Talk:Enneagram of Personality/Archive 3

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)
 * The criticism section is just a bunch of scared Christians pushing their agenda on a neutral system. Deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.244.133 (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Restored. Seems you need a better reason than your personal preferences for deletion. Vsmith (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You wanna war with me? Ok pal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.244.133 (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is what it is and can stay, the reader can decide for themselves. Unless, there is a source to add this POV for neutralization? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need a source to explain why something isn't relevant. Lot's of organization's have criticisms, but what value does the Vatican's criticism add for people who want to learn about the Enneagram? The Vatican will attack anything that doesn't fall within their closed minded framework.
 * You're missing the point. We are here on Wikipedia to make a WP:NPOV .... that's the value, that's the standard we must uphold. That means we can express all the points of view in the article. Vatican statements are only relevant here to the extent they are about the Enneagram. Your points of view about the subject are relevant to the article to the extent they have reliable sources to support them. I have not seen any sources that support your views to exclude the sourced material. So we assume they represent your opinion, which others may share, but we must have sources to support the content, else it can be challenged as original research. If you continue to press for the removal, you may find a community of editors who will challenge it, and if you push really hard in a bad way, you may find administrative actions. I hope this doesn't happen, cause we all want folks to stick around, have a good experience and continue editing, to grow their capabilities. Criticism may help you, particular about WP:undue or merging the criticism better into the article; however, the passage looks fine to me. I am an advanced enneagram student, the criticism makes and just want's me to learn further about the Vatican's history and statements with source support. It's doesn't seem too unfair, and actually they may actually be interested in the enneagram, like you are.  That can't be too bad. As far as a Vatican conspiracy against the enneagram, well I would put better faith into the human conspiracy of ignorance and apathy. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not missing any point. It's an Encylopedia not a place for different organization's to take pot shots at ideas they don't like. So what if it's sourced? Lot's of things are sourced, but we aren't going to go on every damn page on here putting every point of view from every "credible" organization just because someone sourced it are we? Now when people come to read about the Enneagram they get to read about the church's opinion? What? They church has an opinion about EVERYTHING. If we followed your logic wikipedia would just turn into a forum for arguing about religion. Egads! Let's go to EVERY single geological page on wikipedia and source why the church says all that information should be ignored because the earth is 6,000 years old. That would be pretty asinine wouldn't it? A wonderfully "official" way to troll every single scientific page with a "sourced" valid opinion. What a joke! ha! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.101.89 (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

So, what are exactly the reasons for removing the Vatican's criticism? Apart from "[it] is just a bunch of scared Christians pushing their agenda on a neutral system". --Enric Naval (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well let's give Wikipedia fair time. If we put the Vatican's criticism of a neutral psychological system then we should go to every single Vatican/Christian article and say why the Enneagram say's it's... wait that doesn't make any sense. The Enneagram itself has no organizational body, dogma, and religion. It doesn't tell people how to live, or what to believe. All it does it explain how they behave. It doesn't say they should behave a certain way. It's totally asinine to put one religions criticism, and is obviously just a grab at getting a little more attention for why people should believe in christ. The best part, is that Riso (who was one of the original Ennegram authors) stated that right before he was going to become a priest he discovered old documents on the Enneagram in the Vatican archives! They had suppressed it for years! He was so weirded out that he abandoned becoming a priest and then started writing his Enneagram books. Isn't that great! Gotta be a source on it somewhere, or maybe I should just email him and get him to post it on here himself. Oh btw if Jesus was alive he would be so disgusted by the church he would probably burn himself in protest. Now if this was the Enneagram Church wiki it would be a different story, but it aint! Get it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.244.133 (talk • contribs)


