Reviews

Character and Neurosis: An Integrative View by Claudio Naranjo

mabiendicho's review against another edition

challenging informative reflective medium-paced

sakusha's review against another edition

dark informative mysterious reflective medium-paced

4.0

Naranjo learned of the enneagram personality theory from Ichazo, who learned of the enneagram figure from Gurdjieff who said, “If an isolated person in the desert drew the enneagram on the sand, he could read the eternal laws of the universe, and he would learn each time something new that he had ignored completely thus far” (13). (That’s a pretty bold claim.) Naranjo then compiled other people’s ideas of personality types and DSM personality disorders and applied them to the enneatypes.

Naranjo’s view of personality is that it is neurosis, which is not to mean a complication, but rather a mode of defense (xxxvii). Everyone has a neurosis/defense mechanism which arose from incorrect parenting (3) or incorrect reactions to experiences. “Every character entails a particular ‘metaphysical illusion’: a wrong assumption in regard to Being—or, more precisely, to the possibility or promise of Being, as will be seen” (xxxv). Forgetting the self is the root of all pathologies (267). He believes that who we think we are is not who we really are, and that our true self is the self that existed before life experiences shaped us (38). The point of the enneagram is to understand one’s neurosis, and then to liberate oneself from it (36). (Twould be nice to hear from these personality experts which type they think they are. Its hard to imagine Naranjo [or any other expert] admitting that he has a neurosis.)

Naranjo says that the right side of the enneagram (types 1-4) are more social, seductive, and feminine; and the left side (types 5-8) are more anti-social, rebellious, and masculine (23). (I disagree with this. The social types are not all together; they are 2, 3, 7. 2 is the most feminine, and 8 is the most masculine, but the rest could be either sex.) This and his descriptions of people are based on his memory of about 2000 life histories he’s heard but not recorded (xxxv). Seems sloppy to me.

Some of the types were described differently by Naranjo than what I was used to, mainly types 2, 4, 7, and 9. 2 is commonly described as a stereotypical good mother, but Naranjo described 2 more like a prostitute or femme fatale. 4 is commonly described as feeling unique/special/different/misunderstood, but Naranjo described 4 as a morbid drama queen. 7 is commonly described as someone adventurous and playful like a child, but Naranjo described 7 as being more like a conniving salesman. 9 is usually described as almost enlightened, but Naranjo describes it as soulless and dead inside. Perhaps these differences are due to Naranjo seeing every type as negative, while Riso and Hudson (and the enneagram websites) tried to bring out the positive of each type, probably to increase mainstream receptivity.

Full descriptions of the types according to Naranjo:

