[Tritype] Tritype may be real after all

[anastasiaromanova]

Sometimes the Internet seems like one big forum and it slips my mind that people here don't know me or the way I work with the Enneagram, or my wry 6-leading triple critical sense of humor. So I better clarify. Tritype may not be real; MBTI may not be real, the Enneagram of Personality may not be real too. And it's always good to leave open space for doubt even if only the tiniest space, in any area you delve into. Absolute certainty sucks.

But tritype comes with the package if you accept the E. of P. as almost certainly real. Each person has a type with wing within each center. True, there are people where it's not so obvious but it's very obvious with far too many people for it not to be true. While leaving always that tiny space for doubt. Therefore, not tritype may be real, but tritype may not be real is my restatement of the title of the thread. But my view, functionally and heuristically, is categorically that tritype is real. In fact, without using it, typing is often a fruitless effort. If you don't know, say, how incredibly Fourish a strong sx 9w1 with a 4 fix will be, you're likely to mistype a lot of 9s as 4s. If you don't know the effect a very strong head fix will have on a 3, you're likely to mistype a lot of 3s as head types. And so on. For instance, Kate Bush, often typed as a 4, is clearly a healthy 9 and here she is in all her glorious 9ness. Reflective Being; absolute Presence in Emptiness. Pure unembodied Embodiment: the core gut type.

The converse is also true, though. Using tritype can also convolute things--forest/trees syndrome--so it's a balancing act requiring lots of experience and care. The most important thing is when you're typing someone--whether yourself or someone you know or a celebrity 'exemplar'--to give it plenty of time and observe very carefully. With famous people, you have to do a lot of research. If you're not willing to do it, you have to be willing to accept and to state that the opinion you're offering is just a cursory impression. If you are willing to do it, there are many, many rewards. You'll even make friends with the 'exemplars' you study and they will enrich your life.

 

[Entropic]

There is some legitimacy to the tritype theory but I don't agree with that it works the way the Fauvres suggest it does.

 

[anastasiaromanova]

The Fauvres make several mistakes. First of all they use tritype without including the instincts, and any typing that doesn't include the instincts is deficient. In fact, the instincts are probably the second most important factor after the leading type. Second, the Fauvres give names, which they call "archetypes" to the different tritype configurations, which are neither archetypal nor accurate--some being very accurate, others less so, and others way off the mark. A mishmash. Then they proceed to type well-known people backwards based on these so-called tritype "archetypes". That is a bad way of typing. (So and so must have such and such heart fix because this heart fix, along with their head fix leading and their gut fix, which seems clear, gives you "Archetype Z" and clearly so and so is a "Mover and Shaker" or...a "Gentle Spirit...or....a "Scholar". Whatever. Bad procedure.)

The Fauvres also collect data based on unknown people self-typing and keying those typings onto a keyboard. Meaningless. Last but not least, the Fauvres are extremely "wedded" to being right and having the final say' to being the Experts on tritype. That's their worst problem, as far as I can see. I'm sure there are more. I don't really consider the other problems deeply, because based on the four problems I just listed, when they go off onto things like people of such and such tritype often wear their hair this way or have this kind of look in their eyes, I really don't pay much attention to it. I just shrug and figure these are subsidiary problems stemming from the main ones. Someone once sent me a link to an interactive page of theirs on facial phototyping. I was like yeah, sure, whatever. I don't even remember what link it was.

I do think their work on tritype has been very important, but actually it all started with Ichazo anyway as "trifix". They put it in the limelight and that was important, but they're certainly not the be all and the end all. Though they certainly seem to think they are. They're good but they don't have the final say so. Not even close.

 

[Entropic]

The Fauvres make several mistakes. First of all they use tritype without including the instincts, and any typing that doesn't include the instincts is deficient. In fact, the instincts are probably the second most important factor after the leading type.

Essentially, you are following Naranjo's school of passion and counter-passion etc?

