A Directional Theory of Enneagram Compulsions
by Thomas Chou
The Enneagram explains much about personality. But what explains the Enneagram?
What is the root cause of each type’s behaviors? Why do the types integrate and
disintegrate the way they do? How does the Enneagram relate to other typologies such as
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)? Many Enneagram theories exist, but their
ability to answer these basic questions is limited. One reason may be that many theories
focus on superficial behaviors, without considering the underlying forces that drive these
behaviors. I would like to suggest a new theory based on the underlying forces of each
personality, which I believe give each type a defining sense of direction. This theory also
explains most of the directions of integration, and provides new perspectives on how the
Enneagram relates to other psychological concepts, such as emotions and the MBTI.
A major tool for analyzing the direction of the Enneagram types is the triad proposed by
the psychoanalyst Karen Horney, which describes aggressive, withdrawn, and compliant
types. These types respectively move against, away from, or toward the environment,
thus specifying 3 types of psychological movements. However, to fully explain the types,
we must go further, because Horney’s triad clearly leaves out some underlying forces.
For example, types 5, 4, and 9 all withdraw, but for different underlying reasons. The 9
withdraws to avoid conflicts with others, hoping to preserve their peaceful feeling of unity
with others. In other words, the 9’s behavior moves away from others, but their
underlying desire is to move towards others, seeking unity and belonging. In contrast, the
5 withdraws to establish their mental control over their environment, thus moving against
it, while the 4 withdraws to enhance their feeling of uniqueness, thus moving away from
the environment. For these types, the superficial withdrawn behavior masks 3 different
underlying motivations. Furthermore, these underlying motivations come in a Hornevian
style triad that also moves against, away from, or towards the environment. This analysis
leads to an unusually elegant 3x3 arrangement of the 9 types. Figure 1 shows this
arrangement, along with some terms and plus/minus symbols, which will be explained
shortly.
Deep motivation
(long term
direction)
Against
Power-seeking
Away
Inspiration-seeking
Towards
Approval-seeking
+
0

2
helper
7
enthusiast
6
loyalist
Towards
Compliant or
embracing
5
investigator
4
individualist
9
peacemaker
Away
Withdrawn
8
leader
1
reformer
3
motivator
Against
Aggressive

0
+
Surface behavior
(short term direction)
Figure 1: The surface and deep directions of the Enneagram compulsions
1
By now, there are many 3x3 theories in the Enneagram literature, all of which are slightly
different from each other. My symmetric arrangement of the 3x3 grid is also different
from all others, although it most closely resembles the 3x3 theory of Hurley and Dobson
(What’s My Type, 1993, pp. 92-3). However, my work exchanges types 7 and 1 from
theirs, and reinterprets both of the component triads in new ways. I hope that these new
interpretations will offer helpful insights that can support, reconcile, and extend previous
theories.
My proposed combination of surface and deep compulsions can fully explain the
psychological directions that define each Enneagram type. Hence, it is important to
understand how the surface and deep triads work. Briefly, the surface compulsion
describes the short-term behaviors that one uses, while the deep compulsion describes the
long-term, end goals of these behaviors. The surface compulsion tends to be very
conscious and apparent to others, while the deep compulsion is hidden deeper in the
subconscious. In the next few paragraphs, I would like to highlight a few other qualities
of these two triads.
The surface compulsion describes short term emotions and behaviors
My surface triad is a reinterpretation of the triad that Karen Horney described around
1950. I interpret this triad to be based on the emotional bias of the types. Hence, the
aggressive types 8, 1, and 3 are the ones prone to the negative emotions of anger and
competition, which move against others. Conversely, the compliant types 6, 7, and 2 are
the ones prone to the positive emotions of affection and appreciation, which move toward
others. Finally, the withdrawn types 5, 4, and 9 are prone to internalizing their emotions,
whether positive or negative, thus keeping them away from others. Above Figure 1, I
have thus labeled the aggressive column with a minus sign, while the compliant column
has a plus sign, and the withdrawn types are labeled with a zero. One should not let the
zero symbol mislead us into thinking that these types have zero emotions – they may have
very strong emotions, but do not immediately translate them into actions against or
toward the environment. Figure 2 summarizes these qualities of the surface triad.
