I've noticed early on that the types opposite each other are similar in some way (e.g., some 9's can seem 5-like, some 6's can seem 1-like). Instead of truly exploring these connections, people studying the Enneagram often explain it away as having to do with the aggressive, compliant or withdrawn triads. I see problems with that type of approach though.

For example, explaining the similarity between types 5 and 9 by saying they're both part of the withdrawn triad, really doesn't say anything. Seems to me, it's simply a way to explain something you really don't understand, though you may think you do, or cutting off further analysis because your mind is limited by a concept.

This, for me, represents the crux of the problem with the current Enneagram personality types. Most people seem to think that all the questions have been answered. You simply need to learn the system and follow it. However, if you just take a look at how much difficulty people have with agreeing on the types of famous people, it becomes obvious that everyone is either interpreting a different system or the system is inconsistent in its accuracy.

So what's wrong with saying types 5 and 9 are alike because they're both in the withdrawn triad?

First off, there are many people identifying with type 9, particularly the 9w8 variety, that get confused when it's said that they're supposed to be withdrawn when they actually perceive themselves as extraverts. Is there any reasoning behind the claim that types 4, 5 and 9 are withdrawn besides the fact that the 3 x 3 nature of the Enneagram makes triadic patterns pleasing?

These aggressive, compliant and withdrawn triads supposedly represent Karen Horney's types that derive from moving against, moving toward or moving away from people. The moving away from people strategy applies mostly to Enneatype 5. The label used by Karen Horney for this strategy was actually the "detached" type and not the "withdrawn" type. Do type 5's move away from people? Yes, quite often. Do type 4's and 9's move away from people? Maybe, maybe not. Types 4w3 and 9w8 can be quite extraverted, but I haven't known any type 5 to be consistently extraverted.

The problem with a triadic approach is that it looks at the relation between three types (i.e., 4, 5 and 9) when we were actually only looking at the relation between two types (i.e., 5 and 9). The triad forces an additional connection to be made between types 4 and 5 where there originally wasn't any. My adjustment for this triadic tendency can be found in the Enneagram as Relations or OverTone approach I developed.

So what about the types opposite each other around the Enneagram circle? Are they similar in some way?

I find that they are. I call them complements because the types are similar in some fundamental way, yet also different in a way that complements the similarity. It's taken me quite some time to understand the various complemental types. It doesn't make sense in the current Enneatypes system. It only makes sense by going beyond the limiting concepts found in the books and teachings today.

Sorry to be a tease, but if you want to understand the complements, you'll just have to wait until I finish the book I'm working on or develop your own understanding. There's simply too much material to include in a blog article.

Shortly after posting this blog entry, I happened to stumble across an interesting article from Enneagram Monthly that talks about direct opposites on the Enneagram. The article is Enneagram Patterns: Direct Opposites on the 2nd page.