How the USA’s Enneagram Type Assists or Thwarts You!

The Enneagram is a system of understanding yourself and others. Basically it lists nine types of personalities, identified by number so as to insure neutrality. This system is further complicated by the relationships numbers have with one another and the three universal sub-types or variants—self-preservation, sexual and social.

It turns out that countries have dominant enneagram types, and sub-types. France is a Four culture, Canada is a Social Nine, and the USA is a Social Three.

Let us look at what the role of the dominant culture means to the spectrum of individuals within that culture, who naturally represent all the possible types. We will limit our discussion to the United States of America, with an easily recognizable Social Three type, but the method is equally applicable to other cultures and subcultures within the dominate culture.

What does a Social Three dominant culture mean? The Social variant means that the expected way of being in the US is for people to be social, not the intensity of the sexual type (also called one-to-one ), or the hermit-like style of the self-preservation style. This Social variant is most easily recognized in the Presidential election season where every candidate needs a full “social” calendar and is expected to spend most of the day interacting with groups of people!

What does the Three mean? Three culture is one of personal achievement, picking oneself up by one’s bootstraps, salesmanship , self-promotion. An example of an individual with this style is the actor Tom Cruise, who is always a Three, but especially his role in Jerry Maguire.

Each type has a natural connection with some other types and two types with no connection. Since type Three is our dominant culture in the USA, the way Three interacts with other types plays out in individual’s roles in the larger society. Let us go through the nine types to see which are advantaged and which are not.

As a type Three culture, type Three is in the privileged position. Type Threes are living the national myth of self promotion and achievement. If you are a type Three in this culture, you are directly and positively connected to the national story and myth.

Type Three as two possible wings—the adjoining types. Type Two, the Helper, is advantaged as part of the community spirit of volunteering and helping others, as the wife and helpmate, as the one who makes the whole work. The other wing, Type Four, is the artist. Here we have entertainment, especially music, television and film, as major national economic systems and major exports. We value our type Fours.

Three’s direction of integration is the type Six, the Skeptic or Loyalist. The positive side of Six is the patriot, who sacrifices for the common good. But there is a downside to Six in our culture, the Tea Party, Arian Nation, Gun Rights combination of extreme isolation from the mainstream and from the world community.  Timothy McVeigh would be an example of this version of Six.

The direction of disintegration is type Nine, the peacemaker or mediator. At its best, we have the Marshall Plan, international diplomacy, peaceful multi-cultural neighborhoods. But there is again a downside. The Nine can manifest as the lazy, the welfare nation, those who are expecting (rightly or wrongly) to be supported by others.

We have now explored type Three’s connection to four other types: Two, Four, Six and Nine. Together they are five of the nine types. Each type has a fascination with its two opposite types. For Three these are Seven and Eight. Type Seven is the adventurer, the explorer, the bon vivant. The US culture admires type Sevens, holding them up in literature, television and movies. Think of Lewis and Clark and their expedition to explore the Northwestern part of what is now the United States.  The downside of type Seven is the addict, and we have plenty of people who are addicted to fame, sugar, alcohol and drugs.

Type Eight is also an object of fascination for the Three. Eight is the Boss, the Director, the Master. We need our strong heroes. Consider the adoration of winning Generals in times past: MacArthur and Patton and Eisenhower, Grant and Robert E. Lee! The downside of the powerful Eight is the crime lord: Al Capone would be an example.

We now have two types that are not directly connected to type Three: One and Five. These two types are less at home in American culture. They are almost always seen as their negative stereotypes, not their positive expressions. Type One is the Perfectionist, the Purist, the Saint. Ones are seen as their negatives in the religious extremists of American history, who have lives of simplicity, purity and little commerce. Consider the Salem Witch Trials as an example. Type Five is the Theoretician, the Scholar, the Scientist. Fives are not highly regarded in our culture, as seen in much popular culture with the Mad Scientist as a stock character. They are nerds, and crazy or evil scientists.

How does understanding the USA’s Social Three type help us understand the world? The downside of the Three is the Self-Aggrandizer who has little or nothing to promote. We are seen as loudmouthed people who lack much depth, but expect to always have the leadership position. Countries of other types will each seen us differently, with some more inclined to our favor than others. The innate connection between Three and Nine, for example, explains the natural alliance of the USA with Canada. Countries with strong One or Five cultures would be less swayed by our press releases.

