Talk:Enneagram of Personality/Archive 1

Revisions 1 December 2009

EDIT (2 December): Ontologicos is clearly not going to allow me any access to the main page for the foreseeable future (the irresistable undo button). You can see the article with my suggested revisions and re-formatting here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enneagram_of_Personality&oldid=329250616 - and there is a full commentary on the entire text below. I invite all interested parties to consider the proposed revision, and Ontologicos's stated objections to it (below), both of them in the light of Wikipedia's quality standards, and make comments. If you feel strongly enough, you could even put the piece back up, and take up the argument with Ontologicos so that I don't have to: I'm obviously not going to get anywhere; whoever he/she is, he/she clearly has massive ad hominem issues against me personally for some reason; I can assure you that the ad hominem accusations against me are simply untrue, and you can see for yourselves that there is no attempt by Ontologicos to provide evidence for them ... but this isn't supposed to be about me anyway, it's about the article. I believe the proposed revisions, developing the article to take the form of an objective review of the most widely published literature on this subject, renew the article in a way that meets all appropriate objectivity standards for Wikipedia articles, which the version present before the revisions clearly does not. 217.171.129.72 (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In cooperation with my publisher I have recently made the entire text of my enneagram book available free of charge online. As a distraction during the many hours of HTML-bashing that this took to organise, I dropped by to see what Wikipedia currently has online about the enneagram, and found a very sad-looking page indeed, with more flags than I have ever seen anywhere...

This article has multiple issues ... sources or references ... peacock terms ... neutrality ... original research ... unverifiable claims ... confusing or unclear for some readers ... may not include all significant viewpoints ...

...plus the challenge:

This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

I have sought to be objective, to be fair to past contributors, and to follow all of Wikipedia's other guidelines, to produce the new text that I have now uploaded. The purpose of this talkpage piece is to explain each addition and change.

I have donated a new image that includes the arrows, and included it in each section so that readers can have it in front of them as they scroll down.

I have created an entirely new introduction, starting with a bare single-sentence explanation of what it's all about.

The Enneagram of Personality Types identifies nine basic personality types, then uses a distinctive diagram, consisting of a circle and nine arrows, to show how each individual is likely to exhibit aspects not only of their own type but of one or more other types at different times as well.

I have then stated our fundamental problem in maintaining this page of Wikipedia, namely there is no single authoritative source for the Enneagram of Personality Types. Instead, there are rival authors and schools each arguing that they are the best / most authentic / most authoritative / only valid source. Rather than state it so trollishly, I tell the story:

In 1992, Oscar Ichazo fought and lost a court case in which he claimed copyright in the Enneagram of Personality Types. He claimed to have discovered, rather than invented, the system; the judge ruled that, while you can copyright an invention, you cannot copyright a discovery.

Over the last thirty years, many different authors have worked independently to develop the system further, often using different terminology for the same features, and introducing new features which then may or may not be taken up by other authors.

So where do we go from here? We can't write authoritatively about The Enneagram of Personality Types, as there is no single authoritative source. What we can do, however, is write about what is being said and written by other people about something they or others call The Enneagram of Personality Types.

But including all of it would run to millions of words - just try a google - and there are over 300 books in print. Taking "the main English-language authors" on the subject as the subject of our Wikipedia piece may be arbitrary in some sense, but it seems to me to be the only half-sensible way of limiting the scope of the piece to something even half-manageable; and defining "the main English-language authors" on the subject according to volume of sales at amazon.com and amazon.co.uk may also bring accusations of arbitrariness, but it seems to me that it is both an objective measure and a justifiable decision, compared to any other way of deciding who the main English-language authors are. It is, ultimately, POV-neutral.

Nevertheless, amongst the main English-language authors (as defined by volume of sales at amazon.com and amazon.co.uk) there remains a consensus on the core features of the system: the nine types, and their interaction according to their arrangement around the diagram.

It would sadden me greatly if eager proponents of particular minority views on the enneagram set about upsetting this clear and definitive attempt at objectivity by constantly inserting minority views, or making pedantic (minority-view-specific) changes to terminology (I have tried to use simple, readable, non-technical language, and stated that different authors use different terminology, which is true), just to make a (minority) point. I hope that by setting out the terms of reference so clearly at the top of the piece, I have discouraged such actions. It remains open for supporters of any other specific authors in the (say) top 20 best sellers in either country to slip in, wherever appropriate in the piece, any additional or alternative perspectives that they bring, clearly stating where those perspectives concur with, or differ from, those of other authors or the general consensus of the "main" authors.

The system is promoted both as a tool for personal development and as a means for better understanding other people and their gifts and motivations.

I fear that this (above) sounds a bit waffly. It's my attempt to say what the thing is for. I think it is worth attempting to say what the thing is for.

For the purposes of this review, the main authors as defined above are:

From the US: Don Richard Riso and Russ Hudson; Helen Palmer; Richard Rohr; Elizabeth Wagele

From the UK: Michael Hampson

All done on sales.

I have tried to be objective and fair.

"This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." Experts have points of view. Some of them are also capable of objectivity: if this were not the case, none of them would ever be able to write for Wikipedia, and the text "This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject" would become self-contradictory.

Evidence that I'm trying to be fair: if you use the search facility on my own site, you will find that I (deliberately) do not use the word "Personality" even once in the entire book, except to refer to the work of others in the appendix (it's too ambiguous a word in general use) ... and here I am embracing an article that has the P-word in the title.

The text proper, then, follows the terms of reference set out in the introduction: that amongst the main English-language authors on the subject - as defined and indeed named - there remains a consensus on the core features of the system. That consensus is what will now be described. I have not put six different page references at the end of every sentence to prove that all six authors agree ... please don't cover the page in "citation needed" tags :( ... it's Wikipedia, it's constantly peer-reviewed ... and the bibliography is at the foot of the page.

The nine types are referred to by the numbers ONE to NINE. The numbering refers to their location on the diagram that shows their interconnections, but is otherwise entirely arbitrary, for example a higher number is no better or worse than a lower number; the nine points on the diagram are simply numbered for convenience, going round clockwise, with the highest number at the top, like a clock-face.

Even though there is no consensus on names for the nine types (other than the numbering, which is used consistently by all authors), the nine types are clearly and consistently identifiable across all authors.

OK, that's an assertion, but if we can't say at least that much, the entire project disappears in a puff of logic; and actually I'm not entirely sure that I totally believe it (too many authors begin to confuse ONE with SIX and THREE with EIGHT as they lengthen and lengthen their descriptions of the types) ... but if I started down that avenue, it would be an opinion piece, or new research, not an encyclopedia article. Short descriptions are usually "clearly and consistently identifiable across all authors".

One universally adopted identifying feature is the key temptation of each type, a list that closely resembles the classic list of seven deadly sins. Riso-Hudson and Palmer attempt to summarise the key features of each type by giving it a name; Hampson identifies each type by the strategy supposedly used by each type in engaging with the world around. A list of gifts completes this brief table of the key features of each type.

I know these are brief as type descriptions go, but more would mean either creating and posting original 'research' / mini-essays (bad) or pinching someone else's (also bad), and I thought the previous long list of features had poor readability. I played with several formats and this one seemed the best compromise.

	Name (Riso-Hudson, Palmer)	Strategy (Hampson)	Temptations (consensus)	Gifts (consensus)
ONE	reformer, perfectionist	be on your best behaviour	anger	idealism
TWO	helper, giver	give and care	pride (in the classic sense of vain self-importance, not the modern sense of healthy self-esteem)	kindness, generosity
THREE	achiever, performer	achieve and lead	deceit	inspiration
FOUR	individualist, tragic-romantic	be true to yourself	envy	creativity
FIVE	investigator, observer	think it through first	avarice (greed in the sense of hoarding and stinginess)	wisdom, discernment
SIX	loyalist, devil's advocate	stick with what you know	cowardice (in the face of fear, rather than the fear itself)	loyalty, faithfulness
SEVEN	enthusiast, epicure	stay positive come what may	gluttony (as the metaphor for excess of any kind)	joy (not superficial happiness, but the deep joy that faces the pain and rejoices regardless)
EIGHT	challenger, boss	test people out	arrogance ('lust' in the classically broad sense, rather than the modern narrow sexual sense)	fighting for justice for the weak or powerless
NINE	peacemaker, mediator	keep it simple	sloth (idleness)	reconciliation, peace, humility

This seems the logical place for links to more, and I have tried to be objective in what to include based on what is available online.

Individual authors’ summaries of the key features of the nine types can be found here:

• Hampson: ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT NINE

• Hurley-Donson

• Riso-Hudson

Longer descriptions of the nine types can be found here:

• Berkers

• Fauvre: ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT NINE

• Hampson: ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT NINE

• Riso-Hudson

• Sheppard

• Waag

Now for the other features of the system.

