Physics and the Enneagram
-- An Investigation into Psychology and The Law of Three --
Copyright 1996 by Richard K. Moore, All Rights Reserved
13 November 1996
As published in Enneagram Monthly, December 1996
The Law of Three and classical physics: the Two-Force Hypothesis
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The currently popular Enneagram of Personality Types identifies nine
primary personality types, or fixations[1]. Personality typology is
only one of many applications of the underlying enneagram system --
the system has also been used effectively to model processes of
various kinds[2,3]. The question arises as to what, precisely, are
the kinds of phenomenon for which the enneagram is applicable.
One of the underlying principles, upon which the enneagram is
purportedly based, is called the Law of Three[3]. This law states,
roughly, that all events arise out of three kinds of forces: active,
responsive, and neutral. "Responsive" is being used here instead of
the more commonly quoted "passive", because, in modern language usage,
the former's connotations seem more appropriate.
It is difficult to provide precise definitions for these three terms,
since they exhibit themselves differently depending on what kind of
phenomenon are being considered. Here is a list of rough synonyms for
each term, the intention being that the synonyms, considered
collectively, provide a reasonable sense of each term's meaning:
Active: asserting, initiating, leading, dominating,
demanding, pushing, activating.
Responsive: following, complying, responding, aligning
with, supporting, reacting.
Neutral: avoiding, turning away, ignoring, withdrawing,
escaping, inert.
In classical physics, there are numerous cases of forces or energies
which manifest themselves in three such discrete states. With
electric charge and magnetism, for example, there is positive,
negative, and neutral. But these tri-value "energy states" become
interesting only when interaction occurs between objects, as when two
atomic particles come into close proximity.
The Law of Three, and the enneagram itself, are purportedly applicable
to a very wide range of phenomenon. If they are applicable to these
phenomenon of classical physics, then the hypothesis suggests itself
that the enneagram might be a map of the interaction-configurations of
two interacting forces, each of which can have three energy states.
This seems consonant with the Law of Three, and it would also account
for the existence of exactly nine points on the enneagram. This
hypothesis can be stated as follows:
Two-Force Hypothesis
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The nine points of the enneagram represent the nine distinct
energy configurations that can arise in the interaction of
two forces, each of which forces can occur in an "active",
"responsive", or "neutral" state. This is how the Law of
Three leads to the nine enneagram positions.
In order to test this hypothesis, seeking evidence or lack thereof, it
is necessary to consider already-developed enneagram applications,
such as the personality typology, to see if underlying forces can be
found which manifest themselves in three distinct states, and which
can account for the observed phenomena.
If the hypothesis can be validated in this way, then our understanding
of the enneagram will be enhanced. We would have a more precise
understanding of where the general enneagram paradigm can be applied,
and why it works. We would also have a deeper understanding of any
particular enneagram application. For example, in the case of
personality, identification of the forces which form the nine
enneagram fixations would connect the personality enneagram model more
closely with other branches of psychology.
Forces of personality development : the Fixation-Generation Hypothesis
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Personality develops in childhood, out of the interactions of the
child with its environment. It is generally agreed that there is an
innate contribution to personality, and a contribution from the
environment, although it is difficult to be precise about the
boundaries of those components.
When working with "laws" and "models", it is necessary to consider
simplified, idealized scenarios. For example, the formula that says
bodies fall to earth at "32 feet per second per second" is only
accurate in the absence of an atmosphere. To account for air
resistance, one needs a more complicated formula. But the idealized
formula is remarkably useful, nonetheless, and is a good approximation
to many actual situations.
In seeking two forces which might account for personality flavors, a
not-unreasonable "simplified scenario" would be to consider the
"innate child" and "the primary parent" as being the two "forces" out
of which personality develops. Just as the rate-of-fall formula
assumes a vacuum (lack of air resistance), this scenario also assumes
a vacuum (lack of other developmental influences.) The scenario is
idealized, but like the rate-of-fall formula, it turns out to be close
enough to the truth that useful results can be obtained from it, as
will hopefully become apparent in what follows.