Second, the Fauvres give names, which they call "archetypes" to the different tritype configurations, which are neither archetypal nor accurate--some being very accurate, others less so, and others way off the mark. A mishmash.

It could plausibly be accurate if they actually fleshed out the theory but I don't think either of them are so to say, intellectual in that way, to do that. So the way I treat tritype currently is that if you can find and fit yourself into a type motivation outside your core type, great, it's a part of your tri, but outside of that, figuring it out becomes a matter of seeing what description seems the most like you.

Then they proceed to type well-known people backwards based on these so-called tritype "archetypes". That is a bad way of typing. (So and so must have such and such heart fix because this heart fix, along with their head fix leading and their gut fix, which seems clear, gives you "Archetype Z" and clearly so and so is a "Mover and Shaker" or...a "Gentle Spirit...or....a "Scholar". Whatever. Bad procedure.)

I am having issues following this. Are you suggesting that they do it in a post hoc manner? If so, yes, I agree, and that it's bad type practice.

The Fauvres also collect data based on unknown people self-typing and keying those typings onto a keyboard. Meaningless.

I agree. I am actually offended that they even dare calling it "research" when the only thing they do is create an online test and gather anon data from people online. Zero data validation, zero use of proper research methodology. Their results become bunk.

Last but not least, the Fauvres are extremely "wedded" to being right and having the final say' to being the Experts on tritype. That's their worst problem, as far as I can see. I'm sure there are more. I don't really consider the other problems deeply, because based on the four problems I just listed, when they go off onto things like people of such and such tritype often wear their hair this way or have this kind of look in their eyes, I really don't pay much attention to it. I just shrug and figure these are subsidiary problems stemming from the main ones. Someone once sent me a link to an interactive page of theirs on facial phototyping. I was like yeah, sure, whatever. I don't even remember what link it was.

Well, I can understand that more trying to create a niche within the enneagram community in order to market themselves as doing something different in the business. I agree that their typing practices do seem rather flimsy, though.

I do think their work on tritype has been very important, but actually it all started with Ichazo anyway as "trifix". They put it in the limelight and that was important, but they're certainly not the be all and the end all. Though they certainly seem to think they are. They're good but they don't have the final say so. Not even close.

Tbh, I take more issue with that they claim that the tritype works in such a way that you start with the core, to the second fix to the third fix when approaching a problem, and I don't think the personality really works in such a neat way like each fixation point being more like a tool that we use instead of having this complex interplay that creates our psyche and personality. If anything, I find that the second fix tends to direct or reinforce aspects of the core and so on, which is very different from what they are claiming.

 

[anastasiaromanova]

Responding to your points in order:

I'd say I follow Naranjo and Riso Hudson about equally. What I'm hoping for is someone to publish a book that synthesizes things more, and includes the stacks. That's why Beatrice Chestnut's book, while very good in many ways, was such a huge disappointment. No stacks, (and also tons of footnotes crediting Naranjo but no acknowledgement of RH while embedding their original ideas everywhere).

And no, they're not "intellectual in that way". The great intellects in the field thus far have been Naranjo and Almaas, and of course Ichazo, but he clearly went nuts. RH aren't intellectual in that way, but somehow I never get the feeling they claim(ed) to be. The Fauvres...I always get this feeling that they're claiming to be. Just...this feeling...

Anyway, certain people with certain types will easily recognize themselves in type descriptions. Others just won't unless they also look at the tritype and stack. That's where it gets tricky, because really beginners are best off sticking to core type but if they can't type themselves...?

Yes, I was saying they type post hoc, ergo propter hoc. We've figured out these tritypes archetypes and they're etched in stone, and we'll match you with them and from there we'll figure out your fixes. All without instincts, btw.

Yep, it's not research. It's figures lie and liars figure. Not saying they mean to lie but they are.

No problem at all with their carving out a niche. As I said, despite my criticisms, I think they are good and overall their work on tritype has been very beneficial for the field. Although, as I also said, it started with Ichazo's trifix, and if they hadn't focused on highlighting the idea first, I'm sure someone else would have.

