The enneagram is a theory of personality typing symbolized by a nine-pointed geometric drawing. Each point of the figure represents a different personality type, defined by a "driving energy." Several modern companies use enneagram tests to help in employee relations. Many people believe the enneagram theory to be an accurate reflection of their (and others') personality. But is it? Those who have just recently been introduced to the enneagram may think so, but I would encourage them to read further before making such a judgment, for it seems that the enneagram theory of personality typing has little more scientific basis than astrology.
     First off, let us begin with a bit of history. Though adherents of enneagram theory claim that it has roots in ancient oral traditions (Wyandotte, 2), little concrete evidence exists (Keedy-Lilley). The earliest modern proponent of the enneagram seems to be George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff, a Greco-Armenian "mystic" who is credited with bringing the enneagram to the West in the early Twentieth Century. Among his more questionable beliefs, Gurdjieff claimed that all aspects of life are controlled by the moon (Carrol, Gurdjieff)! It seems the enneagram was on shaky ground from the start.
     The next feature of the enneagram we must address is the number of personality types. Why only nine? Surely there are more kinds of people than this! Upon closer inspection, we see that seven of the "driving energies" assigned to the nine types, are based on the "Seven Deadly Sins": lust, anger, pride, envy, gluttony, avarice, and sloth (Carrol, enneagram). Is typing personality by "sin" any less arbitrary than defining it by the sun's "movement" through twelve constellations?
     Let us move on to "driving energy." In fact, the term "energy" seems to come up quite a bit in enneagram theory (Daniels). What kind of energy is this? Can it be quantified? I think not. Granted, one can sense a certain "vibe" emanating from a particular person, but there currently exists no scientific method by which to measure or harness these "vibes."
     The test itself seems to have problems. The version I've encountered (the Wagner Enneagram Personality Survey) consists of 200 words, each of which the person taking the test must apply to himself on a scale of one through five, with five being the most fitting, and one being the least. The first problem with the test is that many of the words are rather vague, and could have different meanings for different people. The second problem is that the person taking the test may have a very different image of himself than what is accurate. Who would want to admit they were not "powerful" or that they were "lazy?"
     Furthermore, the results of the test are rather generalized, and are often fueled by the power of suggestion. When someone is presented with their results and told "This is what you scored.", and the description isn't too specific, they are more likely to agree, especially if more attention is given to the positive aspects of their type. This is known as the "Forer effect" (Carrol, Forer effect).
     The Forer effect (also known as the "subjective validation effect") was named after psychologist BR Forer. In 1948, Forer gave a personality test to his students, ignored their answers, and presented each unsuspecting student with an identical analysis gleaned from a newspaper astrology column. The students were then asked to evaluate the description on a scale of zero through five, with five being the most accurate. The average evaluation was 4.26! The test has been repeated hundreds of times since 1948, with the average remaining about 4.2. The Forer effect shows that people tend to accept generalized descriptions of their personalities without realizing that the same evaluation could apply to nearly anyone else (Carrol, Forer effect).
     Due to the questionable nature of the enneagram, I decided to conduct my own version of Forer's experiment. Though I had only five test subjects, due to limited time and resources, that seemed enough for my purposes. Each of the five subjects, after taking the test, was presented with the same type eight description I was given when I took the Wagner test, and asked for an evaluation of one to five regarding its accuracy. The average score was 4.4! However, just to be certain, I also scored their tests to determine if there were any type eights among the subjects. There were not, though some came close. The point spread between each individual's "true type" and type eight varied from three to thirty-two points, illustrating the strength of the Forer effect, and exposing the ennneagram's feet of clay.
     In addition, while scoring the tests, I noticed that only 198 of the 200 words counted toward the final score. Words 100 "unhappy," and 200 "happy" were not included on the scoring sheet. If these words are not important, why are they on the test? Perhaps as a "balancing factor" so the test will consist of an even 200 words? This doesn't sound very scientific to me.
     Yet the enneagram seems to work for some people. Countless individuals vouch for its "accuracy." However, the same can be said of astrology, biorhythms, tarot, and many other widespread practices for which hard scientific evidence does not exist. This is most likely due to a type of selective thinking known as "confirmation bias," in which one tends to look for data that confirms one's beliefs, and ignore, not look for, or undervalue data that contradicts one's beliefs (Carrol, confirmation bias).
     The enneagram, like astrology, may be useful as a means to have fun, or if it stimulates people to think about personality. Nevertheless, without any scientific backing, it should not be taken seriously.

Works Cited

Carrol, Robert. "Confirmation Bias." The Skeptic's Dictionary. 19 Apr 1999.

Carrol, Robert. "Enneagram." The Skeptic's Dictionary.

Carrol, Robert. "Forer effect." The Skeptic's Dictionary.

Carrol, Robert. "GI Gurdijeff." The Skeptic's Dictionary.

The Path to Effective Leadership: The Enneagram as a Management Tool. Dir. David Daniels. Silver Spring, MD. ECM Productions, 1998.

Keedy-Lilley, Ray. History of the Enneagram. National School of Hypnosis and Psychotherapy. 19 Apr 1999. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~enneauk/history.htm

Wyandotte, Dr Annette. "Personality: A Different Kind of "Diversity" Story." Handout on W131, Elementary Composition. Indiana University Southeast. New Albany, IN. 13 Apr 1999.