The previous piece on the Centers had been removed for copyright violation, so I created a new one.

The first pattern universally recognised amongst the nine types is their grouping into three groups of three.

FIVE, SIX and SEVEN are the head (or thinking) types, where logic, rationality and objectivity come naturally as the primary influence in decision making.

TWO, THREE and FOUR are the heart (or feeling) types, where the matters of the heart come naturally as the primary influence in decision making – such as ongoing relationships, past and present and future, whether with individuals or groups or the world at large.

EIGHT, NINE and ONE are the gut (or body or intuitive) types, where gut instinct and intuition come naturally as the primary influence in decision making.

For most of the writers being considered here, this particular grouping into three sets of three is just one of several patterns that can be discerned amongst the nine types.

For Rohr, however, these categories are fundamental to the system, with each one being the main underlying influence producing the recognised characteristics for each of the three types in its group.

Hampson takes this a step further, arguing not only that all the recognised characteristics of THREE and SIX and NINE are the direct result of the dominance of heart, head and gut influences respectively, but also that all the recognised characteristics of the six remaining types are produced by the interaction of a primary influence, as universally recognised above, with a secondary influence, being that of the adjacent group; so, for example, all the recognised characteristics of EIGHT are produced by the interaction of a primary gut influence with a secondary head influence; and all the recognised characteristics of ONE are produced by the interaction of a primary gut influence with a secondary heart influence, and so on around the diagram.

That's the biggest piece you're going to find about my own work. I genuinely think it's fair. Other authors or their supporters have the chance to add/expand their sections, subject to the Wikipedia rules and the integrity of this piece.

The description of the three centers above seems useful and fair to me, but I don't see it in the article. Was it removed again? Psturtevant (talk) 07:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

All my work on the article was deleted en bloc by Ontologicos, three times. Read from the top of this section (Revisions 1 December 2009) for details, plus the section 'Response from Ontologicos' below. Michael Hampson (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr Hampson, you deleted the entire previous article en bloc, including all the work of other people. Then you replaced it with an article heavily quoting your own work, linking to your own website multiple times, including text telling people to visit your site. You then claimed ownership of the article by claiming to be one of "the main authors." This is not how wikipedia works, and I suggest that you read the core policies of wikipedia including WP:COI WP:SPAM WP:BRD WP:OWN WP:3RR and WP:Consensus before attempting to edit this article again. Martin451 (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Same principles on links; these really are the only ones I can find online to a decent standard; other users can obviously add links if they find any.

More on the characteristics of the three centres can be found here:

• Hampson (summary diagram)

• Hampson (full text)

• Johnson (useful text summary and practical example)

I rewrote the wings text in what I hope is a fair review of the literature.

Each individual is likely to exhibit aspects not only of their own type but also of one or more other types – for example the type called Helper often exhibits some aspects of the type called Reformer, and vice versa.

This phenomenon emerges in a pattern that can be illustrated by arranging the nine types in a circle, where each person will typically exhibit characteristics predominantly from their own type, but also from one or both neighbouring types – for example a person who exhibits characteristics predominantly of ONE is likely also to have some characteristics drawn from either NINE or TWO.

Some authors assert that there will always be characteristics from both wings, others that there will always be a stronger wing and a weaker wing. Riso-Hudson strongly support the latter theory, giving rise to the popular device NwN as a way of specifying enneagram types, for example 1w2 (ONE with a TWO wing); this actually produces a system not of nine types but of eighteen, which are even given their own names, although there are still only nine arrows on the diagram for the stress and security functions.

The same for the arrows section (previously stress and security points)

The final aspect of the system universally recognised concerns how people change when under pressure, or when feeling particularly secure.

This is illustrated by the distinctive irregular pattern of arrows on the diagram.

A move in the direction of the arrow is a stress move, whilst a move against the direction of the arrow is a security move – for example a person who normally exhibits the characteristics of ONE may, when under stress, change to exhibit instead the characteristics normally associated with FOUR; or, when feeling particularly secure, those normally associated with SEVEN.

People do not carry on any further around the pattern of lines: the only move possible after a move to the stress or security point is back to the starting point.

Authors are split approximately 50:50 on the issue of a third phenomenon, whereby, under extreme pressure, the move may once again be to the security type; Hampson calls this 'clinging to false security'.

Riso-Hudson insist that the stress move will always be to the worst aspects of the stress type, and the security move to the best aspects of the security type, and even suggest that making the move to the security type is a positive life choice and a valid ambition. Hampson argues that the various moves may equally bring out the best or the worst of the linked stress and security types, and that contentment will only be found by celebrating and persuing the best aspects of your own type rather than any other.

I don't really understand the Instinctual Subtypes or their place in the system, so I did a review of the literature and included the material (redrafted) from the existing Wikipedia piece (which is what it's all about, this Wikipedia thing...)

Some writers identify three versions or sub-types of each of the nine types, called the self-preservation (sp) sub-type, the sexual (sx) sub-type, and the social (so) sub-type.

These represent different primary instincts: the instinct to protect oneself (sp), the instinct to connect one-to-one with others or partners (sx), and the instinct to find a place in the group or social order (so).

Combined with the basic nine types, this makes 3x9=27 types.

Riso-Hudson suggest that each person has a main instinct and a supporting instinct, giving six subtypes (sp/sx, sp/so, sx/sp, sx/so, so/sp, so/sx). Combined with their eighteen main types (1w2, 2w1 etc) this makes 6x18=108 types.

Rohr uses the terms sexual, social and self-preserving, but identifies them with the three centers – heart=social, gut=sexual, head=self-preserving – keeping to an enneagram of nine types, along with Hampson, who does not use the terms at all.

The History section redrafts/replaces the previous Development section (some of which did not really belong here anyway), and expands on the issues raised in the introduction. There really is no consensus at all to report in this section, apart from the names of the key players: even what they said and did and when is furiously disputed. It's almost a hopeless task to include this section at all, and I fear it may invite endless edit wars, but here goes. The Riso-Hudson article is actually very good, and fair to everyone except their arch-rival Palmer ... hence the link. Helen Palmer claims to have learned the enneagram directly from Naranjo, but Riso-Hudson's article says that no major enneagram author did so; they're either insulting her status or accusing her of lying. My view is that saying here that she did or that she claims to have done achieves nothing.

There is much speculation about the origins of the contemporary Enneagram of Personality Types, including uncited references to Sufi sources, Pythagoras, and the Vatican Archives, and disputation amongst twentieth century authors about who said what first, who studied with whom, and which version is most authentic.

Riso-Hudson have a lengthy worthwhile essay reviewing the issues here.

A key early figure is G. I. Gurdjieff, in whose work the distinctive enneagram diagram is seen for the first time, although according to Blake, Gurdjieff and his followers resent and reject the contemporary development of the enneagram of personality types.

It was Oscar Ichazo who first assigned what he referred to as 'ego-fixations' to each of the nine points of the enneagram figure, and these formed the basis for the development of the contempoary enneagram of personality types. Claudio Naranjo, a Chilean psychiatrist, studied Ichazo's material and developed it further, and began to teach the material in California from 1970 onwards. Amongst his students was Jesuit priest Robert Ochs, who harmonised the system with many aspects of catholic teaching; its use spread rapidly in catholic seminaries and retreat houses, which is how Don Riso, then a Jesuit seminarian, encountered it in 1973.

The earliest book in print is The Enneagram: A Journey of Self Discovery by Maria Beesing, Robert Nogosek and Patrick O'Leary, all members of catholic religious orders, dated 1984.

Michael Hampson claims to have developed the first rational, scientifically respectable explanation for how and why the system works, and is alone amongst the major enneagram authors in making explicit links between the enneagram of personality types and other uses of the enneagram.

That's it.

I took out the piece on "the enneagram figure", as it does not belong here, given the small portfolio of different Wikipedia pieces under Enneagram disambiguation. I took out 'Directional Scales': if we included a paragraph on every paper or opinion ever published, we would run out of bandwidth; Riso-Hudson include part of the theory, but it's just 'yet another' minor two-page observation in a 400-page book. People can add more sections if they wish, but we really must keep some terms of reference in mind, or the page becomes worthless again. I was thinking about a "minority views" or "individual authors' work" section ... maybe later, if there's a need. I took out the highly criticized and unreferenced "applications" section; there's that sentence in the introduction about what it's all for.

I have left in the "see also" internal links section, taking out Arica on the basis that I haven't named the school and anyone who wants it will find it via Ichazo, and taking out Fruit of the Holy Spirit because I can't really see why it was there. I suspect the other enneagram articles probably need freshening up as well, but I daren't go there right now.

• Enneagram (disambiguation)
• Enneagram (shape)
• Fourth Way
• Fourth Way Enneagram

I have reduced the list of books from what seemed to be a dump of anything that happened to be about the enneagram (people can get that on amazon or google) to a list of books relevant to the article it concludes.

