Posted by isaac on April 05, 2001 at 09:24:16:
In Reply to: Re: what??? posted by Jan on April 04, 2001 at 02:56:08:
: +++ Not all enneagram-guru's are so dogmatic about it. Naranjo for example doesn't use it at all.
the only dogma i hold above all others here is that a model should have the maximum usefulness possible. this means simplicity and accuracy. that's why i love the enneagram, and why i love the 18 subtype model.
true. some gurus aren't as stuck on the wing thing as i am. however, i'd argue about it just as much with them as with anyone else. actually, all the moreso, since they're in a position to teach their opinions to others. as with any discussion of whether or not a factor should be incorporated in a model, the proof is in the pudding. using the singlewing theory is very simple, and makes the model more powerful. if it didn't, i could see removing it. and, certain things can be said about both subtypes, since they are very similar, but anything we say about 5s (for example) must be stretched slightly to apply to 54s or 56es specifically. in much the same way, we can talk about commonalities between 567, since they are in the fear motivation triad, but anything we say about a 5's fear is not necessarily the same as the 6's fear. it just so happens that 54s are very very similar to 56es, but the differences are there, and having a way to talk about the difference is useful.
isaac