The next step, in seeking to map the Two-Force Hypothesis to
personality, is to identify the three "energy states" that
characterize the "forces" of the child and parent. Such states can be
found in Karen Horney's observation[4] that each person has a "primary
approach" to others which is either against, toward, or away. Her
descriptions of these three approaches closely match the meaning of
the Law of Three's active, responsive, and neutral, respectively.
Riso[1] (see pp. 342-346) also notes a relationship between Horney's
approaches and the fixations, although Riso does not consider the
parent's approach.
These observations lead to the following hypothesis regarding the
personality enneagram -- a special case of the more general Two-Force
Hypothesis:
Fixation-Generation Hypothesis
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The nine fixations of the personality enneagram arise from
the nine distinct combinations of "approaches" that are
exhibited by a child and its parent during the child's
formative years. These approaches can be labelled
"active/against", "responsive/toward", and "neutral/away".
According to this hypothesis, personality develops in childhood, out
of the interactions of the child with its (primary) parent. In what
follows, we will trace out the unfolding of this process.
How fixations are generated: the Childhood-Scenario Hypothesis
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A child, during its developmental years, adopts (or is perhaps born
with) a primary approach, or energy-state, toward others -- including
its parent. The parent also exhibits such a primary approach toward
others -- including the child. Whenever the parent and child interact
with one another, the flavor of that interaction is strongly
influenced by the approaches that the two participants bring to the
situation. For example, an active/against child and an active/against
parent could be expected to frequently experience confrontational
interactions. Each of the nine combinations of energy-states leads
similarly to nine different flavors of interaction patterns.
Thus as a child develops, its interactions with its primary parent are
characterized by one of nine flavors. The child is not typically
exposed to a "random sampling" of possible styles of human
interaction, but repeatedly experiences a particular interaction
scenario, day after day. The child's interaction expertise develops
according to which skills are exercised in the daily interaction
scenario.
The personality flavor of the child is formed by the natural unfolding
of the interacting forces. He is induced by those forces to develop a
particular skill set, or role flavor, as he plays his part in an
approach-determined childhood scenario. Through practice and
refinement, the child's role in the scenario evolves into an ingrained
personality flavor. This can be summarized in the following
hypothesis:
Childhood-Scenario Hypothesis
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A child's developmental years are characterized by repeated
participation in one of nine "childhood scenarios" -- the
pattern of interactions resulting from the habitual approaches
(active, responsive, or neutral) of the child and its parent
toward one another. The child develops skill in playing its
role in this scenario, and the continual repetition causes the
role to become ingrained as the child's characteristic
behavior pattern. In other words, the child's role-flavor in
its childhood scenario evolves into the child's personality
fixation -- the child's role-flavor on the stage of life.
This hypothesis would seem to account for the fact that personality,
as observed, seems to exhibit clusters of behavior patterns, found
together in different individuals -- because the child learns its role
holistically, it doesn't practice isolated behaviors. The hypothesis
also seems to explain why there are exactly nine flavors of these
behavior clusters (ie, fixations).
Hypotheses verification: accounting for the nine observed fixations
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
At this point, it is fair to say that the hypotheses offered above are
promising: they are based in relevant theory and they account for a
non-obvious observed phenomenon -- the existence of nine distinct
personality types.
Taken together, the three hypotheses add up to a model of personality
development, as well as a model of the underlying functioning of the
more general enneagram system. If these models can be validated in
some substantial way, then they would provide us with an enhanced
understanding of how the enneagram works , and would offer guidance
regarding which kinds of phenomenon are appropriate for application of
the enneagram system (that is: phenomenon arising out of the
interaction of two tri-state forces.)