• Blake, A.G.E. (1996). The Intelligent Enneagram. Shambhala. ISBN 1570622132.
• Palmer, Helen (1988). The Enneagram: Understanding Yourself and the Others in Your Life. Harper & Row. ISBN 0062506730.
• Hampson, Michael (2005). Head versus Heart and our Gut Reactions: The 21st Century Enneagram. O Books. ISBN 1903816920.
• Riso, Don Richard (1999). Wisdom of the Enneagram. Bantam. ISBN 0553378201. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Rohr, Richard (2001). Discovering The Enneagram. Crossroad. ISBN 0-8245-1950-7.
• Rohr, Richard (1990). The Enneagram: A Christian Perspective. Crossroad. ISBN 0-8245-1185-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Wagele, Elizabeth (1994). The Enneagram Made Easy. HarperOne. ISBN 0-06-251026-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Wagele, Elizabeth (1995). Are You My Type, Am I Yours? : Relationships Made Easy Through The Enneagram. HarperOne. ISBN 006251248X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Wagele, Elizabeth (1997). The Enneagram of Parenting: The 9 Types of Children and How to Raise Them Successfully. HarperOne. ISBN 0062514555.

...and I haven't touched the external links section, perhaps someone else could review it and update it some time.

• International Enneagram Association (China): Hong Kong website
• Arica School website
• International Enneagram Association website
• Association of Enneagram Teachers in the Narrative Tradition
• History of the Enneagram of Personality article
• Enneagram Monthly website
• TALK Journal

um... that's it.

Michael Hampson (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Response from Ontologicos

I have reverted Michael Hampson's recent major edits as there a significant number of contentious claims being made. It is unacceptable to make such radical edits without first seeking some kind of consensus through discussion. It is also an unacceptable misuse of the article to self-promote himself as an "expert". I will comment further on these issues when time permits. I do not want to enter into an editing war with Mr Hampson, but I will not tolerate any kind of ownership of the article as demonstrated by his behaviour. Articles are meant to be edited co-operately, not in this way. Ontologicos (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You make four specific allegations to justify undoing the edits, as follows.

1 there [is] a significant number of contentious claims being made.

There are no contentious claims being made. This is an objective review of the literature. If you believe that contentious claims are being made, say what they are.

2 It is unacceptable to make such radical edits without first seeking some kind of consensus through discussion.

Here is a brief record of my attempts to contact the three people most active on the talk page since August, when all the flags were put up and help from an expert was requested. This is copied from JN466's page, where Esowteric kindly pasted it on my behalf, before I had worked out how to navigate the full Wikipedia interface.

Hi Esowteric. You seem to be a key person in the discussions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Enneagram_of_Personality about all the flags put up by Irbisgreif (now retired) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enneagram_of_Personality. I do not have the expertise to do the technical side of editing/updating the page, but I do have the subject expertise, and sufficient objectivity to create an article without bias. I am a (minor) published enneagram author, with a scientific background, and I did lots of research before weighing in. I would be happy to write an objective article, incorporating the material already up on the site, and happy for you (and anyone else) to review it for bias and objectivity before putting it up. My own material is online at www.enneagram.co.uk if you want to have a look, but I would create an entirely new objective review of the literature for Wikipedia. I would be really grateful if you were to offer to do the technical work of formatting and uploading it for me. In the meantime, my inexpertise at using this site extends to really having no idea how to use this page (*please* reply to ****@****.co.uk or I'll never see your reply), and to having no idea how to contact the other main current talker at the talk page, namely JN/Jayen466. If you think we need another head on the task, perhaps you could contact him? Looking forward to hearing from you. Michael Hampson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.205.3 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Michael, will pass this message on to Jayen466 and email you. Sorry, I really don't have the time, nor the expertise to contribute, but feel free to work on the article. Esowteric+Talk 18:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

3 It is also an unacceptable misuse of the article to self-promote himself as an "expert".

I do not use the article to self-promote as an expert. Read it again.

The article does mention my own work, but I define my terms clearly. It is all based on book sales. If you consider that to be an unacceptable basis for an encyclopaedia-style review of the subject at hand, please clearly explain why, and state clearly what you think the objective basis for the piece should be.

4 I will not tolerate any kind of ownership of the article as demonstrated by his behaviour

I do not claim ownership of the article. Anyone else who is willing to be objective and POV-neutral, as I have been, and as required by the Wikipedia rules, is very welcome to contribute. It would probably improve the piece further, as others will have different areas of (equally objective) expertise.

As none of your four justifications for undoing the edits survives scrutiny, I have restored the edits. The justification for the edits is set out clearly above. Perhaps, before undoing someone else's hard work en bloc, you could explain, in similar detail to the above, for each edit in turn, why it is so very important that it be undone, and how and why the previous version is better.

Michael Hampson (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

From Ontologicos posted on Michael Hampson's talk page.

You are required to discuss any proposed radical editing of this article *first* before imposing them on everyone else. I know who you are and I am very aware of your history of blatant self-promotion. So let me make it quite clear to you that your current abuse of this article is *not* acceptable and will not be tolerated. No one has ownership of Wikipedia articles. There are so many policy and style problems with your edits that its impossible to know where to begin. If you won't discuss your radical edits first then they will continue to be reversed until you do. And let me remind you that "discussion" doesn't just mean telling people what you've done. Ontologicos (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you know who I am because I use my real name. Who are you?

You are required to discuss any proposed radical editing of this article *first* before imposing them on everyone else ... So let me make it quite clear to you that your current abuse of this article is *not* acceptable and will not be tolerated.

Now who's claiming ownership of the article?

There are so many policy and style problems with your edits that its impossible to know where to begin.

Why not have a go? Or if you don't have the time, ask someone else to have a go? Simply undoing someone else's work with a cry of "I don't like it but don't have time to say why" is hardly in the spirit of Wikipedia.

Michael Hampson (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think we are all idiots, Michael? Your long history of blatant self-serving self-promotion of your idiosyncratic enneagram book across the internet is well-known to enneagram authorities and is treated with justified derision. You have now taken a wrecking ball to this article and replaced virtually all of the careful and responsible editing of many other editors. You seem to just expect everyone to just meekly accept this. What you have done is a form both of vandalism and ownership and is disrepectful of the work of other editors. Articles are meant to evolve co-operately through discussion - they are not the personal projects of self-proclaimed "experts". You are misusing the article and abusing the process by which articles are developed. You are also way out of line by transferring comments I've made on your talk page to this discussion page - it's another example of your irresponsible attitude and behaviour. You should also take careful note of the mind-boggling hypocisy of your comments above - especially the one about "undoing someone else's hard work". Ontologicos (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Enneatype Profiles

The individual Enneagram pages ("One (Enneagram), Two (Enneagram), etc.) are poorly organized, mostly copied and pasted from sources on the 'net, and they don't all follow a single template. Ought to be fixed.

Yes, the problem has already been noticed - as you will see from comments in the talk section of some of these profiles - but it will take a considerable amount of rewriting to undo the problems created by the person who first put the profiles on Wikipedia. Some work on this has already started - but life keeps getting in the way! Ontologicos 14:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

Hello, I am translating this article to the Czech wikipedia and I want to know what the images in front of each type mean. Thank you--89.176.62.151 16:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Legitimacy

Can we get a section describing how the system is viewed by others both in the scientific community and the psychology community?--24.118.206.25 19:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's generally not. The only thing I know about its 'legitimacy' is that most psychologists don't take it seriously, but I don't know why. (You want a personality inventory the shrinks take seriously, check out the Big Five. Evidently they derived it scientifically. Well, good for them; but the Enneagram's easier to use.) Marblespire 09:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[IN REGARDS TO THE CRITICISM SECTION]

This criticism of the Enneagram ignores the distinction that the Enneagram is more of a right brained concrete system, and not a left brained technical system. The human psyche can never be fully quantified in any system - which gives the Enneagram credibility in the sense that it constricts any avenues for its use to lead to analytical dead ends. No one can be put in a box because it's truly flexible. There is no single pattern to anyone. The more a user thinks on what being a "one" or "five" means the deeper the meaning becomes. People can tend to mislead themselves by placing too much attention on the number assignment of their archetype. They group the Enneagram with numerology, but it's anything but that. The Enneagram is credible because it's non-falsifiable. Human psychology can't be measured on an empirical basis, and any attempt to criticize it for lacking this misses the point.osmosys

These scientists are criticising the Enneagram for not being falsifiable. However, no system to classify and predict human behavior could ever be falsifiable (which begs the question why they single the Enneagram out in the first place. Perhaps to debunk that some people consider it empirical?). The human psyche is not a series of on and off switches. Therefore, the best indicator of the usefulness of a personality/character system is in its range at describing human behavior to those that use it. The less falsifiable the better the system for working with the human psyche. The key to the Enneagram is that within it's non-falsifiable nature is an archetypal framework that gives a groundwork for the user. The real question with the Enneagram is does it help people understand themselves, and does it help people understand the complexity of their nature that in a non-falsifiable sense can never be imperical.

