Typh0n
clever fool
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2013
- Messages
- 3,497
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/sp
There are two enneagram theories, traditional (everyone has one type) and tritype (everyone has one type in each of the three different centers, heart, head, and gut).
The problem with the tritype theory is that the third fix seems almost irrelevant. Yes, the first fix is the most important and alot of people feel they have another fix that influences them though not to the same extent as the first one. The problem is that when you get to the third fix it seems to be barely discernable as an influence as it is behind the first two. Even if you argue that the second and third types are of equal strength it becomes convoluted to have to discern between two types of equal strength.
I propose a compromise between traditional enneagram and tritype. It's the idea that you have a primary type in one of the three centres (heart, head or gut) and a secondary type in another center, but it cuts out the idea of a third fix, or simply considers it as unimportant.
This isn't a rejection of tritype theory, which might still prove useful when describing tritypes as composite entities, for example how a 378 differs from a 379 is still great despite the fact the third fix (in this case 8 vs 9) might be overshadowed by the first two types if we look at the types individually.
So it isn't a new theory, just a remodelling of an old one to make the theory less convoluted. I think the model is simply how we represent the theory in our minds, therefore it can prove useful to switch models for different applications of the theory.
What do you think?
The problem with the tritype theory is that the third fix seems almost irrelevant. Yes, the first fix is the most important and alot of people feel they have another fix that influences them though not to the same extent as the first one. The problem is that when you get to the third fix it seems to be barely discernable as an influence as it is behind the first two. Even if you argue that the second and third types are of equal strength it becomes convoluted to have to discern between two types of equal strength.
I propose a compromise between traditional enneagram and tritype. It's the idea that you have a primary type in one of the three centres (heart, head or gut) and a secondary type in another center, but it cuts out the idea of a third fix, or simply considers it as unimportant.
This isn't a rejection of tritype theory, which might still prove useful when describing tritypes as composite entities, for example how a 378 differs from a 379 is still great despite the fact the third fix (in this case 8 vs 9) might be overshadowed by the first two types if we look at the types individually.
So it isn't a new theory, just a remodelling of an old one to make the theory less convoluted. I think the model is simply how we represent the theory in our minds, therefore it can prove useful to switch models for different applications of the theory.
What do you think?