A reasonably substantial validation, I submit, can be obtained by
considering the nine different childhood scenarios, and determining
whether they can reasonably account for the nine observed personality
fixations. In other words: Do the approach choices lead naturally to
the particular behavior patterns associated with the fixations, as
published in the literature of the personality enneagram? If this
question can be answered in the affirmative, then the hypotheses
offered here may be worthy of serious consideration by the community
of enneagram researchers and practitioners.
In the following section, each pair of approaches is examined in turn,
and each scenario is "played out" -- simulated in imagination -- to
see what kind of role flavor might be expected to develop on the part
of the child in his interactions with the parent. These imaginary
scenarios are rather simple and idealized, as is appropriate to
general models, but they nonetheless seem to "generate" the core
essence of the observed fixations, with remarkably promising
conformance, as I hope the reader will agree. Note: the politically-
incorrect masculine pronoun for the child is used in these scenarios,
for brevity -- with apologies.
The active/against child
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This child's basic tendency is to initiate interactions with the
parent, asking for or demanding attention. The child's focus is on
his own need or concern, possibly for attention itself, or possibly
for help of a more substantial kind (food or whatever). Interactions
would be important to this child, as they provide an opportunity to
express his active energy.
Scenario A
Child's approach: active/against
Parent's approach: active/against
This parent would not be particularly sympathetic to the child's
demand for attention. The parent is busy with its own concerns, and
tends to respond to the child with something like aggravation,
impatience, or opposition. With his active stance, this child's
tendency is to persist in his effort -- expressing himself more
intensely -- in order to bring the parent around to the child's own
concern or problem. This scene could be expected to unfold as a duel
between parent and child, each struggling to gain control. Sometimes
one wins, sometimes the other.
This child could be expected to learn to get what he wants by
asserting himself, and to eventually become skilled at judging the
strengths and weaknesses of his opposition. He expects interactions
to be power struggles, and prepares for them as one might prepare for
battle. Not only can he assert himself effectively, but he learns to
counter the assertiveness of others. He learns that the key to
getting what he wants is to persist in pursuing it, undaunted by
opposition and discouragement. Thus is developed skill in
confrontation, and determination in the pursuit of goals.
The role flavor: duelling
Scenario B
Child's approach: active/against
Parent's approach: responsive/toward
This parent, in contrast to parent A, tends to respond sympathetically
and supportively to the child's attention demand. The child is
encouraged to express his need for attention, and the parent willingly
gets involved in the child's concern or problem and helps the child
deal with it. With his active stance, the child would tend to exploit
this favorable encounter, elaborating his concern, evoking maximum
attention from the parent, and achieving considerable immediate
support.
The child learns to approach interactions with confidence, and an
expectation of receiving supportive attention. He learns to enjoy
interactions and the attention received, and could be expected to
develop the skills of being entertaining and charmingly manipulative.
As this child grows up, his confrontational skills would not be
strongly developed and one could expect him to develop a tendency to
focus on instant gratification -- he might avoid applying himself to
goals that take a long time to deliver satisfaction, since such
dedication was not demanded in his childhood scenario.
The role flavor: entertaining
Scenario C
Child's approach: active/against
Parent's approach: neutral/away
This parent doesn't typically respond with a competing agenda (like
parent A), nor with sympathy (like parent B), but simply exhibits a
lack of interest. With his active stance, the child persists in
attempting to gain the parent's attention, by increasing the intensity
of the demand until a response is achieved.
Like child A, child C increases the intensity of his demand as the
scenario unfolds. But while child A must compete with the parent's
own agenda, child C must simply overcome parental apathy. Child C's
focus is therefore on self expression rather than confrontation.
Whereas child A develops an aggressive sensitivity to other's
vulnerable points, child C's focus is more on himself, his own needs,
and how to gain attention through intensity of expression.
The role flavor: expressing
The responsive/toward child
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This child also tends to initiate interactions with the parent, but
with a focus more on establishing rapport with the parent. This child
would also be receptive to interactions initiated by the parent, and
would be willing, generally, to be sympathetic to whatever's on the
parent's mind. If the child has a concern or problem of his own, he
would seek to establish rapport first, and then bring up his need
subsequently, from a position of mutual sympathy. Interaction itself
would be important to this child, as only in interaction can his
responsive stance be expressed.
