Horney's scales and the Expressive/Responsive matrix
Type A theory
The Blake-Mouton Grid
Enneagram
•measured in terms of high/medium/low E/R
•Reasons for correlations
•Instinctual variants, wings
Tables of Comparison
Horney's scales and the Expressive/Responsive matrix
The scales introduced by Karen Horney in the 1940's are probably a major influence on our modern expressive/responsive matrix. The earliest grains for the idea are again the "response delay/sustain" observation of the ancient temperaments. In modern times, it is probably Marston's DISC concept, where the four behavior patterns fell into two axes: passive and active, and the individual responding thus according to his perception of the environment as either "favorable" or "antagonistic". It would not be until the 1970's, that this would be developed into the current instrument, grading according to scales of "Assertive"/"Passive" and "Controlled"(task-oriented)/"Open"(relationship-oriented). This was by then very similar to the "Social Styles" developed by David Merrill in the 1960's, which came out right after FIRO-B, from which we directly derived our E/W scale. Also similar are several other instruments, such as TKI. You can read more about these at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-factor_models_of_personality.
In Horney's version of the scale (which was one single dimension only), the "grades" are movement "towards", "against" and "away" from people.
(From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen Horney:
--------------
Moving Toward People
1. The need for affection and approval; pleasing others and being liked by them.
2. The need for a partner; one who can love and solve all problems.
Moving Against People
3. The need to restrict life practices to within narrow borders; to live as inconspicuous a life as possible.
4. The need for power; the ability to bend wills and achieve control over others -- while most persons seek strength, the neurotic may be desperate for it.
5. The need to exploit others; to get the better of them. To become manipulative, fostering the belief that people are there simply to be used.
6. The need for social recognition; prestige and limelight.
7. The need for personal admiration; for both inner and outer qualities -- to be valued.
8. The need for personal achievement; though virtually all persons wish to make achievements, as with No. 4, the neurotic may be desperate for achievement.
Moving Away from People
9. The need for self sufficiency and independence; while most desire some autonomy, the neurotic may simply wish to discard other individuals entirely.
10. Lastly, the need for perfection; while many are driven to perfect their lives in the form of well being, the neurotic may display a fear of being slightly flawed.
These would later be recategorized in two different ways:
Compliance (1, 2, 3)
Needs one, two and three were assimilated into the "compliance" category. This category is seen as a process of "moving towards people", or self-effacement. Under Horney's theory children facing difficulties with parents often use this strategy. Fear of helplessness and abandonment occurs -- phenomena Horney refers to as "basic anxiety". Those within the compliance category tend to exhibit a need for affection and approval on the part of their peers. They may also seek out a partner, somebody to confide in, fostering the belief that, in turn, all of life's problems would be solved by the new cohort. A lack of demanding and a desire for inconspicuousness both occur in these individuals.
Aggression (4-8)
Secondly, neurotic persons may employ "aggression", also called the "moving against people", or the "expansive" solution. Needs four, five, six, seven and eight comprise this category: Neurotic children or adults within this category often exhibit anger or basic hostility to those around them. That is, there is a need for power, a need for control and exploitation, and a maintenance of a facade of omnipotence. Manipulative qualities aside, under Horney's assertions the aggressive individual may also wish for social recognition, not necessarily in terms of limelight, but in terms of simply being known (perhaps feared) by subordinates and peers alike. In addition, the individual has needs for a degree of personal admiration by those within this person's social circle and, lastly, for raw personal achievement. These characteristics comprise the "aggressive" neurotic type. Aggressive types also tend to keep people away from them. On the other hand, they only care about their wants and needs. They would do whatever they can to be happy and wouldn't desist from hurting anyone. Others exist solely to serve the aggressive type and so, they should bow down to them.
Withdrawal (9, 10)
Thirdly and lastly, is "withdrawal". This category encompasses the final two needs, and overlaps with the "compliance" trait. "Withdrawal" is often labeled as the "moving-away-from" or "resigning" solution. As neither aggression nor compliance solve parental indifference, Horney recognized that children might simply try to become self sufficient. The withdrawing neurotic may disregard others in a non-aggressive manner, regarding solitude and independence as the way forth. The stringent needs for perfection comprise the other half of this category; those withdrawing may strive for perfection above all else, to the point where being flawed is utterly unacceptable. Everything the "withdrawal" type does must be unassailable and refined.
This is basically the same, except that need 3 was moved from the second category to the first.
Also, the Coping Strategies (Horney, Our inner conflicts):
Moving With
This is the strategies in which psychologically healthy people develop relationships. It involves compromise. In order to move with, there must be communication, agreement, disagreement, compromise, and decisions.
Karen Horney describes the other strategies as a neurotic. This means that it are unhealthy strategies people utilize in order to protect themselves.
Moving Towards
The individual moves towards those perceived as a threat to avoid retribution and getting hurt. The argument is, “If I give in, I won’t get hurt.” This means that if I give everyone I see as a potential threat what ever they want, I won’t be injured (physically or emotionally).
Moving Against
The individual threatens those perceived as a threat to avoid getting hurt.
Moving Away
The individual distances themselves from anyone perceived as a threat to avoid getting hurt. The argument is, “If I do not let anyone close to me, I won’t get hurt.” A neurotic, according to Horney desires to be distant because of being abused. If they can be the extreme introvert, no one will ever develop a relationship with them. If there is no one around, nobody can hurt them. These Moving Away people fight personality, so they often come across as cold or shallow. This is their strategy. They emotionally remove themselves from society.
