The Problem With Those 9 Personality Types

The Enneagram, like many personality tests, isn't well backed-up by scientific research, but its popularity in spite of that can give us a window into how the human mind works.

Hosted by: Brit Garner
----------

----------
Huge thanks go to the following Patreon supporters for helping us keep SciShow free for everyone forever:

Greg, Alex Schuerch, Alex Hackman, Andrew Finley Brenan, Sam Lutfi, D.A. Noe, الخليفي سلطان, Piya Shedden, KatieMarie Magnone, Scott Satovsky Jr, Charles Southerland, Patrick D. Ashmore, charles george, Kevin Bealer, Chris Peters
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
----------
Sources:

[Ziffer]

I'd never heard of this personality test before this video.

[justdoit]

I don't believe anyone in the world said to one of their friends "you're such a type 8."

[uss_]

Get all 9 types together in the same room and make a transmutation circle.
Make a philosophers stone,

[gwyn.]

I bet there's a lot of *Type 2* in the US...






*Type 2 Diabetes*

[Barde_Jaune]

I think what's interesting with the enneagram isn't the personality type you end up being asociated with, but the road of discovery that come with it. I've been introduced to it today (fun fact) by a friend, before this video was released, and I looked into it a bit. The main goal is to identify what you tend to lean on in terms of virtues and pulsions, and the long term idea is to try to balance out your traits, to become a better person.

There's a philosophical aspect to this thing that is worth checking out, even if you don't believe in the whole thing itself. ;)

[coolsebastian]

Everyone needs to know about the Barnum effect.

[aidanlukestoddart]

Hello! I hope someone reads this (please), but I’m probably coming to this video late, so I understand if this feedback won’t be of consequence.

Crash Course, I tend to really like your videos. But, with respect, I think this one is more than a bit reductive. Here’s why I think so:

I think the value of the Enneagram is that it provides language for thinking about the patterns with which we live life and through which we interact with our world. That does not mean that any given enneagram type will provide a fail-safe descriptor of every action—what evaluation of a human being could? We’re complex and almost all typologies are failures—not just for us, but for most aspects of reality!

However, the language of the enneagram can nonetheless be useful for assessing our own personal tendencies. Sure: No one is essentially a number. No one has essentially one fear, or one vice, or whatever. But a lot of us have predominant fears, or patterns to which we find ourselves returning often (even if not always).

I imagine that an equal critique could be levied at supporters of the enneagram itself. The straw-person described in the video, who says “You’re such an 8!” Is making neither a helpful, nor precise, nor analytically nuanced comment, and is employing a highly-distilled distortion of enneagram-typing to make a mean comment about someone’s behavior. This is not lifegiving, of course—but it’s also not really faithful to the spirit of some of the best enneagram literature out there. Thoughtful people write books that are hundreds of pages long dedicated to the enneagram, providing lengthy, thoughtful (and if imperfect, still helpful) analyses of each type. Particularly of interest are some explorations of the enneagram by contemporary theologians like Richard Rohr and Andreas Ebert—I really think such books are more resistant to the Barnum Effect than this video would like to suggest. It’s not as simple as the ridiculously vague traits offered for example here—you make the enneagram sound like a horoscope! Have you read one of the longer enneagram books? The types are really not that vague. Maybe some fans of the enneagram wrongfully simplify it the way you caricature, but that doesn’t change the fact that you’re really not judging the enneagram at its best. Furthermore, you’re really not meant to take a test, as if your personality can be gleaned from a deluge of multiple choice questions—you’re meant to read deep profiles and reflect over a long time.

To be honest, I’m surprised to find myself writing such a long comment on a video. It seems unlikely that discourse in YouTube comments will ever generate productive intellection, even in the comment feed of such a high-quality channel as this. And I’m also not a psychologist—by training I’m a scholar of comparative religion, and while I’ve certainly interacted with the work of some psychologists (for example, William James), I am willing to accept that I may be wrong here, if someone is willing to explain to me how and why.

That said, please indulge a couple more comments: perhaps I would not be so passionate about defending the enneagram if I had not already seen it being put to good use in pastoral context, doing the work I described above of helping people identify some of the core tendencies they have, and offering some reflections and strategies for understanding those tendencies. The enneagram has helped my dad—who is a talented priest and chaplain—to give people language to describe some of their deepest fears and insecurities and vices about life. And please do not take me for some ascientific religious fanatic who is too hopped up on spirituality to think with good sense. Neither I, nor my father, nor the many people who reflect on the enneagram deeply (especially in a pastoral context) are idiots. Rather, we understand the limits of the enneagram, but also understand it’s gifts as an evocative emotional tool. If approached with nuance and with levity, the enneagram can be far more than a mere horoscope, and far more incisive than a Myers-Briggs tetrad. It can help us to identify that which challenges us with greater frequency, and give a name to those deeper patterns that—while apprehended by us, perhaps—may elude analysis by us unless we have a linguistic tool for categorization.