For individuals knowing the dominant culture tells us how we can make our way. The dominant culture is Three. How does our type connect with Three? Two types are particularly disadvantaged in a Three culture: One and Five. These types are best isolating themselves in a subculture that honors their type, with links to the main culture through appropriate types that can bridge the difference.

Other types will find themselves cast in particular roles, as their type is seen by Threes. It is helpful to understanding that assignment, if not necessarily to limit themselves by it.

Understanding a country’s enneagram type is very helpful to individuals immersed in that culture and to other countries and their understanding. 

I hope this has assisted you in understanding yourself and your culture.

Lalia

How a system of understanding impacts culture: BaZi

The ancient Chinese system of telling time, understanding nature, and divination known as BaZi or Four Pillars astrology is important in understanding the culture of China. This influence impacts China and other Asian cultures today; it is not an historical artifact.  Immediately below is the BaZi for the Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan this year.

What is BaZi? It is a system of telling time, and understanding the physical, psychological and spiritual environment, by using 60 combinations of element and animal. The Chinese system uses five elements: Fire, Earth, Metal, Water and Wood. Each can exist in yin or yang form. There are twelve animals in the Chinese Zodiac: Rat, Ox, Tiger, Rabbit, Dragon, Snake, Horse, Sheep, Monkey, Rooster, Dog and Pig. Six of these are yang: Rat, Tiger, Dragon, Horse, Monkey and Dog. The other six are yin: Ox, Rabbit, Snake, Sheep, Rooster and Pig. Each animal pairs with each of the elements to form a cycle of 60. These cycles are 60 years, 60 months, 60 days and 60 hours (Chinese hours are two western hours).

Each moment in time can be pinpointed (within two hours, and within a 60 year cycle) by a combination of the four pillars. I am writing this on 03 Oct 2011 at 9:48 am EDT in East Tennessee. In BaZi this is the Yin Water Snake hour, the Yin Metal Rabbit day, the Yin Fire Rooster month and the Yin Metal Rabbit year.

Each person is thus described by the combination of pillars for the day and time he was born. But more specifically, he is described by the Day Master, the element of the day of his birth. In the illustration above it is Yin Metal. Knowing one’s Day Master, and whether it is weak or strong, lets you know what times and seasons are favorable for you and which are ones where you need to attend to personal business only and not stick your head up. A strong Day Master has three elements which are favorable; a weak Day Master has only two. In the cycle of 60, a strong Day Master will have 24 days of everything going in his favor, about 16 when all forces are against him, and the remaining 20 days are mixed. A weak Day Master will have about 16 favorable days, 24 days with all forces against him, and 20 days of mixed luck. Although the illustration above is for a strong Day Master, most people and most BaZi are for weak Day Masters.

Knowing your favorable elements, which depends upon whether your Day Master is weak or strong and which element it is, allows you to know when to step out, and when to hunker down. It is the “hunker down” part that is more pronounced with Asian cultures, and I propose that it comes directly from understanding and using BaZi over centuries. It has become part of the culture.

In contrast, Western cultures uplift individuals who step forward and act without regard to their individual fortune. One might say in ignorance of their BaZi. However if one did a BaZi analysis of prominent individuals, most would be shown to manifest their success as their element is rewarded by the changing cycles.

May you grow in understanding, and have the elements in your favor!

Lalia

More Thoughts on Integral Compatibility

I want to highlight one of the implications of the model I suggested for Integral Compatibility. It suggests that relationships gain when both parties grow in levels of psycho-spiritual development.

Let us consider two people with average compatibility in type, state, lines and quadrants. Thus, their score on these would be 1 + 1 + 2 + 1 = 5. If they are both at the Traditional level of development, their total compatibility is 5. If they are both at the Modern level of development, their total compatibility is 7.5. If Pluralist, 10. If Integral 12.5. Both parties gain from the relationship when each advances in psycho-spiritual development.

Now consider how an excellent relationship benefits from psycho-spiritual development. Here the base score of type, state, lines and quadrants is much higher: 3 + 2 + 3 + 2 = 10. If they are both at Traditional, their overall score is 10. If Modern, 15. If Pluralist, 20. If Integral, 25!

Thus, in addition to having basic compatibility, psycho-spiritual growth adds dimensions to already good relationships that parties may never have realized were possible!

The moral here is that psycho-spiritual development makes all things better. It makes average relationships good, and it makes good relationships great.

Lalia

Thoughts on Integral Compatibility

I have pondered the mysteries of compatibility, whether in friendships, business relationships or sexual relationships. My long-time bias has been towards understanding types and their compatibility. But finally I have arrived at viewing compatibility in a much more complex way. Below is a provisional model of Integral Compatibility.

Let’s start with the understanding that this is a model, which I’ve expressed mathematically. Think of compatibility as an overlap in space. The greater the volume of overlap, the more compatible individuals are with one another.

My favorite measure of compatibility is Type . Using the enneagram as your typology, and knowing your specific type, we would indicate compatibility as follows: 3 points for types that are on either side of your type. That would be, if you are a Type 3, a +3 points for the other person being either a Type 2 or a Type 4. Add +2 if the other person is across the enneagram from you, that is (for a Type 3) Types 7 or 8. Add +1 point if the other person is your same type, or your stress or flow type—that is, Type 3 with Types 3, 6 and 9. Add +½ point if the other person is one of the two remaining types; for Type 3 this is Types 1 and 5.

Moving on to States, add one point for each state that both parties consciously, deliberately share. For most people, this will only be the gross, physical state. For those not used to the concept of state experience, we each exist and perceive gross, subtle, causal and non-dual states. However, most of us only have voluntary competence in the gross state. I suspect that many couples add on a second shared state (most likely subtle) by the use of drugs or alcohol. This is only a temporary asset to compatibility, and not recommended.

Lines of development add more compatibility. Add one point, with a maximum of three possible, for each significant personal line of development common to the other party. Lines of development could include items such as the following: same college degrees, same profession, same religion and religious commitment, and other items of personal mastery that are important to both parties. If both are masters of the same line, but one does not value this line, it is not part of the compatibility equation.

Quadrant bias: add one point for each shared quadrant perspective. Thus, if both parties share a focus on the interior-individual quadrant, valuing dreams, meditation, spiritual experiences, than this is +1. If both parties value the physical self, through extensive personal fitness, nutrition, exercise, athleticism, and so forth, +1. If both value infrastructure and systems of group interaction, add +1. If both value a shared cultural bias, add +1.

At this point, you have a compatibility score for any two people which is the sum of scores for Type, State, Line and Quadrant compatibilities. Now we will look at the levels of development.

Consider the normal level of development for adults in the country where parties live. For the United States this would be the Traditional level of development. (Also known as the Blue meme, or Amber meme.) If both parties share this, add +1. Add + 0.5 for each additional level they share above Traditional. Thus, if one party is at Modern, and the other at Pluralist, add +1 for their shared Traditional, and +0.5 for their shared Modern, or +1.5. Only add additional points if both parties share that meme. If one or both parties are not up to Traditional, then only allot them +½ point.

Now, multiply the Level score times the combined scores for type, state, line and quadrant.

Several examples to illustrate this compatibility:

Person A, who is an enneagram type 9, gross state, many lines of development, functions in all four quadrants and is at integral development, with:

Person B, who is an enneagram type 3, gross and subtle states, many lines of development, functions in two quadrants and is at pluralist development.

A and B compatibility: 1 + 1 + 3 + 2 = 7 multiplied by 2 to get a compatibility score of 14. (We got the first 1 from type, the second 1 from state, the 3 from shared lines, and the 2 from shared quadrant perspectives.)

Person C is an enneagram type 5, with gross and subtle states, multiple lines of development (2 shared with A), integral development and two quadrants.

Person A with person C: 2 + 1 + 2 + 2 = 7 multiplied by 2.5 (shared traditional, modern, pluralist and integral development) to get a score of 17.5.

Person D is an enneagram type 6, with gross state, fewer lines of development (1 shared with A, two quadrant bias, and Traditional development.

Person A with person D: 1+ 1 + 1 + 2 = 5, multiplied by 1 gives a score of 5.

