Talk:Fours (Enneagram of Personality)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Possible Examples

I have removed the 'possible examples' lists as these do not, I believe, belong in an encyclopedia article as they can only, ultimately, be speculative and not objectively factual. If anyone disagrees with this please discuss here. Thanks. Ontologicos 13:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the enneagram is itself "objectively factual". There is no way to "prove" it, or to prove that any person is any one type, even to themselves. It's not exactly scientific in that fashion, and using well known figures and archetypes to illustrate the points is very helpful. Fictional characters even more so then celebs, since their entire existance lives on screen or in a book.--Gatfish 22:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I agree that "using well know figures and archetypes" can often be helpful in understanding the differences between the enneatypes but I would maintain that whilst this is appropriate in books and journals where there can be the space to articulate the reasons for using certain people as possible examples it is not really appropriate in encyclopedia articles. Ontologicos 09:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about the Enneagram of Personality itself not being "objectively factual", you are largely correct. This argument, however, can be applied to most if not all ideas and theories (and even, ultimately, to existence, God, science etc.) But the Enneagram of Personality, as an idea, is also a "thing" (even if it is actually invalid and only exists in people's minds) which is believed by many to (in part) indicate nine distinct forms of human personality - and that every person's personality has principally developed according to one of these nine forms. Therefore, if the E. of P. is actually valid (and even if it isn't), it seems to me to be important to not speculate about someone's "Enneagram type" unless you can articulate the reasons for doing so - and, as I've already asserted, I don't believe this fits into the principles and scope of encyclopedia articles. Just listing a lot of names does nothing to articulate how these people may be examples of a particular type according to the E. of P. Ontologicos 10:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So then what would be required? Like if an "expert" on the enneagram (if you could define such a person) where to detail out how a character or person is one particular type, then could you put it in there? Your reference to something like philosophy or God is good. I've been to the God article and people argue about it a ton because instead of creating a straight-forward objective article, they bicker about who to reference in describing things, and I'm getting a little tired recently of information being yanked from wikipedia simply because it is not easily asscoiated to something else on the internet. I don't think that was the original intent of wikipedia: to merely catalogue "expert" opinions. I know the arguments about so called original research, but not every article, expecially ones with limited scope, like the Enneagram here, can always be referenced in this fashion. That doesn't make the information invalid. There needs to be a difference between inapropriate for the article and unprovable. This is information that is helpful, yet inherently unprovable. The enneagram is not exactly science, and there are not a big cadre of experts, so the communal natural of wikipedia creates the article, otherwise it would simply be like a dictionary definition, with no deeper content. So by limiting its ambition, we limit its scope, and then it becomes much less informative.--Gatfish 22:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sylvia Plath and Nick Drake in particular are textbook examples of these descriptions. They were clearly labelled as speculative and I can see no legitimate reason to remove them. 82.69.106.43 21:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

These and other people might seem to be "textbook examples" for some people but there may be valid reasons to think otherwise. For example, even though Hitler is indicated as a Six by one of the more influential E. of P. theorists (and most people would probably agree based on how Sixes are described in his writings) others, including myself, believe that Hitler is a clear example of a Sexual Four. The "legitimate reasons" for removing the possible examples list have been commented on above. If you can offer legitimate reasons for including lists of possible Enneatype examples in encycyclopedia articles - rather than in books of personal assessment - please do. Until I changed the headings to 'possible examples' they were included just as examples. Ontologicos 07:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)