---------------
Generally, Moving Towards and Away basically correspond to wanted behavior, and moving against encompassed expressed behavior. For instance, need 3 is definitely introversion, and needs 4-8 are extraversion. 4 and 8 are big in the Control area, and 5 to some extent as well, though socially, people can be "controlled", "exploited" or otherwise used as objects. (This is described for the Choleric in Inclusion). 1 and 2 clearly represent high responsive needs (2 in the area of Affection, particularly, and #9 "the need for self-sufficiency and independence" is low responsive behavior, since in "Control", they are independent, while high responsive types are either dependent, or have conflicts with it. 10's "perfectionism" goes along with low responsive types.
Some seem ambiguous, like #9 sounding like introversion, especially since it's later considered "withdrawal", and described as "distancing themselves" under the premise “If I do not let anyone close to me, I won’t get hurt”. Hence, our description of both scales as people either expressing as an introvert or extrovert, or responding as an introvert or extrovert. The difference is that those who "express" as an introvert withdraw first, aiming not to get close to anyone in the first place, and either hope you do not approach them, or that you do approach them, according to their responsive need; and that those who respond as an introvert approach you or not, according to their expressed needs, and then withdraw or not LET you get close to them after they are finished with you (of course, the low e/r "withdraws" both times). While "Moving Against"/"Aggression" covers extroverted traits, the motive is not always "threatening" people, which can also be a description of the defensive responses of people with low responsive traits. While needs 4 and 5 definitely correspond to this, needs 6, 7 and 8 are more internal drives, that use people to meet the need for recognition, but are not necessarily "threatening" them. In fact, for the high R in particular, it can be considered moving "for" people. This is why this scale was basically fanned out into a 2D matrix in one Enneagram mapping (below), with "away" split between low E and Low R, and "against" split between high E and Low R. Basically, it would seem a bit more accurate to redesignate "Towards" and "Away" as expressive behavior (therefore both reasons for approaching people are simply "towards" and not implying some "threat", and "away" is the way one initially expresses), and "Against" as low responsive behavior (since this is where much conflict with people comes, as the low R rebuffs others' aims to control or get close to them), and high R renamed into a new "moving FOR people" category. (Horney introduced another coping strategy called "moving with", but this is isolated from the others as the "healthy" reaction, while in our conception none of the needs are necessarily any healthier or unhealthier than another. It's how the need is attempted to be met that can be unhealthy). Or perhaps just use "WILLING" or "DESIRING" "towards" and "away", for responsiveness, and TURNING towards or away for expressiveness, or to use Horney's "against", split it into "Pressing against" for extraversion (this somewhat neutralizes it and makes it not necessarily so hostile sounding), and "withdrawing against" for introversion.
So, to summarize all of this, Introverts are driven by fear (rejection, unknown, etc--Horney's #3) extroverts are driven by need for attention, achievement or control (Horney's #4-8). Relationship-orientees are driven by the need for acceptance (Horney's #1, 2), and task-orientees are driven by the need for independence (Horney's #9 &10). The "low" scores produce neurotic traits (Eysenck "negative emotions" --such as fear, anger, etc). The Sanguine is high in both scales, while the Phlegmatic, rather than Introverted and Informing, is moderate in both, and has the least energy, since the emotional energy is highest on the ends of the scales. That is why both Sanguine and Phlegmatic were "low N", and Melancholy and Choleric, which are low in one or both scales are high N. The fifth temperament, having the low E fear of rejection plus the high R need for acceptance would be considered High N. (one key difference from the Phlegmatic it often gets confused with). The Sanguine may have a quick hot temper, and "Behaving badly to gain attention", which Arno describes as "neurotic behavior", but he explodes, but then cools off quickly and forgets about it. In Control, he swings into a dependency mode that keeps him from burning out like the Choleric does, who keeps on pushing. So Dr. Arno terms him an emotional "survivor". The Phlegmatic, of course, does not even have the energy for "Neuroticism". The other three temperaments all have problems with anger; either keeping it in, or holding onto it, or both.
You can even see the "One healthy type out of four" concept in the expanded Type A Theory (http://www.hiresuccess.com/pplus-3.htm, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2056507.ece, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=101259#r11-1+r12-1) Even this commonly known theory has been extended, to at least D, making it become like the other "four type" instruments mentioned mentioned as using the E/R scales (DISC, Social Styles, etc). The original "A" is basically Choleric. B was originally described in more phlegmatic terms ("calm and laid back"; basically the lack of "A" traits), but now (in at least one version of the theory), as the non-neurotic one, has become the Sanguine, who loves to party and such. (http://www.hiresuccess.com/pplus-3.htm). C is now the hybrid "fourth/fifth introverted-agreeable" temperament that has traits of both, (accountant, a computer programmer or analyst who thrives on details, accuracy, instead of just "calm"; and also checks before making decisions, sensitive, conforming, prone to stress, etc) and the "distressed" D is the Melancholy (http://www.hiresuccess.com/pplus-3.htm, http://www.natcouncilofpsychotherapists.org.uk/Newsletter/Ed015/O009.htm; http://www.health.harvard.edu/press_releases/type_d_personality.htm).
