What do you think?
Rate this book
Character and Neurosis: An Integrative View
Compares the enneagram of personality types with other psychological character typing systems and discusses of the origins of each type.
349 pages, ebook
First published September 1, 1990
141 people are currently reading
1014 people want to read
About the author
Claudio Naranjo
107 books165 followersClaudio Naranjo was a Chilean psychiatrist. He was co-developer of the Enneagram of Personality. His studies and investigations oftenly focused in the search of spirituality to find mental stability, and also some times, the use of lisergic substance to free hidden and harmful thoughts.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
December 21, 2022
rip naranjo we love you so much thank you for making me an insane nerdy bitch with a very unhealthy obsession with typology i will forever be grateful for your work
(this book made me question everything i am not joking
(this book made me question everything i am not joking
January 18, 2016
One of the best psychology books I've ever read. Very clinical and erudite, but worth plowing through -- you won't find a better analysis of ennea-types except from the psychiatrist who brought it to the modern world.
August 3, 2020
Some reviewers found this book negative. But it is after all, about deficiency motivated drives. I loved every bit of it. It dug into the furthest recesses of the mind and exposed dysfunctional behaviour.
April 1, 2022
funny guy tbh
February 8, 2015
Claudio, tell us what you really think! This book is a brutal description of the base neurotic capacities of the enneagram types. I found it to be ugly, pessimistic and negative in comparison to the spiritual expansiveness and focus on human potential seen in other enneagram books. That said, focusing on neurosis is helpful in typing others. Examine people in their worst light and you do get a sense of their base character.
The analysis of the enneagram types seems inspired by the classic, biological understanding of development. In type 4, envy becomes a “cannibalistic impulse” originating in the act of breastfeeding. (Is this a +1 for formula?). The orderliness of type one originates through the fastidiousness of potty training. Even the helpful type 2 becomes a pride-centered character engaged in acts of service as veiled acts of promiscuity in the search for love.
This is in interesting addition to the other enneagram books I have read, but definitely not a starting point for enneagram reading.
The analysis of the enneagram types seems inspired by the classic, biological understanding of development. In type 4, envy becomes a “cannibalistic impulse” originating in the act of breastfeeding. (Is this a +1 for formula?). The orderliness of type one originates through the fastidiousness of potty training. Even the helpful type 2 becomes a pride-centered character engaged in acts of service as veiled acts of promiscuity in the search for love.
This is in interesting addition to the other enneagram books I have read, but definitely not a starting point for enneagram reading.
February 28, 2020
I've read a lot of Enneagram books, but this is the first one that has focused primarily on the negative ways the coping mechanisms work in an effort to show people what is going on 'inside' them as regards defense tactics. It makes it a rather brutal assessment, but useful for figuring out the psychological defenses. I'd say it's more for psych students than those with a casual interest in the Enneagram, but if you want a brutal, unfettered look at 'who you are' -- it's worth the slog.
The only problem I have with it, is the same with most of the other Enneagram books -- it tells you what is wrong with you and in what way you are a jerk, but not how to fix it.
The only problem I have with it, is the same with most of the other Enneagram books -- it tells you what is wrong with you and in what way you are a jerk, but not how to fix it.
February 2, 2025
Naranjo's transformation of the Enneagram from an abstract new age system to a concrete typology of character is very impressive. This book is great precisely because there is little mention of "enneagram types" but instead a thorough discussion of historical correlates to the nine types found in the modern enneagram. Although I do find the enneagram to be a particularly good classification system, this book is a good reminder that these types have long been known both in the field of psychology and in related disciplines.
All in all I found this book to be a breath of fresh air, as much of the modern enneagram literature attempts to paint the enneagram as some ancient esoteric wisdom, which is an unsubstantiated claim. Naranjo does believe that some of the enneagram philosophy is rooted in ancient mystical tradition, which may be partially true, but his writing also makes it quite clear that this is a modern finding with roots in psychoanalysis. This can be seen in the extensive citations of Freud, Jung, and Karen Horney, who arguably pioneered the modern study of personality. In fact, nearly all the authors from whom this book draws are affiliated with psychoanalysis, not mysticism.