Scenario D:
Child's approach: responsive/toward
Parent's approach: active/against
In general, interactions between this parent and child would be
parent-centered. The parent exhibits an active stance, focused on the
parent's own agenda, and the child, being responsive, would tend to
"fall into orbit" around that agenda. If the child hopes to get help
with a problem, he would learn to express the request in terms of the
parent's values and perspectives, more than his own.
"Being good" would be especially important to this child. The against
parent would tend to be more than usually critical of "bad behavior",
and the child, being responsive would be more than usually sensitive
to criticism: it disrupts his ability to achieve the desired rapport
with the parent. By "being good", the child is in a position to
minimize criticism, and maximize his chances of achieving rapport and
thus having favorable interactions.
This child would develop the skill of "learning the rules" in his
environment, and the ability to conform his behavior to those rules.
Exhibiting "correct behavior" would be his formula for success, first
at home, and later in school and the workplace.
The role flavor: conforming
Scenario E:
Child's approach: responsive/toward
Parent's approach: responsive/toward
Like child D, this child seeks to please the parent, to achieve
rapport in interactions. But for this child, rapport is much easier
to achieve. Rather than being a "danger zone", where parental energy
may be somewhat unpredictable and critical, this child's parental
interactions would tend to be a "safe zone" -- since the parent, too,
seeks rapport.
This child would also tend to exhibit "good" behavior, but this
behavior would flow not from an anxiety about criticism, but rather
from a gradually evolving ability to "dance harmoniously" with the
parent in their interactions. He isn't avoiding "bad" behavior by
learning rules; he's developing expertise in harmonious behavior
through comforting, positive reinforcement.
This childŐs formula for success is "behaving harmoniously", but his
skills are best suited to an environment which is harmonious to begin
with. Unlike child D, who learns to succeed by "following the rules"
even in adverse circumstances, child E is uncomfortable in an
inharmonious environment -- itŐs outside the experience of his
familiar scenario.
This child would tend to seek playmates, and later groups and
associates, which he found to be harmonious. And when disharmony
occurred, his tendency would be to try to restore harmony -- he could
be expected to develop the skills necessary to promote harmony in
groups. He would be more than usually alert to signs of disharmony,
because they threaten to disrupt his familiar scenario. And since
harmony is usually somewhat unstable, this person would experience
life as being always on the "edge of danger."
The role flavor: harmonizing
Scenario F:
Child's approach: responsive/toward
Parent's approach: neutral/away
When this child, in seeking rapport, tries to please the parent, he
typically encounters a lack of interest. The child isn't challenged
to respond to an active stance, as in D, nor is he welcomed into an
harmonious emotional "dance", as in E -- what this child needs to do,
in order to achieve rapport, is to become still more pleasing to the
parent in order to break through the apathy.
The child has two basic tactics he can pursue to achieve rapport. In
some cases, the child might "get on the parent's wavelength", and
express interest in whatever's on the parent's mind. In other cases,
the child might make himself so very pleasing and attractive, that the
parent lays aside its book, so to speak, and pays attention directly
to the ever-so lovable child. By one tactic or the other, rapport
would typically be achievable.
The child, over time, would develop a keen sensitivity to the parent's
moods and would become adroit at knowing exactly when and how to
successfully approach the parent, so as to quickly establish rapport.
The child would develop a whole repertoire of pleasing, attention-
seducing behaviors, and would evolve an intuitive sense of when to
apply which style of approach, in order to achieve rapport most
readily.
This child, as he grows up, functions well in groups, but not by
conforming to the rules (like child D), nor by limiting himself to
harmonious groups (like child E) -- instead he specializes in
establishing friendly one-to-one relationships with each of the
individuals in the group. The group as a whole may not be harmonious,
but this person's interactions in the group probably will be. The
person may not follow the rules religiously, but as with Maria in
"Sound of Music", no one has the heart to take him to serious task
over the matter.