Absolutely, a person's full typing is a complex, holistic system. And there are things about the Fauvres' approach that just make it seem cookie-cutterish. Ah, well, blind men, elephant. We're all blind in some way or other.

I've always had these criticisms of them, though, but I think when I read the Fauvres typing Russel Brand as a 7-4-8 (which I agree he is) and David felt compelled to inform the readers that this is the "genius" tritype which Katherine shares, that was a turning point for me and they went from very good to good imho.

 

[anastasiaromanova]

ps Yeah, like I said, I always got this feeling that they thought they were 'intellectual like that'. Always. That genius comment I saw fairly recently corroborated my suspicions, though I hadn't formulated it like that for myself until just now. I just kinda...rolled my eyes and thought, whatever...

 

[Entropic]

Responding to your points in order:

I'd say I follow Naranjo and Riso Hudson about equally. What I'm hoping for is someone to publish a book that synthesizes things more, and includes the stacks. That's why Beatrice Chestnut's book, while very good in many ways, was such a huge disappointment. No stacks, (and also tons of footnotes crediting Naranjo but no acknowledgement of RH while embedding their original ideas everywhere).

Right, figured. I don't place as much emphasis on the stackings, personally, as I find the core is still the most important and that people often get confused because they begin to map themselves based on the behavior of the stacking variants and the core type and kind of miss out on the point of the enneagram, which lies in the fears and motivations. I'm more on the Almaas side, I suppose one could say.

And no, they're not "intellectual in that way". The great intellects in the field thus far have been Naranjo and Almaas, and of course Ichazo, but he clearly went nuts. RH aren't intellectual in that way, but somehow I never get the feeling they claim(ed) to be. The Fauvres...I always get this feeling that they're claiming to be. Just...this feeling...

No, I agree, I think R&H see themselves as more wanting to ground the enneagram and observe it factually as opposed to spiritually or psychologically, like Almaas or Naranjo. They have a very much "to the point" approach and they don't pretend it to be nothing more or nothing less. I think the biggest problem with their approach is that they tend to miss out on a lot of depth because of it, because of their tendency to describe the outwards manifestation of the types and some of the associations that they make do leave something to be desired, but that's an aside.

Anyway, certain people with certain types will easily recognize themselves in type descriptions. Others just won't unless they also look at the tritype and stack. That's where it gets tricky, because really beginners are best off sticking to core type but if they can't type themselves...?

Well, the only solution is self-awareness and introspection. Sometimes people also recognize themselves in a type they are not because the description kind of fits which I suppose one could argue, tritype could explain, though most of the time, it's likely due to lack of self-awareness in general.

Yes, I was saying they type post hoc, ergo propter hoc. We've figured out these tritypes archetypes and they're etched in stone, and we'll match you with them and from there we'll figure out your fixes. All without instincts, btw.

Yeah, trying to pigeonhole people into these archetypes rather than the opposite. I think that's very common of Ti-Fe to do that though, to bend data to make it fit that way (both David and Katherine are Ti-Fe, imo).

Yep, it's not research. It's figures lie and liars figure. Not saying they mean to lie but they are.

I agree, they do. Then people go "ooh science" and take it seriously because they call it "research". Preposterous.

No problem at all with their carving out a niche. As I said, despite my criticisms, I think they are good and overall their work on tritype has been very beneficial for the field. Although, as I also said, it started with Ichazo's trifix, and if they hadn't focused on highlighting the idea first, I'm sure someone else would have.

I think at some level, the problem is that they approach it more as a manner of financial interest than spiritual awareness. They want to make money off it, and they aren't pretending that it is not their goal. Helping people comes as a secondary concern. I do think Katherine is well-meaning, I've run across her at various places, but David, eh. Can't say I am too fond of the guy.