Person E is an enneagram type 1, gross state, several lines of development (2 shared with person D), and one quadrant bias. This person is at the Warrior stage of development.

Person D with Person E: 2 + 1 + 2 + 1 = 6 multiplied by ½ as one person, E, is not up to the cultural norm, gives a score of 3.

This may seem too mathematical to some readers, but it indicates the importance of personal levels of development, and how they can hugely affect the perceived compatibility of any two people. It also explains the relatively shallow nature of most relationships as viewed by people who are at integral development, or higher. Fairly minimal compatibility becomes important when both parties are highly developed. And conversely, large compatibility (of type, states, lines and quadrants) does not mean much if the developmental levels of the parties are below the norms for their social matrix.

Lalia Wilson

Integral Sexual Ethics: Notes on Baratta's Thesis

Emily Ann Baratta posted her MA Thesis, dated December 2010, online. I have reviewed the 179 page document. Here are some thoughts about this groundbreaking work.

I begin by applauding Baratta’s courage to pioneer this controversial topic with new insights. Her work may serve to reduce suffering in the world. I particularly lift up her courage in the amount of first person accounting she gave to indicate her personal expertise and bias regarding the topic. The book is about ethics and Baratta indicates that she is an Enneagram Type One, the enneagram type that focuses on ethics!

Baratta primarily focuses on three levels of development, pre-Conventional, Conventional and post-Conventional. These broadly indicate Tribal & Warrior, Traditional, and Modernist & Pluralist memes. Someone new to the integral worldview would probably write a whole thesis just on the levels of development as they apply to sexuality, but Baratta continues to other topics. First, though, a brief summary of why the distinctions of pre-C, Conventional and post-C are important. Pre-Conventional people are likely to be younger as well as more impulsive in their sexual behavior. That is, more impulsive because of youth in addition to more impulsive because they lack the Conventional morality that would likely restrain some of their sexual impulses. Conventional people have very strict ideas of sexual behavior and attempt to follow them. Post-conventional people are familiar with social conventions, are able to restrain themselves, and are free to choose their individual sexual mores. Baratta refers several times to Ken Wilber’s pre-post fallacy, in which the sexual freedom of both groups can be wrongly seen as the same phenomenon. (Wilber’s pre-post fallacy includes many ways the two are mistaken for each other, not just in matters of sexual behavior.)

Much of Baratta’s thesis speaks in terms of first person versus second person versus third person sex. First person sex is sexuality only from the perspective of one view: masturbation or using another’s body as a form of masturbation. There are things one can learn from these practices, and altered states attainable, but first person sex is not ideal for most people. Second person sex means that both (all) parties having sex are aware of and considerate of the interiority of the other person (s) as well as themselves. Third person sex looks at some of the social implications of sexuality. Baratta discusses pregnancy, abortion and STDs at some length. To me, more needs to be said about the social implications, but I will address that later.

One new perspective was Baratta indicating that those practicing BDSM (and likely other kinks) are seeking an altered state experience, many instead of orgasm. This makes sense in some ways. Baratta mentions Jenny Wade’s groundbreaking book Transcendent Sex, which lifted up the powerful, frequently unspoken, altered state experiences that many have spontaneously had while engaging in sex. I have read Wade’s book, and discussed it with several Integral groups. I also have had altered state experiences while engaged in sex. However, my bias is clearly in favor of orgasm as the expected outcome of sex, with any altered state as a bonus.

In Baratta’s discussion of third person sex she indicates directions for public policies. I would like to see this conversation carried much further, either by Baratta or by other pioneers who will bring an Integral view to this vexing social problem. To me, much suffering happens in Conventional America due to so few legitimate outlets for the creative and pleasurable forces of sexuality. As a society do we wish to perpetuate this suffering? Make it a requirement that all public figures be conventional or non-sexual in order to hold high offices?

I would like to see a lessening of public condemnation of sexual behaviors of public figures, which is not to say all sexual behaviors are honorable or suitable for public consumption. However to forever disqualify individuals who have active sex lives, in which their partner(s) are treated as individuals of worth and dignity, from all public life is unreasonable. Is not the public also caught in the morality play of a conventional bias and confusing pre-conventional sexual misbehavior with post-conventional sexual ethics?

Lalia Wilson