The role flavor: relating
The neutral/away child
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This child's initial stance is to prefer being on his own. Instead of
developing interaction skills, this child would specialize more in
being self-sufficient and pursuing solitary activities. Every child
nonetheless requires some parental attention, which this child could
be expected to achieve by some secondary approach, depending on the
stance of the parent.
Scenario G:
Child's approach: neutral/away
Parent's approach: active/against
This parent's inhospitable stance directly reinforces the child's own
tendency to avoid interactions -- on the occasions when the child does
seek parental attention, he may find them to be rather threatening, or
at least bewildering, experiences. Having never taken the time to
develop a sense of rapport, he can only interpret the parent's against
stance as being a kind of generic, unexplainable rejection of himself.
And lacking evolved tactics of self-assertion, he seldom finds an
interaction to be particularly helpful to his own concerns.
This child learns to avoid interactions -- which are seen as being
sometimes useless and sometimes threatening -- and finds himself alone
even more than his natural tendency would indicate. His aloneness is
therefore not entirely satisfying, as it is colored with a feeling of
rejection. For this reason, the child might frequently want to "be
with" the parent -- to avoid the depressing, alone feeling -- but he
would avoid actually interacting. The together-time would have the
flavor of a "parallel play" experience.
As he grew up, this person wouldn't become a true loner, since he
finds that depressing. He would seek out the company of individuals
and groups, but he wouldn't bring much of himself to the encounters.
He would tend to just "be there", trying to be as inoffensive as
possible, "going with the flow" of other's activity, and achieving a
vague sense of belonging.
"Avoiding feelings" is a primary characteristic of this person. He
avoids being alone, because that would be depressing, yet he avoids
being fully present with others, because that would lead to
threatening interactions. To a greater than usual extent, he avoids
even intimacy with himself, and may not know himself very well: when
alone, his first feeling is rejection, and so he wouldn't be
particularly attracted to introspection, and therefore wouldn't
"discover himself" on his own; and when with others, his lack of
forthright expression means that he doesn't "discover himself" through
interaction with others.
The role flavor: avoiding feelings
Scenario H:
Child's approach: neutral/away
Parent's approach: responsive/toward
This scenario is characterized by an excess of parental attention,
albeit supportive. One could expect the child to frequently
experience the smothered feeling "Please leave me alone, I'd rather do
it myself." When parental attention is desired, a supportive
interaction is readily available, and so the child learns to view
contact with others as something he can seek out and enjoy whenever he
wants to, but he has no compulsion to do so particularly often. This
child's aloneness is colored by a sense of security, not rejection, as
with child G.
This child is emotionally secure, and a genuine loner. He develops
skills in focusing on and thinking through problems on his own,
evolves an insightful understanding of himself through comfortable
introspection, and develops hobbies and solitary activities by which
he keeps himself entertained. One wouldn't be surprised if he were to
become a writer, composer, or scientist -- each of which occupations
can require extensive, solitary, focused work.
His satisfaction comes mostly on his own, from his private enjoyment
of his activities, and his own knowledge of what he's learned or
accomplished. Based on his familiar childhood experiences, he would
expect others to make a fuss over his knowledge and accomplishments,
but he would tend to downplay them to avoid being smothered with
attention. Like children E and F, he prefers groups in which he finds
harmonious acceptance, but he doesn't strive to promote group harmony
(like E), nor does he succeed in the face of disharmony (like F), he
simply avoids inharmonious interactions -- he always has himself to
fall back on.
The role flavor: operating alone
Scenario I:
Child's approach: neutral/away
Parent's approach: neutral/away
As in G, this parent reinforces the tendency of the child to be alone,
in this case by tending to ignore him. This child doesn't feel
actively rejected, but he is likely to feel the parent "just isn't
interested." The child isn't threatened by his occasional parental
interactions, as is child G, but he is challenged by them: how can he
overcome the parental apathy?
