We’re back in —and diving deeper into Joey Stabile’s Working Together Doesn’t Work, focusing on the Processing Center and what it reveals about how different types move through the world.

In this episode, we begin a discussion on Eights, Threes, and Ones—the “doing processors.” What does it mean to process through action? What gets gained—and what gets left behind—when execution becomes the primary lens for evaluating life?

We explore Joey’s framework of support centers—how doing can be backed by thinking or feeling—and how that shapes the differences between types that, on the surface, look similar. Along the way, we unpack:

1. Why Eights often feel misunderstood—and what’s actually happening beneath their intensity
2. The tension between execution and emotion in doing types
3. How Threes, Eights, and Ones differ in their relationship to results, relationships, and responsibility
4. Whether the “ends justify the means”—and how each type defines both ends and means differently
5. The hidden cost of prioritizing action over reflection or connection

This conversation slows down to wrestle with real language, real experience, and the deeper structure behind how we assess: Am I good in the world?

We’ll pick up next time with Threes and Ones—but for now, we stay with the Eights, and what it means to move through life with force, clarity, and blind spots we don’t always see.

In this episode, we dive into Joey Schewee’s new book "When Working together Doesn't Work" -- Which you can buy: HERE.

We introduce a framework reshaping how we are understand the Enneagram. What begins as a familiar observation—types orienting around accomplishment, connection, or ease—becomes something far more grounded as we explore the underlying mechanism that produces these patterns.

Rather than stopping at outcomes, Joey’s work traces how each type processes experience from the inside out, offering a clearer structure for why we assess our lives the way we do. This conversation moves beyond description into explanation, giving language and form to something many have sensed but not fully articulated.

Connect with all our work at : www.aroundthecircle.org

Access to all past Rewired Episodes at : www.aroundthecircle.org

In this crossover episode of Rewired x Early Access, Jeff sits down with Katie Whitlock to reflect on what has emerged after months of interviewing Enneagram voices under 35. What begins as a behind-the-scenes conversation quickly becomes a deeper examination of how listening—real listening—reshapes both teaching and understanding.

Katie shares what surprised her most as an interviewer: that one-on-one conversations were easier than expected, that people speak about their inner worlds with remarkable clarity when given space, and that the Enneagram begins to change once you stop talking long enough to hear how others describe themselves. Along the way, she reflects on how this process forced her to confront her own habits as a Type Three, learning to step back, listen more carefully, and teach from lived patterns rather than rehearsed explanations.

Together, Jeff and Katie explore how stereotypes begin to break down when you attend not just to behavior or stated motivation, but to patterns—how people speak, where their attention goes, and the inconsistencies between how they describe themselves and how they move through the world. They discuss why newer students often over-type too quickly, why mature learning leads to a season of “I don’t know,” and why that valley is not failure but growth.

All our Rewired Episodes are free for members at : www.aroundthecircle.org

We land the plane on our stance series by wrestling with the language for Fours, Fives, and Nines.

Starting with Karen Horney’s “detached,” David Daniels’ “receptive/internalizing,” Suzanne Stabile’s “withdrawn,” and Joey Schewee’s “solitary,” they trace the history of stance, sift the pros and cons of each term, and ultimately make a case for why “withdrawn” still does the best work.

Along the way they explore how 4s, 5s, and 9s use imagination, creativity, and internal processing to get what they want, why “doing repression” has to stay central, and how stance fits into Jeff’s bigger map: center → stance → affect → processing center in a looping feedback cycle. If you’re a 4, 5, or 9 (or love one), this episode will give you sharper language for what’s happening inside when you “check out,” and why that inner move matters so much for real-world action.

In this Rewired episode, Jeff and Katie keep their stance series rolling and turn the spotlight on the “aggressive/assertive/independent” triad—Threes, Sevens, and Eights.

They trace where the classic stance language came from Karen Horney, Riso & Hudson, Suzanne Stabile, and Joey Schewee. Along the way they name what stance actually is: your reference point (internal / external / independent), your social strategy for getting what you want, your time-orientation, and your repressed center. They contrast the “independent” stance with the “reactive” stance, talk about how often 3s, 7s, and 8s simply aren’t thinking about you (for better and worse), and defend Eights from the caricature of being perpetually angry or combative.

The back half of the conversation gets practical: how do independent types begin doing real stance work? What does it feel like to bring up your repressed feeling center (spoiler: slower, more boring, and more alive)? If you’re a 3, 7, or 8—or you love one—this episode will give you language, compassion, and concrete direction for growth.

Every Tuesday at aroundthecircle.org we release a "Rewired" episode for all members.

This is an example of our most recent discussion on stance. We dive into a big term debate in Enneagram world: what do we actually call the stance of Ones, Twos, and Sixes? Are they compliant, dependent, responsive, or reactive? Katie comes in ready to retire some terms altogether, Jeff brings the history from Horney, Riso–Hudson, Palmer, Chestnut, and Naranjo, and together they pull the whole thing apart—from theory to lived experience.

Along the way, they tease out why “compliant” and “dependent” miss something essential, how thinking repression really shows up in 1–2–6 land, and why reactive may be the most honest (even if it stings a bit). They also talk about the danger of naming only behavior instead of underlying motive, why Ones are not nearly as “certain” internally as they look, and how terminology actually shapes people’s ability to see themselves clearly.

In this conversation:

• A quick history of stances: moving toward, against, and away

• Why “compliant” doesn’t describe Ones, Twos, and Sixes as well as we think

• The case for “dependent” and why it still falls short

• Reacting vs responding: what thinking repression really feels like on the ground

• How language choices impact coaching, corporate work, and self-understanding

• Where Jeff and Katie land—for now—on what we should call the 1–2–6 stance