The Attachment Bias within Enneagram Studies

very interesting topic. https://www.johnluckovich.com/articles/the-attachment-bias-within-enneagram-studies-1#:~:text=Attachment%20Bias%20is%20a%20major,but%20a%20bit%20more%20nuanced.

and

https://www.theenneagramschool.com/blog/attachmentbias

The short of it is that it’s an assumption that all people are seeking out common ground (or rudely against common ground), adapting, and multi-faceted. This isn’t the only such bias within the Enneagram, but it’s probably the most widespread and unquestioned.

Type descriptions get written from an Attachment Bias, a supposed universal drive to seek belonging via adaptation

It can promulgate an assumption that, at the core, all types have the same basic desires and needs, just different approaches to them. Descriptions then overlook entirely some of the most psychologically rich material the Enneagram holds and a lot of the power of the Enneagram is lost. What results is a difficulty in accurately understanding and describing types that do not abide by Attachment Type motivations, often erasing or overlooking “what they’re all about”.

For example, it’s not uncommon for Sixes to misidentify as Eights. They will speak about their experience as Eights, which will influence how people see what “Eightness” is. Eights will gradually be spoken of in light of Sixish values like “fighting for the underdog” and as a “protector”. Over time, the sense of what an Eight is becomes overloaded with traits and motives actually more reflective of Type Six. Consequently, “what Type Eight really is” gets overlooked, and instead, “Eight descriptions” will end up being relatively shallow descriptions of one facet of Six