1. Resentful, formal, dutiful, critical, perfectionist, rigid, moral, virtuous, self-righteous, controlled, civilized, clean, orderly, meticulous, conscientious, anxious, unimaginative, serious, reserved, efficient, responsible, intolerant, diligent, traditional, conservative, demanding, assertive (282), active,  decisive (283), not introspective, irritated by clumsiness, obsessed with being correct.
2. Affectionate (186), assertive, manipulatively generous (187), romantic, impatient (283), light hearted, clownish, rebellious, impulsive, expressive, warm, intimate, proud, seductive, shallow (178), provocative (180), takes initiative, fickle, unfaithful (182), possessive (186), flatters some while disdaining others (176), can be sweet or aggressive (177), good hostesses (181), anti-intellectual (189), throws temper tantrums (187), wants love, attention, affection (186).
3. Successful, cheerful, extraverted, ambitious, respectable, vain, cocky, confident, outwardly optimistic (214), conformer (202), showy, charming (204), social, warm (208), efficient rational, practical, organized (210), controlling, competitive (211), hip, fashionable (213), formal (284), seeks attention/approval through achievement, does not often lose control emotionally (206), not introspective (219).
4. Emotional (with love, sorrow, hatred, and jealousy), thoughtful, understanding, apologetic, soft, gentle, cordial, humble, empathetic (114-115), artistic (116), withdrawn (120), impulsive, dramatic, masochistic, clingy, complaining, dissatisfied, pessimistic, introverted, irritable, reflective, has intellectual interests (189), intense (286), sensitive (287), romantic, passionate, lonely, nostalgic, bitter (113), low self-esteem, often bulimic or homosexual (111-112), feels rejected, seeks love and attention through being helpless and intensifying pain, can be either depressed, ashamed, or angry/hateful (105).
5. Shy, minimalist, intellectual, detached, cold exterior, aloof, fear-based stinginess, withdrawn, docile, gentle, apathetic, restrained, distrusting, self-absorbed, sensitive inside, procrastinates, resistant to routine/tidiness/responsibility, lacks courage, interested in science (86), lazy (74), inefficient, impractical (284), feels empty (92), low pain tolerance, autistic (was surprised to see this term used, but then I saw the publication date was 1994, then it made more sense). Afraid to love, doesn’t want to be dependent on others (76). Described as self preservation type (82), although he said earlier than each enneatype has all three instinctual variants for subtypes.
6. Paranoid, suspicious, anxious, fears authority, hierarchal, ambivalent, dislikes the ordinary (236), cold, serious, humorless, objective (225), rational/logical, questioner, philosopher (233), responsible, organized (234-235), argumentative, critical, skeptical, cynical, pressures others to conform (235), insecure, indecisive, cautious, not spontaneous (232), doubts self and others, feels persecuted and grandiose (237), feels watched and judged (238), doesnt know self (239, 243). This type is the only one in the book that is talked about in detail with regard to its instinctual variant subtypes: Sp6 (AKA phobic) is avoidant but dependent and affectionate and generous; sensitive, insecure, low self-esteem, cautious, lonely (227), friendly, needs support (234), yields to authority, wants love but has no energy for it; wants a strong partner to lean on (240-241, 230, 243).  Sx6 (AKA counter-phobic) is emotional, lusty, religious (230), competitive, rebellious (241), aggressive (226), wants obedient partner (243).  So6 (AKA paranoid compulsive mixed) is duty oriented (240), submissive, rigid, perfectionist, humorless, tense, controlled, inflexible, legalistic, self-righteous, orderly, introverted (228), places greater value on god than people (243); similar to e1, but so6 is more indecisive and passive (283). (It doesn’t make sense that this type is called the social variant when it seems more like a self-preservation type. So6 is so much like e1 that I think it might as well just be called e1 rather than e6. And sx6 might as well be e8.)
7. Hedonistic, entitled (164), nonchalant, strategic, sly, expressive, imaginative, happy, charming, persuasive (165), amiable, diplomatic (177), humorous (162), undisciplined (163), schemer (152), talkative (154), relaxed, cheerful, carefree (156), narcissistic, denies guilt (167), independent, described as SP (154), doesn’t take action; impulsive, optimistic, generous, bright, social, easily bored and restless (153), seeks variety, surprise, adventure, the remote and bizarre (152, 161). E7 being in the thinking triad makes sense given Naranjo’s description of it being like a strategist, but the strategist trait doesn’t make sense with the other personality characteristics of 7 which are very fun-oriented and not intellectual-oriented.
8. Sadistic, amoral, masculine, sexual, punishing, competitive (177), strong, tough, explosive (129), impulsive (130), uninhibited (145), impatient, anti-intellectual, authoritarian, ambitious (139), assertive, self-reliant, competitive, fearless (132), leaders, misogynist, hostile, manipulative, exploitive, narcissistic/confident, arrogant, either coldly reserved or contemptuously aggressive (131), proud (135), secretly envious (136), rebellious (142), rude, offensive (134), the most insensitive type (128), ignores pain (146), wants power and to dominate; fears helplessness (133); controversial and provoking (138), honest in that he doesn’t pretend to be friendly or care how others perceive him (136, 144).
9. Lazy, dependent, conforming, gregarious, resigned, content, compliant, pleasing, docile, humble, clumsy (258), generous (287), disinterested, factual, patient (283), stoic (246), self-postponing, not introspective, prone to depression, doesn’t impose self on others, self-sacrificing, nurturing (250), passive (287), deadened feelings, procrastinates, easygoing, easily distracted, likes to be distracted (260), noncompetitive, innocent (254), like an oyster (253), ordinary, plain, likes animals, bound by custom/tradition (257), stubborn, narrow minded (258); dutiful (249), conservative (247), yet tolerant of everyone, including evil people (246), lacks fire/passion, subtlety, & imagination (255), kind, modest, easy to control (247), generous, forgiving, helpful, gluttonous (256) (so it’s dumb to call type 7 gluttonous when 9 is too), has a bad memory (258). Seems most well adjusted by others.  Ichazo said e9 was too much of a seeker, but Naranjo says e9 is not enough of a seeker (267). Naranjo says e9 is extremely extraverted (249), but it doesn’t seem like it to me, except when it comes to lack of introspection (262).

