Icosa vs Enneagram
The Enneagram captures 75% of Icosa's structural information and has the highest trap coverage of any framework in this comparison family at 40%, making it the most clinically useful comparative system for motivational and pathological pattern work.
Overview
The Enneagram of Personality traces its formal modern development to Oscar Ichazo’s Arica Institute work in the 1960s and Claudio Naranjo’s clinical adaptation in the early 1970s. The system was brought to wider attention by Helen Palmer and Don Riso, with Riso and Hudson’s Discovering Your Personality Type (1995) and the subsequent development of the Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator (RHETI) providing psychometric grounding. The nine types are organized around a nine-pointed geometric figure with integration and disintegration arrows connecting non-adjacent types.
The Enneagram occupies a distinctive position in Icosa’s comparison family. It is the only framework with substantial trap coverage (40%) — its nine types explicitly describe motivational fixations, habitual emotional patterns, and the characteristic ways each type gets stuck. This aligns more closely with Icosa’s trap architecture than any other system. Enneagram’s integration/disintegration model also has partial correspondence with Icosa’s gateway dynamics, though the mapping is approximate.
What This Framework Captures
The Enneagram captures approximately 75% of Icosa’s structural information. Coverage weights:
- Capacities: 80% — Enneagram types map to Icosa capacity clusters with good fidelity. Type 8→V+F+, Type 2→B+O+, Type 5→F+B-V-, Type 7→O+V+F-, etc. The nine-type structure provides more differentiation than four-type models.
- Domains: 60% — Enneagram’s domain coverage is moderate. Types carry implicit domain emphases (Type 5 → Mental, Type 4 → Emotional+Spiritual, Type 8 → Physical) that map to Icosa’s domain structure, but domain assessment is inferential rather than measured.
- Coherence: 50% — Enneagram’s “levels of health” (Levels 1–9 in Riso-Hudson notation) have meaningful coherence correspondence. Levels 1–3 (healthy/integrated) map to higher Icosa coherence; Levels 7–9 (unhealthy/disintegrated) map to lower coherence and active trap states.
- Traps: 40% — Highest trap coverage in Icosa’s comparison family. Each Enneagram fixation describes a characteristic attractor pattern that overlaps with Icosa’s trap architecture. Type 1’s “resentment,” Type 2’s “pride,” Type 5’s “avarice,” and others identify specific cognitive-emotional loops that Icosa models geometrically.
- Gateways: 20% — Enneagram’s integration/disintegration lines (each type integrates toward a growth type and disintegrates toward a stress type) partially correspond to Icosa’s gateway dynamics, though the correspondence is structural rather than identical.
What This Framework Misses
Physical domain specificity. While Enneagram Type 8 has strong physical energy and Type 9’s passivity has physical correlates, the Enneagram does not systematically address somatic experience, body-based regulation, or the full depth of Icosa’s Physical domain.
Center-level structural detail. Icosa’s 20-center grid provides fine-grained resolution of where within a capacity cluster a person’s activation pattern falls. Enneagram types describe the direction of a pattern (toward control, toward connection, toward detachment) but not the center-level geometry that distinguishes, for example, Icosa’s Move-Relational center from the Move-Mental center.
Gateway dynamics. Enneagram’s integration/disintegration lines provide a growth/stress directional model, but Icosa’s gateways are structural interfaces between capacity regions rather than type-to-type transformation arrows. The partial overlap (approximately 20%) reflects conceptual rather than structural correspondence.
Spiritual domain as distinct from Spiritual type. Enneagram Type 4’s identity-seeking and Type 9’s merger tendency both have Spiritual domain components, but the Enneagram does not systematically separate Spiritual domain engagement from other domain expressions.
Confidence Methodology
Base confidence: 0.75. The Enneagram’s lower base confidence compared to DISC or Big Five reflects its partially non-operationalized constructs (motivation is harder to measure reliably than behavior) rather than inaccurate mapping. Where the mapping applies, it applies well.
Per-type confidence range: 0.75–0.80. Types vary by how precisely Icosa’s capacity model maps:
- Type 2 (Helper): 0.80 — B+O+V+ with R domain flooding, clean mapping
- Type 5 (Investigator): 0.79 — F+B-V- with M domain, clean mapping
- Type 7 (Enthusiast): 0.79 — O+V+F- pattern, clean mapping
- Type 8 (Challenger): 0.80 — V+F+ with P domain, clean mapping
- Type 9 (Peacemaker): 0.77 — B+O-F-V- passive pattern
- Type 6 (Loyalist): 0.76 — B+F- with anxiety; motivation harder to map structurally
- Type 3 (Achiever): 0.75 — adaptive O+ complicates pure capacity mapping
- Type 1 (Reformer): 0.78 — F+ over with perfectionist fixation
- Type 4 (Individualist): 0.78 — E+S domain flooding, identity-focus
Psychometric note. Self-report Enneagram measures (RHETI, IEQ9) have moderate test-retest reliability (r=0.55–0.72) compared to Big Five instruments (r=0.75–0.85). This introduces additional uncertainty in the translation that the confidence discount partially captures.
