Posts

The Most Intelligent Thing You Can Do Is Slow Down

/0 Comments/in , /by

When You Know Why You React, You Can Choose How You Respond

What the Enneagram and emotional intelligence reveal about the space between trigger and response

There is a photograph I keep coming back to in my mind — not an actual photograph, but the kind that forms over years of sitting across from people in coaching conversations. It is the image of a person mid-sentence, eyes slightly wide, voice pitched a half-step higher than usual, saying something they will probably wish they hadn’t. And in the moment before the words arrive, there is this invisible space — a fraction of a second, maybe less — where everything that matters is happening.

Viktor Frankl called it the space between stimulus and response. He wrote about it from inside a concentration camp, which means he earned the right to talk about it. That space, he said, is where our freedom lives. It is also, I’ve come to believe, where emotional intelligence and the Enneagram converge into something genuinely transformative.

The Intelligence Beneath the Surface

Emotional intelligence, as Daniel Goleman mapped it, begins with self-awareness — the capacity to notice what’s happening inside you before it moves through you and into the world. Josh Freedman of Six Seconds distills it differently, into a sequence I return to often: Know Yourself, Choose Yourself, Give Yourself. The knowing comes first. Without it, we are largely reactive — moved by currents we can’t name.

Most of us have experienced this. A colleague’s offhand comment lands wrong and we feel our jaw tighten before we understand why. A family member raises a familiar complaint and we hear ourselves responding in the old way again — the way we promised ourselves we wouldn’t. The reaction isn’t irrational exactly. It’s just faster than our awareness.

This is where the Enneagram enters the room.

A Map of the Interior

The Enneagram is a nine-type system of personality that goes deeper than behavior into motivation — into the core fears and longings that drive us. It is not a label to be worn comfortably. At its best, it is an unsettling mirror, one that shows you not only what you do but why, and what you are protecting when you do it.

A Type Eight (the Challenger) doesn’t lead aggressively because they are cruel. They lead that way because somewhere underneath the forcefulness is a terror of being controlled or betrayed — and strength feels like the only reliable protection. A Type Two (the Helper) doesn’t overextend themselves because they are foolish. They do it because their worth, in some deep and often unconscious way, feels contingent on being needed.

When you understand this about yourself — really understand it, not just intellectually but in the body — something shifts. The reaction doesn’t disappear. But there is more space around it.

The Place Where They Meet

I’ve seen this play out in workshops and in one-on-one coaching more times than I can count. A leadership team I worked with had a Type Eight and a Type Nine in constant friction. The Eight moved fast, spoke bluntly, made decisions before the Nine felt heard. The Nine withdrew, agreed on the surface, and then quietly undermined the direction — not out of malice but out of a desperate need for harmony they didn’t know how to ask for. What made it harder was that both of them were genuinely trying. The Eight believed clarity and decisiveness were acts of respect — waste no one’s time, say what’s true, move forward. The Nine believed keeping the peace was its own form of care — absorb the friction, hold the group together, avoid the rupture. Neither of them was wrong exactly. They were just operating from entirely different interior maps, and no one had ever handed them the other person’s.

When we named what was happening through the lens of both the Enneagram and emotional intelligence, something loosened. The Eight didn’t need to become soft. The Nine didn’t need to become confrontational. They needed to understand each other’s interior logic — and then, from that understanding, choose something different than their default. What I watched happen in that room was not a personality makeover. It was something quieter and more durable: two people recognizing that the other person’s behavior had a reason, and that the reason wasn’t contempt or weakness. That recognition created enough safety for genuine conversation — maybe for the first time in years of working together.

That’s the intersection. The Enneagram names what’s underneath. Emotional intelligence gives you tools to work with it. Together, they create the conditions for what I’d call non-reactive presence — the ability to be fully in a difficult moment without being fully hijacked by it.

Some Places to Begin

If this is new territory for you, here are a few entry points worth sitting with:

  1. Get curious before you get defensive. The next time you feel a strong reaction — irritation, anxiety, the urge to withdraw or escalate — ask yourself what it’s protecting. Not in a clinical way, but genuinely. What’s at stake for me right now?
  2. Learn your Enneagram type as a spiritual practice, not a personality quiz. The Narrative Enneagram tradition invites you into the type through lived experience and community, not just a test score. There’s a difference.
  3. Practice the pause. Frankl’s space between stimulus and response can be cultivated. Centering Prayer, mindful breathing, simple body awareness — any practice that builds your capacity to notice before acting will serve you here.
  4. Make it relational. Understanding your own type is valuable. Understanding the types of the people you love and work with alongside yours is where transformation tends to happen. The framework becomes a bridge rather than a mirror.

I don’t think any of us become non-reactive all the way down. That would require not being human. But I do believe we can cultivate the capacity to meet our reactions with a little more light and a little less automatic machinery. The Enneagram helps us see ourselves clearly. Emotional intelligence gives us something to do with what we see.

That space between stimulus and response — Frankl was right. Something important lives there. And with practice, we can learn to inhabit it.

If you’re curious about exploring the Enneagram and EQ together — for yourself, your team, or your community — visit spiritofeq.com to learn more about our workshops and coaching.

Peace and every good.

— — —

Subscribe to The Mystical Seeker on Substack  — in-depth posts on the contemplative life

From the Frats to the Hippies: How Not Belonging Taught Me to See

/0 Comments/in , /by

Good Enough for This Life

Do you ever think about whether you are good enough for this life?

