Good day Beatrice, thank you so much for putting up this talk. Now I finally understood why I couldn't get my head around the idea of using Type x W x as described in the book , The wisdom of the Enneagram. As it seems so counter intuitive to box people in this manner. Secondly , it makes perfect sense not to use the terms "direction of (dis)integration". And use "opportunities" for growth in both directions when we are self aware. Lastly , am I right to say that we have " two " wings instead of one ? In my limited understanding, to what extend we can tap into our wings qualities is a direct function of how high or low the scores of our wings are. This this correct ? Thanks for taking time to read and reply my comments and questions. With Metta Daniel
Hi Daniel! Exactly. We see the wings as two opportunities for growth. While we may resonate with one more than the other, they should not be seen as subtypes of the personality. So we don't believe that we have a score when it comes to the wings.
I agree with Katherine Fauvre who said Naranjo told her that both lines of connection are equal. Just as the wings are equal. That he was misquoted regarding disintegration and integration. Beatrice seems like she is in the middle of this debate. I disagree with "going against" and "with the arrows." I think Beatrice should get rid of her "Child heart" theory and COMPLETELY ditch all traces of "disintegration" and "integration." Naranjo was misquoted about this. I encourage you to see both lines of connections as equal. Just as the wings are equal. The Enneagram works in 3s.
![Method Writing: The First Four Concepts - Jack Grapes [FULL INTERVIEW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ba9jAVzADY0/mqdefault.jpg)
Yes - I learn so much from your podcasts!
The Beatles song "Let it Be" was written for Enneagram 9.
Great talk, as always! I think you forgot the sx 4 in the top 5 most direct types. Sx 4 should be right at the top with the eights.
13:08- interesting take on the fate vs free will debate.
Good day Beatrice, thank you so much for putting up this talk. Now I finally understood why I couldn't get my head around the idea of using Type x W x as described in the book , The wisdom of the Enneagram. As it seems so counter intuitive to box people in this manner. Secondly , it makes perfect sense not to use the terms "direction of (dis)integration". And use "opportunities" for growth in both directions when we are self aware. Lastly , am I right to say that we have " two " wings instead of one ? In my limited understanding, to what extend we can tap into our wings qualities is a direct function of how high or low the scores of our wings are. This this correct ? Thanks for taking time to read and reply my comments and questions.
With Metta
Daniel
Hi Daniel! Exactly. We see the wings as two opportunities for growth. While we may resonate with one more than the other, they should not be seen as subtypes of the personality. So we don't believe that we have a score when it comes to the wings.
INTJ 5s go deep into one thing. INTP 5s like exploring a lot of topics.
Type 1 begins at 49:15.
I agree with Katherine Fauvre who said Naranjo told her that both lines of connection are equal. Just as the wings are equal. That he was misquoted regarding disintegration and integration.
Beatrice seems like she is in the middle of this debate. I disagree with "going against" and "with the arrows." I think Beatrice should get rid of her "Child heart" theory and COMPLETELY ditch all traces of "disintegration" and "integration." Naranjo was misquoted about this. I encourage you to see both lines of connections as equal. Just as the wings are equal. The Enneagram works in 3s.