I find this system much too rigid and un-moving. E.g. I am INTJ or ISTP depending on which framework I use (even though I know I'm an ISTP by Jung's actual definitions) and I am not all insecure how others feel nor am I really insecure about the experience I give others.

If I was ISTP, I'd be unaware of what other people want but I could tell what others want and if I was INTJ I'd be an unaware of what others feel. Really, it's just a random, rigid system to me.

The system also completely changes Jung's definitions too because Te isn't even necessarily what others think but created something to think for others. Essentially Beebe just came up with his own formula, changed Jung's original mode, and made the system too strict.

From my experience and comparison of various enneagram scales I found this to be the case.

MBTI dichotomies>Random, weird models created by others like CS Joseph>Beebe's MBTI Model>Default MBTI Cognitive Model> Socionics>Enneagram>Jung's Original Model>Big 5

​

I found my 3 favorite measures of personality are Jung's model, MAYBE Enneagram, and Big 5.

Usually when I want to assess someone, I find their Jungian type. Then I look at their dominant Big 5 traits. Example: I'd be an introverted thinking Jungian type and my traits on the Big 5 are high conscientiousness and low neuroticism, those are my key characteristics.