I would summarize the types like this, using my own words:

1. Self-righteous
2. Seducer
3. performer
4. Melancholy
5. Recluse
6. Uncertain
7. Hedonist
8. Tyrant
9. Tolerant turtle

School stereotypes:

1. Teacher’s pet
2. Cheerleader
3. Prep or jock
4. Emo
5. Nerd
6. Punk
7. Class clown
8. Bully
9. Nice but doesn’t really stand out in any way

Personality disorder of each type according to Naranjo:

1. Obsessive-compulsive
2. Histrionic (181)
3. Narcissistic
4. Hysterical, borderline, dependent
5. Schizoid
6. Paranoid, dependent; sp6 is avoidant
7. Narcissistic (155)
8. Antisocial, socio/psychopath (130)
9. Dependent (247), Passive aggressive (249)

This book actually explains the positioning of each personality: each type is a hybrid of the ones next to it (19). That doesn’t really make sense though, because for example, 6 is supposed to be like a combination between 5 and 8, but instead 7 is next to 6, not 8. (And 1 might be more like 6 than 5.) If this hybrid theory were true, then the whole enneagram would be like a spectrum, with for example the first type being the most introverted, and then the type next to it being a little more extraverted, and the next type being even more extraverted, etc. (You could substitute any adjective in for introversion/extraversion, such as femininity or gentleness/docility). Types 8 and 9 are super different from each other; I don’t see how 8+1 would make 9 (besides in math). On p. 15, there’s a circle figure with the personalities disorders plotted on it in order of severity from well adjusted. If Naranjo’s hybrid theory were true here, then shouldn’t the corresponding personality types go in order starting with 9 as most well adjusted, then 1 or 8 the next most well adjusted, being either a histrionic or dependent type? But no, instead of the order going 987654321 or 912345678 (in a circle, not a line), they go like this: 9, 4, 1, 5, 6, 8, 3/7, 4, 2 (clockwise). (4 is more than one personality disorder, and 3 and 7 share narcissism.)

Naranjo critiques and revises Ichazo’s choice of words for the enneagram fixations (29-31). (Funny because I give my own critiques and revisions and consequently I’m treated as a pariah for it, while Naranjo was no different, but he’s treated like a god.) I guess it was Ichazo who associated the seven deadly sins with personality. Naranjo then takes those sin words and basically says “well, its not really this, but that.” Naranjo redefines all the sin words. Type 1 is not really angry, but resentful; type 7 is not so much gluttonous, but hedonistic. So in my opinion, after all these redefinitions, I don’t think its appropriate to label each type as a deadly sin. Just call the types what they are, and forget the sins, because labeling the types as sins results in misconceptions and misunderstandings. Not to mention, there are 9 enneatypes and only 7 sins, so they’re already not going to match from that discrepancy alone.

Each type as a deadly sin (AKA “passion”), which according to enneagram theory, one type/sin/passion is no better or worse than another (28):