 * The criticism should be kept in the article. It is reliable and verifiable, and it comes from an important world religion. Binksternet (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not relevant to source a religion's "issues" with a neutral psychological system. It's just someone else's opinion. We might as well plaster everyone's on here while we're at it. The enneagram naturally exists in nature, and is pre-conscious. The vatican doesn't even know what they are criticising. They don't understand it, so their entire argument is invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.244.133 (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. I have no respect for the Vatican's distorted understanding of the Enneagram - which is largely based on Father Mitch Pacwa's very flawed understanding of it - but that doesn't mean this criticism shouldn't be included in the article.  The criticism itself is mostly crap but coming from the Vatican makes it notable crap. Afterwriting (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to avoid neophytes being driven away, but then again the kind of people that like the Enneagram probably don't trust the Vatican anyway.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.127.29 (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a WP:RS to support "The enneagram naturally exists in nature ..." cause that would be significant! Else it's 71.198.244.133's unpublished opinion, which WP:OR won't allow it in the article right now. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that "the enneagram naturally exists in nature ..." in the sense that what is being called the "Enneagram of Personality" is an accurate model of how personality dynamics operate in human nature. However, this is ultimately a matter of belief which, like God, is probably unproveable in ways which would be acceptable to the dominant scientific paradigm. On another note, are you (the IP editor above) able to say more about what Riso claims to have found about the Enneagram in the Vatican?  I knew Riso many years ago when he was just starting to write about the Enneagram.  We had a number of conversations about this but I don't recall him ever mentioning finding anything about it in the Vatican. At that time he, like just about everyone else, thought it came more or less intact from Sufi sources. Afterwriting (talk) 07:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Riso told two Enneagram teacher's I know. They didn't make it up. He was training to become a Jesuit, or one of the orders I forget which. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.101.89 (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies for interrupting, there are enneagram sources that talk about why the christian religious folks reduced to only 7 sins. This would be good material for the article and would balance the Vatican criticism, possibly demonstrating a selection bias to push an incomplete set. As for my personal observational believe, the 9 types have a natural genetic phenotype basis; however, the scientific sources aren't there yet, maybe one day, but not yet.  The fact that sins concurrently occur in many religious doctrines is reassuring; however, they are constructed differential to meet the specific religions context.  The Vatican's call for science, seems to have a positive tone to me, more than negative about the enneagram. Missing science is a valid criticism. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Grammos or gramma?
I have changed grammos to gramma in the introduction. As I recall, I included grammos in the definition some years ago after asking a classics lecturer if there was such a word (after seeing it in some references to the Enneagram) and he agreed that there was and said that it meant something written or drawn. However, it would appear that ancient Greek wasn't one of his strong points as I cannot find any other references to grammos other than as the name of a mountain. I can, however, find many references to gramma as a Greek word with the meaning of something written or drawn. Therefore this appears to be the correct Greek word. Afterwriting (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Alert concerning the "Enneagram in the Narrative Tradition"
I want to alert other editors to a disturbing and blatant attempt by David Daniels and others involved in the "Enneagram in the Narrative Tradition" to seek to have this article edited in ways which are favourable to that organisation and its understanding of the Enneagram. When I first came across this article some years ago it was pretty much all based on Riso's often idiosyncratic theories and terminology. Over the years it has gradually evolved into an article which is now much more balanced and doesn't particularly favour the teachings of any particular Enneagram school or so-called tradition. There have been a number of previour attempts by Enneagram teachers to promote their particular theories in the article. Members of the "Narrative Tradition" need to understand that any attempts by them to manipulate this article in order to promote their ideas will only diminish their reputation and credibility. The webpage about this attempt is found here: http://www.enneagramassociation.org/TALK/dec2011/TALK-news.12-11.html Ontologicos (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Any diffs to point to for this NPOV concern? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see a David Daniels book the Further Reading, but none in the References ... this could be concerning. Thanks for the heads up. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I remember a number of edits at times from apparent students of Palmer and Daniels. They are recognisable by their use of certain kinds of phrases and terms. As much as they might think so, the Palmer and Daniels' approach is not more worthy of representation in the article than any other one. It is important that the article is protected from all conflict of interest editing. This has been a real problem at times. I am always alert to this problem and do my best to ensure that the article is not used to advocate particular theories or teachers. Afterwriting (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am the person who responded to the "request for volunteer" post referenced above (it was in our January, 2012 newsletter, and I started learning about this page, and Wikipedia in general at that time.)
 * I hold a PhD in Human Development, and my dissertation was on the Enneagram. I think I have a pretty good sense of the Enneagram's history and it's current status in popular culture and in the realm of science. I hope to be able to work with other Wikipedia editors who are far more knowledgeable than me in both the mechanics and philosophy of Wikipedia. I strongly disagree with the characterization of the Narrative Tradition's motives made above, but I would much rather move forward towards improving this page than argue about what has gone on in the past. If you see problems with my edits, I know you will let me know! Maybe we can all learn from each other.EnglishDrama — Preceding unsigned comment added by English Drama (talk • contribs) 19:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for having the integrity to "out" yourself on this matter. Perhaps you can tell us in what ways you think this article fails to represent the Narrative Tradition and, more particularly, why that school should be entitled to any special consideration. I, for one, have had something of a protector role regarding the article ( which is not the same as an "ownership" role ) when people representing themselves or some Enneagram school have attempted to edit the article in ways which reflect particular points of view.  You also need to be aware that attempting to recruit people to edit an article in this kind of way is strictly forbidden and the fact that David Daniels has done this does not reflect well on him or his Enneagram school. And, frankly, I think his concerns are greatly misplaced anyway as the article has been adequately balanced and factually accurate for quite some time now and I do not see anything of significance in it which he should object to. Afterwriting (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no question of "outing" - I am not working on this page to promote one teacher or school over another - I am working on this page to improve it. Right now, the page has a grade of "C" - it obviously needs work. What I was objecting to was your characterization of the EANT recruitment notice. Please go back and read it again - the EANT Board was asking for someone to coordinate postings, and to monitor and repair vandalism. To me, coordinating postings means that if someone has a suggestion about an improvement that could be made to the page, that I will work on it. As I see it, the only real problem here is one of sources/citations. I completely agree with you about the centrality of the Neutral Point of View Pillar: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or a living person". To me this means editors need to "show your work" - what source are you citing to support your statement of fact?. Then there doesn't have to be paranoia about who is doing what. And speaking of paranoia, the recruitment notice that you link to above is from a private newsletter - please let me know how you obtained access to it, so I can let our webmaster know if there is a problem with our website security. I am glad that we are having this conversation, and I am glad you brought up your concerns, but you need to acknowledge that you were linking to a private document, and that is not cool, at least without some kind of explanation of the circumstances. English Drama (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC) English Drama