The Blake-Mouton Grid
The Blake-Mouton Managerial Grid was the most influential in the mapping of the FIRO-B score ranges into the 2D matrix used by Ryan's locator charts, and ultimately in five temperament theory. It introduces a 1-9 scale whose axes were "concern for people" versus "concern for production". This would at first glance represent the High and Low Responsive scale (relationship vs. task orientation) converted into new parallel scales in themselves. However, "concern for production" does act like the expressive behavior scale it replaces. This can be seen in the resulting five "leadership styles" (1=l, 9=h, 5=m):
The impoverished style (1,1)
In this style, managers have low concern for both people and production. Managers use this style to avoid getting into trouble. The main concern for the manager is not to be held responsible for any mistakes, which results in less innovative decisions. He Does only enough to preserve job and job seniority and aims to protect himself by not being noticed by others.
The country club style (1,9)
This style has a high concern for people and a low concern for production. Managers using this style pay much attention to the security and comfort of the employees, in hopes that this would increase performance. The resulting atmosphere is usually friendly, but not necessarily that productive.
The produce or perish style (9,1)
With a high concern for production, and a low concern for people, managers using this style find employee needs unimportant; they provide their employees with money and expect performance back. Managers using this style also pressure their employees through rules and punishments to achieve the company goals. This dictatorial style is based on Theory X of Douglas McGregor, and is commonly applied by companies on the edge of real or perceived failure. This is used in case of crisis management.
The middle-of-the-road style (5,5)
Managers using this style try to balance between company goals and workers' needs. By giving some concern to both people and production, managers who use this style hope to achieve acceptable performance.
The team style (9,9)
In this style, high concern is paid both to people and production. As suggested by the propositions of Theory Y, managers choosing to use this style encourage teamwork and commitment among employees. This method relies heavily on making employees feel as a constructive part of the company.
Here we see the five styles do behave very similar to the five temperaments defined by the corresponding scores.
The managerial grid has also served as the inspiration for the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Modes Inventory (TKI), which also has its five modes (Avoiding, Competing, Collaborating, Compromising, Accommodating), in the same places on the map, and behaving similarly to the same corresponding five temperaments. The scales (Assertiveness, Cooperativeness) are also more like E and R. These, along with FIRO-B itself, were the predecessors of Five Temperament theory. Keep in mind, that all of these, and several others mentioned are behaviors, which differ from inborn temperament. (Even FIRO, as Dr. Schutz himself was "emphatic that FIRO scores were not terminal and did change"). Where they are related is that the different temperaments may be naturally inclined to behave in those ways. Still, many other factors can cause a person the change his behavior, despite his temperament.
The Enneagram and the Five Temperaments plus Phlegmatic Blends
Note, all of this below is my own theory as a layman enthusiast, so it is not set in stone, and I admit that I could have gotten things wrong. For one thing, comparisons will never be 100% consistent, as the tests are all different, with different focuses and questions, and people will answer differently based on misunderstanding or reading differently the different questions of different tests.
The "Directional Theory of the Enneagram" (Thomas Chou, Enneagram Monthly Jan. 2000) attempted to turn Horney's scale into a 2D matrix, (http://www.9types.com/writeup/Theory20.htm) but retained the "towards/away/against" points (changed into that order) and designated, respectively "Embracing" (Self is changed by others), "Withdrawal" (self is separate from others) and "Confrontation" (self changes others). This becomes "surface direction" (short term motivation), while the new dimension of "deep direction" (long term motivation), the scales are "Approval-seeking", "Ideal Seeking" and "Power-seeking". This roughly corresponds to E and R. In both scales, "Towards" is considered "+", "Away" is "0", and "Against" is "-". This differs from the E/R scale, which is based on + "high"/ 0 "moderate"/ - "low". Therefore, the 9 types, which can easily be matched to the five temperaments, plus four Phlegmatic blend pairs, come out in a totally different order, with slightly different criteria for categorizing their behavior. This is done, however, to match the geometric pairings of the types corresponding to the mystical distorted enneagram star figure. Focusing only on the personality aspect of it here, instead of the mystical concepts; I would say that towards and away, and either against and for, or a second towards/away or split "against" should be parallel scales. The moderate ("0") points could be "observer" (moderate expression) and "indifferent" (moderate responsiveness) which more accurately fit moderate behavior.
But to measure them in terms of h/m/l Expressiveness and responsiveness:
Blended temperaments
Type 1 (Reformer, Critic, Perfectionist Perfectionistic, orderly, hard-working, ethical, conscientious). They can be very rational and idealistic, but can also be judgmental and convinced they are always right:
purely "directive" or "task-oriented" (low responsiveness) like a Melancholy or Choleric; moderate expressiveness (i.e. ambiversion): Phlegmatic Melancholy/Phlegmatic Choleric
Type 2 Helper, Giver, Caretaker Generous, friendly, prideful, seductive, reassuring. They can be very loving and dedicated, but also possessive and manipulative:
purely "informative" or "relationship-oriented" (high R) also moderate expressiveness: Phlegmatic Supine/Phlegmatic Sanguine
Type 3 Motivator, Achiever, Performer, Succeeder Ambitious, goal-oriented, adaptable, deceiving, presentable. They can be exemplars of "all you can be", but also shallow and arrogant:
purely extroverted (High expressiveness); moderate R (ambiguous people/task orientation): Sanguine Phlegmatic/Choleric Phlegmatic.
