I see your point and realize what I said was muddled and not as clear as what I was intending. I am not trusting others opinions
completely, hence why I have bothered to purchase and read the 3 R&H books I have, and why I have purchased and plan to read the Wisdom book by them as well. I have finished the Beatrice Chestnut book, and I am still working through Character and Neurosis. Simply based on what I have actually read by said authors up to this point, I
resonate better with the writings of Chestnut and Naranjo (that is as clear as I can make that unfortunately... completely a gut feeling I admit). I am not "certain" that they are 100% correct and I don't think there really is a complete right/wrong understanding when comparing these various authors. That being said, I need to start my understanding somewhere.
As for the information I have seen online, and based on the opinions of people more knowledgeable than myself and with more experience with the enneagram, I have found that the writings and understanding of Chestnut/Naranjo seem to mesh with my gut feeling.
That being said, I am not writing off R&H at all, I still refer to their books when talking to my friends/family about enneagram and I do actually enjoy them. In fact of the 3 books I have by R&H, currently my favorite is
Understanding the Enneagram. I enjoy how it appear to go over a bit more territory about each core type (although it leaves of info about the wings) and it has a nice chapter on "Misidentifcations" that is really good.
Edit: As for the type descriptions that are supposedly "bad", I am NOT saying that I "know" they are badly done. I merely keep it in mind and notice how many people seem to agree on that point. I do not just dismiss or ignore those type descriptions since there are people who feel those types easily fit them quite well. That would be foolish of me to do. It is just something I keep in mind when reading.