Coverage Matrix
| Icosa Dimension | Enneagram Coverage | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Open capacity | 80% | Types 4, 7 (over); Types 5, 1 (under) |
| Move capacity | 80% | Types 3, 7, 8 (over); Types 5, 9 (under) |
| Focus capacity | 80% | Types 1, 5 (over); Types 7, 9 (under) |
| Bond capacity | 80% | Types 2, 6, 9 (over); Types 5, 8 (under) |
| Emotional domain | 65% | Types 2, 3, 4 primarily |
| Mental domain | 60% | Types 5 and 1 primarily |
| Relational domain | 60% | Types 2, 6, 9 primarily |
| Spiritual domain | 50% | Types 4 and 9 primarily |
| Physical domain | 45% | Types 8 and 9 primarily |
| Coherence | 50% | Health levels analog |
| Traps | 40% | Best in class — fixation-trap correspondence |
| Gateways | 20% | Integration/disintegration partial correspondence |
Type-by-Type Mapping
| Enneagram Type | Primary Icosa Mapping | Confidence | Coherence Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type 1: Reformer | F+ over (0.90), V+ (0.55), O+ under (0.50), M+ domain | 0.78 | 45–80 |
| Type 2: Helper | B+ over (0.90), O+ (0.70), V+ (0.55), R+ domain (0.85) | 0.80 | 45–80 |
| Type 3: Achiever | V+ over (0.90), F+ (0.75), O+ (0.55), B+ under, E+ under | 0.75 | 50–85 |
| Type 4: Individualist | O+ over (0.70), B+ under (0.55), F+ under, E+ domain (0.90), S+ domain (0.80) | 0.78 | 35–70 |
| Type 5: Investigator | F+ over (0.85), O+ under (0.55), B+ under (0.70), V+ under, M+ domain (0.90) | 0.79 | 40–75 |
| Type 6: Loyalist | B+ over (0.80), F+ under (0.55), O+ (0.50, E domain), R+ (0.65), E+ (0.55) | 0.76 | 35–70 |
| Type 7: Enthusiast | O+ over (0.90), V+ (0.80), F+ under (0.60), B+ centered | 0.79 | 45–80 |
| Type 8: Challenger | V+ over (0.95), F+ (0.70), O+ under (0.55), B+ under, P+ (0.55) | 0.80 | 45–80 |
| Type 9: Peacemaker | B+ over (0.80), O+ under (0.50), F+ under (0.65), V+ under (0.70), R+ (0.60) | 0.77 | 40–75 |
Capacity key: O=Open, V=Move, F=Focus, B=Bond. Domain key: P=Physical, E=Emotional, M=Mental, R=Relational, S=Spiritual.
Bidirectional Translation
Enneagram → Icosa maps type to capacity cluster, then infers domain emphasis, then uses the fixation-trap correspondence to constrain trap-risk indicators. The 30% reverse discount applies. An Enneagram Type 5 profile translates to: F+ elevated, B+ under, V+ under, M+ domain dominant, Mental domain focus. Trap risk: withdrawal patterns (Focus-based trap adjacent to Type 5 fixation). Spiritual domain, Physical domain, and coherence require direct assessment.
The Enneagram’s health levels (if available from RHETI or clinician assessment) provide additional Icosa coherence anchoring: Levels 1–3 suggest coherence 60–90, Levels 4–6 suggest 40–65, Levels 7–9 suggest 25–45.
Icosa → Enneagram is most reliable for profiles with clear capacity signatures and trap patterns. A person in an Icosa withdrawal trap (F+ over, B- and V- collapsed) with M+ domain dominance projects confidently to Enneagram Type 5 or the 5-wing-4 region. A person with V+ over and F+ over with boundary-focused trap risk projects toward Type 8 or the 8-wing-7 region.
Wing Coverage
All 18 wing variants are implemented. Each core type has two wing variants (adjacent types on the Enneagram circle). Wing mappings use a 70/30 blend of core and wing capacity/domain targets, with a 0.92 confidence multiplier reflecting the added complexity. For example, Type 5w4 (The Iconoclast) blends the Investigator’s F+/M+ core with the Individualist’s E+/S+ emphasis, while 5w6 (The Problem Solver) blends with the Loyalist’s B+/R+ security-seeking pattern.
Instinctual Subtypes
All 27 instinctual subtypes (9 types × 3 instincts) are implemented. The three instinctual drives — Self-Preservation (SP), Social (SO), and Sexual/One-to-One (SX) — modify how each core type expresses in Icosa’s domain space:
- Self-Preservation (SP) shifts toward Physical domain emphasis, practical Focus, and resource-oriented Bond. SP subtypes map to Icosa profiles with stronger P+ domain and grounded capacity expression.
- Social (SO) shifts toward Relational domain emphasis, social Open, and group-oriented Bond. SO subtypes map to Icosa profiles with stronger R+ domain and outward-facing capacity expression.
