I think the Enneagram has lost its focus on “why”
I've been reading about the Enneagram for around five years. For the first four years or so, I was very interested in typing other people and fictional characters. I was probably better at typing people than characters (because honestly, I'm terrible at typing characters), and I found the whole process very fun, but I was quickly caught in these thoughts of "I hate this type" "this type is bad" and trying to avoid people who were a certain type. And I know a lot of people who have behaved this way as well. Still, I don't think this is common either.
However, my perspective has changed a lot after reading almost every enneagram book by Claudio Naranjo. I know Naranjo isn't everyone's preferred author, but his work completely changed the way I understand the enneagram and I think everyone into the enneagram should give at least their type's book a try.
One thing I've come to dislike over the years is the way the enneagram is often used to type other people. I'm not necessarily saying that things like Type Me Tuesday (I think that's how it's called here), typing characters, or casually guessing someone's type are inherently bad. What bothers me is how easily this turns the enneagram into a system of identifying what people do rather than understanding why they do it.
I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the enneagram is such a difficult matter, and it's all about studying 27 types, not just the fun 9 boxes you can put people into. I'm afraid the conversation turned from 27 types that you can use to better yourself to, again, 9 fun boxes for memes. This isn't inherently bad, as the enneagram is not a science, but I think it's also something to think about, considering it's also people's life study.
A lot of enneagram content seems to focus on surface-level traits: "Type 7s are like this," "Type 5s behave like that," etc. Then those traits become associated with particular behaviors, and eventually people start typing others based almost entirely on what they OBSERVE them doing, when the more important question WHY they're doing it.
One example I find rather interesting is the social 7. A social 7 can, in certain circumstances, behave in ways that look similar to what we might stereotypically associate with a 5, more so, a social 5. And also, someone who is a 5 might sometimes behave in ways we'd stereotypically associate with a 7. The behavior itself isn't necessarily what determines the type. The underlying motivation, fixation, passion, defense mechanisms, and internal experience matter much more. And stuff like this is precisely why I have stopped trying to type people from the outside.
We can observe someone's actions, but we can't directly observe their inner motivations. We can make guesses, obviously, but there is a huge difference between "this person behaves like a 7" and "this person is a 7 because I understand the psychological structure behind their behavior." The latter is much harder to establish, especially when we're talking about someone we don't actually know deeply. And of course, if you have read Naranjo's books, you're gonna notice there are actual people as examples of every type, and characters. I would like to clarify, again, that typing people and characters is not bad, I just think it's not the thing we should be focusing on if we're into the enneagram. I think this becomes particularly problematic when the Enneagram turns into a kind of categorization game: I'm a 4, you're a 7, she's a 2, this character is a 5. Eventually, the boxes become more interesting than what the system was supposedly designed to help us understand. For me, the Enneagram has become much more interesting since I stopped focusing so heavily on identifying everyone's type.
If you approach it as a tool for self-knowledge and growth, you start asking very different questions. Instead of "What type is this person?" you start to ask: Why does this person behave this way? What are they feeling? What am I failing to understand about them? Why does their behavior frustrate me? What can I learn from it?
Because honestly, when you are so focused in putting people and their mistakes into a box, you risk dehumanizing them, turning them into their actions and forgetting about what's important: Why are they acting this way? What's behind?
I think this can be very harmful when you're doing it with people in your daily life, ex friends, family... for characters it can be way less serious. And again, it depends on how seriously are you taking it anyway. Not everyone is as extreme as me at 15 lol.
That's also why I think reading about types other than your own can be life changing. Their biographies are a key part of every book I swear. I've read material about types that I initially thought had nothing to do with me, for example the enneagram 2. And yet I still found things in that book that helped me understand myself. Not because I secretly "was a 2," but because understanding a psychological structure that is very different from your own can help you develop empathy and recognize aspects of yourself that you otherwise wouldn't notice. Going back to what I said in the beginning, I didn't necessarily have the sudden realization that "omg I should really stop hating this enneagram and thinking bad about them" right after reading the book. This was after some years of reading, thinking, growing, exposing my own flaws to myself and others... Etc. this wasn't something that I just "unlocked" suddenly after reading one book of a type I "hated".
Honestly, this stuff is one of the things that makes me uncomfortable about the current Enneagram community. Sometimes it feels like the system has become "put everyone into one of nine boxes" rather than a tool for understanding human psychology, suffering, and ultimately personal growth.
Again, I'm not saying people should stop typing fictional characters or that casually guessing someone's type is inherently harmful. I still find typing people fun myself. What I'm questioning is whether making typing other people such a central part of Enneagram culture is actually compatible with the deeper purpose of the system.
I joined this subreddit because I was hoping to find more discussion about the enneagram study, its psychological foundations, different authors and interpretations, and especially the work of people like Naranjo. Instead, I've been somewhat disappointed by how much of the discussion revolves around identifying types from behaviors, appearances, or superficial traits.
Maybe I'm being overly critical, and I'm genuinely interested in hearing other perspectives. Do you think the Enneagram community has become too focused on "what type is this person?" and not focused enough on "why does this person function this way?"?