I ask it that way on purpose — not “good enough at your job” or “good enough for the relationship” but for this life, the whole thing, the fact of being a particular kind of person moving through a world that was mostly built for a different kind of person. It is a question I have carried for a long time. And I want to tell you where it came from, because the origin of this story matters.

Picture a room full of people who seem to know where to stand. You are at the edge, not by design but because the middle arrived too fast and too loud, because you are already receiving the room — not just the nearest conversation but every conversation, the ambient emotional temperature, the undercurrent of music, the way the light is sitting differently on one side than the other. You are cataloging all of it without meaning to, because that is simply how your mind moves.

I know that room. I spent most of my adolescence looking for the group that would finally let me in — not merely tolerate me but receive what I was bringing. I tried the frats, with their crisp hierarchies and their belonging-by-exclusion, their handshakes and their unwritten ledgers of who counted. I tried the greasers, leather and bravado, a different code but a code all the same, enforced with the same quiet ferocity. I tried the soul brothers, drawn by the warmth and the music and the sense that community here might stretch wide enough to hold more kinds of people. And finally, tentatively, I found the hippies — loose-structured, philosophically suspicious of tight categories, practicing a kind of radical acceptance that was imperfect and sometimes chaotic but real. They were the closest thing to a fit I had found. And even there, I was only partly in.

What I didn’t understand then, standing at the edges of all those circles, was that the thing keeping me out was also the thing that made me able to see.

I have dyslexia and ADHD. Together. Which, if you’ve lived it, means the mind doesn’t run one stream of consciousness but several — simultaneous, layered, cross-referencing, sometimes chasing each other into corners before snapping back. The squirrel jokes are accurate. Mid-sentence, mid-thought, something peripheral catches your sight and suddenly you are somewhere else entirely, following a thread that no one else in the room can see.

What I couldn’t name as a teenager was the experience of receiving a conversation on six channels at once — the words someone was saying and the words they weren’t saying, the slight tension in their shoulders, the way their story didn’t quite line up with their eyes, the ambient emotional weather of the room, the connection to something said three exchanges ago that suddenly mattered now. All of it arriving at the same time. All of it real.

This was not comfortable. For years it was almost unbearable — the sensation of always arriving sideways to the conversation, unable to slow the intake down enough to meet people where they were. I tried to explain it, and it came out tangled. I tried to belong and it came out strange. Large parties still overwhelm me quickly; the signal-to-noise ratio collapses under too many inputs running at once, and I learned early to find the wall, the corner, the quieter edge where the room could be read rather than absorbed whole. And so, the question I carried — quietly, persistently, the way you carry things you cannot put down — was: Am I good enough for this?

Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, developed in the early 1980s, named what many people had quietly suspected: that intelligence is not a single axis running from less to more, but a wide range of distinct capacities — linguistic, spatial, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and more — that show up differently in different people, and are cultivated or suppressed depending on the environments those people move through. Ned Hallowell, who has written about ADHD from the inside for decades, describes it as a Ferrari engine with bicycle brakes: enormous processing power that simply needs a different kind of structure to channel it well. What both are pointing toward is this — the brain that struggles in one environment is often extraordinarily capable in another. Not as consolation. As fact.

The multiple streams I couldn’t turn off at parties became, in smaller rooms and deeper conversations, something closer to precision. I could hear what people meant underneath what they said. I could hold several threads at once and notice where they crossed without losing either. I could sit with someone in confusion and not rush them toward clarity, because I knew from the inside what it felt like to have the mind moving in many directions at once and not yet know which one was true. The gift and the difficulty were the same thing, running on the same hardware, expressed differently depending on context.

I think now about that teenager trying the frats and the greasers and the soul brothers and the hippies — not as someone who failed to find a home, but as someone learning, by accumulation and by refusal, what belonging required. It wasn’t a group that would tolerate him. It was a context in which his actual nature could be useful. The hippies came closest because they had, almost by philosophy, released the requirement to be one thing, to arrive in a straight line, to present a coherent and unified self at all times. They were practicing, imperfectly and sometimes chaotically, the idea that a loose structure could hold more kinds of people and more kinds of minds.

What I do now — working with people around emotional intelligence, around the interior life, around the persistent gap between who we are and who we think we should be — is built directly from those years of standing at the edges of rooms and learning to read them. The overwhelm at large gatherings is still real. The squirrels still appear. But I have learned to trust the multiple streams, to follow rather than fight them, to understand that the signal is often in the thing that looks like noise. Observation turns out to be one of the rarest things one person can offer another. And it was built, in me, precisely by not being comfortable in the middle.

So: do you ever think about whether you are good enough for this life?

Edge Of Room Workbook

Here is the reframe I want to offer — not a reassurance, not “of course you are, everyone is,” which is kind but lame and thin. Instead, the question assumes a standard that was probably never built for you. The thing you experience as a deficit — the way you process or move or think or feel that doesn’t match the room — may be exactly the mechanism by which you will eventually see most clearly.

I still sometimes find myself at the edge of a room, taking in more than I was asked to take in, following threads no one else is following. But I am no longer trying to get to the middle.

The edge, it turns out, is a very good place to observe from. And observation, it turns out, is exactly what most people are waiting for someone to offer them.

If this landed somewhere in you, the conversation continues at [Substack/Mighty Networks] — a community that keeps asking these same questions together.

Peace and every good.