Talk:Enneagram of Personality

Character vs. Personality

The Enneagram is made up of character archetypes not personality archetypes. Not everyone will agree with this, but for some good reading go here: http://www.realitysandwich.com/character_enneagram_yoga_relationship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.127.29 (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

MBTI Correlations

I think it would be useful to list typical MBTI correlations. For example, type's 1 and 8 both tend to be Extraverts, with type 8's tending to be ENxx, whereas Type-1's tend to be ExTx.
As a result the best correlations with the MBTI for Type 1 would include: ESTP, ESTJ, ENTP, ENTJ
The best correlations for Type 8 would include: ENFP, ENFJ, ENTP, ENTJ

Some Issues

It seems that a number of people are editing this article to promote particular schools of Enneagram teaching. The type descriptions, for instance, are all heavily derived from Don Richard Riso's writings. As many aspects of Riso's Enneagram teachings are highly contentious this is not exactly helpful in what is meant to be a encyclopedia where some sort of general consensus is what is required.

Cross validation....????

Have come across two methods which measure personality, one being by Douglas Forbes and another by Don Richard Riso and Russ Hudson. Both have developed their methods based on Enneagram. The former is using a numerology method and the later a method of defined questionnaire. Both of the methods have claimed high accuracies on predicting and evaluating people's personality. If the claims are true, then the two methods can also be tested by cross validation which is the most convincing approach to see if those methods are valid or not. I'm wondering if ACA has been aware of it

Vice/Passion

Thanks for the new table. The Vice/Passion column has a number of links to the traditional Christian descriptions, otherwise known as the seven sins. Enneagram scholars consider that the Christian's reduce their count to seven, after originally having, I believe 9. Regardless, the traditional Christians descriptions are pale in compassion to the the newly formulated enneagram versions. Possibly the result of the major evolution that consciousness work has taken on in the past 100 years. Question, what is the best way to elaborate the enneagram versions for these all too telling and often condemned traits? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Question. Do you understand WP:OR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 15:04, January 18, 2011

Yes .. how does that apply here, the nine descriptions are well represented in the sources. The issue is how to add them without creating OR. That would be helpful. That's why I asked. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless you have independent reliable sources making the comparison, you don't add them at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

After thinking this over, I think it's best just to dewikify most of those terms. they are common enough that the wikilinks are not essential, and if the terms have specific meaning in the world of enneagrams we can either flesh that out later or leave it to the reader to investigate further. --Ludwigs2 20:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

history section

I've renamed the development section 'History, and de-listified it. can someone tell me when the specific term "Enneagram of Personality" came into use? It was either Naranjo or one of the authors writing about his work, but I don't know which. --Ludwigs2 16:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarke's overview seems to indicate Ichazo was among the earliest (1969) to use the term. (Also, for those who care, Clarke has some reliable material regarding the law of seven, etc.). - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added that information with the reference. but I have to say - dude! the writing! "A drastic watershed in enneagram exegesis was imminent..." that had to have gotten honorable mention (at minimum) in the 2006 Turgid Prose awards. --Ludwigs2 20:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, Clarke can be rather, er, colorful, but I've seen a lot worse college text writing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not just turgid, it's horrible. o.O — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

removing the 'issues' tag?

I've done all I can with updating this without digging in to do some more research. I can see where it needs expansion, but I can't d an effective job with it at this point. however, I think the article is better balanced now. can I go ahead and remove the 'issues' tag? --Ludwigs2 20:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No objection from me, although I'd keep a single {{refimprove}} tag for the "Basic typology" section needing more objective sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ichazo & Naranjo

