@
Squirrel @
coquette You've both helped me understand the appeal of Naranjo more. Unfortunately his descriptions don't always make sense to me, and even looking at his subtype descriptions from a correlationist's perspective, I still don't know how to form an overall picture of what he is describing. Or well, I can, but... it's a hazy image. I only understand it better when I see his descriptions expressed in real life people or in fictional characters.
I might go by Squirrel's approach by reading books based on each Enneagram type. Those seem a lot more in-depth. Sometimes I enjoy the more general descriptions of Ichazo and other Enneagram sources, but sometimes I want a deeper look that's a little more sober than Naranjo's writings. Maybe it's precisely because he looks at the most unhealthy manifestations of each subtype that I struggle to understand what he is describing. Most people are not that unhealthy, or they at least hide their "unhealthy" traits from the public eye.
Thinking about it, I think Naranjo's descriptions, as dramatic as they are, are helpful because they are in-depth, and they underline certain traits and habits to look for in a person and connect them to a specific mechanism. Naranjo seems to do this a lot more adeptly than other sources, even if his descriptions sometimes sound a bit goofy. He is Hispanic after all, and Hispanic people can be rather... dramatic. LOL
I guess I'm still trying to make sense of everything. Maybe I'm just 4L after all lmao