With the absence of enneagram literature prior to this book, I would call it the first in-depth book on the modern enneagram insofar as it is a character typology, as it is known as today.
All in all I found this book to be a breath of fresh air, as much of the modern enneagram literature attempts to paint the enneagram as some ancient esoteric wisdom, which is an unsubstantiated claim. Naranjo does believe that some of the enneagram philosophy is rooted in ancient mystical tradition, which may be partially true, but his writing also makes it quite clear that this is a modern finding with roots in psychoanalysis. This can be seen in the extensive citations of Freud, Jung, and Karen Horney, who arguably pioneered the modern study of personality. In fact, nearly all the authors from whom this book draws are affiliated with psychoanalysis, not mysticism.
With the absence of enneagram literature prior to this book, I would call it the first in-depth book on the modern enneagram insofar as it is a character typology, as it is known as today.
February 5, 2024
Esse livro deixa bem clara a diferença entre os eneatipos, já li diversos livros que citavam Naranjo, então decidi ler a fonte. Concluí que se tivesse começado por esse, teria sido muito menos trabalhoso entender as diferenças entre os tipos, pois Naranjo os descreve de uma forma que não há como os confundir. Com base em Jung Freud e outros psicólogos, ele constrói uma descrição clara.
July 18, 2025
muy buen libro aunque siento que es muy muy denso
Read
September 17, 2025burç okuyomus gibi okudum valla gerçek eğlence budur
August 12, 2017
I was ready to really like this book. As a psychotherapist who has casually studied enneagram, I was excited to go to the source and really dig in from a clinical perspective. What I found was a description of nine monsters-- I mean, no one you would ever want to have over for dinner-- save for the "generally happiest" three, I guess. His description of the Eight is wholly negative. Really, you could use the chapter to promote genocide and from reading about this type, it would do mankind a favor if they would all off themselves.
It has long been an academic trick to criticize others as a way of seeming in possession of greater knowledge. The psychoanalysts have made a career out of it, despite failing to uncover any empirical substantiation after 150 years. These are negative stories and as interesting as they may be, unless one is working in the few asylums we have left, they aren't particularly helpful, accurate, or useful.
I was disappointed overall, and more left wondering what negative experiences Naranjo had that inspired such vitriol than a sense that something very wise was being conveyed.
It has long been an academic trick to criticize others as a way of seeming in possession of greater knowledge. The psychoanalysts have made a career out of it, despite failing to uncover any empirical substantiation after 150 years. These are negative stories and as interesting as they may be, unless one is working in the few asylums we have left, they aren't particularly helpful, accurate, or useful.
I was disappointed overall, and more left wondering what negative experiences Naranjo had that inspired such vitriol than a sense that something very wise was being conveyed.
June 20, 2022
Es un libro increíble, duro, a ratos fue difícil de asimilar (porque a nadie nos gusta que nos digan de que pata cojeamos) pero se me hace una excelente herramienta para empezar a conocernos más a nosotros mismos y a las personas que nos rodean.
Me ayudó a entender más porque actuamos de la manera que actuamos y a sentir más empatía por los demás. Solo somos niños confundidos buscando amor de una manera incorrecta.
“La conciencia del oscurecimiento es el aspecto más profundo del sufrimiento consciente, pero arder en este dolor, para cualquiera que se sumerja en él, es la fuente del más preciado impulso para el trabajo de transformación”.
Al terminarlo me da la sensación de que éste solo es el comienzo de toda una aventura personal y me emociona.
Me ayudó a entender más porque actuamos de la manera que actuamos y a sentir más empatía por los demás. Solo somos niños confundidos buscando amor de una manera incorrecta.