Absolutely, a person's full typing is a complex, holistic system. And there are things about the Fauvres' approach that just make it seem cookie-cutterish. Ah, well, blind men, elephant. We're all blind in some way or other.

I agree, and that's my biggest disappointment with their booklet also. I had hoped that they would so to say, try to make some deeper mappings between the types instead of giving very brief horoscope-ish descriptions that frankly, don't say much, if at all. Hence tritype has become this thing where I imo treat it as that, a horoscope. You read the description and see which one fits you the best and go with that. Which is quite funny since people already accuse the enneagram to be a horoscope-like system and people take it way too seriously on typology sites, but honestly, I think if you do that, you are missing the point of the spiritual depth the system actually offers you. I have to say, after mostly using it as another personality badge for a long time, the way it helps to create awareness is actually surprisingly deep, once you cut through the surface anyway. And as someone who is shit at introspection without external aid, I've come to appreciate that.

I've always had these criticisms of them, though, but I think when I read the Fauvres typing Russel Brand as a 7-4-8 (which I agree he is) and David felt compelled to inform the readers that this is the "genius" tritype which Katherine shares, that was a turning point for me and they went from very good to good imho.

ps Yeah, like I said, I always got this feeling that they thought they were 'intellectual like that'. Always. That genius comment I saw fairly recently corroborated my suspicions, though I hadn't formulated it like that for myself until just now. I just kinda...rolled my eyes and thought, whatever...

Tbh, as I mentioned, I think Katherine is well-intended and well-meaning and I think she has a better grasp of the stuff than David does, frankly. I do think David understands the system well enough, but he seems to lack insight into the real depth. He's seeing it as another scientific system but with that, he becomes one of those people, to paraphrase Maitri, who skirts the outer surface of reality and identifies with the body, while at the same time proclaiming otherwise. It comes across as very insincere and hypocritical. I saw how he bullied a guy over at LinkedIn into being a type 6 because the guy, according to David, fit all the behavioral mannerisms of the type which he could confirm due to his 20+ years of experience. It was quite appalling since it misses the point of the system. David could be right and the guy was indeed a 6, but it doesn't give him the right to do that. And it's not the first time he's acted unprofessionally like that in public and I feel that he really drags down what their theory could be if he spent more time trying to understand the depth of the enneagram instead of being caught up in his own outer surface reality. Perhaps I'm giving him a little too much bad rep here, but it would do him well to try to be a little bit more sincere, I think, and cultivate some humility. He is though, ironically after all this said, a great example of the triple reactive tritype, lol.

 

[Tomb1]

I'm reposting historical info. from an older typoc thread:

This is the original outline for multifix theory and compare it to what the fauvres have on their site. *

9types.com:

the fauvres' site:

It's essentially the same. Difference is that it sounds more 'enneagram presentable' on the fauvres site than it did on 9types. Even that 8 with a four fix example is the same. [The most important difference, though, are the dates....the 9types documentation was the first in time]

After 2003, the multifix theory was later developed at an older enneagram board called ediots [(cjarlez = kuhner) also documented]. It was significantly upgraded by Kuhner due to the 'linear shift model' of trifix being unworkable (The fauvres are still using the linear shift model of trifix). The upgrade was that your core fixation was influenced by a fix in each center. This also included the addition of wings. Hence, it was called 'multifix'. The idea was that when you add wings onto trifix, you've multifixed the trifix. By 2006 the concept was also used at the eidb:

Trifix doesn't include wings because Oscar Ichazo didn't believe in wings. Multifix was just additive in the opinion of Ichazo's people. But when you multifix a trifix the difference is pretty substantial. At the end of the day, every person whose tried to claim they were first in time to come up with and introduce trifix-concepts to the enneagram boards haven't been able to produce any time-stamped documentation trumping what I've produced. I'm sure if they had it they would have produced it by now. Stackemup.net today holds the gut truth of Trifix, as continued on and upgraded from the work of ichazo, as well as holding the gut truth for trifix with wings (multifix) as Kuhner was the sites' founder.