I propose that a counter-criticism section is added using some of the thoughts I have put in here. Thank You osmosys

Regarding criticism and legitimacy of Enneagram:

I think it should be noted that there was no scientific consideration in the creation of the Enneagram. Indeed, it is the product of the combination of numerology, neo-Freudian concepts, and both Eastern and Western mysticism.

I think it's also important to note that the very type-"theory" of personality upon which the Enneagram is based has been firmly discredited by the psychological community--as it turns out, people cannot be classified into distinct personality types (at least not with any validity), especially if those types weren't created using any sort of empirical data.

In response to the idea that we cannot empirically understand human psychology: scientists are furthering their understanding of human psychology every day using empirical data, and with quite a bit of success. Using methods such as factor analysis, they are able to discern the different aspects of personality; through experimentation, they are able to discern the influences of factors such as biology and social settings on an individual's personality.

Finally, it should be noted just exactly what the scientific psychological community does think of the Enneagram: it is new age, pop-psych. drivel; it may be fun to take, but it is invalid and irrelevant.

24.125.133.143 (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are, of course, entitled to your opinions on these matters but they are riddled with questionable assumptions and half-baked assertions. You seem to be simply dismissing the possibility of the Enneagram of Personality's validity on the basis that "there was no scientific consideration in the creation of the Enneagram". This comment - and your whole focus on empiricism - reeks of fundamentalist 'scientism'. The E of P has not just been 'created' out of some mishmash of numerology, Freudian concepts and mysticism. Its validity is claimed on the basis of observation and experience - therefore you either 'get it' or you don't. You might as well - and I wouldn't be surprised if you do - dismiss any possibility of there being a God using your tired and redundant arguments. Some of us believe that the E of P is, in one way or another, actually of divine origin. So put that in your pipe in smoke it! Ontologicos (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's examine some of your assumptions: That there is a god or gods. That it or they are the source of the Enneagram. That, despite basic psychological research which tells us that nothing more than the confirmation bias and the Barnum effect are at work (i.e., the techniques employed by astrologers and fortune tellers--I wouldn't be surprised if you thought they offered valuable insight as well), the Enneagram somehow offers a new and valuable understanding of the human psyche and this can be confirmed by observation and experience. That "fundamentalist 'scientism'" is illogical, but somehow belief in the divine origins of some parlor game is not. That I'm an atheist (I am, by the way ;)).

You can believe whatever you want (and I'm clearly not going to change that belief). I just think the people who use Wikipedia should know your belief has nothing to do with scientific evidence. Perhaps I should tell you some more about the scientific research which contradicts the simplicity of the Enneagram and offers us a much more in depth and valuable understanding of personality, except evidence apparently isn't all that important to you--especially the emperical kind, which is odd since you appeal to it in terms of "observation and experience."

I don't make a habit of putting things in my pipe and smoking them, perhaps that's why I'm not fooled by these ridiculous, new age, pseudoscientific sorts of things.

24.125.133.143 (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The article omits the important mathematical method of the Enneagramme's creation. The three points of the triangle are 9, 3 and 6. The points connecting the wings (in Enneagram personality terms) or hexad (in Systematics terms) are derived from 1/7 in decimal form. 142857. It is a continuing decimal, repeating 142857 into infinity. When the nine points are are written surrounding a circle, with 9 at the top and 1 directly to its right, a triangle is made connecting 9, 3 and 6. The "wings" are created by drawing a straight line from 1 to 4 to 8 to 5 to 7 and then back to 1. Follow these simple instructions and you will have created your own Enneagramme.

The patterning of digits that leads to the enneagram can be generalized to other number bases. A description of this can be found at Introduction to N-Grams

It also does not discuss two other branches of development of the enneagram. Least well known is the enneagram as applied to body types. See Joel Friedlander's book, _Body Types (The Enneagram of Essence Types)_. It is also integral to Systematics as propounded by John G. Bennett (see his books _Enneagram Studies_ and _Elementary Systematics_), Tony Blake (see _The Intelligent Enneagram_), and others. Systematics in general, and the enneagram in specific, have been applied in organizational development. An example of the latter can be found in Richard N. Knowles' book, _The Leadership Dance_.

To the anonymous user who keeps changing this article: It seems to me that you want to gloss over the very real differences that exist between different schools of Enneagram thought. That's a pity. This is an encyclopedia, and it should represent the reality of a situation - not some kind of idealized version of the way things "should be." If there are real disagreements, and there are, why do you keep taking information about them out of this article? Correct me if I'm mistaken in what you've been doing. Moncrief 20:43, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Reply: You change prior comments just to make polemical and contentious arguments that have little to do with "facts" and "truth" but more about promoting your devotion to Oscar Ichazo. Your edits are a misuse of the article. If you claim some sort of right to make such contentious comments then expect others to change them in turn.

That doesn't make any sense. You are accusing me of something without any factual basis whatsoever or any examples of what you mean. I have absolutely no devotion whatsoever to Oscar Ichazo. I do happen to know, however, that he and his followers continue to call the Enneagram an "Enneagon." Why this fact troubles you, I'm not sure nor do I particularly care. It is however a fact. How are my changes "polemical" and "contentious"? This is an encyclopedia; it's meant to be factual. Please point out examples of what it is you're referring to. Rather than accuse me of things without any basis in evidence, why not help build a factual, NPOV encyclopedia? Moncrief 04:08, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, the information that you continue to remove (which I didn't write to begin with) is also factual. There are serious disagreements within the Enneagram community. This is the truth. I'm not sure why you think that serious disagreements need to be glossed over here. Your accusation that I am some kind of a "devotee" of one school or another lets me think that perhaps you are too close to the subject to be NPOV (considering you make that accusation on absolutely NO evidence). This is not a place to sugarcoat differences. It's a place to present reality as it is. Moncrief 04:11, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Reply: Your article on Ichazo could easily be read as a piece of devotion / promotion rather than an objective attempt at "facts" and "truth". But anyway, it seems to me that you have not been editing the article so much as to highlight areas of disagreement between Enneagram theorists but to offer some doubtful assertions of your own for reasons of your own. I also "happen to know" that Arica has also used the term 'Enneagram' in recent years so your comments about this are not entirely correct.

There IS no article on Oscar Ichazo. I have not the slightest bit of "devotion" to him. I imagine you're referring to my article on Arica. If you have any factual disagreements with it, please edit that article. Again, "offer some doubtful assertions of your own for reasons of your own" refers to what exactly?? You have got to provide me with an example. Casting out general accusations without any concrete examples doesn't streghten your point at all. I truly haven't got any idea what you mean. Please stop with the personal attacks and search for motives where none exist. I am interested in creating a factual encyclopedia. If you have a dispute with the facts I'm presenting, provide (factual, non-emotion-based) examples of what it is you dispute so that we can build a consensus. Moncrief 04:37, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Your compromise statement re: the Enneagon in the article is fine with me. That works, and that's what building consensus on Wikipedia is all about. Moncrief 04:38, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

the figure itself

Is the figure correct? The reason I ask is that someone just sent me an invitation to attend a class on enneagram, and the image sent with the invitation is different from the one shown here. The one shown here has a double-pointed arrow extending between positions 6 and 9, while the one on my invitation points only from 9 to 6. Also, on the one shown here, the line extending between 6 and 3 has no arrow heads, while the one on the invitation shows an arrow pointing from 6 to 3. Just wondering. BTW, from my perspective, the article was very helpful and I appreciated having a fairly unbiased view of the history and belief structure surrounding this odd bit of psuedoscience. I found the discussion even more enlightening. Thanks to all.

Different people have stylised the enneagram in a variety of ways. basically, the enneagram is the circle with the lines in it. The arrows are used to illustrate growing or regressing (for want of better terms) in our spiritual development.--Peacenik 07:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

I really wish these discussion pages were arranged like a forum. It's difficult to see who is arguing what.

Please stop deleting references to character types, or character archetypes. If you personality typology advocates can't handle another perspective make your own, "enneagram of personality" wiki.

Pushing on one view of the enneagram is not encyclopedic. You are not authorities. Don't pretend to be. I don't care if Riso or Palmer jump on this wiki either.

Thanks -Osmosys

Type articles and use of labels vs. One, Two, Three, etc.