“La conciencia del oscurecimiento es el aspecto más profundo del sufrimiento consciente, pero arder en este dolor, para cualquiera que se sumerja en él, es la fuente del más preciado impulso para el trabajo de transformación”.
Al terminarlo me da la sensación de que éste solo es el comienzo de toda una aventura personal y me emociona.
October 13, 2016
An amazing and very deep insight into essence of human being. Greatest respect to the author
February 18, 2020
"Oh noes, the descriptions are so negative...!"
Take a breath. Re-read the title. Thanks for your attention.
Take a breath. Re-read the title. Thanks for your attention.
October 16, 2022
informative but i hate naranjo’s overly serious critical writing style
February 27, 2024
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).
See comment below for continued review.
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).
See comment below for continued review.
March 7, 2020
Ennéagramme, caractère et névrose est plus qu'une synthèse sur l'ennéagramme, c'est un compte-rendu précis et clinique sur les symptômes névrotiques voire psychotiques de chaque type de l'ennéagramme. La lecture est lente et parfois difficile car Claudio Naranjo propose un véritable état de l'art sur les principaux rapprochements entre psychiatrie et psychologie comportementale (de là dérive l'Ennéagramme), n'hésitant pas à citer des psychiatres et autres spécialistes émérites pour appuyer son propos. C'est passionnant et ça permet de passer de l'Ennéagramme comme figure ésotérique et outil de développement personnel, à une méthodologie éprouvée, ce qui lui une forme de respectabilité qu'on ne perçoit pas toujours.
Je trouve que ce document, même si il rebutera beaucoup de novices, est essentiel car il permet de comprendre plus en profondeur (et grâce à une démarche scientifique qui convaincra les sceptiques) le principe de l'outil ennéagramme dans sa dimension psychiatrique, loin des raccourcis effectués un peu partout dans les communautés fans de développement personnel simpliste. Un incontournable pour celui qui veut comprendre en profondeur l'outil.
Je trouve que ce document, même si il rebutera beaucoup de novices, est essentiel car il permet de comprendre plus en profondeur (et grâce à une démarche scientifique qui convaincra les sceptiques) le principe de l'outil ennéagramme dans sa dimension psychiatrique, loin des raccourcis effectués un peu partout dans les communautés fans de développement personnel simpliste. Un incontournable pour celui qui veut comprendre en profondeur l'outil.
March 8, 2019
He leído este libro por indicación de mi psicólogo, y me ha resultado fascinante descubrir cosas acerca de mí misma, explicaciones sobre mí misma, y sorprenderme por cuestiones que ni imaginaba. Lo recomiendo.
Read
November 9, 2022half of this was regurgitating ichazo and erikson's psychosocial development theory, the other half is just christianizing pseudoscience. i think i lost it when naranjo said no one uses make up more than type 3 women (to evocate their sense of artificiality and emptiness in accomplishment as e3 lol). the premise of connecting enneagram and neurosis was interesting despite the lack of predictive validity in DSM alone (esp DSM II and DSM III mostly cited here) which shows enneagram theory is very much americanized and is limited the understanding of neurosis according to the APA.
April 23, 2025
it is unsettling to have your body fully naked and witnessed in all of its flawed glory with scars running down the ripples of your stretch marks. it is worse to have your soul, for the first time in your existence, wrenched away from under the grasp of your ignorance and dissected so thorougly to the point of nausea, but done so well you cannot look away. that was how i felt reading this book, so taken aback that i felt compelled to run out of the room and never come back to continue it. but i did not run, and i continue. i will continue returning to it for the rest of my lifetime.
August 25, 2019
Il libro tratta l'antichissima teoria degli enneatipi, riscoperta nel '900 da Gurdjieff; Naranjo l'ha studiata e ulteriormente approfondita grazie anche alla sua esperienza di psichiatra e psicoterapeuta. Un libro estremamente interessante e di grande utilità per un processo di conoscenza di sé e autoanalisi.
