Karen Horney and the Enneagram

Now I remember someone linking the article below for me on the eidb which discusses the sort of double Hornevian approach to triads, with both the Hornevian triads and the Primary triads embodying movement toward, away, and against.

This conceptualization requires switching 7 to a compliant and 1 to an assertive. I can see an argument for 1 as an assertive (including a case for 7 not being particularly assertive), but I find the idea of 7 as compliant extremely farfetched. The conceptualization is in Figure 1 in this article from the Enneagram Monthly, 2000 on "Directional Theory":

www.9types.com/writeup/Theory20.htm

(This article by whom? I loathe how careless people are about posting sources on the Net. And it can get a lot worse than this... )

The article has a rationale for switching E1 and E7. The "compliant" group has been renamed the "embracing" group:

Reversing types 7 and 1

The prevailing convention considers the 7 to be aggressive, while the 1 is compliant. However, I think this is based on inconsistent usages of the terms aggressive and compliant. For example, the term "compliant" connotes passive obedience to an outside force, whereas I have renamed the "compliant" group as the "embracing" group, to describe this group's actively and energetic movement toward their environment. In this light, the 7 is clearly an "embracing" type, because 7s, like 2s and 6s, embrace people or objects around them, with a tendency to become dependent on them and to develop anxieties about being deprived of them. Of course, 7s may seem aggressive because they fight against external limits, but this is secondary to their search for happiness, and most 7s prefer working around obstacles, e.g. "turning lemons into lemonade", rather than destroying them. As for type 1, this type is usually considered compliant because they are compliant to their ideals. But in this sense, every type is compliant to something - the 8 is compliant to their need for power, the 5 to their need to understand the world, etc.
To be consistent, we must consider the mind’s relation to the environment, not the relation of one part of the mind to another. In this sense, the 1's desires to change, reform, and correct are clearly movements against the environment, particularly against elements that are wrong, disorganized, unfair, etc.

But aggressive, compliant and withdrawn, come from Horney, so what is the point of making correlations of the Primary triads with the Hornevian triads if you're going to de-Hornevify the latter's categories? And also, the resultant tic tac toe board lacks the geometric symmetry that should be necessary for a triad to be a triad, in my (strong) opinion.

And yet Katherine Chernick Fauvre expounds on this. This is about when I start getting irritated with the Fauvres. Like clockwork.

Still I will read and compare the two articles carefully, take pen and paper, fiddle with some configurations, and let you know what I come up with--even if only to have clear arguments for refuting it all. You never know what might come in handy one day.