Talk:Enneagram of Personality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cross validation....????[edit]

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:29, 13 July 2007

Character vs. Personality[edit]

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

Theoretical distinctions between "character" and "personality" have largely depended on particular orientations. These distinctions are no longer usually considered significant and, on the whole, the terms are now used more or less interchangably by most theorists. (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
If that's the case (which I don't agree with btw) then this wiki should be called the Enneagram Psychological System or something more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Articles names are meant to use terms already in common use ~ not newly created terms for the sake of some claimed neutrality. Afterwriting (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Claudio Naranjo originally referred to the types as character types or personality types. I've seen no distinction made on his part and he is the original teacher of the system. The system is popularly known as the Enneagram Personality Types. It makes little sense to call it anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Naranjo is *not* "the original teacher of the system" ~ as he himself acknowledges. If there is any person entitled to that description ~ which is arguable ~ then it is Oscar Ichazo. Naranjo's own Enneagram teachings are largely the result of his attempted synthesis of some of Ichazo's teachings with some of G.I. Gurdjieff's Fourth Way teachings. And "Enneagram Personality Types" is only one of a number of names in popular use. It is usually just called "the Enneagram" but this term is ambiguous. The usual more formal name is that of this article ~ "Enneagram of Personality". Afterwriting (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

I've just changed the section entitled "Roman Catholic criticism" to "Criticism" on the grounds that I've just never seen a section headed "Foo Criticism" before - it's always just "Criticism", so it seemed to be in line with Wikipedia practice. I would imagine if there were different aspects to the criticism; there could be sub-headings with "Foo criticism", "Footoo criticism" etc. The original header just seemed unnecessary and contrary to WP:Brevity. But feel free to discuss and reach a different consensus. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I raised this matter on Bermicourt's talk page because, in its current form, the section is only specifically about official Roman Catholic criticisms and in this case it seems to me to be appropriate to highlight this in the heading. When I have some time I might add some other criticisms to the section. I invite discussion on this as well as on the current heading. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and criticism[edit]

The issue of the Enneagram of Personality being "pseudoscience" has been raised in the article. While I recognise that the current state of Enneagram research may still merit this definition it should also be noted that the Enneagram is taught in a number of reputable universities. The First International Enneagram Conference was held at Stanford University in 1994 and was co-sponsored by the university's department of psychiatry. I support including adequately referenced and neutrally worded academic and other criticisms of Enneagram theories in the article but treating these as being examples of New Age "psychobabble" is not appropriate. Many of the criticisms of Enneagram ideas, however, are actually often based on a mistaken understanding of these ideas and are often factually wrong about the Enneagram's origins. Ontologicos (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Enneagram of Personality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


This article says that most but not all Enneagram teachings postulate that our basic type is influenced by two wings. It could state how in a book by Don Richard Riso called "Understanding the Enneagram" Riso asserts that the wing theory is the most controversial aspect of Enneagram teachings, as some writers say there is no wing, some say there is only one wing and some say that there are two wings. Carltonio (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

If you have a source, add it. BTW, I see that the lead says otherwise... :) Gandydancer (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Authorship of Understanding the Enneagram[edit]

This article says that "Understanding the Enneagram: The Practical Guide to Personality Types" was by Riso and Hudson, but I am sure that it was just by Riso. Indeed, if you click on the Riso and Hudson link following this attempt to establish authorship. you get taken to the Riso-Hudon Type Indicator, which is a questionnaire, not a book. Vorbee (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The revised edition was written by both Riso and Hudson. Ontologicos (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Good or C class?[edit]

This article about the Enneagram has been rated as C class, but I wonder whether it could be rated as higher than that. It deserves to be congratulated for not saying too much about Sufism, for the idea that the Enneagram can be traced back to the Sufis has been hotly disputed. Vorbee (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Section on wings[edit]

The section on the wing theory could do with some modification. It could point out that, as Don Richard Riso says in "Understanding the Enneagram", some authors think that there is no wing, some authors think there is only one wing (such as Riso), and some authors think there are two wings, one either side of the basic type. Helen Palmer could be cited as an adherent of the latter position. Vorbee (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

"Model of the psyche" and POV issues[edit]

FYI. It is correct to refer to the Enneagram of Personality as a "model of the psyche". It is not accurate to refer to it as a "description" of the psyche (whatever that might mean). In the writings of Oscar Ichazo, from who the Enneagram is recognised as principally originating, he uses the term "model of of the psyche" when referring to it and that is still how many people refer to it.

Also, if anyone feels a need to make highly POV-based edits and pointy comments in their edit summaries, then these need to be supported with very strong and properly cited references which can be easily verified for accuracy. Also, one older reference is not adequate by itself for making a factual statement about the current situation with Enneagram research. Other more recent research indicates other "facts" so we don't make grand truth claims based only on one reference which happens to support a personal bias either for or against something. Ontologicos (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Since the Enneagram is not a scientific attempt to model anything, declaring it "a model" is misleading to the reader. jps (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Enneagrams are just another in a long line of pseudoscientific nonsense to be promulgated without validation. That the independent sources acknowledge this is not surprising. jps (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of your your personal views about its scientific validity the fact still remains that the Enneagram is understood and taught as a "model of the psyche". Therefore that is what we call it. Ontologicos (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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.

Moving against the arrows of one's compulsion[edit]

This article uses the term "stress points" and "security points" and "disintegration" and "integration", the terms used by Palmer and by Riso respectively. It does not use the terms "moving against the arrows of one's compulsion" and "moving with the arrows of one's compulsion" the terms used by Beesing, Nogosek and O'Leary. Vorbee (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Different authors use different terms (often with a different theoretical understanding). We can't always include all alternative terminology and theories, only the more common ones. It seems to me that "moving with / against the arrows of one's compulsion" doesn't mean anything useful without an explanation of how it may be significantly different from the more commonly used terms. If you can provide some evidence that the Beesing etc terminology is still in regular use by many other Enneagram authorities then it might be good to add it to the article. Otherwise I wouldn't want it included. Ontologicos (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)