December 11, 2012
Excellent information, knowledge and insight!
April 25, 2022
very insightful and by exposing all of our vulnerabilities, naranjo was able to show us that we are not alone no matter the enneatype.
January 17, 2022
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.
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.
January 26, 2023
Despite the negative reviews claiming that this book was too harsh and pessimistic about enneagram personality, I think that many of these reviewers misunderstand that was not the purpose of the book. In the first chapter Naranjo outright states that the purpose is to liberate oneself from the identification with one's ego.
He does a great job of expanding on ego fixation, cognitive distortions and the passions. However, I question whether the book is sincere to this purpose. He spends more time describing diagnostic criteria for each type than the path to ego liberation.
As a psychiatrist, he expounds on concepts from psychoanalytic and enneagram traditions in psychology that are insightful characterizations of personality disorder.
Nevertheless, reading this book nearly 30 years after it was originally published makes it a bit outdated. The diagnostic criteria of the DSM has undergone several revisions and many of the personality disorder profiles are inconsistent with our more advanced understanding of psychopathology - moving away from the overreliance on the DSM.
Overall, Naranjo has been a pioneer in his field of enneagram, but believe his concepts can be refined based on a more dated empirical understanding of personality disorders and the enneagram.
He does a great job of expanding on ego fixation, cognitive distortions and the passions. However, I question whether the book is sincere to this purpose. He spends more time describing diagnostic criteria for each type than the path to ego liberation.
As a psychiatrist, he expounds on concepts from psychoanalytic and enneagram traditions in psychology that are insightful characterizations of personality disorder.
Nevertheless, reading this book nearly 30 years after it was originally published makes it a bit outdated. The diagnostic criteria of the DSM has undergone several revisions and many of the personality disorder profiles are inconsistent with our more advanced understanding of psychopathology - moving away from the overreliance on the DSM.
Overall, Naranjo has been a pioneer in his field of enneagram, but believe his concepts can be refined based on a more dated empirical understanding of personality disorders and the enneagram.
July 31, 2024
bu kitapla ilgili deneyimim okumaktan ziyade kana kana içmek gibiydi. karşıma çıktığı için o kadar memnunum ki. :') kişilik psikolojisine, varoluşumuzun öykümüzdeki arızalarla ne kadar iç içe olduğuna, kendimizle, başkalarıyla, hayatla ilişkilenme biçimimize ve buna paralel olarak neden onu değil de bunu istiyor, seçiyor, arıyor olduğumuzla ilgili müthiş bir bilgi kaynağı. kendi üstünde çalışmak, kendini tanımak ve marazlarını fark etmek isteyen herkes çok sevecektir diye düşünüyorum. bitirdiğimde naranjo'ya sarılabilmek ve gerçekten teşekkür edebilmek istedim, ama ne yazık ki aramızda değil, yine de bu kitabı yazdığı, tecrübesini, içgörüsünü damıtarak paylaştığı ve ufuk açtığı için minnettarım.
ps: naranjo'nun tatlı sert üslubu, hemen tüm kişilik tiplerini derinden tanıyan birinin özgüveniyle rahatlıkla eleştirmesi, daha doğrusu genel olarak bu amaçla bir kitap yazmış oluşu bana neden dinamik ekolü ve peşi sıra gestaltı sevdiğimi bir kere daha hatırlattı. bilişsel davranışçı teoriyle yolu açılan yeni nesil kuramların insanı derinden tanımaya dair bir arzu, neredeyse delice diyebileceğimiz tutku yok bence.
ps: naranjo'nun tatlı sert üslubu, hemen tüm kişilik tiplerini derinden tanıyan birinin özgüveniyle rahatlıkla eleştirmesi, daha doğrusu genel olarak bu amaçla bir kitap yazmış oluşu bana neden dinamik ekolü ve peşi sıra gestaltı sevdiğimi bir kere daha hatırlattı. bilişsel davranışçı teoriyle yolu açılan yeni nesil kuramların insanı derinden tanımaya dair bir arzu, neredeyse delice diyebileceğimiz tutku yok bence.
