Talk:Fours (Enneagram of Personality)

Possible Examples
I have removed the 'possible examples' lists as these do not, I believe, belong in an encyclopedia article as they can only, ultimately, be speculative and not objectively factual. If anyone disagrees with this please discuss here. Thanks. Ontologicos 13:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think the enneagram is itself "objectively factual". There is no way to "prove" it, or to prove that any person is any one type, even to themselves. It's not exactly scientific in that fashion, and using well known figures and archetypes to illustrate the points is very helpful. Fictional characters even more so then celebs, since their entire existance lives on screen or in a book.--Gatfish 22:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I agree that "using well know figures and archetypes" can often be helpful in understanding the differences between the enneatypes but I would maintain that whilst this is appropriate in books and journals where there can be the space to articulate the reasons for using certain people as possible examples it is not really appropriate in encyclopedia articles. Ontologicos 09:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about the Enneagram of Personality itself not being "objectively factual", you are largely correct. This argument, however, can be applied to most if not all ideas and theories (and even, ultimately, to existence, God, science etc.) But the Enneagram of Personality, as an idea, is also a "thing" (even if it is actually invalid and only exists in people's minds) which is believed by many to (in part) indicate nine distinct forms of human personality - and that every person's personality has principally developed according to one of these nine forms. Therefore, if the E. of P. is actually valid (and even if it isn't), it seems to me to be important to not speculate about someone's "Enneagram type" unless you can articulate the reasons for doing so - and, as I've already asserted, I don't believe this fits into the principles and scope of encyclopedia articles. Just listing a lot of names does nothing to articulate how these people may be examples of a particular type according to the E. of P. Ontologicos 10:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So then what would be required? Like if an "expert" on the enneagram (if you could define such a person) where to detail out how a character or person is one particular type, then could you put it in there? Your reference to something like philosophy or God is good. I've been to the God article and people argue about it a ton because instead of creating a straight-forward objective article, they bicker about who to reference in describing things, and I'm getting a little tired recently of information being yanked from wikipedia simply because it is not easily asscoiated to something else on the internet. I don't think that was the original intent of wikipedia: to merely catalogue "expert" opinions. I know the arguments about so called original research, but not every article, expecially ones with limited scope, like the Enneagram here, can always be referenced in this fashion. That doesn't make the information invalid. There needs to be a difference between inapropriate for the article and unprovable. This is information that is helpful, yet inherently unprovable. The enneagram is not exactly science, and there are not a big cadre of experts, so the communal natural of wikipedia creates the article, otherwise it would simply be like a dictionary definition, with no deeper content. So by limiting its ambition, we limit its scope, and then it becomes much less informative.--Gatfish 22:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sylvia Plath and Nick Drake in particular are textbook examples of these descriptions. They were clearly labelled as speculative and I can see no legitimate reason to remove them. 82.69.106.43 21:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

These and other people might seem to be "textbook examples" for some people but there may be valid reasons to think otherwise. For example, even though Hitler is indicated as a Six by one of the more influential E. of P. theorists (and most people would probably agree based on how Sixes are described in his writings) others, including myself, believe that Hitler is a clear example of a Sexual Four. The "legitimate reasons" for removing the possible examples list have been commented on above. If you can offer legitimate reasons for including lists of possible Enneatype examples in encycyclopedia articles - rather than in books of personal assessment - please do. Until I changed the headings to 'possible examples' they were included just as examples. Ontologicos 07:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

How about some informed opinion?
"On the other hand, their emotional turbulances and excess fantasizing can cause difficulties with living in the moment, often wallowing in the past and obsessing over the future, chronic dissatisfaction and depression often result, as well as conflicts with others."

It's not so much what's being said, but the sensationalist way in which it's written. The use of the word 'often' there is wholly inappropriate, unless you can actually provide a source which states the majority of Fours suffer from depression (also make clear difference between 'feeling blue' and clinical depression). "turbulance" isn't correctly spelt which speaks volumes about how much time was used before throwing words out there lazily and passing them off as established fact.

I am a Four (well... I've self-diagnosed myself. Not the same thing since the Enneagram is a pseudo-science anyway). I'll admit I fantasise about what could have been in the past and what may be in the future. The only dreams I remember are of the future where I'm in some emotionally overwhelming situation. But this does not lead to "conflicts with others", I can assure you that much. In anything, my Idealistic nature actually inspires others and leads to cooperation.

Please back your claims with sources, or else just don't bother at all. Even if it's just a page reference in a book, or something from one of the numerous Enneagram websites out there. It's just ridiculous people come to here expecting reliable information only to be blasted with totally UNestablished facts. Moreover, it's actually dangerous to give false information when talking about personalities. Ginger Warrior (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Ginger Warrior

I agree with Ginger Warrior, in that the previous description was sensational and one dimensional. A more balanced, less biased description could be more useful. Also, the imbalance toward the negative could be hurtful in ways people perceive their relationships and others, and could give one person ammunition against another. This is ethically disturbing. To use the very little room available here to use words like "exessive" "wallowing" and "depression often results" is misleading, mischaracterizes, and seems more like an axe to grind with a Four in the writer's life than a balanced representation of personality. Robin 3000.

Re: informed opinion
I believe all of the pages which detail the nine types were pulled straight from the book(s). I own two, and all of it sounds exactly like what I've read. Of course the author(s) could have just cited whatever text was used. Killerdank (talk) 07:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have taught the Enneagram since 1995 and have studied it extensively. I don't see all the pages detailing types to be straight from one book. What I do see is negative aspects taken out of context from various books, with biases reflected as a result. I continue to learn about the Enneagram, the instinctive subtypes, levels of development, etc., and am always eager to discover helpful information. When it is presented in a superficial, one-dimensional way and appears to be aggressively biased against one of the types, I wonder to myself if the writer has unresolved issues with a person of that type, and wish a broader, more balanced perspective could be presented. That's where I agree with Ginger Warrior. Robin3000```.