1. Not really angry, but resentful. I think the type is summed up more by self-righteousness than resentment. And self-righteousness could be considered a sin. Pride would be another word for it. But pride isn’t a good word to use, because a lot of the other types have pride too (like 3, 7, and 8).
2. Pride - Naranjo sticks with this word, but I think it’s not a good word to pair with this type. This type sounds more lusty than 8; type 2 is described as the most seductive and only interested in flattering people who they can seduce, so why wouldn’t it be called lusty? Dumb.
3. Not really deceitful but vain (200). Vanity isnt a sin, but pride and envy are. This type sounds more envious than 4, because it aspires to be like famous people (205).
4. Called envious, but more like melancholy imo; envy is just one possible reason for their melancholy. But the word “melancholy” is not used because it is not a sin.
5. Called avarice (greed), and Naranjo clarifies that what he means is not greed with money (because this type is actually a minimalist which is the opposite of greedy!), but a holding in of everything else, such as resources, knowledge, emotions, etc. IMO that’s not greed at all. That’s just being reserved. But the word reserved is not used because it is not a sin.
6. Cowardice/fear, also not a sin but the term is used anyway.
7. Called gluttony, but Naranjo clarifies that he means hedonistic with everything, not just food (152). So then why should it be called gluttony if it’s not just about food? Just call it hedonism. 
8. Called lusty, but what he means by it is passion for excess/intensity/stimulation in all things (127). This type sounds more like wrath than type 1 IMO. This type is not driven by sex, but by rage and power.
9. Indolence/Sloth, but not just in the usual sense, but also in the mental and spiritual sense (246).

On p. 16, Naranjo says that types 8, 9, and 1 are the epileptoid group which is predominantly oriented to action. But type 9 is supposed to be the very opposite of taking action! It’s sloth!

Dominant Cognitive function and Mbti type of each enneatype:

1. Jung’s Te, Keirsey’s ESTJ. (Labeled extraverted probably because e1 is not introspective, but I think Istj fits too, because e1 is reserved, and I disagree with Jung that all introverts are introspective. According to correlation data of real people on enneagram.bz, Estj is most often e3 and e8. E1 is most often various introverts, including istj.)
2. Fe (182). No mbti type is mentioned, but I think ENFP fits (gossiping, seduced by novelty and fantasy, emotional, irresponsible, lack of perseverance, low tolerance for routine, discipline [178, 186]). esfp fits too.
3. He says Istp yet calls them extroverted! (207) then he quotes kiersey’s description of istp which sounds nothing like istp. i’d say e3 is like esfj (social, conforming, people pleasing, diligent).
4. Infp and infg (I assume he meant infj?) but none of Jung’s cognitive functions fit e4 (108). I agree with INFP.
5. He says this type is Jung’s Si type but Keirsey’s INTP type (79). I agree. Ti fits too.
6. Ti (228), Entj (229).  I think intj instead; they fear and avoid people.
7. Ne … and INTJ?! (158) Absurd! I say e7 is more like Estp (adventurer) or Entp (strategist).
8. Se (137). The anti-social person sounds like Estp (confident, craves sensation, heartless, impulsive), but the leader sounds like Entj (confident & heartless, but has forethought & a plan)
9. Jung would say Fi, some person named Von Franz says Se, and Naranjo thinks e9 is istj & esfj (251-253). I say Isfp (quiet, concrete/traditional, people pleasing, lazy).

Homeopathic remedies for each type:

1. Arsenicum, carcinosin
2. Pulsatilla
3. Phosphorus
4. Natrum muriaticum (common salt?!)
5. Sulphur, silica (80-81)
6. Sepia for sp6, lachesis for sx6
7. Lycopodium (159)
8. Nux vomica (from seed of strychnos nux vomica, the natural source of strychnine) (138)
9. Calcium carbonate (middle layer of oyster shell)

William Sheldon apparently found scientific evidence for three dimensions of human temperament being related to the body structures which derive from the original three layers of the human embryo (xxiii).

*Ectomorphs (thin bodies) are associated with cerebrotonia: intellectualism, introversion, introspection, shyness, & sensitivity.

*Mesomorphs (muscular bodies) are associated with somatotonia: assertive, loves adventure, energetic, bold, courageous, competitive, aggressive, callous, noisy, extraverted, ruthless, claustrophobic, loves power, dominating, risk, chance; horizontal mental cleavage; needs action when troubled (136-137).

*Endomorphs (fat bodies) are associated with viscerotonia: relaxed, slow, loves eating & comfort, likes people, kind, tolerant, sleeps well, needs people when troubled (248-249).