Self is changed
by others
+
Self is separate
from others
0
Self changes
others
_
Compliance
Withdrawal
Aggression
(positive emotions (internalized emotions (negative emotions
move towards others) kept away from others) move against others)
Figure 2: Polarity of the against-away-toward triad
Reversing types 7 and 1
My interpretation of Horney’s triad and its relations to emotions has led me to reverse
types 7 and 1 from the prevailing viewpoint. The prevailing view considers the 7 an
aggressive or assertive type, while the 1 is considered a compliant type. However, I
2
believe my view is more consistent with the fundamental against and toward directions.
For example, the 7 may indeed be assertive, but they are most assertive in moving toward
the environment, unlike the 8, 1, and 3 who are most assertive in moving against the
environment. The 7’s feelings are mostly positive, and their first desire is to enjoy the
world, not fight it. The 7 may use charm and deflection to avoid conflict, while the 8, 1,
and 3 have feelings that directly confront the world. The 7 may not be particularly
compliant to rules and restraints, but this is because the 7 embraces, i.e. moves toward,
many other people, places, ideas, and activities. Indeed, I think the term “embracing”
reflects the moving-toward stance more broadly than “compliant”. While “compliance”
suggests a passive, almost reluctant movement toward rules and regulations imposed from
outside, “embracing” suggests a more active, heartfelt movement toward anything,
whether they be ideas, people, places, or activities. Regarding type 1, this type is usually
considered compliant because they are compliant to their superegos. This may certainly
be true, but it is also an inconsistent application of the word “compliant”, because it
describes how one part of the mind (the ego) is compliant to another part (the superego).
All other types are defined in terms of how the mind as a whole relates to the world, and
the 1’s mind as a whole confronts the world, forcing it to become more orderly and
correct.
The deep compulsion describes subconscious long-term goals
In this theory, the deep triad has the same against-away-toward structure as the surface
triad, but operates over a longer time frame. Although the deep compulsion is less
obvious to others, it is the more powerful of the two, because it is the master of the
surface compulsion. The surface behaviors are like conscious slaves carrying out orders
from the long-term desires that are hidden deeper in the subconscious. Since these deeper
desires are more hidden, they are not well understood by most. To help understand these
goals, I have given plain-English names to the 3 elements of the deep triad. Hence, types
2, 5, and 8 (moving against) are the “power-seekers”, who seek a sense of control, while
the 7, 4, and 1 (moving away) are the “inspiration-seekers”, pursuing their inner utopian
ideals, and the 3, 6, and 9 (moving towards) are the “approval-seekers”, seeking to belong
in a world defined by others. Many authors, including Hurley and Donson, Riso and
Hudson, and others, have noted that this triad exists, but used terminology that did not
recognize its goal-seeking quality. Indeed, my goal-seeking terminology helps support
and explain prior observations about this triad. For example, Riso and Hudson note that
the 2, 5, and 8 over-express feeling, thinking, and doing. The underlying reason for overexpression may be the desire for power, and for imposing their wills on the environment.
This requires considerable energy directed at the environment, and tends to intensify
whatever functions they use most. In the approval-seeking group, Hurley and Donson
describe the 3, 6, and 9 as those taking a “mediating” approach to life, while Riso and
Hudson note that these types are most “out of touch” with feeling, thinking, and doing. In
my view, the underlying reason for both of these observations is that the search for
approval makes these types pay more attention to what others value than to what they
value. Hence, they may compromise (i.e. mediate) between their wishes and those of
others, while also losing touch with their inner self. Indeed, the 3, 6, and 9 may do more
than just lose touch with themselves; they may disown parts of themselves, and become
3
people defined entirely by others around them. Finally, I have called the 1, 4, and 7 the
“inspiration-seeking” types, because these types are fixated on their inner inspirations,
rather than the real world. Because these inspirations are limited only by their
imaginations, they may be far reaching and beautiful, or seriously unrealistic and
unattainable. The main qualities of the deep triad are summarized in Figure 3.
Types
258
741
693
Direction
Against
Away
Toward
Name
Power-seeking
Inspiration-seeking
Approval-seeking
Healthy destination
Strength, willpower
Universality, beauty
Belonging
Unhealthy destination
Willfulness, authoritarianism
Self-absorption
Lost identity; living life
defined by others
Figure 3: Qualities of the 3 deep compulsions
Now, we can combine the 3 surface and 3 deep directions to explain the 9 types:
Type 1: the aggressive inspiration-seeker.
