Guest columnist John F. Howe debunks the highly popular enneagram of personality system, popular with corporations, intelligence agencies, and mental health professionals
The scientific revolution isn't licensed but comes from free thinkers. Licensing is a form of censorship.
The rotten core of Institutional Science isn't really about protecting science-it's about protecting the interests of those who control it. For decades, the so-called scientific establishment has been weaponised by corporate and political entities.
*Big Pharma funds almost all medical research including psychology and medical schools, ensuring outcomes that favour their existence and bottom line, accusing any deviation of being anti-science 'quackery'.
*Peer review is a gatekeeping mechanism, allowing only politically and financially convenient research to be published eg. in the DSM.
*Dissenting scientists are blacklisted and their careers destroyed for challenging orthodoxy.
As the saying goes: Astrology was invented to make the medical profession look good!
Your article touches on an important issue, but it brings to mind a broader concern in scientific discourse today—the increasing emphasis on measurement over value. The sheer volume of studies, data, and publications is staggering, yet how much of it truly advances our understanding? Science, like literature, should strive for lasting impact, not just accumulation.
This reminds me of Alice’s conversation with the Caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland:
“Who are you?” said the Caterpillar.
This was not an encouraging opening for a conversation. Alice replied, rather shyly, “I—I hardly know, Sir, just at present—at least I know who I was when I got up this morning, but I think I must have been changed several times since then.”
“What do you mean by that?” said the Caterpillar, sternly. “Explain yourself!”
“I can’t explain myself, I’m afraid, Sir,” said Alice, “because I am not myself, you see.”
This is particularly relevant to the Enneagram. It is a tool with great potential for insight, but its value lies in the depth of understanding it encourages, not in an attempt to quantify every nuance. When something designed to illuminate personal and psychological growth is reduced to mere metrics, it risks losing its transformative power. The Enneagram should be used as a guide for meaningful self-discovery, not as a system to be battered into rigid categorisations. With respect, I believe adding celebrity names to the Enneagram diagram detracts from its purpose.
Perhaps it is time to step back and ask: are we truly seeking knowledge, or merely accumulating data? Depth of understanding, not just measurement, is what gives knowledge its true worth. In focusing too much on quantifying everything, we risk losing the richness that makes exploration—whether scientific or personal—so valuable.
An interesting article, and the distinction between the apparent value of the personality descriptions versus the use of the enneagram diagram is good, but in my opinion misplaced. The article also ignores recent events. Here is a link to a review I wrote (published on Medium and reprinted in Enneagram Monthly) of a recent book by Daniel Siegel at UCLA that begins to put some scientific meat on the enneagram bones. https://medium.com/@burt_63231/review-of-daniel-j-siegel-and-the-pdp-group-2024-personality-and-wholeness-in-therapy-829f5ed361a4
A number of recent book by Ichazo have recently become available as well and, taking into account the language, these give a theoretical basis for the system as Ichazo understands it. As far as the enneagram diagram is concerned, it seems to me to be a question of the degree to which it provides an accurate map. All our theories are impositions of conceptual/symbolic frameworks on reality and in my experience the enneagram does allow accurate mapping of at least some processes. The real issue in my opinion is a lack of empirical research. I once computed that a rigorous study would require at least 10,000 subjects for accurate statistical results and would be very expensive. That, more than the background of mysticism, seems to be what stands in the way.
I appreciate this brave and honest piece more than I can say. This is my first time admitting this publicly and I’m not ready to go into detail yet, but I am a person (likely a HSP) who has suffered rather serious mental health consequences as a result of finding my enneagram type and engaging with online content about the types and the system.
In my opinion, the enneagram has been so commodified, and in such a harmful way, that whether or not it can be scientifically validated (my understanding is it cannot and all typology is pseudoscience) is almost beside the point by now. The system was meant to be about motivation, but because of the widespread move to ascribe arbitrary personality traits - and celebrity examples, as someone said above - it has become a ranking system and a hierarchy, largely due to the work of Riso/Hudson and Cron/Stabile. For those who find themselves on the wrong side of that hierarchy, it is damaging, especially so because of the system’s depiction of deep-seated psychic wounds. Many, if not most, people who produce Enneagram content for social media do not understand the system as anything more than a collection of personality traits. Some are mistyped themselves. A few of your celebrity examples (Amy Winehouse comes to mind) are mistypes - Winehouse correlates more with point 6, not 4, but because she’s interesting and creative, it’s just assumed she’s a 4). Such conclusions are emblematic of the kind of hierarchy that is really harmful and problematic.