Type 4 Romantic, Individualist, Artist Creative, depressive, romantic, shy, unique. They can be profound artists who express the inexpressible, but also self-hating and clinging:
purely introverted, also ambiguous people/task-orientations (mod. R) Supine Phlegmatic/Melancholy Phlegmatic
The Pure temperaments:
Type 5 Observer, Thinker, Investigator
Insightful, theoretical, detached, eccentric, intense. They can be extremely brilliant and inventive, but also nihilistic and alienated:
Purely Introverted and Directive (Low E and R): Melancholy
Type 6 Loyalist, (Loyal Skeptic) Devil's Advocate, Defender -
Loyal, skeptical, complex, paranoid, dependable. They can be excellent team players but get lost in scapegoating and fear:
basically introverted (low E), but an apparent need of acceptance (High R) Supine
Type 7 Enthusiast, Adventurer, Materialist, Epicure Enthusiastic, worldly, optimistic, scattered, accomplished. They can truly love life like no one else, but can fall victim to hedonism and excess:
extroverted, People-oriented (high E, R) Sanguine
Type 8 Leader, Protector, Challenger, Boss Powerful, leading, aggressive, cruel, protective. They can be magnanimous leaders who get the job done, but can become violent and terrorizing:
extroverted, task-oriented (high E, low R) Choleric
Type 9 Mediator, Peacemaker, Preservationist Peaceful, receptive, complacent, forgetting, gentle. They can be relaxed and terrific friends, but can become unaware of reality and problems:
moderate in both scales (considered "introverted" when compared to 3, 7 and 8, but not as introverted as 4 and 5): Phlegmatic
You can see videos of each type at http://www.enneagramworldwide.com/explore-the-enneagram/videos-of-the-nine-types and also a helpful "dinner table" illustration at http://www.wagele.com/DinPart.html. The best set of descriptions, which also seem to greatly support my correlations are at Enneagram Introduction, Theory, and Research at 9types.com
Reasons for correlations
Type 1 has a critical or "directive" bent, like the Melancholy and Choleric, yet appears more expressive than the Melancholy, but not as expressive as the Choleric. Type 5 is the purest expression of the Melancholy, while type 8 is the clearest expression of the Choleric. Type 1 seems to be basically in-between the two, and would fit a Phlegmatic Melancholy or Phlegmatic Choleric. PM/PC have "perfectionism" mentioned in APS reports, and the Phlegmatic (moderate) expression coupled with the low responsive score does produce a very cynical disposition that is critical, especially when their idea of perfection is not met. (And perfectionism is one of the traits often described elsewhere with task-orientation, and in Horney's #10 description). This is illustrated in the "Dinner Table" portrait where #1 criticizes the whole dinner; which seems to match the PM's cynicism towards life. Also, "always thinking they are right", which is an APS description of the Phlegmatic. The PM/PC will have this tendency in their expressive behavior. The 1 at the dinner table is behaving just like my Phlegmatic Melancholy brother at our family gatherings. One apparent difference, particularly from the video is that the Type 1 seems very driven towards this perfectionism, where the Phlegmatic Melancholy is described as "slower paced". While they "spend most of their time seeing things that are wrong", they "do little to bring about change", and "are constantly on guard against overtaxing themselves or expending too much energy". (their "perfectionism" seems to come out most in their expectations of others and themselves). Still, other factors can contribute to this, such as a different Control Temperament, or the fact that while he may hear these "voices" driving towards perfection, he did not say he always responded to them.
Type 2 is very "needy" and expresses that need by self-deprecating "giving"; like a Supine. Yet both the description and video portray this type as being more expressive than the shy Supine. Yet it is not "bright" with expressive behavior like the Sanguine, best embodied as type 7. The Phlegmatic Supine/Phlegmatic Sanguine pair would have all the need for love, approval and acceptance (and fear of rejection), because of the high responsive scores, yet only the moderate expressive behavior we see in this type. Like the type 2 in the dinner table, the Phlegmatic Sanguine/Supine would enjoy feeling needed, according to our definition. Like the 6, the 2's negative traits are often highlighted, particularly manipulation. It is even seen as a very "power seeking" type, like the 8. In our system, manipulation, at least in the area of Control, would be to meet the dependency need. Again, this is said to appear "controlling" (at least for the Supine in Control). But it is really a need to be taken care of. This type in the Control area of our system (Ryan's "Let's Take a Break") is also described with a sort of distant trace of the "Sanguine dependent-independent swing", where there is a moderate need to take on responsibilities when not in the dependent phase. "Possessiveness" would likewise match the high responsive Inclusion need.
Type 3 is just as driven as one can get, which is high expressive behavior, like a Sanguine or a Choleric. Yet, from the descriptions and the video and dinner table, the type seems to be a bit less "serious" than the pure Choleric, and of course, more serious than the Sanguine. This would match the Sanguine Phlegmatic/Choleric Phlegmatic range. The type is often characterized as being full of "vanity", which additionally seems to place it in the mid-range between the flighty Sanguine and the goal-oriented Choleric. Comparing this type with 7 and 8, it does appear to be inbetween them. 9types.com and enneagraminstitute suggests that American society "is very type 3-ish", and that would describe society's high drive, and its fast paced aggressive mix of both seriousness and hedonism.
Type 4 is rather shy like a Melancholy or Supine, but seems to be in-between them in responsive behavior: neither as rejecting of people or negative as the Melancholy, nor as needy of people as the Supine; yet elements of both pure types are present. (romanticizing, envy, etc. which are the introverted reactions that stem from the common low expressive behavior). This would match the Melancholy Phlegmatic or Supine Phlegmatic range. The 4 at the dinner table is acting critical like the 1, but the 4's motivation is often said to be jealousy. This would be compatible with our Melancholy/Supine-Phlegmatic, because they would share the low expressiveness of the neighboring pure temperaments, which spend a lot of time thinking, and harboring feelings such as anger. They would have a moderate need for acceptance, which could cause jealousy.
Type 5, from the video is very centered on his fear of the unknown, (unpreparedness, lack of control, unclarity) and reaction of "withdrawing" or need to be able to get a hold of the situation with his thinking. This is the purest representation of the Melancholy of all the types. The 5 at the dinner table thinks just like our pure Melancholy Compulsive close friend!
Type 6 in the video tries to accentuate her strengths ("I can take action, I'm not afraid, I have incredible strength, etc.; I think of myself as a warrior; In my dreams…I have been Superwoman"). But it is obvious from the stammering and other gestures that she is incredibly nervous and unsure of herself. She appears to be trying to assure her own self she can be strong, against a tremendous amount of fear and self-doubt. This looks just like a Supine trying to be assertive, against their natural inclination and normal behavior. [I know the feeling!] Notice: "in a real situation"! (as opposed to everyday situations). The Supine, as defined by Arno can be strong in different situations. But they just won't sound very convincing about it, because of the low expressive nature. In the area of Control, they are strong enforcers of others' rules. So this person does look like she would only be tough because she had to, and does not otherwise have a need to be in control. (sixes are also divided between "phobic" and "counterphobic", meaning "relating to or characterized by a preference for or the seeking out of a situation that is feared". This person is being counterphobic).
Otherwise, many of the other Supine weaknesses are clearly present, namely the fear and anxiety of the future, suspicion, and even the key fear of punishment. Here is very good description that shows all of this: http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/TypeSixOverview.asp.
The APS manual Temperament Therapy clearly says "A Supine counselee will check out everything you tell them with someone else". This is the "devil's advocate" trait characterizing the 6. I myself have often been such a devil's advocate, running back and forth between people with each other's ideas, trying to make a mental decision for myself. Now, the APS is really describing pure Supines, particularly in Control, while my Control drive is the opposite. However, if for some reason I have no preference in that instance, or if my social timidity outweighs the Control drive, I will tend to seek others' advice. Even though Supines need love, because of the fear of rejection, they can actually be nervous when someone gives it to them. This again is the "indirect behavior conflict" that stems from having high responsive need with a low expressed behavior. In the dinner table illustration, the 6 has basically the same gut feeling I do when someone leaves suddenly.
Type 7 in the video is clearly upbeat, energetic and optimistic, and in needing of fun, and avoiding of negativity and boredom. This is classic definitive Sanguine behavior. Also, the dinner table, which illustrates the person's fast paced lifestyle. (Note, the 3 is similar in being "swamped", but this is apparently not as people-oriented as the 7).
Type 8 has all of the drive, and more of the seriousness and despisal of "the tender" or "softer side of things" of the Choleric, compared to type 3. The person in the video even admits not understanding people's feeling towards his type's "anger", as pure Cholerics are generally dismissive of other people's feelings. The 8 at the dinner table is like another friend we believe is Choleric in Inclusion. (I believe his demand for food appears to be in a more playful spirit, but they certainly do make known their desire to put away some food!)
Type 9 The common descriptions of this type such as peaceful, complacent, forgetting, to be in harmony etc. are definitive traits of the Phlegmatic. Also, being "unaware of reality and problems" is similar to the Phlegmatic's seeing problems, but doing nothing to change them, which might make them appear unaware. The difference is that the person in the video starts off by saying he has "a lot of energy", which flatly contradicts the Phlegmatic profile. However, he then changes this to "potential energy", and points out that it is usually "activated" by some external situation or pressure. He then can be quick and efficient in performing huge tasks for others, but when it comes "back to the self", he describes "inertia" and procrastination, which are key Phlegmatic traits. The inertia he claims is basically from indecision, in seeing all the activities needed to be done, and having to choose one. Waiting until close to the deadline is then what he uses to push himself. This behavior is certainly compatible with the Phlegmatic.
Further supporting (to a large extent) all of this, is that The Enneagram: a Journey of Self Discovery (1984) by Maria Beesing, Bob Nogosek, and Pat O'Leary group the Enneagram styles according to Dependent Types (2,6,7), Aggressive Types (8,3,1), and Withdrawing Types (5,9,4). The Dependent types all have the high responsive score, just as we have them. The Aggressive types all towards the lower right corner, with moderate to high expressive behavior, and moderate to low responsive behavior; representing "extraversion" and "directiveness". The Withdrawing types are low in expression in two cases, and much lean towards the lower left, conveying a sense of "introversion" and "directiveness". (The Phlegmatic counterpart is also considered "low E" as it is in many other instruments).
While APS focuses on both positive and negative aspects of temperament (i.e. "strengths" and "weaknesses"), Enneagram seems to focus on the negative (the so-called "7 sins plus 2"); so the types are generally reckoned differently (as we see in the "Directional Theory" matrix and the three type groups above). Focusing on the more negative aspects of the 6, for instance, you will see less of the Supine "servant" qualities, and more of the "neurotic" traits. (Some people even think Hitler was a 6! He had to be a straight 8! Though people speculate his behavior might be from abuse or something. Jung himself said he was not able to be typed, from being so messed up!) Focusing on the negative traits of the 2, it also appears to come out as "power-hungry", rather than a "dependant" servant.
Interestingly enough, Enneagram also has three areas, called "instinctual variants", basically paralleling Inclusion, Control and Affection which describe different social spheres where one’s attention can be directed:
social - concerned with group issues. =Inclusion
self-preservationist - focused on issues of survival and personal space. =Control
sexual - concerned with one-on-one relationships =Affection
There is a difference, however (according to 9types.com):
"These variants are independent of one’s Enneagram type. Any type can be any variant, and vice versa, giving 27 combinations. For example, while 9s seek harmony, peace, and reduction of conflict, self-preservation 9s seek it through solitary means (hobbies, nature, and daily routine), while sexual 9s pursue these goals through one-on-one interactions, and social 9s may seek harmony through group activities".
Also, on this site: http://tinyurl.com/2rvdj9, the variants are "stacked", according to which area the person has a "fixation" with. (If a person has, say, a Social variant, it means most of his hangups or difficulties are in the social realm). The variation assigned in the first way of reckoning it, is simply the "top layer". Stacks are abbreviated as: so, sp, and sx; and placed according to the order of dominance. (In the site, however, it seems only two are stacked at a time). There don't seem to be any blendings of different types along these variants.
In the APS, each person is one temperament or another in each area. So if the Enneagram were done in the same fashion; I would be a Social 6, Self-preservation 8 and Sexual 6; or 6so/8sp/6sx. If stacked according to dominance, it would be reverse. FIRO and APS do not really deal with any different "dominant variant" in different people, outside the general A-C-I order of importance. I have been told, that The Enneagram Workbook: Understanding Yourself & Others by Klaus Vollmar (Sterling; Workbook edition June 30, 1998) does in fact say most people have a mix of different types!
Enneagram also has "wings", which basically are sort of like the "borderline areas" I discussed on the first page, where traits of the adjacent temperament begin to appear. However, since the Enneagram types are arranged differently, it doesn't always work out the same, as different types are "adjacent" to each other, based on the numbers. I would consider myself 6w5, but in my correlation, 4 would be between 6 and 5, so it would really be 6w4. Perhaps the Melancholy Phlegmatic and Supine Phlegmatic could be distinguished as 4w5 and 4w6, respectively. I have heard that some people do skip like that, but it is apparently rare. Wings are generally between consecutive numbers. The same with 2 being between 6 and 7, and 3 between 7 and 8. Worse yet, is 1 and 2, and 3 and 4 being consecutive, even though they seem like opposites in either the expressive or responsive scale. You would think a cross between those types would be Phlegmatic, but that is best represented by 9, which has wings only with 8 and 1. Since the instinctual variants work differently than our ICA, perhaps the wings can also be explained by ICA blends. So perhaps I might be 4w3, combining the shy social skills with the aggressiveness of the Control area.
When I had finally got around to trying an Enneagram test (the free RHETI sampler online) I came up tied at 5 and 6 with 6 points each, 9 next at 4, and 1, 4 and 8 at 3. I expected to be 6 followed by 8. This is kind of close. So apparently, the more critical "Choleric" aspect of my personality was picked up largely as 5. Yet, I was not too far off! Remember, because of the combination of the low expressed Inclusion, and low wanted Control, I am in some respects like a Melancholy. And the test does not separate the type among so sp and sx.
I later tried the "Big Enneagram Test at Similarminds (132 or so questions!) and got 6 at 62% followed by 4 at 61%, 8 at 58%, 3 and 9 tied at 55%, followed by 1 (44%), 5 (41%), and 2 and 7 in the 30's. Variant order, sp/sx/so
Enneagram-MBTI correlations have been done, with varying matches. Several of these can be seen here: http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/jthirdprinc.html None of them correlate them the way I suggested, as none blend so and sp types. However, one in particular, David M. Boje ("Leadership Out of the Box", can be seen here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/1024340/Enneagram) correlates them in a way that maps very well to what I above labeled the "social image temperaments".
| E type | MBTI types | Common thread | E/R interpretation |
| 1 | ISTJ, ENFJ, ENTJ, ISFJ | J | (ambiverted, low R) |
| 2 | ESFJ, ENFJ, ESFP, ENFP | EF | (extraverted, high R ("Sanguine" social image) |
| 3 | ESTP, ENTP, ENTJ, ESTJ | ET | extraverted, low R ("Choleric" social image) |
| 4 | INFJ, INFP, ENFJ, ISFP | IF, [en]F | mostly introverted, high R ("Supine" social image) |
| 5 | INTP, ISTP, INTJ, ISTJ | IT | introverted, low R ("Melancholy" social image) |
| 6 | ISFJ, ESFJ, INFP, ENFP | EF/IF | ambidextrous E/I; high R, Supine or Sanguine social image |
| 7 | ESTP, ESFP, ENTP, ENFP | EP | extraverted; high R ("Sanguine" sociability temperament) |
| 8 | ENTJ, ESTJ, ENTP, ESTP | ET | extraverted, low R ("Choleric" social image) |
| 9 | ISFP, INFP, ISFJ, ESTP | I[e]S[n]F[t]P[j] | introverted and extraverted; low and high R (all-around moderate) |
Other correlations, such as Richards/Flautt/Baron are also similar. One on that site (Geldart) goes as far to add a new cognitive process: "Me: extraverted Moving/Extraverted Persona" to get type 3 to fit in (which seems to be a disputed type, with some people not even recognizing it. Geldart maps Enneagram types to cognitive processes rather than types).
Another grouping is Instinctive Triad: 8, 9, 1; Feeling Triad: 2, 3, 4 Thinking Triad: 5, 6, 7. This too is based on the order on the star figure, and may correspond better with temperament combinations. It has also been suggested that the Enneagram might correspond more to the MBTI "inferior" functions, or even the "shadows". Especially since it deals with "coping" (as evidenced by the fact that Horney's Coping Strategies was mapped to it). You would wonder how types such as 6 and 7 end up as "Thinking" (instead of 8 and 1), but the way it has been explained is that 6 is about seeking across-the-board clarity to deal with a fundamentally unsettled state...clarity in ideas...in arguements...in intentions...in motivations...in your purpose...etc. 7 is excessively thinking up scenarios of how things will work out in the future to avoid the sobering realities of the present. These now do seem more compatible with Supine and Sanguine behaviors.
Table of Comparisons:
(Many instruments' "types" not recognized as Inborn "temperament")
| Generic Term | Outer Behavior | Inward Orientation | Social Skills | Leadership and responsi- bilities | deep personal relations | Introverted, Task-Oriented | extroverted, Task-Oriented | extroverted, Relationship-Oriented | Ambiverted/Moderate and/or Introverted, Relationship Oriented | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hippocrates' Four Humors (c.400 BC) | Scales not recognized | black bile | yellow bile | blood | Phlegm | Not recognized | ||||
| Galen (c. 190 AD) | Response Delay (fast or slow) | Response Sustain (short or long) | Areas not recognized | Melancholic | Choleric | Sanguine | Phlegmatic | Not recognized | ||
| Ivan Pavlov's dog temperaments (C. 1900 AD) | Passivity: (Active or Passive) | Extremeness: (Extreme or Moderate response) | Areas not recognized | Melancholic (Weak inhibitory) | Choleric (Strong excitatory) | Sanguine (Lively) | Phlegmatic (Calm, imperturbable) | |||
| Alfred Adler's four styles of life (C. 1900 AD) | "activity" | "social interest" | Areas not recognized | Avoiding | Ruling or Dominant | Socially Useful | Getting or Leaning | |||
| Erich Fromm's Four types of character (C. 1947) | assimilation | socialization | Areas not recognized | Hoarding | Exploitative | Marketing | Receptive | |||
| Hans Eysenck(1947) | extraversion | "Neuroticism" is similar scale | Areas not recognized | Melancholic | Choleric | Sanguine | Phlegmatic | Not Recognized | ||
| Temperament by Tim LaHaye (1966) | Makes comparisons with other systems | Areas not recognized | Melancholy | Choleric | Sanguine | Phlegmatic | "passive sanguine" (Not recognized as separate temperament) | |||
| Temperament Features by Florence Littauer | Areas not recognized | Perfect Melancholy | Powerful Choleric | Popular Sanguine | Peaceful Phlegmatic | Not recognized | ||||
| Blake-Mouton Managerial Grid Model (1964) | Concern for Productivity | Concern for People | Areas not recognized | Impoverished | Produce or Perish | Team Type | Middle of the Road | Country Club | ||
| Jay Hall Conflict Management (1973) | Concern for personal goals | Concern for relationships | Areas not recognized | Leave-lose/win | Win/lose | Synergistic; Win/win | Mini-win/mini-lose | Yield-lose/win | ||
| Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Modes (1974) | Assertiveness | Cooperativeness | Areas not recognized | Avoiding | Competing | Collaborating | Compromising | Accommodating | ||
| William Schutz: FIRO-B (1958) (Leo Ryan's Interpretation, 1971. Schutz names in table below) | Expressed Behavior | Wanted Behavior | Inclusion | "the Loner" | "Illusive Pimpernel"† | "People Gatherer" | "Social Flexibility" | "Inhibited Individual" | ||
| Control | "the Rebel" | "Mission Impossible" | "Independant-Dependant Conflict" | "the Matcher" | "Openly Dependant" & "Loyal Lieut." | |||||
| Affection (aka "openness") | "the Pessimist" | "Mask/Image of Intimacy" | "the Optimist" | "Warm Individual/The Golden Mean" |
"the Cautious Lover" | |||||
| Arno Profile System (fka "Temperament Analysis Profile")(1980's) | Expressive Behavior | Responsive Behavior | Inclusion | Control | Affection | Melancholy | Choleric | Sanguine | Phlegmatic | Supine |
| Worley Identification Discovery Profile (1995) | Demonstrated | Desired | Social | Leadership | Relationship | Melancholy | Choleric | Sanguine | Phlegmatic | Introverted Sanguine |
| Enneagram | "Surface Direction" and "Deep direction" similar scales | Social | Self-Preservation | Sexual | Type 5 | Type 8 | Type 7 | Type 9 | Type 6 | |
| ([Expanded] Type A Theory Friedman & Rosenham (1950's); J. Denollet (1996) | Various, sometimes including "Neuroticism" | Areas not recognized | Type D | Type A | Type B (HireSuccess; Mindpub) | Type B | Type C | |||
| William Marston (1928) and John G. Geier (1970's), DiSC Assessment | Assertive/ Passive | Open/Controlled | Areas not distinguished | Conscientious- ness | Dominance | Influence | Steadiness | |||
