User talk:Adamvalovic

Enneagram etc
The reversions of your original edits on the Enneagram and another article were totally justified and I would have done so myself if I had seen them first. You have been misusing this poll to overstate and mislead what it actually means. That is not acceptable editing. Ontologicos (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your edits with wording and placement of the edit, I'm quite new to Wikipedia, so it helps. However, I think that those reversions weren't justified because their explanation simply wasn't true at all - provided reference DID supported that claim. I only paraphrased what was stated in the research article.

As for the Norcross' poll, I think it is not right to denounce it as "just a poll". A Deplhi poll is a respected scientifically used (at least in psychologic academic circles as far as I know) method to find out the opinion of the most relevant experts. I also think that the scientifically obtained professional opinion of doctoral-level members of important and respected psychological institutions is an important piece of a critique of psychologic model/test. Therefore I think is is beneficial to have this info on Wikipedia. When I have more time, I will try to add more critique of the scientific nature of Enneagram so it can be more complete.

At least in my academic circles, Enneagram is considered as a "psychoquackery" that cannot be used as part of an evidence-based psychological assessment but only as an interesting test without a scientific value. I think it should be also obvious to the readers of the article. Adamvalovic (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)