 * I'm sorry, but you don't seem to have much understanding of the problem and how Wikipedia works. You certainly did "out" yourself as the person who responded to David Daniels' completely unacceptable website call to recruit one of his students to edit the article on behalf of his organisation.  You therefore have a clear conflict of interest and need to understand Wikipedia's policies on this at WP:COI. The WP:MEAT policy is also of some relevance here but I am not accusing you of this.  I suggest that you also go back and read what Daniels' actually wrote - in particular his comment that "There needs to be: (1) references and material representing the Narrative Tradition".  Why does Daniels' or any other Enneagram teaching organisation "need" to be represented in this article?  As you for your comments about a "private newsletter" you need to address this to Ontologicos who posted the link in the first place.  But there doesn't seem to be anything "private" about the website that this page appears on.  Once something appears on a publicly viewable website then it is obviously no longer private.  But whether it was meant to be private or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is what was done - and what was done is not acceptable. Afterwriting (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

ok - these will be my final comments on this thread: 1. I didn't "out" myself because I was never "in". 2. I believe that what the Board meant by saying there "needs" to be coverage of the Narrative Tradition was that the Narrative Tradition is part of the Enneagram of Personality, and so the article is not complete without reference to Narrative Tradition. 3 Everyone editing this page is going to his or her "crumb of knowledge" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html. My crumb of knowledge is different than yours, that doesn't mean mine is biased and yours is neutral. 3. Finally, again, as long as facts are properly sourced and cited, there is no problem. English Drama (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)English Drama