Body types of each enneatype:

1. Mesoendomorphs (muscular but with rounded features and not delicate/fragile) (59). (The type 1s I have known have been introverted ectomorphs.)
2. Says Endomorph but also says this type is most beautiful. Hard to believe that would be an endo. I think the female equivalent of mesomorph would be hourglass, which is what type 2 would be.
3. Mesomorph
4. Ectomesomorphic (between ectomorph and mesomorph) (120)
5. Ectomorph (70)
6. sp6 is endomorph, Sx6 is mesomorph, so6 is ectomorph (240).
7. “Predominantly ectomorphic with endomorphia as the secondary component, yet as a whole seem to be the most balanced in the distribution of the three components” (169). I would think that gluttonous hedonists would be endos.
8. Mesomorph (131, 136, 147)
9. Endomorph (261)

One might think that maybe people acquire their personalities because of their body type. Like a mesomorph body would probably be more attractive and therefore get more positive attention from peers, which would boost confidence. But so far I’ve noticed that toddlers that are thin/ectomorphs happen to also be shy, and this is before they go to school. And a toddler who already looks muscular happens to be energetic and likes to hurt people. So that is in line with the above associations. It makes sense that endomorphs would be hedonistic (their gluttony would make them fat if they weren’t already), and that mesomorphs would be active (keeps the calories off, but not so much that they want to conserve their energy like an ectomorph might). 

Childhood patterns:

1. Usually a girl with a cold e1 or e6 father (61). Excessive parental control, pressure, and sense of duty (51). Excessive rage inducing power struggles with others from an early age. Either inherently excessively autonomous, or more commonly, the parents doled out inordinate reproof and control. Child identifies with authoritarian parents (59). Took on responsibility early and wanted recognition/acknowledgement for it but never felt it (60).
2. Sheltered, overprotected. Usually comes from a big, stable family with a seductive e7 dad who favors her, while e1 mother dislikes her even though she was mother’s helper (192).
3. The favored child, gifted (203). Or felt ignored or neglected, so needed to get attention and take care of self (217). Type 5 dad, type 4 mom. Strict parents (218). Sometimes type 3 parents.
4. It’s theorized that the e4 baby wants to drain its mom’s breast and put bad things into her (102) which makes no sense; if you’re getting fed, why would you want to harm your feeder? E4 was jealous of mother or a sibling (109, 111). Had a rejecting parent. Child reacts to loss of love by becoming like the loved one (117). Painful past (121). Scorned or ridiculed (122). Berlinger says “The masochist insists on being loved by the punishing person because it may be the only kind of intimacy he has known” but also says “it is uncommon to find a history of severely punitive parents in the childhood of the moral masochist” (120). Most e4s got more attention/care through suffering and needing (124).
5. Inadequate/unreliable mothering, or an invasive, manipulative mother (92-93). E5 parent.
6. Made to feel guilty (242). Feared stern father (235), hates and loves them simultaneously (237). Overprotective mom (241). Parents fought (242-243). Paranoid types may have family history of schizophrenia. Avoidant types experienced parental rebuff or indifference (240).
7. Breastfed happily and for a an extended period of time (154). Speaks early (170). Spoiled. Not many conflicts in their past (156). Prolonged childhood satisfaction, but experiences frustrations in later life which makes them want to return to early childhood (170). Parents are cold & rejecting, yet admiring (169). Devoted to overprotective, permissive mom even though she lacked empathy; most commonly has type 5, 6, or 7 dad, and if he is authoritarian, e7 will secretly rebel against him (168-172). Perceives love as indulgence (free from discipline) (171).
8. Violence in the home, anti-social father (147). 
9. Experienced intense separation anxiety at age 2 (261). Grew up in a big family where mother’s attention was divided (262). Grew up too fast, matured under pressure, would like to stay in womb. Parents tend to be types 1 & 9 (265).

It’s no wonder Naranjo thinks everyone has a neurosis. If your childhood was too sad, you are damaged. If too happy, you’re damaged. Type 4 is depressed, but type 3 is too happy and therefore lacks depth (201)! Wonder what the perfect parents would look like and how their child would turn out? 

I disagree that personality is created by how the child is raised by parents, because if that were true, every sibling from the same parents would have the same personality before they enter school, and everyone who has more than one kid knows that’s not true.

Naranjo believes character is a composite of traits, and the traits arose as either an identification with a parent or out of a desire to not be like a parent (6). Why then did I have such a big imagination when my parents neither had that trait, and neither encouraged nor discouraged this? I was just born that way. Though i think having plenty of solitude helped facilitate my imagination, but that was just because i had seven years without a sibling and tv. It had nothing to do with my parents.