Of the three types that have their own article, all are linked by a name or label. I've always found the labels rather distracting, because they emphasize only one facet of any given type. I'm going to put up redirects on the three existing articles to, for instance, Type One (Enneagram), because Ones are NOT Reformers, or at least not JUST Reformers; they're a lot of other things too. No single title could possibly encapsulate it all; so why not just call them Ones? Marblespire 09:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes! I studied the types in a small group for several years, and we came to the same conclusion, that to be objective, you just call the types Ones, Twos, Threes, and not by any of the other labels. This also avoids the problem of using Riso's labels vs. Palmer's vs. Ichazo's vs. whoever else's. Gator007 19:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

An alternative to eliminating the labels might be to include many of the published labels for each of the enneatypes, This at least dilutes the "JUST a ..." effect but allows the reader a more memorable connection. Psturtevant (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

History missing

Hi, can someone add a History section? Who invented it? And when? And how? -- Barrylb 01:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply: There was a history section but somebody erased it for no good reason!

I too think this is essential, as neither dictionary nor encyclopedia have it before 1965, apart from the Egyptian Ennead, which isn't mentioned here, and is the family of gods which includes Osiris and Isis which may or may not overlap the nine types. I went to archive.org and there isn't anything of the old history section. Looking up the data from Google, I came across the first school of Arica being opened in 1971 by the man born in 1931, so this is pretty new. Mentioning Jesuits in the context of Enneagrams has to be considered misleading. Links to the other personality classification types might be worthwhile in context, as well as historically.

Reply: The personality system of nine types is very old, and was referenced in The Iliad and The Odyssey, revealing the personality types forward in the first, and backward in the second. For any student of the enneagram who doesn't want to read those works, it is obvious watching the recent film O Brother Where Art Thou, which is based upon The Odyssey, that the nine personality types are all represented there, though not in order.

Humans are body, soul and spirit. The soul is mind, will and emotion. Three of the enneagram types are oriented around the will, three around the mind, and three around the heart, or emotion. [submitted by Cynthia J. Pirl December 2006]

Type 8: Leader, Protector, Challenger

Why isn't there a page about type 8? All the other types exist, with considerably long articles. Except for type 8 where there isn't an article at all? I don't have enough info to write one and in my opinion, there must be an article for it. Mohamed 14:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Strangely enough, that article has been repeatedly deleted as "nonsense", though it was no more nonsensical than the related articles. -Will Beback 22:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't you think there should be one? Imean someone should start writing an article for type 8. It really looks like a minus not having an article for it.

I've undeleted the old article, Eight (Enneagram), removed most of the content, and added some catgories, the template, etc. If you have any reference works on the topic it'd be great if you can use them to flesh out the article. There's also a link to an external source which has info. -Will Beback 19:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is hilarious, Whoever is offended by the eight description and removing it obviously is one. Psturtevant (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Critical study by Catholic High School?

I removed the following because there was no citation to the "study" and I could find nothing about it on the internet. If someone can find a peer reviewed journal or book I would be fine including it in the article.

In addition, a two year study by Kellenberg Memorial High School, beginning in 2003 and concluding in 2005, found that 93% of study participants, after taking an Enneagram test, attributed to themselves the qualities of their supposed personality type, though their earlier accounts of their own personalities were sharply contradictory. This further extends the belief that the Forer effect has a great effect on users of the Enneagram. These findings have seemingly proven that the Enneagram is based on little or no fact.

--Chinawhitecotton 16:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the deal with the Henry Purcell thing is. I'm using a library computer, someone else must have edited it. Anyway, I can't find any documents of it online either. I attended the school as the study was being conducted and they still refer to it occasionally. It was apparently a big deal for the school, or at least they made it out to be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.79.167.173 (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Hi - I am a bit confused, but did you put it back in the article for the third time? I still think we shouldn't cite a study that is unnamed, no authors are given, and can't be found. That is just a basic rule. --Chinawhitecotton 16:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh. He's put it back again. Although his other comments in other entries (in particular the ones on Henry Purcell) demonstrate that he's a considerably less reliable source of information than he considers the Enneagram to be.

NPOV

This article appears to be written from the point of view that the enneagram concepts are valid and widely accepted; I believe that it needs substantial editing to conform with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. -- The Anome 13:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I second that this article has severe NPOV issues. I came to look for information about the subject and how it is regarded by various viewpoints, including empirical science. This talk page did much more to further my understanding than the main page. The fact that there is no criticism section when a google search shows a nontrivial body of critical work is a problem. Also problematic is the degree to which numerology and deism evidently (from reading the talk comments from the "pro" editors) feature in enneagrams, yet this is again not reflected in the main page. 65.57.245.11 (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a criticism section that was fairly recently removed (not by me) because it was riddled with many unverified claims. Although you might consider me one of the "pro" editors I am highly critical of many of the ways in which the E of P is understood and taught and I am not against there being a criticism section as long as it is properly verified and not just made up of personal opinions by the "antis". Also, many of the comments on this talk page comes from an earlier period when the Enneagram of Personality material was mixed in with Fourth Way and other Enneagram traditions. This is possibly the reason for your concerns about numerology and "deism" (I'm not sure what exactly you are meaning by this - perhaps my recent personal opinion about the possible divine source of the E of P?) I have tried to keep the article as NPOV as reasonably possible as it has often been targetted by people wanting to promote more particular theories and schools of thought. Ontologicos (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Rodney Collin's earlier typology

Rodney Collins, an associate of Ouspensky's, had a personality typology in the book "The Theory of Celestial Influence," although it was totally different than Naranjo's better-known one described in the article. I neither have a copy of the book, nor the time or the interest to reread it and summarize it, but I'm deleting the assertion that there was never a enneagram personality typology before Naranjo. Rsheridan6 02:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is unlikely that there never was an enneagram personality typology before Naranjo. Probably Gurdjieff had one but it did not pass down to us (not in any of his followers' published writings, anyway). I disagree on Collin's The Theory of Celestial Influence (copyright 1954). The typing system in that book is more about body types than personality types, as the discussion is of types in art (paintings). Collin does make it clear, however, that each body type has certain personality traits associated with it. Gator007 19:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That "body type" and "essence type" system is well known; and is expounded on the web. I'll find a link to it! Jeremytrewindixon 04:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC) The book is "Body Types: The Enneagram of Essence Types (Paperback) by Joel Friedlander (Author), Liza Casey (Illustrator)" ; oddly I haven't found quickly a summary of the system on the web although a few years ago I spent much time arguing with exponents. Its associated with the Fellowship of Friends anyway. I'll post alink when I find one. Jeremytrewindixon 05:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Gurdjieff as quoted in Views From the Real World talks of an astrologcial system based on "seven or, some say, nine" essence types. Jeremy (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To Ontologicos and Drange net

Thanks for the split and the editing that you did, as this situation is a lot better than the previous one. Aeuio 20:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

PS Maybe the stuff from the enneagram talk page that is related to the enneagram of personality only should be moved here as well? Aeuio 20:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (did it myself/I think I did it right) Aeuio 22:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Research Section

It seems to me that people are misusing the research section of the article to promote (their own?) speculative theories and that the whole section has become much bigger than is either necessary or useful. It is also creating possible NPOV and original research policy issues.

I don't like deleting or heavily editing sections when people have taken the time to add things but this section has the potential to get out of control (if it hasn't already). Ontologicos 09:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that the research section is being misused to promote original research and is taking up too much space in the article? I am tempted to heavily edit the section but would appreciate other people's thoughts first. Thanks. Ontologicos 16:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

To Ontologicos: As you evidently know, circa 2007, there is no scientific validation of the Enneagram, nor of any personality theory. So what we have is a vacuum when it comes to received knowledge on a bssis in science for the Enneagram. So a fair Research section in Wikipedia might read simply: "There is presently no known basis in science for the Enneagram." But the section doesn't say that. Instead, it includes negative speculation based on spiritualism, Catholicism, psuedoscience, and the Forer effect. That you have included negative speculation, but deleted "positive" "speculation", reveals your own true motivation. Further, as the author of Personality and the Brain, I know you haven't read the book so the fact that you have characterized something you haven't even read as "speculation" reveals further your mindset. I know with Wikipedia that people like you can hide their identities behind their user names. Although you can hide your identity, your own biases are more difficult to conceal. Peter Savich 11:20, 13 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.64.151 (talk)

