Re: To Jan den Breejen: the current enneagram scene is a little too dogmatic and self-satisfied?

Posted by Jan den Breejen on June 30, 1999 at 08:58:10:

In Reply to: Re: To Jan den Breejen posted by FF on June 29, 1999 at 14:58:44:

++++ I agree with you that the current enneagram scene ('gurus') seems too satisfied with their own performance and the validity of the current enneagram theory. I don't believe in the enneagram dogma of wings and stress types etc. I don't say that it's not true, but I think that the simple 'pre-fab' enneagram star structure enhances the risk of interpreting reality into the enneagram symbol. Perhaps the best way to use the 9 enneatypes is to arrange them in a sequence very specific for the individual person. So when I say that I think I am most likely an E1-4; I mean that E1 is the my most powerful need/fear/driver and E4 is runner up. I think there IS an underlying pattern of related enneatypes; but it seems to be different from the current simple enneagram structure. It's so complex and subtle that instant observations of people and all of the current enneagram questionnaires are quite inadequate and unreliable. I use the Big Five questionnaire (NEO-PIR) which is the best there is and this seems a tool with enough validity/reliablity to get 90% certainty; but still sometimes it fails. So only long term observation can really give certainty about somebody's enneatype. There are few people willing to invest the time and energy to become an enneagram professional and it's certainly not suited to 'public use' by people who read a book and just start typing. So the commercialization of the enneagram has done good; but it also seems to contribute to much trouble with people who are wrongly typed and start doubting, start 'developing' in the wrong way or get convinced that it's rubbish. But perhaps this is the price we have to pay for advancements and evolution...
Jan

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup