In the past on this forum I have stated that I am not Jungian, or MBTI, but an enneagramist. That's because I fell in love with the enneagram over 20 years go when it helped me through some rough times, and I loved the theory for itself.
But nowadays, with pages online such as this Enneagram with Type-Color Associations, it just seems really campy to me. The references to Freudian object/relations theory on that page are just plain silly and out of context, an obvious attempt to lend serious credibility to a theory that often lacks credibility.
The only thing I like about the enneagram are the lines of integration and disintegration, but only because I believe these are in some way related to JCF. In other words, the enneagram has credibility only in reference to another theory that has credibility.
Enneagrammists' attempts to relate the enneagram to some ancient teaches is also silly. The whole thing was invented in the 1960s, although it has its roots in G. I. Gurdjieff's teachings. But these teachings themselves don't necessarily lead to an enneagram, as he was apt to teach about either 3 or 4 centers of intelligence.
As a system of personal growth, teaching about enneagram colors, or forcing other typologies to conform to its pattern as Riso did, are either silly or dogmatic and not conducive to personal growth. There are a thousand systems of personal growth out there that are likely to be more effective because the practitioner won't get caught up in any of the same kind of campy silliness that surrounds the enneagram.
As for Riso's type descriptions, they could be brilliant attempts to fuse other theories into a single description for types. For those who don't know, the original enneagram descriptions were brief, one-page essays on types that were distributed from person to person. By all rights, it should have died out as all such fads eventually die out. But in order to build the enneagram into something bigger, it was necessary for Riso to borrow ideas from other typologies, such as the famous personality disorders of the DSM category system. In this way, the enneagram could elevate its credibility. At the same time, in order to avoid the criticism that the enneagram is not a novel discovery, Riso had to separate the enneagram from these systems by dogmatically reducing them to the enneagram.
I like JCF now. The only problem with this is avoiding getting caught up in the Socionics interpretation of it. That however won't be a problem for me.