This is not intended to be another type me thread (I've already made way too many of those). The purpose of this thread is to discuss some issues I have (that others may have as well) with the enneagram--specifically, the assumption that everyone has exactly one main type.
I keep going in circles. I've researched and researched and analyzed this to death--and I've come to the conclusion that none of the types fit me well enough to be my main type. I'm not 4 enough to be a 4, I'm not 5 enough to be a 5, I'm not 6 enough to be a 6, I'm not 9 enough to be a 9, and I'm certainly not any other type. I've tried on all these types and the feeling I get is that I'm almost, but not quite any of them.
I know, everyone is supposed to have a type, or at least a best fit. But shouldn't there be certain criteria that you have to meet for being a certain type? I mean, for a type to be your type, shouldn't it at least fit you to a certain degree? Otherwise you could end up with people choosing a type for lack of fitting into any other type, while they don't actually relate to that type as well as others of that type, or possibly even others who are not that type.
Here's an example that demonstrates the problem I have with this. Let's say person A (type 6) is an 80% match for type 4 and a 90% match for type 6, while person B (type 4) is a 70% match for type 4. That would mean that person A is more of a 4 than person B, yet person A is not a 4 and person B is.
So perhaps people should be allowed to have more than one type, or no type at all if none describe them adequately. But the problem is, there are no qualifications for being a certain type, it just has to fit you better than all the others. In other words, even if a type is the best fit, it doesn't guarantee that it will describe you very well. And if there's a two-way or even a three-way tie between types, what then? I could be any of the types in my tritype, but I can't say that any of them fit me any better than the other two. Furthermore, I've tried on all those types and in each case found that I don't relate to that type as well as others of that type.
And supposedly your type is not about the characteristics, but the underlying motivations. If that's so, there's even less of a likelihood that one of the 9 types will fit you. The probability that one of those 9 sets of motivations will fit should be less than the probability that one type will contain characteristics that a person can relate to. I just don't see 9 sets of motivations as covering all the ground. Who's to say that everyone will be able to relate to at least one of those? And if you allow a broader interpretation of these motivations so that more people can relate, then you could end up too broad. Should I type myself as a 2 because I want to be loved? Doesn't every single human being on some level want to be loved?
Like I said before, there should be certain criteria you're required to meet for being a type (e.g. you have to relate to this, this, this, and that, at minimum, in order to be this type). There are descriptions, but like every description, not everyone is going to relate to everything--the chances of that are pretty low. But there should at least be something that everyone of a certain type should relate to. The problem is, that hasn't been defined because it's assumed that everyone has a type, therefore in order to be a type, you only have to relate to it more than any other type.
So does everyone really have a type? Does nobody have more than one type? If not, then is the enneagram incomplete, and what can we do to deal with these issues?