The 1’s compulsion moves against others on the surface, but away from others
underneath. This explains how the 1 may outwardly seem quite efficient and engaged,
while underneath they are thinking more about some ideal world that they are trying to
create in the long term. Inspirations often involve ideals, in which the best possible world
is imagined, and then used to judge the actual world. Hence, the 1 often finds reality to
be inadequate compared to their ideal of perfection. The 1’s ideals are filtered through
their aggressive exterior, which is proactive and practical. Hence, their ideals are active
and practical, involving rules, principles, morality, truth and justice. Like all the
inspiration-seekers, the 1’s goals are essentially infinite. Everything, no matter how
orderly, just or good, can always be better, more orderly and more just. Hence, the
average 1 can become extremely frustrated when they fail to reach their own everincreasing standards.
Type 2: the compliant power-seeker.
The 2’s compulsion moves toward others on the surface, but against them underneath.
This explains how average 2s can be warm and helpful on the outside, while harboring a
hidden agenda and a latent tendency to make others dependent on their help in the long
term. All the power-seeking types have strong wills, although the 2’s willpower is
masked somewhat by their embracing exterior, and less obvious than in the 5 or 8. The
2’s will does become obvious when they show the possessive tendency that all powerseekers have. The 2 is most possessive of people, in contrast to the 5’s possession of
information (hoarding), or the 8’s possession of physical resources (territorialism). All
human beings need love, no matter what the Enneagram type, but the 2’s desire for love is
the most noticeable, because their inner will and exterior charm make them believe that
they can make people love them.
Type 3: aggressive approval-seeker.
4
The 3’s surface compulsion moves against people, while the underlying compulsion
moves toward people. This explains why the 3 seems pushy and competitive, but in the
long term, deeply wants the approval of others. This seems paradoxical – indeed, the 3
literally fights others to win approval from them. These conflicting surface and deep
compulsions create problems for the average 3, because it makes them seem deceptive.
Like all average types, 3s are only consciously aware of their surface compulsion, while
often denying their deeper compulsions. Hence, the average 3 claims to be a bold,
aggressive leader, while denying that they are actually following the leadership of the
people whose admiration they seek. This is analogous to the 2, who is deceptive in the
other direction – the average 2 claims to only be helping others, while denying the
aggressive motives hidden underneath.
Type 4: the withdrawn inspiration-seeker.
The 4’s surface and deep compulsions both move away from the environment, making
them the most introspective, individualistic type of all. This doubly-withdrawn
compulsion makes 4s psychologically free from the real-world constraints that all other
types have. This freedom makes them highly original and creative, but also gives average
4s a self-absorbed quality and a tendency to become alienated from ordinary life. Like the
other inspiration-seekers, the 4 seeks a utopian ideal that makes the real world seem
inadequate by comparison. Because of their withdrawn exterior, the 4’s ideals are more
personal than with the other types, making them more of a romantic idealist as opposed to
the 1’s practical idealism.
Type 5: the withdrawn power-seeker.
The 5 moves away from others on the surface, but against others underneath. Hence,
average 5s may seem apathetic and laconic on the surface, but underneath their strong will
makes them want to be in control, and they are fearful of becoming overwhelmed and
losing control. The withdrawn types by definition do not like to expend much physical
energy, and hence the 5 tends to focus on intellectual topics which they can control with
purely mental energy. Like all power-seekers, the 5 often acquires a “sphere” of
influence, which they guard jealously and possessively. Since the 5’s sphere is usually
intellectual or strategic, they tend to possess or hoard information.
Type 6: the compliant (embracing) approval-seeker.
The 6’s surface and deep compulsions both move toward others, making the average 6 the
type most psychologically dependent on a stable external support that they can attach to.
Hence, the 6 is born wanting to trust the world, but sooner or later the 6 child learns that
this is treacherous because most people are too selfish, or too preoccupied to
wholeheartedly support them. Once the 6 realizes this, they start to learn defense
techniques against their own trusting nature. Skeptical thinking, seeking safety in groups,
etc. are all tactics the 6 develops, which had their root in their doubly-compliant nature.
Type 7: the compliant (embracing) inspiration-seeker.
The 7 embraces the world on the surface, but moves away from it underneath. Hence, the
7 may seem very focused on the real world, but their mind is actually attending to a
5
glorious fantasy of how good things could be, making the real world seem inadequate by
comparison. Hence, the 7 is easily disappointed by reality, like the other inspirationseekers 1 and 4. However, the 7’s disappointment is hidden behind the embracing
exterior, which has a large capacity for positive, appreciative emotions. Like the other
inspiration-seekers, the 7 is satisfied only with the best of whatever they become
interested in. However, because they have so many positive feelings for so many things,
they may start to define “best” in terms of quantity rather than quality.
