Talk:Enneagram of Personality

Some Issues

It seems that a number of people are editing this article to promote particular schools of Enneagram teaching. The type descriptions, for instance, are all heavily derived from Don Richard Riso's writings. As many aspects of Riso's Enneagram teachings are highly contentious this is not exactly helpful in what is meant to be a encyclopedia where some sort of general consensus is what is required.

Cross validation....????

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

17 August 2009

Regarding the mass of cleanup tags and proposed rewrite of Enneagram by Irbisgreif:

NB: The Enneagram article started off about Gurdjieff and others' use of what they called the enneagram; then someone added the pseudo-maths; and finally someone decided to move the original material to Fourth Way Enneagram and Enneagram of Personality. Hence, we're left with just the geometry, which is a repeat of the material in Nonagon.

Why not ditch the geometry material at Enneagram (some of which is in nonagon anyhow) and replace it with Fourth Way Enneagram, with a redirect to Enneagram from that article, and a link to Nonagon? May need to add some of the material to Nonagon. Esowteric+Talk 19:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Judging from google books, the most common use of the word "enneagram" in published literature is in the context of personality types/self-help, i.e. the scope of the present article. Content related to that meaning is what users should find when they enter enneagram as a search term. I'd say the Gurdjieffian use of the symbol could be covered in the same article; after all, there is a historical link between the present-day use and Gurdjieff's teaching. I couldn't find any uses at all of enneagram in the sense of "nonagon" in google books.

As for the sourcing issues, we shouldn't build this article on the basis of self-help sources or esoterics manuals. Here is a google books search for books published by university presses that mention the enneagram: [1] I'd suggest this is where a search for appropriate sources for this article should start. JN466 23:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, welcome to the article. I'll be looking at that search as one of my sources for the next phase of rewriting. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a friendly suggestion and with thanks for your efforts, edits labelled "removal of uncited pseudoscience" smack a bit of POV in my eyes. Beliefs held by those in a school of mysticism, providing they are well cited, have as much right to exist as does the contrary belief that such-and-such is pseudoscience, so they could be reworked rather than simply section blanked or censored. Anyhow, good luck. Esowteric+Talk 08:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding references

Have added what references I can find for "Ones" through "Nines". Some are just odd words taken from Oscar Ichazo's diagrams. A few sentences I can't find anywhere, possibly accumulated by a user who's read lots of material on the subject and now very difficult to track down (tried google and yahoo web and google books). Esowteric+Talk 17:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Three Centers of Intelligence section is a copypaste from internationalenneagram.org. Have for now put in quotes and used cite web reference. Esowteric+Talk 09:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If the whole section is a copyvio, it needs to go right away. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done but have left section heading + copyvio notice missing information notice in place for now (other editors may like to know about it or see it). The copyvio may be found at edit diff Esowteric+Talk 10:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup of cleanup tags

Hi Irbisgreif, any chance of reviewing the cleanup tags you added to the article? Have already:

• added a category and taken out catimprove
• added a copypaste tag to the The three centers of intelligence section
• added an unsourced tag to the section Applications (the rest I've referenced myself)

(these section-specific tags are far easier to understand and correct)

Which leaves page the top templates you added:

• primary sources
• refimprove
• advert
• cleanup
• confusing
• disputed
• essay-like
• npov
• original research
• peacock
• tone
• unencyclopedic
• weasel
• under construction
• too few opinions

and

• requires subject expert (which I added).

Cheers, Esowteric+Talk 10:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and remove refimprove, advert, cleanup, disputed, essay-like, tone, unencyclopedic, and weasel. The others I still have concerns with. I'm trying to get input from psychologists, for a second wave of edits, so please leave UC at least. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done thanks. Esowteric+Talk 11:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Points and lines

There are nine points shown on a circle. Some pairs of points are connected by lines. Some are not. What does the presence or absence of such a line indicate? (Or could it be just a dumb decoration?) Michael Hardy (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• 1/7 = 0.142857142857...; 142857 is the order in which the numbers are connected by lines. The numbers 3, 6 and 9 don't occur in the recurring sequence. Note that
• 2/7 = 0.285714285714 ..., i.e. the same recurring sequence of numbers. Likewise:
• 3/7 = 0.428571428571 ...
• 4/7 = 0.571428571428 ...
• 5/7 = 0.714285714285 ...
• 6/7 = 0.857142857142 ..., all having 142857 as their recurring sequence.
• 7/7 = 0.999999999999 (obtained by adding 1/7 and 6/7, or 2/7 and 5/7, or 3/7 and 4/7) --JN466 14:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This response doesn't make any sense. The question is still open: What's the meaning of the lines? What claims about certain connections between different types do they represent? Have these claims been tested scientifically? Hans Adler 10:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms

Needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.39.48.126 (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Seconded 128.214.106.13 (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not really saying much. If there is specific criticism that is verifiable and from reliable sources that can be considered for inclusion in the article. There was a criticism section some time ago but it was removed as most of it wasn't verifiable and mostly vague unreferenced assertions and personal opinions. Afterwriting (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I would personally criticise it as a Forer effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect -Henri

Enneagram and Catholic Church

I would like to put this new section about Enneagram and Catholic Church. What do you think? --Sviolante (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A special mention goes to the connection between Catholic Church and Enneagram. If part of the clergy showed clear distrust against an esoteric circles doctrine, it is undeniable that since the '70s this tool spread to become one of the major personality indicators in seminaries and Catholic universities.

After learning from Naranjo the use of enneagram, the Jesuit Robert Ochs taught at Loyola University Chicago the first course on the Christian use of it; from then on it began to spread in many Christian communities (exponents are Sister Mary C. Beesing OP, Fr Robert J. Nogosek CSC, Fr Patrick O'Leary SJ, Fr Richard Rohr OFM, Sister Suzanne Zuercher OSB and the former Jesuit Don Richard Riso).

The climax of hostilities occurred in a document of the Pontifical Councils for Culture and for Interreligious Dialogue in 2003 , labeling enneagram as a tool that "when used as a means of spiritual growth introduces an ambiguity in the doctrine and the life of the Christian faith".

This document has been followed by studies highlighting links to the Church's tradition, keeping apart the esoteric background. We can find references of that sort of links in the Pauline epistles (i.e. 1 Cor 12:7, Gal 5:22), but only Evagrius Ponticus elaborated a list of nine fixations preventing soul's vocation to holiness and the corresponding graces to overcome them:

Temptation	Grace
1. Anger (οργή)	Patience (μακροθυμία)
2. Vainglory (κενοδοξία)	Humility (ακενοδοξία)
3. Pride (υπερηφάνεια)	Modesty (ταπεινοφροσύνῃ)
4. Envy (φθόνος)	Willingness (αφθονία)
5. Avarice (φιλαργυρία)	No attachment (ἀκτημοσύνη)
6. Sadness (λύπη)	Joy (χαρά)
7. Gluttony (γαστριμαργία)	Self-control (ἐγκράτεια)
8. Lust (πορνεία)	Moderation (σοφροσύνη)
9. Acedia (ἀκηδία)	Bearability (ὑπομονή)

Another similitude is the graph of the nine names of God, of Blessed Ramon Llull. He believed that the Trinity was the intimate structure of reality and that the Incarnation was the last and necessary expression of the Divine. In his treatise Ars Generalis Ultima (1303), Llull argued that through three rotating triangles, representing the nine aspects of God, all knowledge could be combined in new connections. Llull's Ars Brevis published in 1307, represent a great number of images that are reminiscent of the Enneagram.

The Jesuit Athanasius Kircher (1601-1680) referred to the "enneagram" of Llull in his treatise of 1665 Arithmologica, in which he made a connection between astrological planets and types of personality. On the cover of the book, Kircher represented an enneagram surrounded by nine orders of angels.

• Notes

This could be a valuable contribution; however, the passage could be simplified into maybe one relevant paragraph and avoid direct copying the cited sources. Seems like a style issue to me. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A section of this kind could be very valuable and there is no reason why there shouldn't be one. There are, however, a few style policy issues at present with what you have written - and also the fact that English obviously isn't your first language and the grammar needs improving. It is also not an established fact that Evagrius, Llull and Kircher are actually sources for the Enneagram of Personality as it has emerged in more recent years. So the section would need to reflect this in a neutral manner rather than making "truth claims" about things that can probably only remain speculation. Let's see how we can improve things. Regards, Ontologicos (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That's true: english is not my first language (...neither the second actually!), that's why your help should be important. Anyway, I didn't say that Evagrius, Llull and Kircher are sources for the modern Enneagram, but many catholic supporter prefer to refer to them rather than to Gurdjieff or to Ichazo. Thanks for the advices! --Sviolante (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Check it now!--Sviolante (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I have again removed this section. The serious problems have not been addressed. The English is still not adequate and the section is riddled with speculation and assumptions. There is no historically verifiable evidence to clearly support claims that the Enneagram of Personality has its origins in the quoted sources. Articles are not based on speculation. Comments about speculative opinions can be included but they must be adequately referenced. If you can find adequate references regarding speculation about possible connections with Evagrius etc then they can be included. However, as this section is currently written it is not acceptable within an encyclopedia article. Ontologicos (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I repeat what I said before: I didn't say that authors were sources for the modern Enneagram, but it's verifiable that catholic supporters referred to them as sources instead of Metatron. I talk about “similitude”, “reminiscent” and not that this are the sources of the Enneagram of Personality. You can find this speculative opinions in the books of Rohr, for example. If the English is still not adequate please feel free to make the adjustments needed.--Sviolante (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please explain Validation removal