It goes without mentioning that a year later the fauvres have failed to produce time-stamped documentation trumping Stackemup.

Ichazo's emissaries already sent word the fauvres' tritype does not continue the work of ichazo's trifix.

It's a first-in-time battle between the fauvres and Stackemup...and the date on that 2003 screenshot indicates who the victor is.

Stackemup holds the nut.

 

[Ribonuke]

Still not fully sure how I feel about tritype theory, but someone posited that I may be a 478; I read the description and it seemed a bit more fitting than most other things I've seen.

If wings are a factor, I think I'm a 4w5, 7w6, 8w9? I'd need to take further tests to figure this out.

EDIT: Type 8 SP
Type 4 SX
Type 3 SX
Type 5 SX
Type 6 SP
Type 7 SO
Type 1 SP
Type 9 SX
Type 2 SX

Means I must be an 8w7 sp/so, a 4w3 sx, 5w6 sx/sp. Will take further tests.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

Omg their faces... Even a rock has more emotions than their faces!

 

[ARET45]

After developing an in depth understanding of the types/wings, tritype often becomes more obvious as real. It can be useful for explaining mistypes and why some 'seem' like a certain type. Many are averse to the idea of tritype initially - in most cases, tritype can only be seen accurately after years of understanding the types.

The question then arises, of whether tritype can be useful in terms of self-development. Of course this depends on whether you are using the Enneagram for self-development to begin with; many use it only as a past-time, a way of analyzing themselves and others. From this perspective, it adds more layers to Enneagram typing. The problems of each type within the tritype are still worth addressing. Just like with any other Enneatyping, it can be a purely mental exercise which has no self-developing quality.

 

[foxonstilts]

I disagree. There is no purpose to having three types; everything can be explained with one. It is contradictory to enneagram to have three driving motivations/fears in life. Tritypes are for people who get bored when they figure out their regular type and decide that 9 types isn't enough and need to be more 'special'.

 

[Kendrix]

Whatever problem you as a complex individual human being are going to have, this is going to be entangled in it somehow; Some factors might explain the majority of it but

If the whole goal of the exercise is to avoid getting stuck in fixed patterns, it might help to know what the biggest factors are that you might be overlooking (and how those can hold illusions of their own)

For me, once applied to a few specific problems/undue hesitations in my life, it helped me a lot and to see interconnections between different parts of me that I'd perhaps been too harsh with or, not understood how the useless parts are correlated with the useful ones & to be respectful/ mindful of all that.

Because I'll be well aware of the, "Well, I want to have my own space" considerations and how they may or may not be actually legit, but, other ones might be more subtle but still there, still making an impact where the conscious mind can't account for them.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Interesting picture.
Names of all types with both or double wings as well as variations.

 

[Star Atlas]

Interesting picture.
Names of all types with both or double wings as well as variations.

Is there any descriptive information delving deeper into the whys of each name?

 

[Virtual ghost]

Is there any descriptive information delving deeper into the whys of each name?

I don't know, I haven't seen such info. Probably there is somewhere in the internet.
The closest I have seen is ennegram central, which has this but without wings.


Enneagram Central - your online Enneagram resource


The picture is interesting since it may simplify figuring out your tritype, by deciding which wings fits you more.

 

[Star Atlas]

I don't know, I haven't seen such info. Probably there is somewhere in the internet.
The closest I have seen is ennegram central, which has this but without wings.


Enneagram Central - your online Enneagram resource


The picture is interesting since it may simplify figuring out your tritype, by deciding which wings fits you more.

Ok. I just wondered if there was something more than just that image. I have seen the ones on PerC that were interesting, but I always like reading other takes on the concept of Tritype since they are so few and far between.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Ok. I just wondered if there was something more than just that image. I have seen the ones on PerC that were interesting, but I always like reading other takes on the concept of Tritype since they are so few and far between.

Try to google what exactly interest you. Maybe something will come out.