Interesting things that don’t have much to do with the enneagram:

When white people take hallucinogens, they see things that exist but that they didn’t know about previously, which implies that people have subconscious/ancestral knowledge (xviii).

Naranjo thinks gender envy comes about from believing that the opposite sex is superior (111)—just as I thought. Homosexuals are more frequently e4 than any other type (112). That probably goes for transgenders too, but there weren’t enough of them around in 1994 for Naranjo to be aware of them.

A type 5 said that when he was to be born, the nurses tied his mom’s legs together so he wouldn’t come out while the doctor was having lunch (93)! The nerve of doctors!

Quote I liked: “By seeking being in the future, in the remote, the imagined, and the beyond, the individual only assures his frustration in finding value in the present and the actual” (173). Applies to people who indulge in porn and romance novels… and sci-fi… and I guess TV/screens in general.

“An emotion is like water that breaks through a dike, passion like a torrent that makes its bed deeper and deeper. An emotion is like a drunkenness that puts you to sleep; passion is like a disease that results from a faulty constitution or a poison” (24) - Kant. It’s interesting how nowadays, being emotional, expressive, loud, boisterous, extraverted, passionate, etc. are viewed as admirable. But what used to be considered mature and desirable was being controlled, formal, quiet, etc.

“Those who are in need of affection, because of being secretly insecure in regard to it, are in turn, warm, supportive, sensitive, empathetic…” (186). This amused me and confirmed what I thought - that those who need affection are insecure. 

At the end of the book, Naranjo recommends that people meditate and engage in self-reflection and autobiographical writing to know themselves better.  (Kind of ironic that he is advising readers to focus on painful memories, since type 4s do that all the time, and yet he says they are neurotic for doing so!)

yvkhan's review against another edition

3.0

I find that to some extent typology is mostly useful as philosophy and/or literature in the sense that it can be interpreted as a series of character portraits and personal ideologies that we can use to dissect the world around us. Obviously, everything is a mere model of reality and doesn't seek to replicate it in any scientific way. In a sense, saying "Ah, so-and-so is such an Enneagram 3" is no different from saying something like "Ah, so-and-so is just like Mary Bennet from Pride and Prejudice!", except I'd argue that typology seeks nuance to a certain extent. Anyway. Let's move on.

Unlike Jungian typology, the Enneagram is ultimately more inductive than deductive in approach. Jung's types have clear articulated essences (E.g. Introverted Feeling is clearly Feeling (assigning value) of an Introverted (subjective) character, therefore Fi indicates a strong awareness and adherence to one's own sentiments and values over logic, others, etc., with all other traits of Fi being extrapolated from that base essence alone). The Enneagram is not as straightforward. Rather, as with the DSM-5, the Enneagram is a system based on observation and categorisation rather than any sort of real logic, I'd argue. While I'm not the most comfortable with this (and modern authors such as Riso-Hudson have tried to align it with the emotional centres which renders it more deductive, I suppose), I suppose it's basically acceptable as long as one bears in mind that the Enneagram is more a list of archetypes than anything truly conclusive, at least in my opinion. The quality of this book, therefore, should lie in the interpretation and description of each type and whether or not it feels true to life.

Credit where credit is due -- I do think that the descriptions of the 4 and 5 are rather well done. The 4's desire to be special or unique always felt very shallow to me, which renders this original interpretation of envy and a sense of lack all the more compelling. I feel as if this 5 description truly allowed me to understand 5s for the first time, and I found it far more relatable than I honestly expected it to be.

However, I do think that the portrayals of 2s and 8s are a little odd. 2s, for instance, read like a rather antiquated view of women that stereotypes them as maidens (sp2), mothers (soc2) or, well, whores (sx2). The emphasis on using the idea of seduction, the emotional histrionics, the secret vindictive edge -- it all feels like a sort of bogeyman fantasy. I suppose you could argue that this classic feminine archetype is certainly one that many can relate to, but I honestly find it all so weirdly patriarchal and sexual in feel. In that sense, I suppose I approve more of R-H's depiction of the 2 as The Helper instead of some sort of Grand Seductress. It's a very captivating and fascinating portrait to be fair, but I can't think of a single person in my life that seems to fit this sort of hyper specific "I'm helping you so I become a super essential part of your life and you have to love me back, and at the same time, I'm either incredibly childlike so you'll take care of me (why is this related to self-preservation and why is this a show of pride instead of, perhaps, a 7's entitlement?), a sort of group Mom (okay, this one is believable) or incredibly sexy (Is being sexy a way of serving the other person in a relationship?). Overall, I have to say I prefer R-H's 2 subtypes, as meagre and perhaps toothless as they may be.