Type 8: the aggressive power-seeker.
The 8 moves against others in both their surface and deep compulsions, hence is the most
aggressive type overall. The power-seeking compulsion is hence most obvious in the 8,
with their willpower, self-reliance, and possessive tendencies quite evident to others.
Also, all the power-seeking types tend to acquire a “sphere of influence”, and in the 8’s
case, this sphere tends to be physical and worldly, unlike the 5’s intellectual sphere and
the 2’s social sphere. The terms “aggressive” and “moving against” often carry hostile
connotations which really only apply to unhealthy or average 8s. In healthier states, the
8’s doubly-aggressive compulsion makes them particularly able to rise above incredible
obstacles, giving them a widely-recognized heroic quality.
Type 9: the withdrawn approval-seeker.
The 9 moves away from others on the surface, but toward others underneath. These two
movements conflict, and the 9 is caught between wanting to detach from others while still
identifying with others in the long term. Hence, they withdraw in non-threatening ways,
to allow themselves to come back later. Unhealthy 9s may seem almost dead on the
surface, but inside they are under the illusion that they are at one with the world; hence
they are living through others. Indeed, all the approval-seeking types may get trapped into
living lives defined by others, when they disown their own will and give it to the
community that they want to belong to.
Clearly, the surface and deep compulsions can explain a great deal about each Enneagram
type. Of course, most of these traits are things that we already know, but it is gratifying to
see them explained in a systematic way. But how can we explain dynamic changes, such
as the lines of integration between types, or the levels of health within a type?
6
Deep
Layer
Against
2
5
8
Away
7
4
1
Toward
6
9
3
Toward
Away
Against
Surface
layer
Figure 4: Lines of integration
Explaining the lines of integration/disintegration:
The lines of integration form a pattern that is very difficult to explain using the traditional
circular symbol, but becomes much simpler when using our two-layer theory. As shown
in Figure 4, every line of integration points exactly one column to the right. Most of these
lines (with only 2 exceptions) point to another type in the same row. Thus, integration is
largely a horizontal movement in the 3x3 table, in which the surface behavior changes
while the deeper motivations remain the same. We also see that integration occurs in a
cycle, which moves from compliant to withdrawn, to aggressive and finally back to
compliant, as shown in Figure 5.
5, 4, 9
Away
Toward
(embracing)
2, 7, 6
Against
8, 1, 3
Figure 5: Cycle of integration
The integration cycle is a loop of three arrows. Two of these arrows reflect the idea that
growth and learning usually lead to greater self-reliance and reduced dependency on
others. For example, the embracing types integrate to withdrawn types when they become
more independent of the outside world. The withdrawn types integrate to aggressive
types when they become confident enough to take a stand and impact others, i.e. when
they become more securely self-reliant. However, the third arrow reflects a different
aspect of maturation. The aggressive types start out feeling confident of their abilities
(perhaps too much so), and they grow by recognizing that there are limits to their abilities,
and that they really must depend on others because they cannot know and do everything.
7
Types 2 and 7: Two of the lines of integration are not horizontal: the 2->4 and the 7->5
lines cross between the power-seeking row and the inspiration-seeking row. The 2 and 7
still integrate by changing from an embracing stance to a withdrawn stance. However,
they switch between power-seeking and inspiration-seeking, unlike the other 7 types. I
have not found a satisfactory explanation for these two exceptions, although one
possibility is that the centers and the types may become disconnected during integration.
Hence, the feeling 2 would integrate to a feeling 5 (who would resemble a 4) and the
thinking 7 would integrate to a thinking 4 (who would resemble a 5). Needless to say, I
am not quite satisfied with this ad hoc explanation.
Levels of health and the golden rule: So far, I have described only average types, but
our two-layer theory can also explain the types at healthy or unhealthy levels. When
healthy, the “power-seeking”, “inspiration-seeking”, and “approval-seeking” types are
more accurately called “empowering”, “inspiring”, and “approving”. In other words,
healthier types are more able to give to others and follow the classic golden rule: “do unto
others what you would have them do unto you”. Hence, the healthy 8 becomes the
“leader” because they empower others, lifting them up to help them use their own
strength. The healthy 3 becomes the “motivator” not by seeking approval, but by
approving and encouraging the impressive qualities they see in others. The healthy 1 not
only pursues their inner inspiration, but also inspires others with the justness and virtue of
their cause. Conversely, unhealthy types do the opposite; they jealously take away from
others what they wanted to have themselves.