An editor keeps asserting that Naranjo's so-called "split" with Ichazo was over their interpretation of the Enneagram. Whatever the reasons were for Naranjo leaving Ichazo's course in Arica (and there are differing accounts about this), there is no evidence that I know of that suggests that their "split" (if that's what it actually was) was over any differing interpretations of the Enneagram. In fact the available evidence only indicates that Naranjo began developing some different ideas about the Enneagram after he left and returned to the United States. Nor do I know of any lawsuit between Ichazo and Naranjo over the Enneagram - the only lawsuits of this kind that I know of were between Ichazo and Helen Palmer and Patrick O'Leary in the 1980s. If there is a source that suggests that the "split" between Ichazo and Naranjo was over the Enneagram then I suggest that it probably has its facts wrong. I would also want to know what the actual text of the source says. Ontologicos (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The source: Personality theories: critical perspectives by Albert Ellis, Mike Abrams, Lidia Dengelegi Abrams, [1] page 572 - "Ichazo had a disciple named Claudio Naranjo (1997) an anthropologist and psychiatrist who split with Ichazo over the correct interpretation of the Enneagram." I don't understand the reversion of this cited material. It seems to indicate a reluctance to report the various disagreements among Enneagram proponents, or whitewash the subject matter. I suggest we report what reliable sources say rather than interpret them as "wrong" according to our personal ideas. The lawsuit brought by Ichazo and Helen Palmer is also reliably sourced and can be reported on in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That Ellis et al source is an excellent scholarly source. If no other source discusses the split between Ichazo and Naranjo then the book's analysis stands as the correct one. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It may be an "excellent scholarly source" in your opinion but Ellis isn't an expert on the Enneagram and on the reasons for the "split" he seems to prefer a good story to the known facts. And describing Naranjo as being Ichazo's "disciple" is also far-fetched. So his "analysis", as you've called it, is almost certainly *not* "the correct one" at all but only misinformed opinion. There are more original sources that refer to their "split" and I don't recall that any of them ever refer to disagreement over understanding the Enneagram as being the reason for it. It seems to have been a "personality conflict" more than anything else. There may have been conflict between them over the Enneagram afterwards but that is entirely a different matter. Ontologicos (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you link to or quote the sources which contradict Ellis et al? Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Onotologicos, Wikipedia isn't always right. WP reports on what experts say. It's not fair, but it's policy. The hard truth is that if wrong facts get accepted in the mainstream, then WP has to report the mainstream view, even if one particular editor or another has superior knowledge and knows it's wrong. Sorry. Binksternet is right. You have to go find your own good source to make any point that you yourself would like to make. Leadwind (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I will try to find some sources as soon as I'm able. In the meantime I have rephrased the wording to something less factually contentious. Ellis' claim is not the "mainstream view" on the "split" between Ichazo and Naranjo and is, I believe, almost certainly factually incorrect. What is known and uncontentious is that Naranjo attended a long residential course with Ichazo in Arica, Chile in, as I recall, 1969 or 1970. It is known that Naranjo left the course before it ended. Both Naranjo and Ichazo later made conflicting comments about the reasons why he (Naranjo) left the course - but neither, to the best of my knowledge, have ever stated that it was in any way due to a difference in their understanding the Enneagram. It seems, therefore, that any conflict between them over the Enneagram came only after their "split" (or whatever it actually was) but wasn't the reason for Naranjo leaving the course. In any case, its not really all that important. What is actually important is that Naranjo began developing and teaching an understanding of the Enneagram that was partly different from Ichazo's in some aspects. Ontologicos (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sumner's self-published history

I removed a link to Mark Douglas Sumner's "A Brief History of the Enneagram of Personality", published on his own website here. Sumner is not a notable Enneagram author, and self-published sources are low quality ones. Per WP:ELNO #11, we see that "links normally to be avoided" include "links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." Sumner is no scholar, and is not verifiable in his research. He supplies no sources for his history. He is not a "recognized authority". Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Whilst his article has some minor factual problems it provides some useful information that is missing from the WP article and is by far the best Enneagram "history" that I've yet come across on the internet - many others are riddled with significant factual errors. Also, it does not appear that a link to this article violates WP's link policies at WP:ELNO (#11) which are concerned about "personal web pages" which are defined as websites published by people that are principally about themselves rather than some topic. Nothing in the policy seems to indicate that "self-published sources" on topics are forbidden per se. If they were then a considerable number of references and links on WP would need to be removed. And while he may not be so well-known internationally, I believe that the author is a "recognized authority" in Australia and I expect that many American "recognized authorities" are virtually unknown in other countries. None of your arguments, therefore, seem very convincing. Ontologicos (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Self-published material can be used in articles, but cannot be the primary source for controversial statements. If he's saying something that can't be backed up in reliable, third-party sources, it's out. If he really has special information on EP, he should be able to get it published somewhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELNO #11 holds sway because we have no way to authenticate Sumner's version of things. Nobody with known expertise has said 'yes, this is it'. Sumner published the history himself with no editorial oversight, so it is self-published.