I tire of all this “scientism” levied in critique at the enneagram because I think such critique makes false assumptions about what the enneagram is attempting in the first place. It’s not a perfect typology. It’s not even a perfectly exclusive typology—thoughtful fans of the enneagram will be the first to tell you that the types interact, overlap, and even meld into one another *depending* on circumstances. So yeah. Of COURSE you’re going to get different results on different occasions if you limit the enneagram to a facile multiple choice questionnaire. But finding a perfect, be-all, end-all number is not what it’s about. It is rather about reflecting on a few (namely, 9) patterns (or pattern-clouds/matrixes) of human experience, and asking questions about which patterns seem the most imprinted on our lives, if any. If we find ourselves relating to a pattern (such as, for example, the shame triad), what might that tell us about our means of evaluation and interaction with reality? Such questioning is useful. It is certainly not only achieved through the enneagram—the enneagram isn’t some arcane ritual after all, it’s just a thought schema—but for a lot of people, the enneagram is a helpful and compelling place to start.

I respectfully hope you (whoever reads this damn essay) will consider whether you yourself are the one being vague and simplistic when it comes to discussing the enneagram. It’s not a perfect typology, but it is a language. And while no language can perfectly encapsulate reality (what language could?), a language is still a good starting place for learning about ourselves, our world, our relationships, and our conceptions thereof.

Thank you, and peace to you.

[amicableenmity]

You mean we can't encompass the entirety of a person within a strictly defined box of traits? Fascinating. It's almost like this is...pseudoscience.

[MissVioletaOrange]

You failed to mention that each personality type has three subtypes as well as the connections between the types. Nor have you mentioned that many psychotherapists, and psychologists are trained in this method, or that it is used in establishing "roles" and not stagnant personality types. While I agree there is little scientific research to validate this system, when you are critiquing a method it would be nice if you were more thorough and scientific in your research especially when presenting it as a pseudoscience.

[kevslighthouse]

The Big 5 may be the most accurate personality test, but it is not helpful. It gives you a score of 5 traits, but it does not tell you how those traits interact with each other. It neglects the fact that people are more than the sum of their parts. So all you're left with is some percentages and no idea how to apply the information.

[EconomyofTruthHub]

I actually take issue with this video. I have my own reservations about the Enneagram, but the descriptions of personality types are anything but vague. People on Instagram draw vague extrapolations from the types, but I'm skeptical that the Barnum effect does a good job at explaining the popularity of the Enneagram. I guess more research is needed.

[jeffgrogan]

Though the principles and basic premise of attacking personality tests are grounded, there's no reason to single out the Enneagram in this episode.


Frankly, as someone who has both used the Enneagram with great success, and who also sees its flaws as adopted by mainstream culture, it's still much more comprehensive and well-thought out compared to other tests like DISC, or, god forbid, the colors. Could it be instead that all of these tests have kernels of truth that popularity and the internet have twisted to make profit? It's because there's no easily accessible Big Five test that it helps as a tool for scientific research; people can't bring competing results into a psychiatrist's office to argue they don't have the style their doctor claimed. And vice versa, when people use personality tests to better understand others, whether at work, with friends, or their community, the good is shrouded over by those who misuse it to type others (a fundamental error to those who know and use the Enneagram.) This allows you, SciShow, to say things like the Enneagram puts everyone in "one of nine categories, " which isn't the whole truth. They don't acknowledge that the best Enneagram test is more like an aptitude test than a choose-your-own-adventure. Yes, people have more than one style, which is why the Enneagram is flexible (unlike Meyers-Briggs, where you are either X or Y - no wiggle room allowed) and you move to embody different numbers in different scenarios.


I disagree with the writers' portrayal and poor understanding of this test (and maybe even sub-culture) because it shows they are writing quickly, and subject to confirmation bias toward things they research from an angle of discrediting, rather than experiencing and explaining. I have noticed characterizations like this in past episodes as well, but this one stuck out as it's something I know (apparently) more deeply than the people producing this episode.

Do better to represent the people you want to correct, SciShow.

[avi]

Love the enneagram and love his video. I don’t think the enneagram is intended to be a scientific tool to measure reliability and validity, I see it similar to the Myers Briggs and astrology is is something that everyone can relate to in some way and can be used to further someone’s knowledge of themselves and others but not to measure something scientifically.

What I love about the enneagram and is not present in other personality tests like the big five is an awareness of how your personality changes under stress and in times of celebration and actualization it can be very beneficial to notice those patterns and address them when hey arise, especially the stress patterns. The big five does not do this whatsoever

[moosepocalypse]

I like the system from MAD magazine all those years ago the type A personality. You're either a type A or not.
As for what the A stands for, I can't say in polite company but it rhymes with gashole 😂

[Arctures]

As someone who's studied Enneagram for a few years now, I have several thoughts:

1) Of course it's not based in peer-reviewed scientific research. It's all taken with a grain of salt, and anybody who claims to have hard-coded evidence into this system's physical existence in the human brain is delusional.
2) Self-reported personality tests in general are always going to have high levels of inconsistency. People tend to slightly redefine their perceptions of themselves depending on their mood. Furthermore, each slight iteration on the same basic question can result in different responses depending on how the individual subjectively interprets it.
3) From what I've read, I don't think the lines of integration/disintegration (the "you start acting like this other type under points of stress" idea) hold any merit to them, for the reason listed below:
4) Enneagram types are not simply collections of disparate personality traits. That's the most absolute bare-bones superficial analysis of the system, and one that neither remotely systematic nor helpful for understanding people at a useful level. I absolutely never recommend that anybody attempt to dig into these systems by starting with tests for this very reason. Once you start thinking about personality as collections of surface-level quirks, you lose out on what actually makes people tick in a meaningful way.