 * 1. You did "out" yourself as the person who responded to Daniels' call to edit the article on the organisation's behalf. You declared this fact yourself. So you definitely have been "in" on here for that reason.  2. You have not given a proper answer to the question about why the Narrative Tradition "needs" to be represented in the article.  What does your comment that it is "part of the Enneagram of Personality" and that the article is not "complete" without it mean or imply?  The "Narrative Tradition" is simply a relatively recent modern organisation which was started by Helen Palmer to promote her particular Enneagram teaching approach - it is not some ancient tradition which was somehow passed on to her in some kind of lineage of authority.  3. There is no problem in you editing the article so long as you are not intentionally doing so on behalf of Daniels and Palmer or in order to promote or represent them. Peace, Afterwriting (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Enneagram comes from the Greek word εννεάγραμμο and means "nine-lined"
Recently I edited this entry (Enneagram of Personality) to correct the reference on the etymology of the word "enneagram". Just one day after the user Afterwriting changed it to the previous opinion which is incorrect. Considering that I don't want to edit back again and again this entry I invite anyone who wants to take part in this and particularly the user Afterwriting to talk here before we make the final edit on this subject.

So I will say one more time that which is easy to understand. The word enneagram comes from the Greek word εννεάγραμμο which quickly said means nine-lined. There is a huge misunderstanding even among Greeks (it happens that I am one of them) that are not well informed on subjects of philosophy and in particular Pythagorean philosophy. Anyone who knows Sacred Geometry and Arithmosophy would not do this mistake. Similar words exist and will proof what I say. Of course user:Afterwriting did not obviously spend time to study the subject in the direction I pointed at.

user:Afterwriting (and certainly there more with her/his opinion) asserts that the word "enneagram" comes from the Greek word ennea (εννέα=nine) and the word gramma(γραμμα=letter). If you read his words inside the entry you will realize that he does not know not even this simple plain and very straight forward translation of the Greek word gramma (γράμμα) as letter and he asserts that gramma(γράμμα) means generally something "written" or "drawn".

The correct etymology is that "enneagram" comes from the words: ennea and grammi(γραμμή) which means line. I suggest you read the etymology in the entry Pentagram which is a similar word creation as ennegram. The editor there asserts that pentagram means "five-lined" and this is well known to anyone who has studied preliminarily philosophy and/or esoterism. Exactly the same structure is followed in the word ennegramm which means "nine-lined". There are other similarly built words like "hexagram", "heptagram" e.t.c.

So if we want Wikipedia to be a trustworthy encyclopedia we must study more thoroughly what we write and be open minded so that we can understand which the truth is in cases that it is needed that we learn something new too. We must not be fanatics but listen and study when it is needed. It is really a pity in a Wikipedia like this one which is in the most universal language of our days and is read by so many millions of people to leave such a mistake smear this entry.

• • • Orphiwn (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC) • • •

• Orphiwn (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC) •


 * Regardless of what you think the "correct etymology" for "enneagram" is or should be, the fact is that "enneagram" as it has been used in the Fourth Way tradition of G.I. Gurdjieff ~ and from there with the Enneagram of Personality ~ appears to have come from the construction enneagramma and is not, therefore, exactly equivalent to "hexagram" or "pentagram" etc.  So, while the word "enneagram" in Gurdjieff's teachings might have been derived from ennea and grammi meaning "nine-lined" the evidence indicates that it wasn't. Further support for this is the title of a relatively old Fourth Way book, The Enneagramma of the Man of Unity by Irmis B. Popoff. Therefore, at least for the purposes of this article, the word "enneagram" is defined as a construction  from ennea and gramma. I should also mention that there are also plenty of online references to gramma giving its meaning as something "written" or "drawn" and that this was also the meaning provided to me by a university classics professor.  So I'm far from alone in your accusation of not knowing "this simple plain and very straight forward translation" of gramma as "letter". It should also be noted that gramma is also used in other articles on the Enneagram of Personality such as the Italian and German articles. Therefore, unless you can offer some more compelling and convincing arguments, then the origins of the term "enneagram" as it is specifically used in this article needs to remain as it currently is. Afterwriting (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2013 (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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVKent882 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 22 June 2011