Similar poor-quality references should be removed as soon as they are identified. This one will not be given a pass simply because others exist. The way forward is to find the others and excise them. Binksternet (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please specify which particular aspect of the WP:ELNO policies you believe an external link to his article violates. I cannot find any mention of "self-published" websites being forbidden in this policy. You are also confusing including a website as an external link and as a reference. These are different issues. I cannot see any clear evidence that the inclusion of this article is contrary to any external links policy. This seems to be an unfounded interpretation of the policy on your part. Ontologicos (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I already answered that question: WP:ELNO #11. There, it says we should avoid "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." Sumner's personal web page publishing his essay about the history is not from an established authority. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Old, outdated information repeatedly cited

I attempted to update the Enneagram section to reflect progress in Enneagram studies both in the fields of Counseling and Psychology. I detailed how presenters had discussed the Enneagram at the American Counseling Association for a number of years (2004 - present). Also,several graduate counseling programs now includethe Enneagram as electives in their curriculum. In addition, several doctoral students are currently studying the Enneagram in their dissertation. However, the information, which is completely verifiable, was deleted twice. Someone appears to want to control the site with outdated, inaccurate information that leads the reader to believe the Enneagram is underground and seemingly obsolete, except when used with businesses. How unfortunate. The poster wrote that the Enneagram was not widely used. It is curious that he or she does not seem to be interested in promoting helpful information that would encourage serious Enneagram study. It is also interesting they feel entitled to remove information they could not possibly have tried to verify. What absolute privilige and assumed power this communicates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tduffey (talk • contribs) 02:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite correct. For some months editing this article has been kept hostage by a small group of POV editors who have sought to prevent anything apearing in the article which contradicts their ignorance and prejudices on this topic while at the same time actively seeking and including some inaccurate or biased information which supports their POV. Ontologicos (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The "whup whup" sound you can hear is the black helicopters closing in. Run now before it is too late.

But actually, I've no idea who this evil cabal is, or what edits you're on about. Do you mean [2]? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Added criticsm, as - well there is criticism - at least by the Vatican. This is also to balance the Richard Rohr sources, that may lead the reader to belief that enneagrams are fully integrated in the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church (as Richard Rohr is a Roman Catholic pater). It would be great to have other statements by major religions. I just didn't get around yet. -- Stefan.keller (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

While I don't object to including referenced criticism, your edits have had to be removed as they were not written in acceptable English. Ontologicos (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The errors were trivial. They could have been left, or you could simply have fixed them. I have just done so. Deleting the addition on these grounds was entirely inappropriate William M. Connolley (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The errors were not trivial at all. And you didn't "fix" them either. It is also entirely appropriate to delete inadequately written edits. Ontologicos (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that some of the "errors" you fixed were merely style of English; that is no valid reason for deletion. The errors were all trivial. "The Vatican warns against the use of enneagrams as a means to spirtual growth," (which you "corrected") is valid English William M. Connolley (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As usual your opinions are mistaken and erroneous. Ontologicos (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well-referenced criticism is perfectly appropriate here. Problems with English are not problems requiring deletion. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

wings..?

"Most, but not all, Enneagram of Personality theorists teach that a person's basic type is modified, at least to some extent, by the personality dynamics of the two adjacent types as indicated on the enneagram figure. A person of the Three personality type, for example, is understood to have points Two and Four as their wing types."

If this process of wings is linked to the enneagram, would is not make more sense for the wings to be the ones it is connected to via the repeating number of 142857?? so 3 would be 6 and 9 (on the triangle) and 1 would be 4 and 7 and so on? It's just I am not convinced by the explanation of it being numerically adjacent personality types. I question it as it is unsourced and the logic of having a special hexagon is sort of pointless if it does not link in...is it? 86.164.60.91 (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

By definition that's what the "wings" are - they are the two on either side on the circle. The lines indicate other connections and aren't wings. Afterwriting (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)