This [2] what are your specific issues to be addressed? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Post hoc, you can specify the validation removal explanation here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the research's conclusions did not in fact indicate the "validity" that you - and apparently Riso - have claimed for it. Secondly, it was not well written. Thirdly, it is very doubtful that information and references that are based on a doctoral thesis are even close to acceptable. Therefore it is really up to you to try and justify this section. Ontologicos (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the paper [3]? Was something specifically misrepresented from this source? Are you rejecting this source? How would you write it better to represent this source? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have read it and its conclusions fall far short of supporting claims of the Enneagram having been "validated". What it does partially support is the contruction of the RHETI but this is not the same thing at all. But, in any case, making such claims in an encyclopedia on the basis of a doctoral thesis is not acceptable. As the section currently is it should be entirely removed. Ontologicos (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What would you accept from the source to better describe and elaborate the research's significant to this article? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be totally missing the whole point that the research just isn't acceptable for claiming "validation". The way I have worded the section is at least a more accurate statement about it but the whole thing is still very problematic in terms of the acceptable referencing policies. Why should this section remain in the article if it violates these policies? Ontologicos (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Simple, because the content meets WP:V. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source issue

OK .. Apparently Ontologicos claims the "research which doesn't qualify as published and reliable" [4] We seem to have a reliable source issue here. Ontologicos, do you have any sources to support your claim? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop playing games. It is your responsibility to defend the research as being a reliable source for claims of validation. If you think you can then please do so on the basis of Wikipedia's referencing policies. Ontologicos (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

OK .. It's a reliable source, published by organization with peer review and reputation for fact checking. Now, where do you get this idea that it isn't reliable? Or, that I exaggerated from it? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo(what)?

Where is the verified source support for this [5] claim? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• This pseudo source triggers wiki spam filters http:// www. statemaster. com/encyclopedia/Popular-psychology Having difficult finding reliable sources. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• This is from a course [6], is it a reliable source? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I found many blogs and unreliable sources claiming the enneagram as pseudoscience. There is a support that "some" consider it as pseudoscience; however, I have been unable to identify who "some" really is, and suspect this issue isn't adequately supported at this time for inclusion in this article. As analogy, if the FDA regulated "pseudoscience" labeling, then there would be little evidence to support the labels claims. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Added an FAQ to address this issue. Will remove the category tag in 24 hrs. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I added the category Pseudoscience. According to the wikipedia category criterion: "Pseudoscience is a broad system of theories or assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific, but that are not considered being so by the scientific community." The onus is on enneagram to prove it is science not for a WP:RS to prove it is not. As it stands the "scientific" evidence for the enneagram is threadbare as evidenced by the article's own sources of a couple of masters dissertations of dubious quality. --Wlmg (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean you are citing Wikipedia as a reliable source? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the enneagram is so obviously silly and arbitrary I doubt anyone has devoted much time and money to scientifically debunk it. I'm not citing wikipedia as an RS. Placing enneagram in the category of Pseudoscience should be self-apparent. --Wlmg (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Silly, like in the content you added is based on your assumptions? There is a difference between the Enneagram of Personalty as a theoretical construct and the RHEIT which over a dozen scientist have results to validate its attributes. I can not find one serious person to quote this subject as pseudoscience. Why are we wasting time, I wonder. I'll update the FAQ to be productive about your concerns. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There are two sources supporting the validity RHEIT in the article. Rebecca Newgent's Ph.D. dissertation is one and Mustafa Abdullaha's study that also appears to be a masters dissertation. Since when are dissertations considered WP:RS? I will look into this, but could only see them as reliable if they were notable dissertations of highly notable persons. Where are the dozen you speak off?--Wlmg (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the scholarly method produces scientific dissertations as reliable sources which are routinely applied to verify and reference Wikipedia content, the scholar's notability is irrelevant now. What matters is the peer review process inherent to granting a degree. I've counted 3 completed RHEIT dissertations, citing scholastic authority from Rebecca A. Newgent, Patricia E. Parr, Isadore Newman, Kristian K. Higgins, Mary Ann Elizabeth Giordano, Ralph Piedmont, Mustafa Abdullah and Qassem Saleh. The professional validations were performed by Don Riso and Russ Hudson working with David Bartram. There is one major PH.D by Sara Scott, et. al underway. The most notable enneagram scientists in this group must be Riso and Hudson for constructing the REHIT. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I call shenanigans. Alerting WP:FTN about this promotionalism of enneagram lunacy. jps (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

