# Thread: Tritype's value in explanation?

1. ## Tritype's value in explanation?

I've been wondering... Hypothetically: If I'd say my tritype was for example 1w9, 2w3, 5w6 (tritype 125). As core type 1 my growth direction is towards type 7 and stress direction is towards type 4. In that case, the only type to which I would have no connection would be type 8.

So what's left with the value of typing if it's a mixture of almost everything? I know this is oversimplified question, but it's just a thought.

2. Originally Posted by MyCupOfTea
I've been wondering... Hypothetically: If I'd say my tritype was for example 1w9, 2w3, 5w6 (tritype 125). As core type 1 my growth direction is towards type 7 and stress direction is towards type 4. In that case, the only type to which I would have no connection would be type 8.

So what's left with the value of typing if it's a mixture of almost everything? I know this is oversimplified question, but it's just a thought.
Well, it is also describing the proportion/influence of things in the mix. A 1 moving towards 7 is not the same as a 7, it means something different, for example. a 1w9 looks different than a 1w2 -- there are some core influences that are alike, but the flavor is different. So just because you can see all the numbers in there doesn't mean they are the same thing, as much as the number 123456789 is not the same as 917236485 despite both sharing all the same digits.

Of course, it still has to be shown whether certain configurations have predictive validity.

3. I look at enneagram and Jungian typology as valuable descriptive systems and little more; we're not born one of 16 or one of 9 types, we're born as one of billions of unique individuals; the typology systems just provide a nice but imperfect way of categorizing /classifying us on how we perceive and think. So I wouldn't get too discouraged if you should see some elements of your personality in all of the types.

4. I know that core type is core type and there's a difference in the emphasis of core and other types in one's tritype, or the wings. However, the more "stuff" there is in one's type profile, the blurrier the theory gets.

What I'm trying to find out is the value/meaning of the tritypes. Besides having more explanation power to the theory? Because isn't there a risk that instead of introspection, people will use tritype to cover up their mistypings, because you can always find the reason for incostencies from your tritype, instead of maybe questioning your core type - or the theory itself?
If the theory is valid itself, and claims that there's the type with basic fears and desires for everyone, why is there need to make it more complicated?

5. Originally Posted by Anaximander
I look at enneagram and Jungian typology as valuable descriptive systems and little more; we're not born one of 16 or one of 9 types, we're born as one of billions of unique individuals; the typology systems just provide a nice but imperfect way of categorizing /classifying us on how we perceive and think. So I wouldn't get too discouraged if you should see some elements of your personality in all of the types.
Yeah. Maybe you are right... Maybe I'm over-analyzing this.

6. Originally Posted by MyCupOfTea
Yeah. Maybe you are right... Maybe I'm over-analyzing this.
I think you're raising good questions. It's just important to remember that it's really just about finding a best fit type. I think it's going to be hard for most people to find one type that resonates with them 100%.

7. There are camps that say tritype is not necessary -- I find that depends on what you're looking for. Even with Jungian functions, I find that you can nuance farther and farther, and use the language of the functions indefinitely to find subtle differences between people beyond those suggested at the higher level of just 16 or 8 types.

My main problem with many tritype-ain't-needed camps is they seem to be reacting to the Fauvres system and comparing it to a more Naranjo-like system, and to me this is apples and oranges, because the Fauvres system still seems resembling of the test/RHETI, and is more trait-theoretic. Understandably, someone encountering such a framework may think that pasting a lot of traits together in an unstructured way is not so enlightening.

However, the IDEA that the ego will always be faced with the questions of head, heart, and gut is to me pretty hard to shake off. I'm not sure if it merits pinning down one single type for each of the three, but the idea isn't answered by responses like "you can just use the lines of integration/disintegration".
I think what's clear is different versions of each core type exist, and the only question is whether these differences can be explained by the reactions people have to other centers.
I'd lean that there's some merit to that.

I mean, let's say someone is a 1. They have a 2-wing and a 4 line. Does that cover the interactions 1 has with heart themes? Not necessarily at all. The lines and wings all cover relations type 1 has with other types. A line is similar to an axis in functions theory: Ni/Se are related by the tenet of being complementary views on the irrational side of cognition. But, 1 and 3 are both competence-seeking types. They thus share a relation. Is it possible someone with a competence-seeking motivation endowed by core 1 may supplement that competence-seeking with some 3-ish drives?

If not, why not get rid of wings too? Why not say whatever 2-ishness you see in a 1 is just because 1 neighbors 2, and it's useless to pick out wings? If we can say some 1s seem genuinely more 2-ish, why not say some 6-ish seem to be the greatest self-doubting types, more so than other 6s and have some 9 influence? Now, some will say, but that's because some are p and some are cp...some are sp...some are sx. Sorry, but why is sp ~ self-doubting in a type 6? Overall, I've not found the explanations satisfactory, and find the subtypes sp/sx/so of Naranjo just as arbitrary as tritypes, and honestly I think either just stop creating subtype systems and admit there are just various varieties of each core type or be flexible with what subtype system you allow. Tritype is really a subtype system.

My general answer is that you can focus on core, but realize part of that is picking out the many varieties/subtypes of a type, and I'm not sure there's a canonical reason to stop at the instinctual subtypes commonly presented. Whether you refer to a formal tritype or not, keep in mind the answers you have to the other triads' questions when figuring out your core, and you'll 'already' have done the work of finding a sort of tritype.

8. Not a fan of integration/disintegration and levels of health. They're an attempt at social engineering, premised on what's valued by religion and spirituality. Tritype appears secular and considers the multifaceted nature of humans and our strategies (whether defense or coping). It doesn't point to behaviours in terms of good or bad, only that of how people handle life.

IMO, self-awareness is far more important than attempting to live up to someone else's bullshit standards.

9. Originally Posted by andante
Not a fan of integration/disintegration and levels of health. They're an attempt at social engineering, premised on what's valued by religion and spirituality. Tritype appears secular and considers the multifaceted nature of humans and our strategies (whether defense or coping). It doesn't point to behaviours in terms of good or bad, only that of how people handle life.

IMO, self-awareness is far more important than attempting to live up to someone else's bullshit standards.
Brilliant.

Never thought about it this way, but this is a very interesting thing to keep in mind when it comes to social norms based on spirituality-based "personality" systems.

10. I must say, I kind of lost the thought I had in OP But the idea wasn't to argue that the core type should be everything there is in a person. It was more or less the opposite - questioning the need for pumping up a theory with different kind of applications so it would be waterproof - instead of being a platform for introspection. That's why I wondered if tritype was just "an application" of Enneagram. GavinElster's post was therefore very informative, thank you

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO