|
Introduction - Purpose and Intent
The purpose of this research is to look at an alcohol/drug population of Enneatype 6 (E6) individuals in a clinical setting to determine if any corresponding MBTI profiles are more susceptible to addiction tendencies within the Enneatype 6 profile. In addition, this
research will compare its results with the findings published in Renee Baron and Elizabeth
Wabele's book The Enneagram Made Easy (Harper Collins, hereafter referred to as
BW). These findings reveal that E6 is represented by all 16 MBTI profiles to at least some
significant degree. It is noted that the graph on p.155 of Baron and Wagele's book which displays their results contains no description of how their data was obtained or interpreted. The researcher of this particular paper drew upon clients in his own clinical practice in four separate clinic locations in Southeastern Wisonsin, all of which had very similar ethnic populations, i.e. Northern European of German, Polish, Dutch descent and some of mixed descent. There was one individual of mixed Afro-American descent. The research was completed within a one and one-half year period of time. Not all Enneatype 6 clients in this population were MBTI profiled for various reasons, most of which were logistical and clinical in nature. No exact figures were made concerning this, but it is estimated that the profiled population represented much less than half of the total Enneatype 6 population in the clinical setting at the time. It is also noted that representatives of all nine Enneatypes were seen in these clinical settings during this time. Clinical observations will also be made with respect to the profiles' susceptibility to depression. These will be subjective observations and judgments on the part of this researcher. No formal instruments, such as the Beck inventory, were employed.
One additonal point should be made with respect to the BW chart. The chart is nondescript
with reference to 'least likely' subjects. That is, we do not know the likelihood of
a particular MBTI profile of rare representation in an Enneatype. We do not know whether
certain MBTI profiles even exist in certain Enneatypes. Based upon previous research by
Wagner, Fudjack and Dinkelaker, Flautt and BW, it appears as though certain profile combinations are extremely rare if not nonexistant. This has led to a discussion in
'The Enneagram Monthly' with regard to the suggestion that extremely disparate
combinations exist, e.g., an F-type E8. This researcher openly questions why such disparate combinations, of extremely low probability, are routinely accepted over other more
probably options that better explain the data, e.g., an F-type E8 is actually an F type
counterphobic E6 (see below for a discussion of this lookalike).
Section One: Procedure and Interpretation
Typically the MBTI was given well after the client had been determined to be an
Enneatype 6 profile. There were several exceptions to this where the MBTI was given
as either corroborating evidence to a suspected E6 profile or as a facilitation to more
accurately determining the Enneatype of the individual. Enneatype pencil and paper
instruments were not employed due to this researcher's experience that personal interviews
along with time in therapy are significantly more accurate determiners of Enneatype.
It is the bias of this researcher that the Enneagram and MBTI can contribute to the identity of each other based upon the past research of others in the field. In no case
was the MBTI solely relied upon to determine Enneatype. Where possible (in the vast
majority of cases), the researcher relied not only upon his own understanding of Enneatype
6 but also upon the solid identification of the client himself as an Enneatype 6. In some
cases some doubt existed as to the Enneatype. In such cases the researcher relied upon
his own experience and understanding along with intuitive insight to determine
the Enneatype 6 profile. This researcher affirms the firsthand account of John
Howe in his article in 'The Enneagram Monthly' [#41] as to how some individuals may
come to the wrong conclusions about their own Enneatype and that someone skilled in
perception and experience of Enneatype is useful in such situations. As such, relatively
brief descriptions of each client are given below justifying the researcher's employment
of the Enneatype 6 profile. However, this researcher does acknowledge perception
variations from one determiner of type to another. In addition, an ISTJ E1-type client
was used as a discriminator for SJ E6s and an ENTP E7 client was used as a discriminator
for the ENTP E6s. The DSM IV was employed for the diagnostic categories of 'abuse' and
'dependence'. The majority of clients in this study met the criteria for 'dependence'. In addition, the researcher used his own experience in determining relative degrees of severity within the diagnostic categories as indicators of greater tendencies toward
addiction for certain MBTI profiles.
Section Two: Enneatype 6 Profile
In the field of Enneagram literature the works of Claudio Naranjo (Character and Neurosis, Enneatypes in Psychotherapy, Transformation Through Insight)
and Linden and Spalding (The Enneagram and NLP) were most heavily relied upon. Also significantly used were the works of Helen Palmer, herself an Enneatype 6, including
her videos and CC-M's video production alongs with Tom Condon's video description. In
addition the researcher relied upon his own intuitive experiencing of Enneatype 6 energy
as corroborative of cognitive descriptions. Some descriptive information of Enneatype
6 will be given in individual client descriptions. If the reader is unfamiliar with
Enneatype 6 he is referred to the above mentioned literature. Finally, mention of
pharmacist Dr. Paul Boroff's (a self-proclaimed E5) final statement in his informal research on prescription medications and Enneatype 6 published in The Enneagram Educator seems appropriate:
Given the fact that Bill Wilson, the AA founder, was a counterphobic Six and that 'his' society is definitely patterned after his personality, Dr. Boroff's statement is all the more appropriate.
A word concerning counterphobic Enneatype 6 also seems warranted. There appears to be a general difficulty with respect to perceiving and discerning this form of Enneatype 6 in
the population. The phobic variety of type 6 is more easily discernible in that the fears,
anxiety and paranoid tendencies of this subtype are much more manifest phenomenologically. In that Type 6 is a 'bipolar' type, i.e. operates out of opposing extremes, the opposite, counterphobic subtype will conversely hide these qualities of Type 6 making them look like
Enneatype 8 in many instances, as Tom Condon points out. It has also been suggested by
Claudio Naranjo that many who are thought to be counterphobic type 6 are actually
Enneatype 3s. With respect to the type 8 differential the observation by Tom Condon,
in his Type 6 description video - that counterphobic Type 6 covers over an inner victim whereas in Type 8 no such inner victim exists - is one of the main criteria used in differential diagnosis along with the presence of a more well-defined feeling life in E6 and the predictable referenting to authority by E6 (either overconforming or overreacting in defiance to). The problem is that it might take some time and a lot of trust before the 'victim' will be revealed or recognized within the counterphobic. With respect to the differential with Type 3 the area of feelings and attraction to the underdog causes, including people, is frequently used as the discriminating criteria. Despite a counterphobic covering over of sensitive feelings, the feelings, nonetheless, eventually surface for counterphobic as opposed to the sense of a complete void or plastic experience with Type 3. When I first read Claudio Naranjo's description of Type 3, with its emphasis on cosmetics and porecelein dolls I thought for sure that my fiance's 25 year old daughter (an MBTI ISTP), who is a fashion-oriented hair dresser with a porcelein face collection, was a type 3. However, having gotten to know her quiet well over the past three years, there is no doubt that she is counterphobic type 6. She now also acknowledges her own type 6 as well. The cyclical pattern of intense energy for an underdog cause followed by drastically reduced energy along with boredom and a sabotaging of the situation is repeatedly observable in her life. I also wish that I could recount for you in much more detail an unforgettable experience I had in my office one day when a new client that I had just previously seen, a counterphobic woman, brough with her for support a nonromantic, male friend from her workplace. He was 6'5", wore all black western style clothes with a black cowboy hat and bushy mustache. He brought into the room the unmistakable roar of energy only manifest by type 8. It was a great experience of contrast between the two, the outpouring of feeling by the counterphobic woman, on the one hand, with the aggressive, 'just do it', no-feeling style of the eight. It is what would be in the end exactly what my counterphobic client needed to do - but down the road a little, and with patience. What she needed at the moment was to be able to have her feelings affirmed and counted, which her type eight friend could not do. Also in light of the recent exposure of the difficulty distinguishing E1 from E6 as highlighted by John Howe's testimony, this researcher tends to question the results of an informal research project in an addiction population that was published in 'The Enneagram Monthly' (#32, Schneider and Schaefffer)- where the majority of clients were typed as E1 and relatively few perceived as E6. On several occasions what I thought to be an E1 client in my own population turned out in the end to be E6. This only makes sense in that as trust is built in a therapeutic environment, the E6, who has characterological difficulties with trust, begins more and more to reveal the real self. (Schneider and Schaeffer, in referring to E1, state that 'perfectionists like to do things right and follow the rules... [and often think] they should remain involved in recovery work indefinitely.' This is another example of
overgeneralizing the more superficial traits of 'perfectionism' and 'following
rules', - when these traits are just as typical, in not more so, of the E6,
who is much more likely to be a very long term member of AA than is the E1.)
Section Three: Client Descriptions
A -- A 30's, single female who scored ENTJ (E=1, strong NT) diagnosed as Bipolar Disordered with some borderline tendencies, especially significant dependence upon
therapist-authority figure to tell her what to do. She originally presented herself in
therapy as a high image-conscious, formerly quite successful saleswoman (E-3), which
was later revealed as only an external counterphobic cover for vast fear, insecurity and debilitating self-doubt. When looking at the Enneatypes she would pick out ones from among the types she wanted to be, not, in fact, who she actually was. This has been a repeated, observable phenomena among some type 6s who seek to hide from themselves out of intense
shame. She easily sees her mother as a type 6 with whom she has had an intense love-hate, or rather independent-dependent, relationship - maintaining that she couldn't possibly be the same Enneatype as her mother! Extremely loquacious, she has a fear of commitment and
a fear of being hurt. She is hypervigilant about being hurt, but at the same time grieves over not having a significant other, i.e. puts herself in a no-win situation which effectively fulfills the victim identity. She is an excellent writer and desires to be a mental health advocate in public relations (energy for the underdog cause, but not for herself), but continuously talks herself out of moving forward in a way that could maker herself a successful writer.
B -- ENTP (N=5), counterphobic. 30's, married male. This client was initially
thought to be an E-1, but the longer he was in the intensive treatment group the more he identified with other E-6 group members. He had previously scored between E-6 and E-3 on Richard Rohr's instrument with another therapist in the same agency. Though this is a common MBTI type for E-7s this client is distinguished by the clear bipolar behavioral and thought shifts underlaid by overresponsible expectations of self and the environment which produced significant buildups of stress to which he would rapidly swing to the other, underresponsible side and engage in extreme, all-out drinking during a depressive episode. Worst-case thinking and hypervigilance along with a significant early history of paranoia also distinguish this client from E-7.
C -- ESFP (E=1, P=3) counterphobic. 30's, divorced male with a significant past legal and chemical history with chronic hypersentive, overreactive hostility to perceived threats. He is presently battling the legal, human services system over access to his children. There is significant self-sabotaging of success, paranoid, controlling thinking and behavior in his past marriage. He is hypersensitive to being the victim, and is authority oriented, lacks boundaries in feeling responsible for others' difficult situations, fears commitment, success, and is afraid to confront intimacy. Has very large tatoos of his naked ex-wife running down his arm; he appeared in court on one occasion in
a short-sleeve t-shirt, for which he was thrown out of court by the judge. Substitutes the 'power' of the therapy group to maintain behavior; once out of group he resorts to uncontrolled, underresponsible behavior.
D -- ISTJ, strong; counterphobic 30's male, with a significant long-term relationship. Client fears commitment after first divorce, presently living with girlfriend for eight years with one child; paranoid, controlling behavior and thinking in an
earlier marriage; sensitive to authority, feelings of physical appearance like E-6, including hair-style; catastrophic thinking, overresponsible stress as self-employed house builder; distinguished from E-1 by emotional life and lack of restrictions about having
fun and a good time. Highly susceptible to losing control of drinking (projects will/power) in group, social situation.
E -- ENTP, counterphobic, single 20's male. Sexual subtype, very intellectual with a biker appearance; caustic, Don Rickles sense of humor; identifies thoroughly with 'Will
Hunting'; thrives on the 'rush' of getting himself into conflicts at the bar where he's 'up against it.' Attracts dependent females, has a child, then gets out when the going gets
rough. Distinguished from E-7 by paranoid thought, controlling behavior, self-sabotaging, his fear of success, and his doubts about the possibility of good in a relationship. Obsessed with fantasy, paranormal board games of an occult nature. Will believe worst about others who are trustworthy but not the best.
F -- ESTP, (E=1, p=45), 20's, single, counterphobic. Has a physical resemblance to
E-8 with E-7 character features. E-8 is ruled out due to lack of characteristics, manifest availability of anger-energy. Client states he has difficulty getting angry, stuffs emotions a great deal, but feels extremely victimized by ex-wife and people who take advantage of his helpfulness, which lacks good boundaries because he has failed to
establish them; supports the underdog to an obsessive degree; sabotages success -- had built large financial success then blew it all away with cocaine dependence; hates being dependent on parents with whom he now lives but destroys his independent success; feels excessively guilty for receiving help; bipolar pattern of excessive responsibility with swings to irresponsibility. He has difficulty confronting exwife for stealing a large quantity of his possessions from a storage shed, and fears her reprisals; very quiet, fearful to relate self in group; overresponsible to others, neglects self. Client was exposed to a large amount of E-7 material but does not relate well to it.
G -- ISFJ, (I=5, F=5) 30's divorced male, leans toward counterphobic. This client
is a strong protectionist with family members (children) -- received a disorderly conduct by overreacting to a call from his children at his exwife's home; minimal AODA. Obsessive
thinking when not active -- worst-case thinking leads to increased anxiety and worry.
Strong worker, refocuses head energy into the body; likes to keep busy; overresponsible
to friends when help is asked for; takes cues from others to make own decisions -- waited
for exwife to get a new boyfriend before he felt okay about having a girlfriend for himself.
H -- ISTP (S=1, T=5) 20's, single male, phobic. Client is a strong self-sabotager with catastrophic thinking; frequently projects his own self-criticisms onto others; fear-based -- afraid to take normal risks to succeed; dependent on alcohol to cope with internalized stress; sees self as a victim of outside forces; sabotages relationships with overdependence; in a conflictual battle with his father (likely counterphobic E6) over acceptance.
I -- ESTX (counted as ESTP in data, S=37) counterphobic, 30's married male. History of pathological paranoia accompanied with violence and significant legal history and history of alcohol dependence. Intense worst case scenario imagination with strong defensive reactions, especially in private in close relationships; in therapy, charming and likable. Strong inner core of insecurity, fear, and doubt covered by a strong exterior
show of strength; overprotectionistic and controlling; difficulty trusting and not knowing; antagonizes individuals into fights to take care of supposed threats; likable in public, tyrannical in private.
J -- ISTP (P=7, T=49) counterphobic, single, 40's male in a long term relationship. Repeat alcohol dependent with numerous treatments and drinking/driving violations; loquacious in very small group, becomes silent in larger group; uses arguing as strength
to protect self, be right; worst-case thinking, bipolar drinking pattern (at victim end); strong work ethic, but judgmental of others who don't work like he does or are not like he is; controlling behaviors with people who are close (family); smooth, likable appearance in group, friendly, emotionally appealing; overextends self for others and at work -- leaves
self feeling victimized due to difficulty with boundaries. Emotional life, paranoia, and controlling behaviors rule out E1, along with his P score.
K -- INFJ, counterphobic, single 40's male. Strong self-identification with E6; overresponsible role for underdog relationships and causes; bipolar swing in alcohol use; aggressive, with fears -- high risk activities (e.g. sky-diving when younger); obsessive fisherman, model maker; holds in feelings of frustration, feeling victimized, and then explodes; fear of aloneness; holds grudges for years, difficulty with forgiveness; alternates between fear and aggression; big into guns, takes a gun with him illegally to the beach to 'protect himself' from imagined threats; E6 appearance and hair style; emotionally appealing, and likable in group; a hero, rescuer to phobic 6 girlfriend in his most recent long term relationship.
L -- ISFJ phobic, 20's single female. Client is highly dependent upon relationship structure -- once away from home became dependent upon alcohol; no desire for alcohol now that she is in a significant relationship again; internally stressed through projected worst-case imagination; perfectionist with self, others; has anxiety, and is group oriented; some identity confusion, fighting to take will back from controlling father; bipolar dynamic -- overconforming, obedient, appeasing swings to undercontrolled rebellious when away from family or valued structure.
M -- ENFP (strong) 20's, single female. Reactionary to authority, rebellious;
a strong focus of attention on threat in the environment and injustice; sees self as victim of the system; heavy THS user -- used with police officer until police officer turned her in; doubts self, abilities, internally stressed; fears taking risks in job market, overly
mythologizes a job situation only to feel victimized when the situation doesn't meet her excessively high expectations; very sensitive to mother's overcontrol and overprotection but sabotages her ability to live away from mother; sabotages relationships -- leaves before they can hurt her. E2 is ruled out.
N -- INXP (counted as INFP in data) single, 20's male. Strong worst-case thinking, reactionary, bipolar mood; behavior swings, magnified greatly under influence of alcohol
(not DSM Mipolar Disorder, however); hypervigilant; strong affective use of alcohol; underlying fear, doubt of self, abilities, 'What if...?' questioning of self, environment;
analytical, overprepared. Idealistic expectations produce strong energy but let's obstacles overwhelm him and then goes to opposite, depressive end (somewhat resembles E4 in this respect -- more likely an INFP trait). An E4 lookalike at depressive end. The strong
T value is interpreted as leaning toward E6 versus E4.
O -- ISTP (P=47) 20's, single male. Strong dependence on girlfriend who ended relationship due to his cocaine dependence; energy for causes - loss of relationship motivates treatment; highly anxious, always has to have something to do, a project to complete; sabotages relationships with promises, smooth talk to please, appease only to not follow through with action; strong projection and 'mythologizing' of girlfriend -- girlfriend holds the power of his well-being in her hands -- leads client to jealous, overcontrolling behaviors; preoccupied with obsessive fears of worst-case scenario;
extremely good looking male, charming, emotionally likable. E7 is ruled out.
P -- ESTP (E=1, P=49) 20's, single male. Client has a strong history of group dependent, chemical use; counterphobic chemical use as thrill, risk-taking (authority oriented -- 'just see if I could get away with it') to curb boredom; possessive, controlling of girlfriend, jealous, worst-case scenario imagination with her; sabotages by overcontrol; projects own power, inner authority -- obsessive focus of attention supplants sound judgment producing impulsive decision making; overreliance on authority to set boundaries for him; easily bored at work; while on probation overreacted to unwanted
female, threatened her not to tell authorities, then begged her not to tell - she turned
him in and he went back to jail.
Q -- ESFJ (S=1) counterphobic, 40's, married female. Very gifted artistically --
discriminating colors, decorating; strong counterphobic -- takes care of everybody --
energy for a cause; bipolar use of alcohol -- depressive mood swing with out-of-control
use of alcohol affectively; intense overresponsibility with masochistic self-punishment at other end; enthusiastic 'cheerleader' at work, motivator; repression of self-interest,
feelings, own cause; worst-case imagined thinking; relates well to Pat Wyman's 'Korey';
an E2 lookalike at the MBTI overlap; facial, body features are more E6 than E2; married
to a dependent, phobic E6 man.
R -- INTJ (strong N, J=5) 30's, single female. Bipolar alcohol depression following abandonment by an E2 male in long term relationship; holds significant hatred, resentment,
bitterness many years after breakup; use of alcohol affectively to cope; self-esteem hinged upon relationship; sabotaged success as an attorney; self-doubt, anxiety, fears risk taking; obsessive with detail; good insight; masochistic mental self-punishment; love/hate, dependent/independent relationship with parents with whom she has lived following a
'breakdown'.
S -- ISTP (S=47, T=39) counterphobic, biracial, 20's, single man. Client significantly lacks interior insight; survivor by drug dealing in the 'hood'; increased
'tolerance' to drug dealing; represses sense of danger, consequences; difficulty locating fear, emotion; strong controller of relationship with his girlfriend, jealous, overprotective; hypercritical of phobics, 'slackers'; strong focus on what could go wrong; victim of system; verbally impulsive, angry, hostile; alternates conforming, rebelling to
the system (i.e., extremely authority oriented) -- difficulty locating self apart from
external authority source, including mother with whom he has extremely codependent relationship; excessive expectations and temper with loved ones.
T -- ISFJ (S=59) 30's, single (long term relationship with client D), female. Client is extremely well organized with fastidiousness for detail -- organizes legal offices then leaves; worse-case thinking, protectionistic, overcontrolling, especially with her children; relationship was characterized by arguments and power/control battles; judgmental of other parents for not being as protectionistic as she is; assumes other parents think like she does; difficulty with uncertainty -- counterphobic to get information, especially in crisis involving her child; difficulty seeing own doubting mind; frequently overresponsible in past, lacked boundaries, then stressed self out as a result;
E6 body, facial features; drank alcohol affectively to cope with stress.
U -- ENTP, 20's single female. Extremely loquacious, dominates group, demands center of attention -- number of E7 traits; however, self-sabotager, strong self-doubter,
talks self out of taking appropriate risks, constant complainer (especially of physical symptoms and job environment) but does nothing to rectify or improve situation, negative
view of life, projects strongly onto group, group oriented alcohol use -- gives group power to determine her own drinking habit, uses alcohol for sexual courage in relationships;
overrelated to parents, gives them power to determine her happiness; extremely sensitive, tends toward hysterical responses -- very strong emotional reaction to pet fish dying --
went through intense self-blaming.
V -- ISTP (very strong) 30's, married male. Extremely quiet and non-insight oriented; strong earlier history of overreacting in fear to authority; very wary of typing self, fear of exposure to self, others; strong work ethic, bipolor reward drinking pattern heavy in the past, numerous drinking and driving charges; denies anger problem, stuffs a lot instead; alcohol use was strongly group oriented with macho identification and warding
off of boredom, especially when working out of town (construction). In this population it was this client who took that longest to type. This researcher went back and forth in almost every conceivable direction testing alternatives before finally deciding on E6 based upon the clients early anti-authoritarian history.
W -- ESFJ (S=3, F=3), 30's, single female. Significant past projection with magnified stressors producing corresponding internalized stress for which client used alcohol affectively -- charged with child neglect while on binge; 'bipolor' swings from overresponsibility to underresponsibility; very talkative and charming; friendly, sociable, likable; tries to be cheerful at work (note client Q); enjoys crafts, needs to
be busy, anxious energy, artistic, discriminating. Formerly married to an ISTJ-like
E6.
X -- INFP (F=5, strong P) 30's, single male -- Long term alcohol dependence with no control whatsoever; bipolar swings of significant depression accompanied by severe alcohol
binge; overresponsible -- does too much for others then feels victimized when not appreciated; strongly opinionated and judgmental of others; dependent upon authority --
needs structure, needs plan to look forward to something as motivation, needs to see the certainty of an event; self-sabotaging of success, talks self out of stopping at first drink; initially thought to be E9; E4 lookalike at point of depression.
Y -- INTP (N=1, T=7) 20's, single female. Heavy projection on group -- secure in non-using family environment but out of control with using friend away from family; worst-case thinking, insecure, anxious, doubtful of self, gives up responsibilities for child
care to parents, relies excessively on parents on legal matters and feels no sense of even
wanting to be informed about crucial legal matters concerning self; lacks sense of solid
boundaries -- overprotected to underprotected bipolar swings; attractive, charming,
likable.
Z -- ISTJ (S=7) more phobic variety of client D; 19 year old, single college student. Atempted suicide over hopeless thoughts about not being able to impact society in future; projects will/authority onto others; anxious, fearful about his summer job where not enough structure, direction are provided; thinks catastrophically about going into such a work situation; very intellectual, does well academically in college but somewhat dependent upon family structure and feels somewhat lost emotionally without family structure around; somewhat dependent upon mother, was not close to father, but felt devastated when he died. As with client D had difficulty with self insight.
AA -- ISTP (I=3, S=3) 30's, married male. Client is dependent on THC and 'needs' to use before almost every activity that he engages in. Started drug use as an adolescent in a group which became his substitute family, linking familial feelings with drug use; heavy group dependence and severely authority oriented -- conforms to authority in presence of authority out of fearful appeasement then does whatever he wants when out of sight of authority; diagnosed as adult ADHD, on prozac; overreacted to disciplinary problem with six year old son at school, slapped the child in front of teacher and was charged with child abuse and put on probation; used THC in spite of probation sanctions and consistent UA testing, eventually served jail time for breaking probation; motivated only by wife threatening to leave him; highly anxious, nervous, always needing something to do; resembles E7 hyperactivity at times; defers often to therapist to get clues from therapist as to what to say.
BB -- ISFJ; 60's, single female. Client is classic codependent -- fear of taking
a stand with alcoholic significant other, alcohol dependent herself -- relates heavily to affective use of alcohol; worst-case scenario thinking, authority oriented, difficulty
establishing individual autonomy -- when she got a new apartment, she didn't move into it; its just there in case she needs to get away from 'abusing' boyfriend; fears are highly magnified and projected onto boyfriend; charming, likable, conforming in group; quiet, fears revealing self to others.
CC -- INTP (P=1) 40's, married male. Highly skilled carpenter in detail work that he loves but is working in a factory and hating it -- he convinces himself that there are no other options when there are; would like to start own business but doubts self severely
and imagines worst-case scenarios taking place, implying loss of control on his part and sabotaging his success; severe counterphobic, all-out, loss of control drinking pattern in past; at this point has a high degree of internalizing the recovery process, perhaps the best of this researched population; counterphobic tendency to overdo work, not set limits,
stress self out then go on bipolar swing to depressive end; attracted a highly dependent, complaining, Bipolar Disordered E6 phobic spouse; strong protectionist -- wants to give his child a city environment that he didn't have as a child - feels victimized having been raised on the farm away from city activities and friends; insightful, friendly, engaging in group, emotionally appealing, likable.
DD -- ISTP (strong) 30's, single male. Strong history of polysubstance abuse with
self-sabotaging tendency; obvious anxiety with neurotic worry, fear, worst-case scenario
thinking; homeless for years, now caring for self, but doubting self and present success;
heavy projection of own fears onto the environment; heavy control, worry, overprotectionistic in relationships -- pushes partners away; spot welder at a factory.
EE -- ESFJ; 20's married, female. DSM borderline personality disorder -- strong
history of alcohol dependence, cutting wrists, depression; chronic complainer and victim;
projects worst-case motives onto others, especially her friends and potential employers;
forces others to make choices she needs to make including changing jobs; magnifies slights
into emotional catastrophes; imagines husband being down on her for not bringing home
income when it is her own self-masochistic blaming; possibly Fetal Alcohol Syndrom victim.
FF -- INTP (very strong I)20's, single male. This client's physical appearance is a cross between Jim Morrison (with beard) and Charles Manson; history of alcohol dependence --worst binges are when he is out of work, bored and seeks some kind of thrill; reactionary to events, fearful of being engulfed by girlfriend, avoids commitment; extremely quiet, takes a long time to respond in therapy, has a glazed, spaced-out look; hates his factory job, stays in it for the money, but doesn't look for something that would be better; living with his parents at age 26; avoided doing schoolwork in high school as passive-agressive
reaction to his mother trying to get him to do it; surprisingly for INTP not at all interested in academics; interested in music, has difficulty distinguishing music writing
as being creative versus performing; history of depression and resembles E4 at depression
but T score rules out; could be E9 but client denies difficulty making decisions;
antiauthoritarian approach to life seems to rule out E5.
GG -- INXP (I=1, strong NP) 20's single male. Borderline Personality Disorder with past THC use; severe depressions, dependence on authority figures, difficulty getting out
of bed, sleeping anxiety away; extreme dependent on previously treating psychologist;
mix of E and I indicative of E6, also T score seems to exclude E4 though lookalike at point of depression; revolves around authority, his girlfriend is counterphobic E6; client is now getting into school for and working job in auto mechanics.
HH -- ISTJ (strong); 30's, single male. Alcohol dependent and group dependent,
especially allowing group to make decisions for him, afraid of saying no to people in the group; identifies extremely well with E6, especially worst-case scenaria thinking, planning for worst-case eventualities; fearful of entering a new relationship after previous divorce, became overresponsible for wife's alcohol problem, somewhat isolated, withdrawn, some depression; safety, security supervisor at a chemical plant. This client independently took an online Etype inventory and came out E9. The client compared self to E9 literature and did not identify with it.
II -- ESTP (strong P); 20's, single male residing with parents. This client
displays severe alcohol dependence with counterphobic, all-out drinking style; he
was initially thought by this researcher to be E6, but client didn't identify well;
client identified better with E7. However, with time in therapy more and more underlying
E6 characteristics began to surface, e.g. extreme protectionistic position with hostility
displayed over imagined scenario with a romantic female, strongly opinionated and
confrontational with authority when wronged, obsessive, goal orientation that shuts other
people out for the sake of accomplishing the goal, use of verbal degredation to control unwanted females, takes losses very seriously (i.e. doesn't rationalize pain away like
E7 would tend to do), denies competitiveness characteristic of E3, not very insightful --
has difficulty seeing own interior life, denies aggressiveness, anger, control of
E8. This client wrote the following in a treatment exercise: "As I get older many of
my friends are getting married and they think it's so great to be single. They always
tell me, 'don't get married; don't even get a girlfriend'. They think it sucks to be tied down. So on the macho note I always tell girls that I'm not ready for a girlfriend. So after I'm a hero to them for staying single it makes me sad; so I drink to be happy about
being alone." This is discerned to be an individual turning will over into the
hands of the group (the authority figure) to determine decision-making, an extremely
common feature in E6. Client is likable, 'good guy' presentation. This was a very
difficult case to Enneatype and there is some doubt about the actual type.
JJ -- ESTJ (strong); late 20's, single, couterphobic female. Client had two year
addiction to cocaine and was placed on probation -- counterphobic qualities come out very strong with probation officer, e.g. being placed on no-alcohol rule and going out and drinking 20 beers at a party just to defy authority; identifies extremely well with
overactive, impulsive decision-making in reference to authority figure; also identifies
extremely well with literature descriptions of E6; has a noticable judgmental attitude
toward phobic E6 including her sister while conveniently not looking at her own faults;
has a highly conflictual, control/power oriented relationship with her mother; is a very
strong worker and can become overresponsible in situations; operates out of a bipolar
dynamic in close relationships -- 'do things my way or I dissociate with you'; very
sensitive to issues of injustice and unfairness; strong resemblence to researcher's
fiance's daughter, who was mentioned earlier.
KK -- ISTP (strong except P=9); late 20's, female, divorced, about to be remarried.
Strongly phobic 6 with significant dependence on alcohol prior to and at time of her
divorce 4 years ago. Vacilated between her own dependence and attempting to control
husband's dependence; strongly tuned to the environment, to nonverbal cues in other people as to whether they're friendly or not, like her or not; difficulty with boundaries --
lets people walk all over her for awhile until sufficient feelings of being a victim build
to explosion; highly protective of children, extremely protective of children under
stress with accompanying mistrust, even of close friends, e.g., wouldn't let best friend
handle her infant child; puts boyfriend in no win situations, refuses to be pleased,
withdraws and avoids when stressed in relationship; identified extremely well to literature descriptions of E6, seems to be more insightful than comparable male ISTP with similar
S score; has signficant ISTJ qualities, e.g., stressed out over items in house not being
in place, but has improved over the years (formerly J??); some history of depression
which would be more J-like; but P-like with SSRI meds -- took for only two weeks, took
self off claiming to feel much better. Cute, attractive, charming, emotionally appealing.
LL -- ISTJ (strong); late 30's divorced, male living with his brother's family.
High degree of paranoid mode of attention to coworkers with significant protection of own
self-doubt -- strongly look at others, assumes they are saying negative things about him;
jealous, insecure, nontrusting and controlling in most recent relationships which broke
up two years ago; overreactive to magnified difficulties; alcohol dependence -- strong
tendency to minimize use and problem and greatly projected power onto supervisor at previous job from which he was fired partly as a result of his alcohol use --
would lie to employer about being 'sick' when actually hung over; came to his therapist
through EAP at that time; most recently came back for drinking and driving conviction;
difficulty with insight, some depression but not cognizant of this nor of feelings
in general; strong worker, overresponsible in areas, underresponsible in others;
formerly married to strongly projecting, blaming, accusational phobic E6.
MM -- ESFJ; 30's married mother; counterphobic. Strong history of affective
use of alcohol with dependence tendencies, in therapy for drinking and driving conviction;
hyperalert for dangerous possibilities in environment; overresponsible, has a hard time
saying 'no' to friends and boss, compulsive need to fill up schedule -- rearranged her
work schedule to spend more time with children only to fill it up with other things;
difficult time experiencing fun, pleasure for its own sake -- dutiful, gets stressed
as a result; owes people for gifts, difficult accepting anything for free, hard on
self, difficulty forgiving self; sets self up to be a victim of husband by expecting
too much from him; cute, charming, likable, emotionally appealing, hard working,
protective.
NN -- ESTP (very strong); 20's married male with strong alcohol dependence
history. Strong anti-authoritarian background while single; extremely role oriented --
wild, irresponsible, counterphobic, impulsive, anti-authoritarian while single; responsible, protective, hard-working while married -- i.e., conforms to strong
bipolar tendency to subject to the 'authority' that is closest by; distinguished
from E8 by this dependence on authority figures for conforming/reactive power and
energy; transferred all-out, counterphobic drinking pattern to hunting and fishing --
i.e., has to be obsessive-compulsive about something in life; however, can still consume
great deal of alcohol at one sitting, but unusually nondefensive in admitting his
alcoholism; this client looks like an E8 but is distinguished by the authority issue
and controlling paranoia.
Population (n)=40
Keirsey types:
Other 2-scale combinations of interest:
Single scales of interest:
Two-profile combinations of interest:
Numbers by individual MBTI profile:
Only ENFJ and ISFP are not represented in this small population. However,
see client I where J=P as one of two ESTP representatives. Thus this study
comes extremely close to having only 1 of the 16 MBTI profiles not included.
Consideration for the specific population researched is, again, to be kept in mind.
Of prime significance is the Keirsey SP population, occupying 37.5 of the population,
significantly higher than the 25% expected by pure chance. Also the ISTP/ESTP
dual combination included 32.5% of the population, much higher than the 12.5%
expected by pure chance (each MBTI type representing 6.25% of the 16 types).
Interestingly, females represented more than 50% of the SJ population and an even
50% of the NT population where we might have expected more male dominance.
The non-Keirsey IF combination, proposed by Walter Geldart as characteristic
of E6, accounted for only 8% of this population. The ST combination,
another non-Keirsey type about which researcher John Fudjack requested specific
information, represented 45% of the population. There was a strong tendency for E to be represented by females; males dominated the precentage of Is. 7 of the 13 females scored F.
Of clinical significance, while SPs clearly tended toward higher addiction rates and higher degrees of severity, they ranked very low in terms of clinical depression. There
were, naturally, exceptions to this among the population, including clients
KK and NN, a rather macho, antiauthoritarian, counterphobic male who reported several suicide attempts earlier in his life which seemed to reveal some borderline
tendencies. These results should be seen as general tendencies only. With SJs
depression clearly increased significantly in appearance of symptoms. The NF represented
the most at-risk population for severe depression. Client X, an NF, committed
suicide during the course of treatment afer an evening of drinking 3 bottles of
vodka. There was also some significant depression among NTs, generally not as severe
as NF but slightly more than SJ. Since the NT numbers are quite small it would
be difficult to use this as a predictor for the population at large. These
numbers and clinical observations might serve to prompt further research in
this general area, which could either confirm or deny what this limited sample
suggests.
Clearly, the SP Keirsey types had significantly greater tendencies toward more
severe levels of dependence in addition to simply being significantly overrepresented
in the population. To slightly modify Dr. Borof's statement we could say that while
all SP E6s certainly are not addiction prone, among those E6s who have significant
addiction difficulties there is more likelihood that they are SPs. It is suggested
by this researcher that Bill Wilson, founder of AA, as depicted in the TV movie,
'My Name is Bill W.', would likely be an ESTP counterphobic 6. Those E6s with significant
accompanying depression, outside of the question of whether or not alcohol actually
contributed to the depression or originated the question (a topic by the alcohol and
drug community tht is way overplayed in this writer's opinion), tend to be NFs.
There was a tendency by the other Keirsey types to see depression more as a control
device in relationship to others.
Finally this research, even though limited to an alcohol/drug-abusing population, seems
to confirm the BW research regarding the 'universality' of E6 in Myers-Briggs typology.
Although research tends to suggest that in the other eight Enneatypes, certain MBTI profiles will cluster in high concentrations, for the E6, concentrations of MBTI types
are more evenly distributed 1.
This researcher hypothetically suggests a distinct uniqueness to E6 for this reason.
Again there remains research to be done as to exactly how rare certain profiles are
in the other eight Enneatypes. The BW designation 'least common' on their graph does not supply us with an answer. If, in fact, the names listed on pp. 159-61 represent their research sample, then we need a significantly larger research sample to begin to answer this question. If this is the case the BW n=188. At n=40 for E6 alone (in the present study) would be the equivalent of a total research population of 360 (40*9). Thus the population of E6 in the BW research was more than likely less than 40. [Editor's note -
the Enneagram Monthly survey on Enneagram and MBTI type DID, however, include a comparably sized E6 group [n=52] with which Michael's study can be productivelycompared.]
It should also be mentioned at this point that the nationwide research conducted by
psychologist Brian Grodner also concluded that E6 occupied first place in numbers of
clients in therapy in comparison to the other eight E-types. These numbers seemed to
indicate clients of mainly mental health concerns and only secondarily to alcohol/drug-abuse concerns. It is the hypothesis of this researcher that by isolating strictly
alcohol/drug-abusing populations we would see the numbers go even significantly
higher in overrepresentation than in the mixed therapy population.
1. With the permission of the author, the Editor's have added the following table,
which summarizes the distribution of MBTI types across the Enneagram, according to
data acquired in the 'Enneagram Monthly' survey. It corroborates the point that
Michael is making, that for the E6, the MBTI types are more 'evenly' distributed
than for other types. The 'I-values' in the third column correspond to the MBTI type
with the highestconcentration for the Enneatype in question. I=1.0 corresponds to a level of concentration that would be expected if distribution were random, and I-values upward of 1.0 respectively represent higher concentrations. For example, for E5 there is at least one MBTI type that has a very high level concentration, with I=4.3 (this is the INTP, although the chart does not make that fact explicit). For E6, the MBTI type with the highest concentration is INFP, with a presence slightly greater than would be expected if distribution were random (I=1.5). If one were to plot the levels of concentration of each MBTI type in E6, one would get a very 'flat' curve as compared to the similar graphs that could be generated in this way for each of the eight remaining Enneagram types.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