FAQ

The FAQ talk page, created by the FAQ Template is up for speedy deletion. Please explain? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• What is the precedent for FAQ pages? And what was in this FAQ page that did not belong in the main article? — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 22:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The FAQ was intended to address recurring Talk page issues. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC) see: Template:FAQ Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

• What is this FAQ Template? What are these talk page issues? But above all, why do you need a separate page? The text is below. Keep it on this page. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 22:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

See again: Template:FAQ and the box above. The recurring issues are addressed in the FAQ text, thanks. For some reason, the FAQ template created a sub-page and uses the Talk page. I happened to edit the actual sub-page article. It get's speedy deleted an then someone else, nominated the Talk page for deletion (without talking) and now your are involved. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Restored. My apologies. Strangely, I had never encountered FAQ pages before. I shall rap the knuckles of the person who nominated it for deletion. I assume the idea of a sub-page is to simplify matters when talk pages are archived. Note that it is supposed to be in the Talk: namespace. Creating Enneagram of Personality/FAQ was a mistake and it has been, quite rightly, deleted. Incidentally, if you had written {{FAQ}} in your first message instead of "FAQ Template", you would have shortened the process considerably. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 23:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the questions in the FAQ as there is 1) no indication on this page that those questions are "recurring" and 2) the answers are wrong. jps (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

These additions are really hostile exaggerated claims, [7] with little scientific support. I can only assume they are intended to inflame a POV issue, or maybe not. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Was there any consensus to start a FAQ on the talkpage? Is there any evidence the answers you provided are correct? jps (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

lacks scientific foundation

Here's a line for ya:

"[enneagram of personality] remained a set of teachings without any scientific foundation." [8]

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it?

jps (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly how is your abusive attitude and soapboxing meant to be constructive? Afterwriting (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Who exactly am I "abusing"? What we have here is evidence from a respected researcher that Enneagrams are a whole bunch of hooey. Pretty obvious stuff, obviously, but also points that can be used to make this article a bit more balanced so that readers are aware that it's all stuff made up one day by not-so-smart psychotherapists. jps (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't know what you are talking about and you are obviously determined to wage a misinformed activist campaign campaign based on your personal prejudices. Afterwriting (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Amazing that you have insight into what I know and don't know and what I'm "obviously determined to wage". I guess the magic of enneagrams can make one a pretty prescient, can't it? Maybe if I believed in enneagrams I'd be more psychic and be able to tell what motivates you? Maybe? jps (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hooey, link in your source is a website published opinion by Robert T. Carroll. Please attribute the hooey to whoey. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean Robert T. Carroll, the expert in all things hooey? Sure, that's attributable. How about

Robert Todd Carroll, the premier expert in debunking pseudoscientific claims has pointed out that the enneagram of personality is "a set of teachings without any scientific foundation".

Are you liking that better? jps (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have some assertions for him and you about the "pseudoscientific claim"? The assertion is vague and lacks specific measurements for reproducibility or falsifiability. It fails to apply operational definitions, so that persons other than the definer can independently measure or test them. It fails to reasonably apply the parsimony principle because the assumptions are not clearly identified. Pseudoscientific is obscurantist language, and apparently technical jargon in an effort to give the claim a superficially scientific trapping. The absence of boundary conditions to the claim, is most concerning, because there are well-articulated scientific evidence building about this subjects, limitations under which the predicted claims do and do not apply. In short the "pseudoscientific" claim is pseudoscientific rubbish based on subjective opinions themselves. It's essentially meaningless distraction to the article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Your distrust of Carroll is perhaps telling but irrelevant. Commentary about how much you dislike "obscurantist" language is beside the point. Carroll was clear: this subject is without scientific foundation. That's a fact that we can incorporate into this article and doesn't look to me to be a "distraction". jps (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I trust Carrol said that, it's verified. However, you may be exaggerating what that means, please do be careful. A single author's opinion should not be cause to ran sack an article with made up issues. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Carroll can safely be said to be the only independent commentator we've got right now to look at this subject. To that end, his statement that there is no scientific foundation to this subject seems to be something we can simply assert. No hedging based upon your distrust of the man necessary. It's like mistrusting any other plain statement. We don't even have someone who has disputed him! Fact it is and you really can't hide behind a section of an essay to obscure this. jps (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Tagged

This article has a lot of issues. I tagged it to get some more eyes on it. Edit warring is a big problem here, I see. jps (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you be specific please. What is bothering you? Maybe we can scientifically diagnose your issues. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the tags are pretty specific. jps (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Do the point to specific content issues which can be edited to improve Wikipedia, or maybe they just a result of your weight. Must i guess? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should write a coherent sentence first. I made some edits which were reverted that should be helpful hints as to what is problematic with this article. jps (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)