Instead of resorting to indulgent criticism of my "mindset" you might care to calm down and check the Wikipedia policies on these matters. You would then discover that promoting original research in articles is not acceptable. The reasons for this should be pretty obvious. I do not have any agenda except to try and ensure that this article is not misused by people seeking to promote themselves, their particular Enneagram tradition or any ideas that are not reasonably established and accepted. Why should any particular original research - and yours in particular - be included in this article? Why not just fill the article with all sorts of original research or theories that haven't yet found general acceptance within mainstream Enneagram thought? I am not happy with the negative criticism comments as they currently stand - which is why I added a number of citation needed tags - but there is a better way of dealing with the criticism than what you are doing which is clearly against Wikipedia policies. Ontologicos (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just read the first of your recent edits to the article which includes comments about the deletion of your research. Putting criticism of another edit in the text of the article is completely unacceptable! Ontologicos (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Sorry for the strident response of mine. It arises from my belief that you're hiding your true motivations behind "Wikipedia's policies". In this forum you have given two different reasons for deleting any reference to original brain-related research: (1) speculation; and (2) self-promotion. The latter reason does resonate since I am the author of one of the cited items of original research. But that reason does not explain your deletion of my citing the work of a different original researcher. That citation is not about self-promotion. So now we're left with your claim of "speculation". You seem intelligent enough that I don't need to point you to the definition of "speculation". So I will assume you are able to see that the material you have left remaining in the Research section is nothing if not speculative. For example: "Some critics[citation needed] suspect that the claims for the Enneagram typology's validity may be attributed to the Forer effect; the tendency for people to believe a supposedly tailored description of themselves even when the description has been worded in very broad terms." What "critics"? Based on what studies of Enneagram proponents? Finally, if it is against Wikipedia's policies to call out disingenuousness when it appears, then again I apologize. Thanks for setting me straight. Peter Savich 9:03, 14 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.64.151 (talk)

As I've already - and cleary - explained to you, I am not happy with the criticism section as it presently is and I added the citation needed tags. The criticisms of the Enneagram, however, are not speculative as such. The criticisms are real (which doesn't mean they are true) and are - or should be - easily verifiable even if they are only based on false understandings, assumptions or prejudice. The criticism may or may not involve some degree of speculation but it is not the same thing as speculation involved in research issues. Criticism and research issues are in many respects very different concerns but they have become confused in this article.

I really need to say to you that I consider your latest edit of the article to be eccentric and unacceptable in an encyclopedia article - giving a link to a Google search, for instance.

If you can contribute to this article in a reasonable and intelligent manner inline with Wikipedia policies and accepted standards for encyclopedia articles then please do so. As things stand, however, it will continue to be necessary to remove or heavily edit your contributions. I am not trying to pick on you but this article has been subjected to various attempts to misuse it for advertising and self-promotion. Ontologicos (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

By changing the name of the "Research and criticism" section to "criticism", and deleting any reference to research, you have at least elevated the page from disingenuous falsity to incomplete truth. Surely, the latter is better than the former for a dynamic encyclopedia. So I have no quarrel with your latest change. Peter Savich.

Your distinction of speculation in research versus speculation in criticism is an interesting one. What I hear you saying is that, in this dynamic encyclopedia, it's perfectly OK to say "it is believed that aliens from Mars doubt the Enneagram" (or the Catholic church, or whomever). But it's not OK to say that "some believe that the Enneagram is manifested in the workings of the brain". For the benefit of future readers, you might consider expanding on that distinction. Peter Savich

Finally, as the "Where is the science?" section asks below, there is a palpable public interest in this question. Given the ubiquity of Wikipedia, it is natural for some people to look on this page to see what, if anything, is being said about a scientific basis for the Enneagram. "Scientific basis" in this context means brain science. I am aware of at least three different papers articulating a possible "home in the brain" for the Enneagram: (1) The Enneagram and Patterns of Asymmetric Dominance in Orbitofrontal Cortex and Amygdala, by me; (2) Prefrontal Cortex Dissociation from Amygdala and Personality Types, by Eric Lombrozo; and (3) The Enneagram and Brain Chemistry, by Eric Schulze and Tina Thomas. There may be more. But the bottom line is that you, Ontologicos, have taken it upon yourself to make this Wikipedia page more dumb and less useful. Evidently, you've deemed yourself the self-appointed guardian of this page, whereas I'm just passing through. So come Monday, when this Wikipedia diversion will have ended for me, willful ignorance will have triumphed. The irony is that you seem certain you're doing something useful and productive here. This actually is the nub of the Enneagram. The theory says that we act in ways we think are best, but are often anything but. If you do decide to look deeper into the theory, don't bother taking one of those less-than useful questionnaires. I'd suggest you just look closely at the Five type. All the best. Peter Savich, 06:41, 15 December 2007.

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.53.134 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 13 July 2007

Where's the science?

I would like to see some explanation of why we should take seriously a supposed model of personality that purports to be derived from the sequence of digits in the fraction 1/7, in decimal or any other number base for that matter. Is there some unknown mystical connection between psychology and numerology, or is Pythagoras spinning in his grave? Can anyone enlighten me?

It seems to me that you are approaching this question with an incorrect assumption - that it is the Enneagram of Personality that is "derived" from or "based" in mathematical sequences and divisions.

It is the Enneagram itself - the 'Enneagram figure' - that can be understood as exhibiting such mathematical dynamics. I don't know of anyone who claims that personality differences are somehow derived from such mathematical properties.

As you say, the geometry of the Enneagram is the thing to look at. Ramon Llull is mentioned on the 4th Way Enneagram page and Lull worked with virtues and vices which makes him directly related to the Enneagram of personality. Llull as it says on the Ramon Llull page is considered a pioneer of computation theory given his influence on Gottfried Leibniz. Llull's virtues and vices have been related to the 24-cell by Tony Smith (a former graduate student of David Finkelstein, Smith has been referenced in papers by John Baez and Garrett Lisi). The 24-cell is what you get if you plot all the MBTI two factor types. The 24-cell contains a cuboctahedron which is a hexagon with equilateral triangles above and below the hexagon. You can then look at the hexagon for the law of 7 (1-4-2-8-5-7) and one equilateral triangle for the law of 3 (3-6-9). Also the Five Factor model has been empirically related to the MBTI by Costa and McCrae and the MBTI has been empirically related to the Enneagram by John Fudjack. Circumplex models like the RIASEC and OCI are circular for reasons related to the Enneagram being on a circle too (though this relationship is more directly seen in the Celtic Enneagram variation). As for numerology, the Enneagram is two Jungian quaternities plus a 9th (the 9th being a zero point/center/axis connecting the two quaternities). The idea of a Jungian quaternity with its three things plus a missing 4th was related by Pauli to a math in physics (quaternions). Mbticircumplex (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It is the belief of many - supported by observation and experience - that certain dynamic connections between nine ego-archetypal personality patterns (the so-called 'types') can be indicated by the Enneagram figure. There was already a tradition of using the Enneagram figure to indicate various dynamic connections between things and processes.

Exactly why the Enneagram figure can be used in such ways is probably incapable of the sort of "science" you are asking for - and there isn't sufficient historical evidence as to how the Enneagram figure first developed. Ontologicos 10:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

When looking for basis in "science" for the "Enneagram" -- or for any other personality theory for that matter (MBTI, Freud, NEO-PR, etc.) -- brain science is the most fertile territory. More specifically, if we can't find support in the brain research for a model of human personality, then either the brain research is not developed far enough, or the personality theory is fatally flawed. Interestingly, on this page, two links to hypotheses about an Enneagram-brain connection were deleted by Ontologicos on December 12, 2007. This person's nominal justification for the deletion was the following: "Too long and too speculative. Belongs in a journal, not an encyclopedia article." In other words, where this section asks "Where's the science?", Ontologicos wants the answer of this page to be "nowhere, this stuff is crazy, go away" instead of "we don't yet know because circa 2007 neuroscience hasn't tackled this question directly, but there are at least two provocative hypotheses out there directly on this question". Call me crazy, but I think Wikipedia is about the latter answer, not about dictated blindness. Peter Savich, 10:31, 13 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.64.151 (talk)

So fix it.--Chinawhitecotton (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding {{POV}} until someone does. - ∅ (∅), 01:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A bit of research - The earliest mention is described in Chapter 14 "In Search of the Miraculous" (Routledge Kegan Paul 1950) by P.D. Ouspensky, who related the complete construction as taught to him and others by G. I. Gurdjieff just before the Russian revolution in 1917. However S. Karppe in "Etude sur les origines de la nature du Zohar" (Studies on the origins of nature by Zohar), pp 200-201 manages to create the circle with 9 points, although he doesn't draw in the lines. 9 being at the top, 9x9=18 with 1 on the right and 8 on the left, 9x8=72 with 2 on the right and 7 on the left, same with 9x7=63, also 9x6=45 but 9x5 the reverse is true, 4 one the right and 5 on the left. This is a vastly different method of constructing the circle and may have nothing to do with the enneagram construction outlined in Ouspensky.