Thank you very much for sharing this. I’ve archived your piece, and I do plan to eventually write a personal essay about my experience with the enneagram. I just may quote you.
This is just another personality essentializer in psychology, equally lacking in predictive validity, equally as uninforming. It's in no way more informing than other personality type tests and it mostly just gives people the feeling of understanding without actual understanding. As such models generally have poor model fit and have weak correlations. They can't in any way say something about individuals if they can't say anything meaningful about groups.
That's simple statistics. And the papers themselves make my case. The effect sizes are small which means they don't predict much in the measured groups. Which means they are not all that predictive for individuals as well. I know HR science loves to minimize these kinds of things and switch to philosophical debates that will ever be solved. Or switch to emotionally laden debates where the subject of interest is if it means something to the people using it. And what they then mean with "means" is either vague or never discussed.
Sometime ago I looked at what would be required for a statistically reliable study of the personality descriptions. My conclusion was that it would take a minimum of around 10,000 subjects and be very expensive. None of the studies done qualify so in that regard, the jury hasn't even been formed yet. I've also observed that many people who claim to be particular types are just using it as an identify and excuse. But I also know many people who have benefited greatly by using it as a tool of deep self-examination.
The majority of these cheap personality type questionnaires in HR and management science are of such caliber. They give people a false sense of insight and essentialize made up concepts that sound nice and almost always flatter the user in some way.
Once again Shermer presents a thought provoking article. Interestingly all his references are from 2020 or earlier. That suggests that interest in enneagram is declining
I know a number of people who have taken the enneagram survey & it is popular in my church. I have not taken it but have taken some similar temperament surveys. I'm inclined toward the more basic DIRT / DISC surveys.
I find them interesting, relatively accurate, and they help us to understand better why and how we act / react in some situations. That said, I feel they are basically an interesting amusement. One should not put a great deal of emphasis on them or the become like Flip Wilson's "The Devil made me do it" flimsy excuse.
Most licensed mental health professionals I know consider these personality assessments a form of astrology and don’t take them seriously.
The scientific revolution isn't licensed but comes from free thinkers. Licensing is a form of censorship.
The rotten core of Institutional Science isn't really about protecting science-it's about protecting the interests of those who control it. For decades, the so-called scientific establishment has been weaponised by corporate and political entities.
*Big Pharma funds almost all medical research including psychology and medical schools, ensuring outcomes that favour their existence and bottom line, accusing any deviation of being anti-science 'quackery'.
*Peer review is a gatekeeping mechanism, allowing only politically and financially convenient research to be published eg. in the DSM.
*Dissenting scientists are blacklisted and their careers destroyed for challenging orthodoxy.
As the saying goes: Astrology was invented to make the medical profession look good!
Your article touches on an important issue, but it brings to mind a broader concern in scientific discourse today—the increasing emphasis on measurement over value. The sheer volume of studies, data, and publications is staggering, yet how much of it truly advances our understanding? Science, like literature, should strive for lasting impact, not just accumulation.
This reminds me of Alice’s conversation with the Caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland:
“Who are you?” said the Caterpillar.
This was not an encouraging opening for a conversation. Alice replied, rather shyly, “I—I hardly know, Sir, just at present—at least I know who I was when I got up this morning, but I think I must have been changed several times since then.”
“What do you mean by that?” said the Caterpillar, sternly. “Explain yourself!”
“I can’t explain myself, I’m afraid, Sir,” said Alice, “because I am not myself, you see.”
This is particularly relevant to the Enneagram. It is a tool with great potential for insight, but its value lies in the depth of understanding it encourages, not in an attempt to quantify every nuance. When something designed to illuminate personal and psychological growth is reduced to mere metrics, it risks losing its transformative power. The Enneagram should be used as a guide for meaningful self-discovery, not as a system to be battered into rigid categorisations. With respect, I believe adding celebrity names to the Enneagram diagram detracts from its purpose.
Perhaps it is time to step back and ask: are we truly seeking knowledge, or merely accumulating data? Depth of understanding, not just measurement, is what gives knowledge its true worth. In focusing too much on quantifying everything, we risk losing the richness that makes exploration—whether scientific or personal—so valuable.