Enneagram's core comprises of three base neuroses that supposedly encompass the entirety of human existence. Each type both fixates on these neuroses in different priorities and handles these neuroses with different coping mechanisms. Some types overlap with primary neurosis, and others overlap with the coping mechanism. This is how the Enneagram gets its structure and evolves beyond simply defining complex, nuanced human beings as grab-bags of personality quirks.

In short, do your research.

[VidMakerLees]

It sounds like someone doesn't like the type they most identified with and criticized a system that is about growing and developing out of habits then falling into them again. It isn't pigeonholing if you allow it to be and it is meant for self-identification not for others to say so. Plus, it has so many more applications than the Myers Briggs, and any system including the "Big 5" will always put people in boxes, but everyone does have habits and recognizing them and trying to improve them (which the Enneagram emphasizes) can be very helpful. Fruit for thought.

[cindywells]

One of the primary weaknesses of only accepting personality archetypes that have scientific validation is best explained by the “Streetlight Effect”. If you don’t know what I am referring to, it’s a joke about a drunk who is frantically searching for his keys at night under a streetlight. A man comes by and offers to help him search for them. After a while of fruitless efforts, the man asks the drunk whether he is absolutely certain that he dropped his keys there. The drunk replies that he actually dropped his keys in the park, but the light was much better over here.
All the “Big 5” really account for is external behavior, but not *why* you behave that way. And as neuroticism is generally unhealthy, whereas openness is generally healthy, there’s very little neutrality to any of those measurements. I am an Enneagram type 1, but I almost never test as a 1, simply because dealing with disabilities means that perfection isn’t remotely within reach, and so I have had to grow and adapt while becoming more accepting of myself and others. Yet deep inside the desire to make the world a better place is at the root of everything.
It is because of Psychology’s obsession with verifying everything scientifically that caused me to abandon the study of psychology for the study of history, as at least within that the desire to understand humanity is not reduced to what you can pin down under your thumb.

[Jonquil_Studios]

I mean, part of the issue is the OCEAN / Big 5 can be pretty negative and even insulting. It's pretty clear that being "neurotic" and "close-minded" is a bad thing, and the test implies that your personality is unchangeable (so if you're a close-minded, irresponsible, introverted, argumentative neurotic there's nothing you can do about it). Meanwhile, every Ennegram type has a mix of positive and negative traits, and underlying beliefs and values, and you are encourage to develop associated traits to improve your life or get along better with others.

For example, I had a pretty strong "type 4" personality in high school, but over time I developed more "type 5" traits-- which made it easier to get along with others because I was better able to step back and be thoughtful, rather than give into extreme emotional impulses. That is, I got better at emotional regulation and overcame some personal biases, so I now have much better relationships. My personality changed, which is something the Ennegram is good at accepting.

On the flip side, I don't think I would change into a "type 1, " because I fundamentally disagree with the core beliefs and values that drive type 1. The things that motivate a type 1 actually really irritate me and put me off. But what's interesting is that, after learning that, "oh, some people are genuinely motivated by xyz, which is the opposite of my own motivations, " helped me better understand the minds of people I frequently have conflict with--and, thus, get into fewer conflicts, or resolve them faster.

It's a bit why acceptence-commitment therapy (ACT - which encompasses some CBT methods) was really effective in helping me improve my quality of life, while other styles didn't--and actually made my quality of life worse. Because ACT connected me to my genuine motivations and empowered me to use them to make positive changes, but other therapies are designed around motivations or to uphold values that I simply don't have. But, other people *do* have them.

[lisazoria]

It is obviously pseudoscience, but that doesn't mean there's nothing of value in it at all. Also, it's inaccurate to say that it only encompasses one aspect of personality because along with the main enneagram type are there things called "wings" which is a secondary type which describes your second most important motivations. Having two main types, plus four associated types related to stress and growth makes for at least six shades of influence. It can be as simple or complex as you want it to be and I find it's just an interesting way to look at human behavior and the different possible fears and motivations that might make people tick. It will be truer for some more than others. It's all just fun and theory at the end of the day.

[quincyfreeman]

I actually think you’ve missed 2 important distinctions here. The original system’s goals/claims/fundamentals, and “user-error”. The system itself states that everyone shows some amount of characteristics of every number at different times and situations. The belief is that you will move through situations with a core fear and motivation in mind. Often times the issue is that people in the community just look at the “fruit” or outward action of an individual to label them with a number, which is the complete opposite point of the enneagram. It’s not as simple as “here’s your number. That’s what you are”, even though people like to use it that way. As usual, people are the bigger problem, not the system.