Sundays with the Enneagram

  

The “Three Centres” Myth – Part 6:

If Any Type Can Be “Head,” What Does Head Even Mean?

 

If the head centre really captured people who “live in their minds,” then 5, 6, and 7 would all share a clearly distinct, thinking-first style that other types lack. In reality, each of them can be argued just as convincingly into other supposed domains, which again shows how loose and shape-shifty the whole head/heart/gut scheme actually is.

 

Take Type 5. The stereotype is “pure head,” yet many 5s are extremely sensitive, not only emotionally but also to sound, light, smell, and social intrusion.

It often looks as if they had to build a kind of emotional and sensory buffer to protect themselves from the messiness of the world, retreating to reduce overwhelm; that is easy to read as a deeply feeling type whose heart is so exposed that withdrawal becomes a defensive move, rather than as a coldly cerebral creature.

 

Type 6 can fit into everything depending on the subtype. A preserving 6 belongs in certainty, with vigilance, scanning for threat, and a strong focus on safety and preparation.

A navigating 6 fits bonding territory, preoccupied with loyalty, group belonging, and who can be trusted.

A transmitting 6 leans into agency, taking action to pre-empt danger, challenging what seems risky, and pushing for safeguards; the same basic pattern can be framed as head, heart, or body work just by changing which aspect you emphasise.

 

Type 7 is officially a head type, but in practice they often look like anything but. They are clearly at home in an agency or body domain, chasing experiences, acting quickly, moving toward what seems exciting, and refusing constraints. 

They also show plenty of bonding energy: they do not shy away from feelings like happiness and joy, they can be people-pleasing and entertaining, and they frequently try to lift others’ mood along with their own, which fits just as well with a social or heart framing as with a thinking one.

 

If someone really wanted a head triad about mental structure, detachment, and holding the world at arm's length through analysis, standards, and anticipation, a more convincing fit might be 5, 1, and 6: the observer who withdraws to think, the reformer who imposes order through right/wrong thinking, and the anticipator who plans against uncertainty.

 

The ease with which 5 can be treated as a heart type, 6 as everything, and 7 as body and bonding rather than head, underlines the core problem: when a system allows every type to be narrated into every centre, the centres stop explaining anything and become decorative language on top of patterns that would be clearer without them.

 

In the next episode, the focus shifts to why, if someone insists on three basic domains, the instinctual biases are a far more plausible home for them than the traditional centres, and why even that “better fit” still does not amount to real scientific validation.