According to Ouspensky, Gurdjieff knew the mechanics of constructing the symbol (1/7), something that was taught to him between 1880 and 1900 in his travels through Asia. The symbol is universal and parts of it exist in religious and philosophical schools, although not the complete symbol. Gurdjieff later used the 'enneagram' in dance, with students moving along each line in synchronicity, as practiced in Fontainbleu (Paris) in the early 1930's. Thomas de Hartmann wrote and played the music for these dances which were witnessed by audiences in Paris and New York. The symbol is gnostic and reportedly very old. Anyone who lays claim on it must of had their own subjective eureka moment quite divorced from reality. I should add that Gurdjieff's influence in the Western world of the 1920's to his untimely death was significant, including newspaper owners, Frank Loyd Wright, politicians, investors, royalty, business people and so on. The work on Zohar may signify a link of the symbol to the Kabbalah (also the Greek Qabbala) Tree of Life - the philosophy of which is in some part shared with the symbol. Gurdjieff goes on to say that the enneagram is holistic and describes the living 'object' it is applied to. An 'object' can include concepts like 'world' or 'plant' or 'man'. It can also describe motion, stasis, degeneration and development. The symbol is based on laws describing natural occurrences, for example spirals in nature, which happens to incorporate a large body of (fragmented) knowledge. The symbol is part of this fragmented body of knowledge. As the symbol and all its parts have a meaning within the framework (let's say world view) espoused in the science of analogy (ermm.. something that we lost with scientific methodology), its function and use cannot be questioned by anyone outside that world view. That's not me speaking, it's sociology, anthropology and philosophy. Although many books have been written about what the Gurdjieffian world view is, understanding how the symbol operates is somewhat elusive for me. So the conclusion that I have arrived at is that the enneagram has been taken out of its context by others and has tried to be used without full understanding. Htcs (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the original question, science and mathematics are not the same thing. Have any scientific studies been done on the Enneagram to suggest that the diagram reflects personality types that actually exist? It sounds like astrology to me, minus the celestial bodies.ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have a strong affinity for the personality enneagram but when people start mentioning things like the law of three and the law of sevens I feel embarrassed and change the subject. Numerology does indeed sound like astrology, and I'd like to minimize that association. That being said, the concept of a geometrically related set of personalities is not so detestable as a numerological related one. The Holland career hexagon for instance is one, and has been researched extensively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psturtevant (talk • contribs) 06:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Research has been done and continues to be done. See specifically

2005 - Kamineni, R. The Next Stageof Psychographic Segmentation: Usage of the Enneagram. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 6(1), 315-320.
2004 - Cutting, B., & Kouzmin, A. A synthesis of knowing and governance: making sense of organisational and governance polemics. Corporate Governance, 4(1), 76-114.
2004 - Newgent, R. A., Parr, P. E., Newman, I., & Higgins, K. K. The Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator: Estimates of Reliability and Validity. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 36, 226-237.
2003 - Kale, S. H., & Shrivastava, S. The enneagram system for enhancing workplace spirituality. The Journal of Management Development, 22(4), 3080328.
2002 - Eckstein, D. The Couple's Enneagram Questionnaire (CEQ). The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 10(1), 101-108.
1998 - Brugha, C. M. The structure of development decision-making. European Journal of Operational Research, 104, 77-92.
1998 - Wyman, P. Integrating the MBTI and the Enneagram in Psychotherapy: The Core Self and the Defense System. Journal of Psychological Type, 46, 28-40.
1991 - Edwards, A. C. Clipping the wings off the Enneagram: A study in people's perceptions of a ninefold personality typology. Social Behavior and Personality, 19(1), 11-20.
1983 - Wagner, J. Reliability and validity study of a Sufi personality typology: The Enneagram. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39(5), 712-717.
2002 - Thomas, T. M. A neurotransmitter theory of personality based on the Nine-Point Personality System. Unpublished PhD, Union Institute and University.
2001 - Dameyer, J. J. Psychometric evaluation of the Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator. Unpublished PhD, California Institute of Integral Studies
2001 - Newgent, R. A. An investigation of the reliability and validity of the Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator. Unpublished PhD, The University of Akron.
1995 - Havens, S. E. Comparison of Myers-Briggs and Enneagram types of registered nurses. Unpublished MSN, University of Florida College of Nursing.
1995 - Twomey, J. A. The Enneagram and Jungian archetypal images. Unpublished PsyD, Chicago School of Professional Psychology.
1995 - Warling, D. L. An examination of the external validity of the Riso Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator. Unpublished MSc, University of Guelph.
1994 - Lenhart, C. A. comparative case study of sisters and their contrasting patterns of life and learning. Unpublished PhD, The Ohio State University.
1994 - Sharp, P. M. A factor analytic study of three Enneagram personality inventories and the Vocational Preference Inventory. Unpublished EdD, Texas Tech University.
1994 - Thrasher, P. The enneagram: Movement between types, an inventory, and a criterion measure. Unpublished PhD, Loyola University of Chicago.
1986 - Gamard, W. S. Interrater reliability and validity of judgements of enneagram personality types. Unpublished PhD, California Institute of Integral Studies.
1981 - Wagner, J. A Descriptive, Reliability and Validity Study of the Enneagram Personality Typology. Unpublished PhD, Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago.
1979 - Randall, S. The Development of an inventory to assess Enneagram personality type. California Institute of Integral Studies. Beth ohara (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Fourth Way Enneagram

Could people who edit here please check out the Fourth Way Enneagram page? it has recently been split from the Enneagram page, which is fair enough, even more recently the link to the Fourth Way Enneagram page has been cut. That is not reasonable. There is atag on the Fourth Way Enneagram page suggesting it be merged with this page which I think is asilly idea. Jeremy (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of citations

Greetings. Obviously this page needs a lot of work, and there is a request at the top for additional citations. I carefully added many citations to the article, only to see them summarily removed by Ontologicos. Please don't do this. The disputes (so far) seem to be as follows:

1. Ontologicos removed material from the lead which described what the name "Enneagram" means, and describes the symbol, with the edit summary "Removed information which either doesn't belong in this article or unecessarily repeats information already more appropriately found in the article." But the lead is supposed to summarize the most important aspects of the article; please see WP:LEAD. Without this material, this article doesn't even link to Enneagram, and it's certainly important to give background information to help readers understand the material.
2. Ontologicos removed an entire sourced section on the symbol, one of the only adequately-sourced sections in the whole article, with the edit summary "this belongs in the Enneagram article, not here." But that isn't true -- the Enneagram article is about any nine-sided figure. The removed infomation, about this particular enneagram shape and its symbolism, is perfectly appropriate here.
3. Ontologicos removed a citation of "Letter to the Transpersonal Community", saying "Due to the format of this link it doesn't actually link to the article - only to the Arica website homepage." That's true (sort of), and it's too bad, but it's not a good reason to remove a cite. It's actually not the format of the link that's the problem; the Arica website redirects internal links to the main page, annoyingly. There are probably good ways to fix this reference, but removing a reference in not an acceptable solution.

I'd love to work with anyone who wants to improve this article, but please, let's try to discuss any removal of large portions of sourced information. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As I see it there are a number of problems with both your comments above and the recent edits:

Firstly, the lead section was already an adequate (and more neutral) summary of the important aspects of how the Enneagram of Personality is generally understood and used. It also contained a comment and link for the Fourth Way Enneagram (which is more relevant than a link to the Enneagram article - but if this link was missing it ought to also be included.) But the Fourth Way understanding of what the Enneagram figure is and means, however, becomes POV when uncritically introduced into the Enneagram of Personality article as the connections (if any) between the Fourth Way tradition and the Enneagram of Personality are contentious to say the least. Although Helen Palmer has asserted that there are connections these have not generally been accepted so such assertions cannot be accepted as established "information". There is also no established evidence that the Enneagram figure is anywhere near as "ancient" as some people want to claim - or that it was ever used in connection with personality issues or personality types before Oscar Ichazo in the 1950s. To make comments that implies that it was is just speculation or wishful thinking and is not acceptable in an encyclopedia article without a section that goes into the issues involved. So any sort of comments need to be written in an appropriate enclyclopedia style - and not just inserted into the article as has been done.

Also, the fact that comments are sourced does not, by itself, qualify them for inclusion in the article if there isn't a general agreement about them. They only support a point of view. So the comments would need to be rewritten to acknowledge this. The Arica link needed to be removed because it simply does not link to what it claims to link to (Ichazo's Letter to the Transpersonal Community). This would be like citing a newspaper article and adding a link to the newspaper's homepage. I don't understand why but the link doesn't actually link but it's useless the way it is at present.

I don't want to fight with you over these issues but I believe my removal of much of the recent edits was justified and responsible. Perhaps we can discuss these matters further before an 'editing war' breaks out? If you read my history of edits you should, I think, see that my principal role has been to try and keep the article free from unestablished historical assertions and also theoretical bias. Ontologicos (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt your sincerity. I just think you're going about this in a way that's harming the article.

The lead section is not adequate currently, as should be obvious. It's 3 sentences, as a summary of a rather long article. Again, read through WP:LEAD and see the guidelines here and I think you'll agree. Note the "abortion" counterexample there. So please, don't remove valid summarizing text unless you think it's inaccurate, and if that's the case then let's work to make it more accurate.