 * Unfortunately there is no proven correlation between the two systems. Any correlations listed would be speculation or one individual's unique interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.86.96.26 (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

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)


 * 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. 121.214.103.103 (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 71.198.244.133 (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 108.86.96.26 (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
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
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
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121125114645/http://www.internationalenneagram.org:80/enneagram_history/index.html to http://www.internationalenneagram.org/enneagram_history/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131001211733/http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html

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

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

Wings
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
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?
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
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)

Moving against the arrows of one's compulsion
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)

Connecting lines
I restored deleted material, removed because the deleter didn't accept the source as legitimate. Well, the other two references cited in the section aren't known to me, nor I suspect, to most Wikipedia editors and readers. So the deleter is saying that I/he doesn't recognize this source as legitimate, setting himself up as an authority. Not acceptable. And yeah, I see that he's an academic psychologist, but still not good enough to set up as the authority. Tapered (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And I have again deleted the material as it clearly violates various editing policies as I indicated. And keep your sarcastic comments to yourself in future. Ontologicos (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You stated that the source wasn't reliable. Where is the community consensus on reliable sources for enneagram issues, pray tell? YOU declared it unreliable, as I indicated above. So, I've re-reverted. Present me with evidence, and I'll change my estimation. Sarcasm is a wonderful tool for uncovering self-appointed 'authorities' with no sense of humor! Tapered (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's make it clear why this is a violation. The deleted material relied on a reference to a self-published website which is not considered acceptable and constitutes orginal research. The material was also added by an editor who has a declared COI with the organisation associated with that website. That is two clear violations. And you need to stop edit-warring. If material is removed for policy reasons then it must stay removed until agreed otherwise. The problem here is not with the information itself, it is the source of the information which is not acceptable. Ontologicos (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: edit warring. Interesting observation. You make a reversion which I revert with a cogent explanation. You follow with a revert, and a Talk entry which explains nothing, and yell, "Violation." I revert again, asking for an explanation. Finally, you produce an explanation with real information. I get to compare references and have to concede that it's almost certainly not a good source. The closest thing to edit warring was your second reversion. For reasons of my own, I find these criteria in this situation amusing, but that has nothing to do with Wikipedia and its guidelines. Regards Tapered (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I need to be cryptic about this, but—in the interest of fairness—my own obliviousness about the passage of time was in part responsible for this kerfuffle. Tapered (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You obviously know very little about editing principles and guidelines (or being civil). Ontologicos (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * One of my worst flaws is pomposity, but reading you be pompous fills me with real Schadenfreude! Tapered (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Please note: for practical purposes, all of my criticism of User:Ontologicos above was wrong. In short—my bad. I've already left a message to this effect on his Talk page. Tapered (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations
This article deserves to be congratulated for pointing out that Gurdjieff did not develop descriptions of the nine types. Vorbee (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

A.H. Almaas
Why does the "See also" section give a Wikilink to A.H. Almaas? I have had a look at the Wikipedia article on him tonight and it did not seem to have much on the Enneagram of Personality. Would it not make more sense if the "See also" section included reference to people such as Oscar Ichazo, Claudio Naranjo or Don Richard Riso? Vorbee (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Vorbee : "See also" sections are for other related articles which are not already linked in the body of the article. Almaas is influential in the Enneagram world. Afterwriting (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

"Model of the psyche" and POV issues
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)

Sounds like that is what people who are into the Enneagram of personality call it. And what is a model if not descriptive? If model of the psyche is used here, perhaps it should be in quotes w a citation. TheArcane03 (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)