August 4, 2022
Me ha parecido un libro interesantísimo y he aprendido mucho sobre relaciones psicodinámicas, que hacen que el eneagrama tenga más sentido. Por otra parte, me ha gustado ver el input de Carl Jung y los test MBTI (aunque no coincido con varias de las correlaciones que Naranjo hace, no obstante me parecen, cuanto menos, curiosas). Como siempre que leo algo de Naranjo, sin embargo, me da la sensación de que habla especialmente mal de los E9, y eso provoca esa estúpida corriente de gente "intuitive" que rechaza poder ser un 9 cuando, en la vida real, es una combinación bastante común. Sus descripciones siempre son crudas y atacan, pero siento que algunos tipos salen peor parados que otros. No obstante, es bastante bueno, y he visto reflejadas a varias personas según aprendía más profundamente de cada tipo, descubriendo cosas que no sabía.
October 10, 2024
Me gusta mucho la tipología pero siento que con este libro he llegado hasta perder el interés. Quizás mi nivel de conocimiento de psicología es demasiado bajo, pero la primera parte consiste en un pupurrí de teorías y conceptos donde no se profundiza ni se define nada. En la siguiente parte ya me enganchó más, y disfruté mucho la lectura a la vez que aprendía.
Mi problema es que a partir del sexto eneatipo que lees se hace extremadamente repetitivo, entiendo que para contrastar y definir hay que centrarse en los mismos puntos pero en mi caso se me hacía muy pesado que sea siempre igual. Saber con que me voy a encontrar todo el rato me quita el interés, desde el eneatipo tres en adelante seguí leyendo por terminar y no por gusto. Creo que de momento seguiré aprendiendo conversando y leyendo capítulos sueltos, porque un libro entero se me hace demasiado pesado
Mi problema es que a partir del sexto eneatipo que lees se hace extremadamente repetitivo, entiendo que para contrastar y definir hay que centrarse en los mismos puntos pero en mi caso se me hacía muy pesado que sea siempre igual. Saber con que me voy a encontrar todo el rato me quita el interés, desde el eneatipo tres en adelante seguí leyendo por terminar y no por gusto. Creo que de momento seguiré aprendiendo conversando y leyendo capítulos sueltos, porque un libro entero se me hace demasiado pesado
June 22, 2024
Echo en falta más descripciones de los caracteres a través de la experiencia clínica de Naranjo, y además se me hace demasiado pesado a veces el peso en cada capítulo de los caracteres de la relación de los caracteres con otros métodos de diagnóstico y tipología o corrientes psicoanalíticas. También se me quedan cortas las descripciones de cada carácter y me parece que le falta una estructura más sistemática y sencilla de estudiar a cada capítulo.
No obstante es un libro seminal y esencial sobre Eneagrama e ilustra de manera general la concepción del carácter y el eneatipo de Claudio Naranjo.
Me gustaron especialmente los capítulos introductorios sobre el Eneagrama así como los finales con consejos para el trabajo con une misme, la expansión de la consciencia y la tarea espiritual.
3.5/5
No obstante es un libro seminal y esencial sobre Eneagrama e ilustra de manera general la concepción del carácter y el eneatipo de Claudio Naranjo.
Me gustaron especialmente los capítulos introductorios sobre el Eneagrama así como los finales con consejos para el trabajo con une misme, la expansión de la consciencia y la tarea espiritual.
3.5/5
October 4, 2020
Profundamente revelador de caracteres y personalidades, así como de los propios recursos en los que hemos ido desarrollando nuestra vida para hacerle frente a nuestro camino. Sin embargo quizá es necesario leerlo en acompañamiento, en grupos de lectura o con algún maestro que permita obtener más riqueza y entendimiento como merece.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews