most of the enneagram gets lost in translation. much like jungian psychology as a whole.
i think jung's personality theory, however, is different with respect to that because its focus is not on an embodied kind of psychological truth. as a result, it faces different issues.
instead, because of the cognitive revolution, it doesn't seem as fruitful to me to stick to jung's original texts as a kind of bible of personality. it's a misguided approach. typological fundamentalism never makes sense to me because the categories, as universals, can never be fully described as particulars. the evidence is in the degrees of confidence, not in the necessity of a particular outcome (thinking so would be a logical type error). as of now, we have a great deal of trouble integrating scientific method with typological thinking. typological thinking exists in the way it is embedded within schemes of perception, the paradigms that allow us to contextualize our observations. computational science will make it easier to invest more resources in this stage of the modeling process. if invested in ecologically smart ways, this will improve the recursive, reflexive kind of learning that allows typological thinking to reorganize the conditions for meaningful difference and to see the forest for the trees (with respect to meaningful contexts that inherently supply some of the purpose for observing at all).