Whereas child H downplays his private accomplishments, since he
doesn't want to be smothered by what is perceived as an excessive fuss
over them, child I would be more likely to proudly proclaim his
accomplishments to the parent, as a way of breaking through the apathy
and fulfilling his occasional need for parental attention and
recognition.
Like child H, child I spends a lot of time alone and develops solitary
activities and skills. But while child H gains satisfaction primarily
from his own private appreciation of his accomplishments, child I is
interested more in how his accomplishments will be received by others.
While Child H tends to be a puttering hobbyist, child I is more likely
to be a business-like producer of demonstrable results.
In later life, this person brings a very results-oriented attitude to
group activities. He isn't particularly concerned with group dynamics
or harmony, but is primarily interested in what results have been
accomplished, how his own results are received, and how others
perceive his achievement record. With his long-evolved productivity
skills, and his desire to deliver visible accomplishments, he is
typically seen as a good worker and someone who can get things done.
The role flavor: producing
Role-flavors, energy configurations, and the enneagram symbol
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The diagram below shows each child's role flavor, along with the
corresponding energy configuration, in order according to the
corresponding fixation. Significantly, in terms of validating the
Childhood-Scenario Hypothesis, each role-flavor seems to correspond to
one, and only one, of the recognized enneagram fixations.
The energy configurations are denoted by a pair of symbols, with "+"
representing active, "-" representing responsive, and "0" representing
neutral. The parent's stance is denoted first, followed by the
child's. Note the symmetry of the energy configurations, and that a
single parental stance occurs in each triad[1] (pp. 24-26.)
Conclusions
^^^^^^^^^^^
The above scenarios are imaginary simulations -- reasoned deductions
of consequences starting from simple premises, namely the approach
stances of the parent and child. The reader will no doubt bring his
or her own judgement to the scenarios, and may by this time be
intrigued, unconvinced, or somewhere in between. Other researchers
are encouraged to comment on the scenarios, perhaps from general
psychological knowledge, or perhaps from relevant empirical
investigation (such as interviewing people of known fixations to
determine the relevant approach stances.)
Assuming for the moment that the scenario treatments are reasonably
sound, this line of investigation seems to have produced some very
interesting results. Not only do we have an explanation of why there
are exactly nine personality types, but the particular observed
fixations seem to arise naturally from simple psychological
principles.
In terms of the more abstract enneagram, we now have a reasonable
initial verification of the Two-Force Hypothesis. That hypothesis
includes a straightforward interpretation of the Law of Three, and an
explanation of how that Law actually generates the nine points of the
enneagram. Furthermore, as a result of the scenarios, we've
discovered exactly which energy configurations, (+,0) etc., correspond
to each enneagram position. This latter, in particular, should be of
considerable value in applying the enneagram to various phenomenon,
and in refining existing applications.
This investigation does not deal with the Law of Seven[3], nor with
the existence of the enneagram arrows. It does not purport to be a
general theory of the enneagram mechanism, but only of the part
resulting from the Law of Three. As a contribution to a more general
enneagram theory, it clarifies the part explained by the Law of Three,
leaving the remainder to be explained by other principles.
The author has used this model, with useful results, in other
enneagram applications, principally in an application called The Life
Cycle of Creative Endeavors. Look for that in a subsequent issue of
this same publication.
____________________________________________________________________
[1] Riso, Don Richard, The Enneagram, Discovering Your Personality
Type, 1987, Harper Collins, London.
[2] Bennet, J. G., Enneagram Studies, 1983, Samuel Weiser, Inc., York
Beach, Maine.
[3] Speeth, Kathleen Riordan, The Gurdjieff Work, 1978, a Simon &
Schuster pocket book, pp. 44-48.
[4] Frager, Robert, and Fadiman, James, Personality and Personality
Growth, Second Edition, 1984, Harper & Row, New York, New York, pp.
124-126.
____________________________________________________________________