An interesting article, and the distinction between the apparent value of the personality descriptions versus the use of the enneagram diagram is good, but in my opinion misplaced. The article also ignores recent events. Here is a link to a review I wrote (published on Medium and reprinted in Enneagram Monthly) of a recent book by Daniel Siegel at UCLA that begins to put some scientific meat on the enneagram bones. https://medium.com/@burt_63231/review-of-daniel-j-siegel-and-the-pdp-group-2024-personality-and-wholeness-in-therapy-829f5ed361a4
A number of recent book by Ichazo have recently become available as well and, taking into account the language, these give a theoretical basis for the system as Ichazo understands it. As far as the enneagram diagram is concerned, it seems to me to be a question of the degree to which it provides an accurate map. All our theories are impositions of conceptual/symbolic frameworks on reality and in my experience the enneagram does allow accurate mapping of at least some processes. The real issue in my opinion is a lack of empirical research. I once computed that a rigorous study would require at least 10,000 subjects for accurate statistical results and would be very expensive. That, more than the background of mysticism, seems to be what stands in the way.
I wonder what Wittgenstein would think of this. Could explain what he called ‘family resemblance’, but on a deeper level.
Big five is not a typology and Myers-Briggs like enneagram has no acceptance within the scientific mainstream.
I’m somewhere in the middle. Around Eudaimonia haha
I talked to a researcher about the failures and stupidities of personality tests. Some might enjoy: https://behavior-podcast.com/problems-with-the-myers-briggs-personality-test/
I appreciate this brave and honest piece more than I can say. This is my first time admitting this publicly and I’m not ready to go into detail yet, but I am a person (likely a HSP) who has suffered rather serious mental health consequences as a result of finding my enneagram type and engaging with online content about the types and the system.
In my opinion, the enneagram has been so commodified, and in such a harmful way, that whether or not it can be scientifically validated (my understanding is it cannot and all typology is pseudoscience) is almost beside the point by now. The system was meant to be about motivation, but because of the widespread move to ascribe arbitrary personality traits - and celebrity examples, as someone said above - it has become a ranking system and a hierarchy, largely due to the work of Riso/Hudson and Cron/Stabile. For those who find themselves on the wrong side of that hierarchy, it is damaging, especially so because of the system’s depiction of deep-seated psychic wounds. Many, if not most, people who produce Enneagram content for social media do not understand the system as anything more than a collection of personality traits. Some are mistyped themselves. A few of your celebrity examples (Amy Winehouse comes to mind) are mistypes - Winehouse correlates more with point 6, not 4, but because she’s interesting and creative, it’s just assumed she’s a 4). Such conclusions are emblematic of the kind of hierarchy that is really harmful and problematic.
Thank you very much for sharing this. I’ve archived your piece, and I do plan to eventually write a personal essay about my experience with the enneagram. I just may quote you.
This is just another personality essentializer in psychology, equally lacking in predictive validity, equally as uninforming. It's in no way more informing than other personality type tests and it mostly just gives people the feeling of understanding without actual understanding. As such models generally have poor model fit and have weak correlations. They can't in any way say something about individuals if they can't say anything meaningful about groups.
It would be nice if you could actually prove this assertion.
That's simple statistics. And the papers themselves make my case. The effect sizes are small which means they don't predict much in the measured groups. Which means they are not all that predictive for individuals as well. I know HR science loves to minimize these kinds of things and switch to philosophical debates that will ever be solved. Or switch to emotionally laden debates where the subject of interest is if it means something to the people using it. And what they then mean with "means" is either vague or never discussed.
Sometime ago I looked at what would be required for a statistically reliable study of the personality descriptions. My conclusion was that it would take a minimum of around 10,000 subjects and be very expensive. None of the studies done qualify so in that regard, the jury hasn't even been formed yet. I've also observed that many people who claim to be particular types are just using it as an identify and excuse. But I also know many people who have benefited greatly by using it as a tool of deep self-examination.
Looks like it's time to start writing another chapter in a revised version of my book, The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bulls#!t. enneagram = BS
The majority of these cheap personality type questionnaires in HR and management science are of such caliber. They give people a false sense of insight and essentialize made up concepts that sound nice and almost always flatter the user in some way.
A strong claim with no substantial support.
Once again Shermer presents a thought provoking article. Interestingly all his references are from 2020 or earlier. That suggests that interest in enneagram is declining
I know a number of people who have taken the enneagram survey & it is popular in my church. I have not taken it but have taken some similar temperament surveys. I'm inclined toward the more basic DIRT / DISC surveys.
I find them interesting, relatively accurate, and they help us to understand better why and how we act / react in some situations. That said, I feel they are basically an interesting amusement. One should not put a great deal of emphasis on them or the become like Flip Wilson's "The Devil made me do it" flimsy excuse.