I also cannot really get behind a Dionysian 8 who seeks constant stimulation. I suppose it makes sense archetypically, but I just don't understand how an 8's focus on self-reliance, intimidation, rebellion etc. also translates to a need for sensual pleasure or whatever. It really sticks out like a sore thumb and once again it almost feels as if it was put there simply because it feels like a male trait, with the 8 being *the* alpha male type.

I also don't like the focus on narcissism and intellectualism in 7s which may not exist, in my opinion, at least from the 7s that I've observed. Like, why are you, a 7, a narcissist when the heart triad is right there? I suppose you could argue that Naranjo really means self-serving, which I can accept, but at times, his descriptions almost have a showy 3-ish vibe to them. The intellectual, advisory edge to 7s is also simply not something that all 7s have. Like, have you met a daredevil jock 7 in your life, Naranjo? Have you?? In a sense, perhaps I'm more grateful for concepts such as tritype (and perhaps wings, though not really) because it helps to articulate pure types while diluting them.

I think you can tell that the more I wrote about this book, the more annoyed I began to feel. I honestly do not understand the widespread reverence for Naranjo's work in the PDB community, dear God. The problem with not reducing types down to their essence is that so many descriptions begin to feel too niche or detailed such that they no longer feel true to life. I don't think I like Naranjo very much, and after this, I'm not too sure if I like the Enneagram too much either.

Overall, Jungian typology remains superior.



MISC. THOUGHTS + PERSONAL ANECDOTES:

Types I related to from most to least (tierlist): 3/5 > 6 > 4 > 1 > 2 > 7, 8, 9

The 1 description was kind of cute, idk. Like, these flaws aren't necessarily bad to me? Reading about nearly every other type was kind of upsetting or depressing (Since Naranjo treats each type like a mini mental illness you can have), but reading about the 1 was just kind of sweet. Like, aww, you want to be a good person? That's so cute. Have a wafer.

Types in general tierlist: 1 > 3 > 5 > 7 > 4 > 6 > 2 > 9 > 8

My clear allegiance to the competency triad and the idealist triad... amazing.

sainte_v's review against another edition

skimmed, irrelevant to me, can't rate.

wildpaleyonder's review against another edition

adventurous inspiring reflective fast-paced

3.5

isfjwill's review against another edition

challenging informative slow-paced

4.5

AMAZING !! This was my first enneagram book that I bought since my journey of the typology world & I’ll never forget it. The descriptions are so well done, & reading e6 (my type) was mind-changing. Really well done. Some moments are hard to understand because of the old writing, but once you get what those parts mean, it feels like a reward it’s so so fun. Great for those just getting into typology. 

lyubomiragerova's review against another edition

5.0

The best book on the Enneagram.

opalia's review against another edition

informative reflective medium-paced

4.0

naranjopilled

janatabozada's review against another edition

informative reflective slow-paced

4.25

this isn't a book for someone who just started reading about enneagram!!
book is written with a not so easy language took a while to get used to. the introductory chapter was extremely helpful for self reflection on a general aspect aka not bound by enneagram theory. the chapters actually about each type has some problems. first, the bias was pretty clear (naranjo obviously had sth against them e2s). second, i didn't like much the idea of assigning a disorder to every type. i get he's trying to show how some symptoms are behaviours in the type, but people can start questioning/ assigning mental illnesses to themselves. he
other than that the book is so good info wise. great info found in there, yet again make sure you read sth else first as ill personally have to reread it after reading multiple other resources. he doesnt go much into the types themselves so important aspects like subtypes aren't found there. 

ehehv13's review against another edition

informative reflective slow-paced

3.75