| California Psychological Inventory CPI 260 (c. 1948) | action, social confidence/inner life, privacy | Rule-favoring/questioning, Agreeable/disagreeable stability/value system, | Areas not recognized | Visualizer | Leader | Innovator | Supporter | |||
| Stuart Atkins, LIFO four Orientations To Life(c. 1960's) | Planning vs.Doing | Directing vs. Inspiring | Areas not recognized | Conserving-Holding | Controlling-Taking | Adapting-Dealing | Supporting-Giving | |||
| David Merrill, "Social Styles" | Assertiveness | Responsiveness | Areas not distinguished | Analytical | Driving | Expressive | Amiable | |||
| Tony Alessandra "Personality Styles" | Indirect/ Direct | Open/ Guarded | Areas not distinguished | Thinker | Director | Socializer | Relater | |||
| Interaction Styles by Linda Berens (c2006) | Initiating- Responding | Informing- Directing | Corresponds to SOCIAL skills area | Chart the Course | In Charge | Get Things Going | Behind the Scenes | |||
| Keirsey's "roles of interaction" (2008) | Expressive/ Reserved | "Role-Informative/ Role-Directive" | Contender | Initiator | Coworker | Responder | ||||
| MBTI Codes (1958) | E/I | S + T/F; N + J/P | IST, INJ | EST, ENJ | ESF, ENP | ISF, INP | ||||
| Keirsey/Berens "Conative" Temperaments | Cooperative vs Utilitarian (Pragmatic) | Structure vs. Motive focus (Cross factor swapped with S/N, by Berens) | Corresponds to LEADERSHIP skills | SJ (Guardian/ Stabilizer) | NT* (Rational/ Theorist) | SP (Artisan/ Improviser) | NF* (Idealist/ Catalyst) | |||
| Eric Adickes (1905) | "heteronomous"/"autonomous" (ties together opposites; corresponds to S/N) | Traditionalist | Agnostic* | Innovative | Dogmatic* | |||||
| Ernst Kretschmer (post-WWI) | "Cyclothymes"/"Schizothymes" (ties together opposites; corresponds to S/N) | Depressive | Anesthetic* | Hypomanic | Hyperesthetic* | |||||
| Eduard Spränger (1914) | "Social"/"Political" | N/A | Economical | Theoretic* | Aesthetic | Religious* | ||||
Moderate blends
| Moderate "e", task-oriented | Moderate "e", relationship-oriented | extroverted, Moderate "w" | Introverted, Moderate "w" | |
| FIRO-B(I) | "Illusive Pimpernel"† Tendency[?] | Hidden Inhibitions | Conversationalist | Cautious Expectation |
| FIRO-B(C) | Self-Confident | Let's Take a Break | "Mission Impossible" with Narcissistic Tendencies | The Checker |
| FIRO-B(A) | "Image of Intimacy" Tendency | Cautious Lover in Disguise | Living Up to Expectations | Careful Moderation |
| APS | Phlegmatic Melancholy Phlegmatic Choleric | Phlegmatic Supine Phlegmatic Sanguine | Sanguine Phlegmatic Choleric Phlegmatic | Melancholy Phlegmatic Supine Phlegmatic |
| Enneagram | Type 1 | Type 2 | Type 3 | Type 4 |
Schutz names:
This is the list of names he applied to I, C and A types. Also are names of the rest of the behaviors for moderate ranges, by extension; which are combinations of his names.
I had been given the impression from someone I spoke to, that he only named some of the scores; in Inclusion and Affection, the "over-" types being high e/w only, and the "under-" types as low e/w. In Control, Abdicrat was said to be low e/high w, and Autocrat was high e/low w.
This seemed to make some sense, and had noted that Control is different from Inclusion and Affection, in that the "natural" Control behavior would have e≠w, instead of e≈w. So it is not a matter of an "over" type whose e and w are always high; versus an "under" type whose e and w are always low.
Yet, upon checking ut Schutz's original FIRO: A Three Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior (1958, p. 19, 60), I find that he did name all five of the basic score groups in each area after all. "over-/under-" and "auto-/abdi-" are actually covering the expressed dimension only. The "Wanted" dimension is covered by a bunch of terms I had not heard: "-compliant/counter-" for I and A, and "Submissive/Rebellious" for C.
| t | (Melancholy) | (Sanguine) | (Choleric) | (Supine) | (Phlegmatic and "Phlegmatic blends") | ||||
| low e/w | high e/w | high e/Low w | low e/high w | mod. e/w | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | Undersocial Countersocial | Oversocial Social-compliant | Oversocial Countersocial | Undersocial Social-compliant | Social | ||||
| C | Abdicrat Rebellious | Autocrat Submissive | Autocrat Rebellious | Abdicrat Submissive | Democrat | ||||
| A | Underpersonal Counterpersonal | Overpersonal Personal-compliant | Overpersonal Counterpersonal | Underpersonal Personal-compliant | Personal | ||||
| Moderate Score Ranges by Extension | |||||||||
| mod. e/high w | mod. e/low w | high e/mod. w | low e/mod. w | ||||||
| I | Social Social-compliant | Social Countersocial | Oversocial Social | Undersocial Social | |||||
| C | Democratic Submissive | Democratic Rebellious | Autocratic Democrat | Abdicratic Democrat | |||||
| A | Personal Personal-compliant | Personal Counterpersonal | Overpersonal Personal | Underpersonal Personal | |||||
To Part 4: APS and Dynamic Type: adding moderate scales to EISeNFelT
© ETB 2007-9
