, a former model, a beauty, and a housewife to philandering imposter Don. Personality-wise, she's in despair: a regressed little girl inside a brittle shell. She undergoes Freudian analysis, which is doing her no good whatsoever, especially since her analyst tells her husband Don what she talks about in therapy! Both characters are poised for big change as we move more deeply into the 60s: they are about to encounter Sex and the Single Girl and The Feminine Mystique, respectively.) The big boss, Bertram Cooper, is an Ayn Rand-loving 8; Roger Sterling, the other partner in the Sterling-Cooper ad agency, is another 3; Salvatore (the closeted gay creative director) is most likely a 4; Harry (my sweet, straightforward Mad Men tv boyfriend) might be a 6 (or could be 9, or 5 -- he doesn't get a lot of screen time). It's an ensemble show: episodes focus on various characters, and minor characters are developed with specific details, and great writing and costumes and set design support the whole thing. And Amy Winehouse's "You Know I'm No Good" plays in all the ads for the show. I imagine AMC is still showing it to build an audience for season 2; yes, the website says it's still being shown Thursday nights at 10 Eastern, 9 Central. Check it out!

The archetypal 3 narrative is the social climbing and imposter narrative (for example, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Vanity Fair, Gone With the Wind). I love the 3 imposter narrative (it's no wonder we root for Don Draper in Mad Men -- don't we always root for this character when he's the protagonist?), and I also love the story of the narcissistic 3 who starts to get in touch with real feeling (Groundhog Day, Tom Cruise's role in Rain Man.) To read more about enneatypes in movies and books, see Tom Condon's The Enneagram Movie and Video Guide and Judith Searle's The Literary Enneagram: Characters from the Inside Out. I highly recommend them both.

I said Mad Men had little competition for show of the year, and you'll really see what I mean when I tell you that my second favorite show of the year was VH1's The Pick-Up Artist. Even I admit that it wasn't all that good. Didn't matter; I liked it anyway. It's an imposter-by-proxy story; instead of watching a 3 acting like something he's not for personal gain and/or kicks, you're watching a 3 (Mystery) who's broken his technique down into a set of rules in order to teach it to a bunch of head types. (They weren't literally all head types; I'm speaking archetypally.) You can watch all episodes online at VH-1's site. I would also recommend the book The Game by Neil Strauss, in which our hero Neil Strauss, aka "Style," a journalist, poses as a civilian, infiltrates the pick-up community, learns to pick up girls, moves in with Mystery and a bunch of fellow pick-up artists, observes a lot of dysfunctional behavior including more than one breakdown by Mystery, becomes disenchanted with the whole thing and quits the community, then ends the book, but the story doesn't end there --because he now teaches pick-up himself here.

I have a few more tv shows to discuss, but am going to save them for another post or posts.