eBook · The Understanding Type series
The type everyone thinks they are.
Four is the type people most want to be and the one they are most often wrong about, and the two facts are related closely enough that neither explains properly without the other. Out of three hundred and twenty-three people who arrived at our questionnaire already believing they were Fours, thirty-four produced language patterns that indicated Four. That is roughly one in ten, and it makes this the most frequently mistyped type in the data set.
What draws people is the interiority the type projects, and the projection works well enough that readers tend to idealize it without quite noticing that what they are idealizing is a surface. Fours themselves are rarely enthusiastic about any of it. One who has looked at the structure squarely will usually give you a short list of things they like about being a Four, and a considerably longer list of things they do not.
The booklet spends its length correcting four things the standard portrait gets wrong: that Fours feel more than other people, that Four is primarily an emotional type, that the suffering is involuntary, and that envy is an occasional embarrassment rather than the organizing habit of the whole structure. None of the four survives a single paragraph, which is part of why this one runs longer than the others.
Read what is insideWhat it holds
Inside the booklet.
The core structure
Underneath the type sits a motivation to be seen as unique, distinct from the common run of people. The word itself almost never appears in a Fourā€™s own account of themselves, and that absence, I suspect, is among the more useful diagnostic facts available.
Envy
Envy is named as the passion of Four everywhere in the literature, and almost always described as a feeling, which is where the standard account goes wrong. In a Four it runs closer to a perceptual habit, operating continuously and below the level of decision.
The melancholic intellectual
Oscar Ichazo, who originated the modern Enneagram of fixations, described a Four that almost nobody teaches now. He placed the type in the intellectual domain and called it the Reasoner, traced the wound to a father rather than a mother, and named borderline as the associated disorder.
Recognizing a Four
Sadness and contempt are the common micro-expressions, with anger close behind, and the combination is distinctive enough to be worth learning as a set rather than one marker at a time, since any one of the three can turn up on anybody.
The three subtypes
The three subtypes diverge far enough to read as three unrelated types. Most of the received description of Four turns out, on inspection, to be a description of only one of them, which probably accounts for a good deal of the confusion.
The false flag
A false flag is the convincing case an ego assembles for being some other type, with supporting evidence and a plausible history. Four attracts more of them than anything else in the system, and the reasons are structural, which is to say they are not accidental.
$55
A digital booklet, yours to keep.
It is the third booklet in the type-by-type series and the longest so far, at eighty-three pages and twelve paintings, and it carries two parts that do not appear in the standard portrait at all, one on envy as a continuous habit of perception rather than an occasional feeling, and one on the melancholic intellectual Ichazo described before the aesthetic account of the type took hold and crowded him out of it. It was written for coaches who more often than not keep meeting people certain they are Fours, and for Fours who have begun to suspect that the analysis they trust most is the thing most worth examining.
Get the booklet