Talk:Enneagram of Personality

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 11 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mb4500 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Maria.styron.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ngln92.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in reception section[edit]

This section includes plenty of criticism and little to no praise, despite the fact it has been positively received by many. I don't like pseudoscience either but it seems a bit biased to just slate it without acknowledging the overwhelming amounts of positive reception in this section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemmabell (talkcontribs) 11:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there are notable sources praising it, then that is certainly worth including, even if it is in the realm of pop-culture and not peer-reviewed science. But, someone needs to seek out these sources and either edit the article themselves, or provide these sources here so that someone else can integrate them into the article.
Just because the article contains more criticism than praise does not mean the article is biased. It is neutrally representing the sources present. -Verdatum (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Types[edit]

While the "nine types" table is a well-organized, easy way to observe and compare each of the enneagram types, there's a lot of potential to go into greater detail on each of the types and provide more information about each of the respective types, potentially in sub-sections. An example of breakdowns or in-depth analyses on each of the nine points could be similar in format to something along the lines of this webpage on enneagram types that have an empirical and reputable basis Ngln92 (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the nine types section is pretty basic right now. The table is definitely helpful, but would it be also helpful to add in some information about the factor analysis of the 9 types and how that turned out? Mb4500 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The article seemed to lean to the side of having more criticism than praise, therefore not being neutral. I wonder if the criticism is due to the lack of information in this article. The Enneagram has exploded in the past year or so, so the article could use some modification pertaining to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samantha R Taylor (talkcontribs) 23:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the lack of information and glut of criticism in this article is because when reliable secondary sources cover the topic, they tend to reach a critical conclusion. Neutrality does not mean that an article must present a balance of criticism and praise. It means that it must present the facts as they exist, neutrally, and without bias. That said, if, for example, there are indeed major pop-culture sources that are praising this concept, there would be nothing wrong with including them to better indicate this concept's impact on society. There's no need to stick only to peer-reviewed science journals or any such standard. -Verdatum (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Author names needed[edit]

This article mentions the (1984) book The Enneagram: A Journey of Self-Discovery but does not point out that its authors were Beesing, Nogosek and O'Leary. 20:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC) Vorbee (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hypotheses, not theories[edit]

The article references "theories" when these are at best hypotheses. To be called a theory, there has to be general agreement that the proposed system explains the subject matter better than any alternative, and the system should be falsifiable. This is certainly not the case for enneagrams, especially as there is almost no peer-reviewed research to support the hypotheses (I resisted the temptation to call them "guesses").

There is actually considerably more peer-reviewed research than you claim (so I guess that I could call that claim a "guess"). Afterwriting (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without providing said sources, this reply is not helpful. It's just a random person on the Internet saying "nu-uh!". I'd love to be wrong, but, in my experience, sources writing for peer-reviewed science journals very rarely have the time or funding to bother investigating personality tests. Anyone familiar with such sources, please provide them so that they may be properly integrated into the article. -Verdatum (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it BuggS8263 (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology is a science, right?[edit]

For this article to be part of a series about Psychology (a science) it needs a lot more scientific information. I do not have access to peer reviewed journals or academics, nor do I know enough about the subject to do it myself. If that type of source isn't available then this doesn't belong in the same category as other scientific theories; it would legitimately be closer to astrology at that point (which I also appreciate more than most people). Hoping it gets improved. 2603:8081:4600:AC47:4D17:2AB9:405F:C5DE (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the subject of this article is closer to the Keirsey Temperament Sorter and Myers–Briggs Type Indicator rather than astrology, and since both those articles don't have the Psychology sidebar, I went ahead and removed it from this article. Some1 (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability and Validty[edit]

Would it be useful to have a section discussing the reliability and validity of the enneagram? Mb4500 (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you can present a neutral POV and cite the sources, I don't see why not. What points do you think would be useful to make on this topic? Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is already information about this in the article in the "Research ..." section. It can be improved and more balanced but doesn't need to be long or complicated. Afterwriting (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like there could, and maybe should, be a note about a lack of those sources then. Such as "Little is known about the reliability and validity of the Enneagram hypothesis due to a lack of peer reviewed evidence." Ornateovary (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Levels of Development[edit]

Add a "levels of development" section after the instinctual subtypes. This addition could discuss the levels themselves (what they are), the 9 levels, split into three categories (what the categories are), and how the levels are on a continuum. Mb4500 (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article attempts to only include information which is generally accepted and taught by nearly all Enneagram people and, therefore, avoids any bias in favour of any particular teacher's theories. The "Levels of Development" theory is a particular theory first proposed by Don Riso. It is not generally accepted or taught by other Enneagram teachers, at least not in the very specific ways in which Don Riso taught the theory. Therefore it isn't appropriate to have a whole section on this theory. If we started adding sections on theories that some teachers promote then the article would be far too long. At present it is about the right length in my view. Afterwriting (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense! Could there be an appropriate area for this to be added? Mb4500 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably only in the Don Richard Riso article, which could probably benefit from some additional information on his Enneagram thinking. Afterwriting (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Type indicator[edit]

In the type indicator section, only the RHTEI is mentioned, when there are other tests such as the WEPSS (Wagner Enneagram Personality Style Scales) and EET (Essential Enneagram test. In addition to adding these tests. I think it should be discussed in this section how the enneagram tests can be completed through these type indicator tests. (They can be delivered via interview or via self report). Mb4500 (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia must not imply more acceptance than actually exists[edit]

I have reverted to my preferred version due to the fact that Wikipedia should not be in the business of implying that this proposal has any validated support. I encourage those who think otherwise to explain themselves here. jps (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A revert by @Ontologicos: was undone by me because I see no explanation here on talk. jps (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you have now been reverted because it is not acceptable to revert @Ontologicos:'s original reversion of your highly questionable changes. As an experienced editor you should know this is not how things are done. You don't get to unilaterally assert your preferred version by starting an edit-war in this way. Starting a discussion is no excuse. You were reverted so the article stays that way unless there is an agreement to change it. It's up to you to propose reasoned arguments for any changes if your changes were reverted. That's how Wikipedia works. Ontologicos was right to revert your changes. The current wording has been stable and longstanding and, as someone with an expert understanding of the subject, I can say it is accurate and objective. Your changes and your comments indicate, however, that this is a subject you don't actually know much about. Afterwriting (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that this article has been dominated by fringe proponents, so "long-standing" does not matter. NPOV beats local consensus. For example, the weasel word "some" in some personality assessment experts is edit-warred back in again.
Enneagrams are fringe, and they need to be described as such. Those ideas are not "theories". They are not "insights", they are only claimed to be insights. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. jps (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]