Separating theories in discussion
One thing I have noticed in Enneagram discourse since I have started is that there are major schisms in Enneagram theory.
In terms of discussion, people talk about Enneagram from an BHE/Enneagrammer/Luckovich understanding; others with Naranjo and his students; others with Beatrice Chestnut; others with Riso-Hudson.
I think this is great because this is just a pseudoscience (according to most psychologists in the field), but at the same time, discourse can be so messy here and unproductive
People approach the types with different theoretical foundations to pull from, and everyone tries to say the other is “wrong” or “misinformed” even though there really is no major authority on who is right.
For instance, I appreciate and find more fascination with Naranjo’s description and subtypes because they are just narratively compelling. He suggests that there are 27 archetypes, but they are grounded through 9 different passions and in those passions there are very different ways of expressing it. I like analyzing that in people and stories, and it actually has helped me in my own way
Alternatively, for people that appreciate Luckovich’s types, the Naranjo types are just straight up not comparable because they are more specifically based on the instinctual variants. In its own way, even though under their theory I am a different type, there is a bit of truth that can help me and others
Technically, neither is wrong because they are pulling from two theories, but it makes the discussion just nothing?
I know there are people that try to assert that one is more right than the other, but to be fair, I don’t know if that is valid because they aren’t recognized fully as real psychologists so the matter of it being right is like whatever ?
Anyway, I think it would be more worthwhile to directly state what theory you’re pulling from in discussions to avoid this strange tension and misunderstanding. Because this is kind of a large tent of people that aren’t totally aligned in theory…
Edit: As a kind fellow in the comment said, there is an importance to make the distinction between theories, and it is the reader’s onus to be able to determine the differences. I am not say it is not worth while—because we are all engaging in theoretical material so we need to be mentally to self-analyze and such—but the purpose of this post is to bring a communal awareness of this tension, otherwise it just seems strangely unaddressed.