Links to the Myers-Briggs typology:
Can our 3x3 theory help bridge the gap between the Enneagram and other typologies,
such as the Myers-Briggs typology? Forming such a bridge seems difficult, since the
Enneagram has a 3x3 structure with 9 types, while the MBTI has a 2x2x2x2 structure and
16 types. There appear to be no perfect correlations between Enneagram types and MBTI
types, although definite trends exist.
Our directional theory may help generate hypotheses for examining the relations between
Enneagram type and MBTI functions. For example, the “away” movements in the
directional theory are analogous to the introverted direction of the MBTI. Of course, in
the Enneagram, the “away” movement can either be on the surface or deep layer,
suggesting that there may be two kinds of introverts, “surface introverts” and “deep
introverts”. This hypothesis is suggested in Figure 6A. We can also consider the
thinking-feeling dimension of the MBTI. Note that the thinking function most useful
when there is some practical problem that requires an effective solution. Also note that
the types moving against others tend to attack problems proactively. They try to master
their environment, and use the thinking function to stay one step ahead of the
environment. The types moving toward others deal with problems reactively; when the
world around them demands something, they use the thinking function to respond
adaptively (e.g. when facing a looming deadline). Hence, the upper right corner of the
3x3 grid, which contains the most “against” types, should also contain the most proactive
thinkers. Conversely, the lower left corner should contain the most reactive thinkers. In
8
between, one should find a zone of feeling types, whose net behavior is neither proactive
nor reactive, thus unmasking the feeling function. This hypothesis leads to 3 adjacent
“zones” on our 3x3 theory, as shown in Figure 6B.
2
5
8
Extroverts in corners
2
5
8
7
4
1
Introverts (deep)
7
4
1
6
9
3
6
9
3
Introverts (surface)
Thinking types
(reactive)
Figure 6A: Hypothesized I/E zones
Thinking types
(proactive)
Feeling types
Figure 6B: Hypothesized T/F zones
In Figure 6B, the diagonal lines separating the thinking-feeling zones are slightly more
vertical than horizontal, reflecting my intuitive belief that the surface compulsion may
influence thinking-feeling preferences more than the deep compulsion. The models in 6A
and 6B are intuitively appealing. I have begun testing the models against actual survey
data (EM, March 1995), and the agreement is good for all types except 6 and 7. I hope to
report more detailed results in a future article.
The thinking-feeling-doing functions
I have not mentioned the thinking-feeling-doing triad very much, even though many
Enneagram theories rely on it heavily. I fully believe that the thinking-feeling-doing triad
is very useful, but that the definitive structure of the Enneagram is in the underlying
compulsions that drive thinking, feeling, and doing. Hence, the directional theory says
what direction the types go in life, while the thinking-feeling-doing system says what
vehicles each type uses to go there. Of course, the vehicles and directions are related in
the journey of life. This is no different from a real world journey, where your choice of
transportation depends on where you are going – if going to Europe, you would take a
boat or plane across the Atlantic, while a different vehicle would make most sense for
some other destination.
Some theorists postulate an entire hierarchy of thinking, feeling, or doing functions that
each type must have. For example, there are some that say that type 1 primarily uses the
doing function, secondarily uses feeling, and suppresses thinking. This rigid hierarchy of
first, second, and third centers seems unnecessarily constraining. I believe it is entirely
possible for the second and third centers to be reversed from the convention, as some
other authors have observed (Fabien and Chabreuil, EM Nov. 1998). This would lead to
variations within each type, with these variations having the same directional
compulsion, but expressed through different functional compulsions. There is some
evidence for even greater variations, such as thinking 4s (Wyman, EM Jan. 1999),
although I presume that variations in the primary center would be rather rare.
9
In summary, a motivation-based Enneagram theory has led to a directional model of the
Enneagram, in which a surface layer is related to short-term emotions and behaviors,
while a deeper layer describes subconscious, long-term drives. Because both layers have
an against-away-toward structure, this theory is uniquely symmetric and elegant.
Furthermore, this theory explains the 9 types in considerable detail, and also provides a
plausible explanation for most lines of integration. Finally, the theory leads to testable
hypotheses regarding the correlations observed between the Enneagram and some aspects
of the Myers-Briggs typology.
10