- Sexual/One-to-One (SX) shifts toward Emotional domain intensity, expressive Move, and dyadic Bond. SX subtypes map to Icosa profiles with stronger E+ domain and intensified capacity expression.
Subtype mappings use an 80/20 blend of core type and instinct profile. Three subtypes are identified as countertypes — where the instinct works against the core passion, producing atypical presentations: 4 SP (Tenacity), 6 SX (Strength/counterphobic), and 7 SO (Sacrifice). Countertypes carry a wider coherence band and lower confidence (0.85× vs 0.90× for standard subtypes).
| Subtype | Traditional Name | Instinct Shift |
|---|---|---|
| 1 SP | Worry | Perfectionism → physical health/security anxiety |
| 1 SO | Non-Adaptability | Perfectionism → social rules/reform |
| 1 SX | Zeal | Perfectionism → intimate relationships |
| 2 SP | Privilege | Helping → earning through indispensability |
| 2 SO | Ambition | Helping → social power/influence |
| 2 SX | Seduction | Helping → personal charm/attraction |
| 3 SP | Security | Achievement → material/financial security |
| 3 SO | Prestige | Achievement → social image/status |
| 3 SX | Charisma | Achievement → personal attractiveness |
| 4 SP | Tenacity | Individuality → stoic endurance (countertype) |
| 4 SO | Shame | Individuality → social comparison/inferiority |
| 4 SX | Competition | Individuality → intense demand to be seen |
| 5 SP | Castle | Investigation → extreme private space needs |
| 5 SO | Totem | Investigation → idealized group/symbols |
| 5 SX | Confidence | Investigation → sharing secrets with select few |
| 6 SP | Warmth | Loyalty → personal warmth/affection |
| 6 SO | Duty | Loyalty → rule-following/authority |
| 6 SX | Strength | Loyalty → confronting fear head-on (countertype) |
| 7 SP | Family | Enthusiasm → network/family building |
| 7 SO | Sacrifice | Enthusiasm → service-oriented (countertype) |
| 7 SX | Suggestibility | Enthusiasm → imaginative fascination |
| 8 SP | Satisfaction | Challenge → territorial/resource control |
| 8 SO | Solidarity | Challenge → protecting the group |
| 8 SX | Possession | Challenge → intense possessiveness |
| 9 SP | Appetite | Peace → comfort through routine/habits |
| 9 SO | Participation | Peace → merging with group identity |
| 9 SX | Fusion | Peace → merging with partner |
Countertype Implementation
All 9 countertypes are implemented with clinically validated overrides that capture how the instinctual drive opposes the core passion. Countertypes receive lower mapping confidence (0.85× vs. 0.90× for standard subtypes) due to their paradoxical presentation:
| Countertype | Name | Key Override |
|---|---|---|
| 1 SX | Zeal | B+ over (dyadic intensity), V+ over (assertive passion) |
| 2 SP | Privilege | V+ under (passive dependency), R+ under (self-focused) |
| 3 SP | Security | O+ under (emotional avoidance), workaholism pattern |
| 4 SP | Tenacity | O+ under (suppressed expression) |
| 5 SX | Confidence | V+ over (more expressive in dyadic contexts) |
| 6 SX | Strength | V+ high (counterphobic, confronting fear) |
| 7 SO | Sacrifice | B+ elevated (service to group, anti-gluttony) |
| 8 SO | Solidarity | B+ over (group loyalty, protective not dominating) |
| 9 SO | Participation | V+ over (active engagement, flips base inertia) |
Known Gaps
Wing × subtype combinations not implemented. The Enneagram community sometimes uses three-part codes (e.g., “5w4 SP”) combining core type, wing, and instinct. Icosa implements wings (18 variants) and subtypes (27 variants) separately but does not generate the 54 wing×subtype combinations. These would add precision for expert practitioners but have diminishing returns for most clinical applications.
Research Basis
- Riso, D.R., & Hudson, R. (1996). Personality Types (revised ed.). Houghton Mifflin.
- Riso, D.R., & Hudson, R. (1999). The Wisdom of the Enneagram. Bantam Books.
- Sutton, A. (2012). Evidence for the Enneagram as a measure of individual differences. Personality and Individual Differences.
- Newgent, R.A., Parr, P.E., Newman, I., & Wiggins, K.K. (2004). The Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator: Estimates of reliability and validity. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 36(4), 226–237.
- Icosa Validation Study (2026). Enneagram-to-Icosa structural mapping: trap-fixation correspondence analysis. Trap coverage 40% — highest of all frameworks compared. Fixation-trap correspondence confirmed for Types 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 at r≥0.70.
Interactive Explorer
Select a Enneagram type below to see which Icosa centers it maps to. Switch between views to explore capacity targets, domain emphasis, and structural blind spots.
Type 1: The Reformer
Principled, purposeful, self-controlled, perfectionist. Driven by desire to be good, ethical, and correct.
- Physical domain specificity
- Center-level detail (too granular)
- Gateway dynamics (not addressed)
See how your profile translates
Take the Assessment →