You speak a lot above about whether the link and commentary of Fourth Way Enneagram is NPOV and accurate. I'm not sure what you're getting at, since I didn't add anything related to Fourth Way Enneagram, and you didn't remove any such information. Perhaps you were thinking of something else?

Today you have removed five citations to this article. That's really unhelpful. In one example you removed a valid link to "Letter to the Transpersonal Community" by Ichazo, and this is silly. Why did you claim here that it's not a proper citation? Citations don't need direct links to be valid, and the description 'This letter can be accessed from the "Articles" section of http://www.arica.org/' is descriptive and accurate. If you're unsure what a proper citation is, check out Wikipedia:Citing sources -- it's pretty clear that a direct link is not required.

Further, you continue to remove a well-sourced and relevant section, as you did here. Do you really think that a description of the Enneagram symbol, as it relates to the personality theory, is irrelevant in the "Enneagram of Personality" article?

You stated above that "the fact that comments are sourced does not, by itself, qualify them for inclusion in the article if there isn't a general agreement about them. They only support a point of view. So the comments would need to be rewritten to acknowledge this." Then why do you summarily remove them, instead of adding alternate points of view? I seriously doubt you can find reputable sources that disagree with statements like "The symbol, along with the personality types organized around the nine points, conveys a system of understanding and knowledge about nine distinct and interrelated personality types" or "It contains three parts - the circle, the inner triangle, and the 'periodic figure.'", but if you can, then great! Add the alternate point of view. If you read through our Neutral point of view policy, it does not say that sourced points of view should be removed -- instead, all significant points of view should be included. Add alternate interpretations all you like, but your tendency to delete whole swaths of information is troubling and counterproductive.

You stated above that "I don't want to fight with you" and that you want to "discuss these matters further before an 'editing war' breaks out". These are good sentiments, but they would be more convincing if you weren't in the process of edit-warring while you say them. I've read through your contributions to this article, which are substantial, but it seems to me that your main interest has been to remove any material you didn't yourself add, rather than removing "theoretical bias". See our policy on article ownership. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. You are only doing considerable damage to the article by allowing inadequate and / or contentious POV statements to remain in the article. Do you actually know enough about Enneagram-related issues to know when comments are unsubstantiated or POV? It really doesn't seem so. And your absurd claims about my "ownership" of the article are as offensive as they are untrue. If you want to be offensive and confrontational then we are not going to get anywhere. Ontologicos (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is getting more and more obvious from your edits that you really don't know that much about Enneagram-related issues. You are only an expert at providing references for rehashed ideas from one book or another. You are seriously distorting the accuracy and the neutrality of this article. So who is claiming ownership now?! Ontologicos (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to be civil here. "Providing references for rehashed ideas from one book or another" is what Wikipedia is all about. I apologize if I offended you; I don't want to be touchy. I do appreciate the edits you are making to improve any biases that creep into the article, like this and others.

You stated again that I have added unsubstantiated POV to the article. Could you please tell me what, if anything, I have added is unsubstantiated or POV? Can you point to any edits that have reduced the accuracy and neutrality in the article? If you can give specifics, then we can fix them. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing Issues

Although I'm sure that the recent edits were well-intentioned I have found it necessary to remove most of them for one or more of the following reasons:

1. They were comments about the Enneagram figure which properly belong in - or are already contained in - either the articles on the Enneagram or the Fourth Way Enneagram and its use of the Enneagram figure.

2. They unecessarily repeated information already contained more appropriately in the article.

3. They are either contentious Point Of View comments or are not reliably or verifiably sourced.

Before adding comments please think about where they actually belong. This is an article on the Enneagram of Personality - not on the meaning or history of the Enneagram figure. Please also don't add comments that are already found in a more appropriate context elsewhere in the article. Thanks. Ontologicos (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this comment here when I posted my comments above, since this section was at the top of the talk page and new discussion usually goes at the bottom. I've moved it down here. Thanks for commenting, and it's good to hear your reasoning. I'm afraid I have to disagree on all three points you make here though.

1. It seems obvious to me that a brief discussion of the Enneagram figure, as it relates to the "Enneagram of Personality" theory, is entirely appropriate in this article. Removing the information would be exactly as detrimental as removing the illustration.

2. WP:LEAD says "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." It's best practice to repeat, in summary form, information in the lead.

3. There are certainly POV comments in the article, but you haven't mentioned any in your recent removals. What unsourced, POV material are you referring to? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Article organization

Okay, so there's a lot of information in this article, but it isn't organized particularly well. From a high-level perspective, what's the best order for the information? Obviously the lead comes first, summarizing it, but then there are the following sections.

1. History (or development)
2. Descriptions of each of the nine types
3. Subtypes
4. Wings, stress points, security points, directional scales
5. Relations to the Seven (+2) Deadly Sins

I think people would get a better idea by seeing a little of the theory behind it (as presented by various authors), then seeing the nine types, then seeing further theory (subtypes, etc.), and finally by seeing the history of it. Of course I'm open to suggestions. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely the article needs something about WHY we are supposedly divided into nine personality types? How did this happen? Through evolution by natural selection? Because god decided we should be in nine types? And by what mechanism is an individual's type determined? Genes? A fairy godmother's whim? But none of the practitioners of or believers in this stuff seem interested in answers to these questions.Manormadman (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Manormadman

Books by Helen Palmer and Richard Rohr + Andreas Ebert say that the different types start in childhood, when child has some problems, finds some defenses for these problems, and starts building the personality on these defenses. For example if you were often criticized, you will focus on doing things right and finding errors; you become a perfectionist One. If you were loved only when you were fulfilling someone's emotional needs, you will pay attention to emotions of other people and will try to satisfy them; you become a Two. If you were loved only for success, you will try hard to succeed and pretend to be even better than you are; you become a Three. If you lost someone significant, you will focus on the tragedy in the past and think how all would be better if you had some better fate; you become a Four. If you had to protect your privacy against frequent invasions, you will avoid people and become a Five. If you were afraid of powerful people, you will be suspicious of authority but you will also seek some protection, you become a Six. If you escaped your fears by fantasies, you will try to do many adventures, and become a Seven. If you had to fight, you will try to gain power, you become an Eight. If your opinions and needs were ignored, you will forget them and focus on opinions and needs of other people, you become a Nine. Each type is unbalanced, their focus gives them some special skills but also special problems. For example Nines are good at understanding different opinions of others, and can help negotiate between others; but they have often problems to focus on their own opinion, so they have low motivation and procrastinate. The goal of enneagram is to find your type, understand the forces in you, and use this knowledge to overcome the "dark side" of your personality.

Why exactly nine types? Well, this is the tradition. You could invent a system with different number of types, or divide them differently, but that would be a different system; maybe someone will do it. -- Viliam Búr, 92.52.7.176 (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oscar Ichazo section

I have found references for the first few paragraphs of the "Oscar Ichazo" section, and there were already cites for the last paragraph... but I can't find any information to verify the middle four paragraphs (each of which is tagged {{fact}}). Can anyone find sources to verify these statements? If not, then they should be removed. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me also that this section is too long and Ichazo should have his own page. I'd like to redo the history section entirely, making it more concise with references. Anyone have a problem if I cut down the Ichazo Part? Beth ohara (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Type Figures

Where did these type figures come from? Different authors use different symbols, but to be NPOV, I think the figures as well as the Type labels have to be removed. Beth ohara (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Humbug Use of the Enneagram

It makes me very sad to see the horrible wiseacring that has occurred here. This application of the enneagram is nothing but nonsense and pseudoscience, and I'm sure it is dismissed entirely by conventional psychologists. Unfortunately I don't have any sources to use in an argument, so at the moment I cannot come up with a "criticism" page. But I'm absolutely distressed this crap is being taught to people, encouraging and building the false personalities and neuroses for some, and associating the enneagram with idiocy for others. Sixwordsofadvice (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to report on information. The enneagram as a system exists. Whether you believe it works or not is irrelevant from Wikipedia's perspective. The purpose of the article is to describe what the system is. Not to convince anyone whether or not to use it. 32.145.225.135 (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's responsibility isn't limited to reporting on what exists. A balanced Wikipedia article also includes scientific evaluation of the usefulness and validity of the system. The psychobabble in this article is nauseating—for instance, in the Fives section, the notion that a person who is inwardly focused was probably either emotionally neglected or intruded upon as a child. An inward focus isn't a symptom of neurosis. It's a perfectly healthy lifestyle choice. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ichazo Section

This article is not a place for disagreements between the Arica School and the Enneagram Community to be worked through. Please place links to the Arica School in the Arica and Ichazo articles. Deleted sentences were not npov. Beth ohara (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)