I know a lot more about the Enneagram

Actually, kilted, it wouldn't be 18 counting the wings(9x2)--it would be 72 (9x8) I think. -_^

People are pretty much the most complex things in the entire universe, in my humble opinion. And yet... everything can only be so complex. I took the test, and I'm a four. I don't mean "I scored as a four," even though I did. I mean... I AM a four. Everything I've ever said about myself they say about me. Now, they also said a couple things that are not me, like "low self esteem" and "tendency for depression." But I read all the others and not a single one came close to being as accurate as four. It wasn't a "horoscope thing", either, where it's so vague it could be anything. The first few paragraphs, especially, were very specific, and they used almost the exact same words I used in my journal just in the last month to describe myself. Gee, and I thought I was unique... oh, wait... (fours build their identity around a sense of individuality, yasee. :D)

Summer, I think the 18 would be correct as I believe in the reading material somewhere it says that the wings are overlaps to adjacent groups eg 5 has wings of 4 or 6 but not 1,2,3,7,8 or 9. I suppose it would be 27 if you can have balanced wings, however I still think it is too small a number.

In furtherance to my last point another issue that I have is that in some people these types of tests induce a degree of learned helplessness; for exaample according to the test I am a 5w6, which means I have trouble expressing my emotions and dealing with people etc. Some people who have issues with confidence and self-esteem may read the description recognise themselves as such, and stop attempting to improve how they interact with people due to a belief that this is who they are & no matter what they do it wont get any better. I think that is both incredibly dangerous and limiting, hence my dislike for the tests: like I said earlier fun for a laugh, but not something to be taken as a full definition of your character and capabilities

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

Summer, I think the 18 would be correct as I believe in the reading material somewhere it says that the wings are overlaps to adjacent groups eg 5 has wings of 4 or 6 but not 1,2,3,7,8 or 9. I suppose it would be 27 if you can have balanced wings, however I still think it is too small a number.

In furtherance to my last point another issue that I have is that in some people these types of tests induce a degree of learned helplessness; for exaample according to the test I am a 5w6, which means I have trouble expressing my emotions and dealing with people etc. Some people who have issues with confidence and self-esteem may read the description recognise themselves as such, and stop attempting to improve how they interact with people due to a belief that this is who they are & no matter what they do it wont get any better. I think that is both incredibly dangerous and limiting, hence my dislike for the tests: like I said earlier fun for a laugh, but not something to be taken as a full definition of your character and capabilities

---

Yeah, I get that...

it's 18 btw... lol... like... errmm... a lot more if you count variants

like
108 different types if you count both wings and variants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

I think that is both incredibly dangerous and limiting, hence my dislike for the tests: like I said earlier fun for a laugh, but not something to be taken as a full definition of your character and capabilities

---

I agree with kilted exile's sentiment here, but I suppose it's possible that personality types aren't completely arbitrary.

The enneagram descriptions try to justify the idea of a fixed dominant personality type by suggesting that it is a result of the early formative years in life; thus, the dominant personality type doesn't change much once adulthood is reached. I think this is consistent with the experience of most people. Most people are comfortable with the idea that it is possible to use knowledge of a person's character to develop meaningful expectations about that person's future actions and decisions.

What is less clear is that it is possible to meaningfully capture the characters of the vast majority of human beings with a small number of personality types, and even if that possibility is accepted, it is even less clear how well the nine types given by these enneagram guys (or the 16 types of the Myers-Briggs system) accomplish this. I suppose it is possible that there are a small number of discrete attractors in "character-space". I wonder if there is any justification from the enneagram guys or the Myers-Briggs people that their types really are somehow natural?

I think personality tests like this one can be a useful tool. Not as a be all and end all definer of self, that would indeed be pretty limiting. Introspection in moderation can be a good thing and tests such as this can help with that. Having some knowledge of self can lead to changes being made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kathycf

I think personality tests like this one can be a useful tool. Not as a be all and end all definer of self, that would indeed be pretty limiting. Introspection in moderation can be a good thing and tests such as this can help with that. Having some knowledge of self can lead to changes being made.

---

Yup yup.

Which is the good thing about this.

Some clarification: I agree for a lot of people self introspection is a good thing, however only if it is done in a healthy manner. For some people I do think it can lead to retreating within themselves and is not healthy.

108 types is still imo far too small there are what 6.3 Billion people in the world, if all the types of people, from every type of culture, I can meet fit into one of those groups then why should bother interacting with new people at all - I already must have met someone like them previously.

That is why we cannnot rely soley on tests to take the place of interacting with people, as you aptly point out, Kilted. Just to use myself as an example: As one of those people who do like to retreat, I emphasize my earlier use of the word "moderation" in conjunction with introspection, but without the introspection or the self knowledge gained I would not be able to say to myself "I like to isolate too much and need to get out and live life too".

It doesn't hurt to take these sorts of tests with a grain of salt, or even ten grains. Critical thinking is just that, not accepting everything as fact, but thinking over what truths something may possess and what it does not. Plus, you know...they are kinda fun to take. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

Some clarification: I agree for a lot of people self introspection is a good thing, however only if it is done in a healthy manner. For some people I do think it can lead to retreating within themselves and is not healthy.

108 types is still imo far too small there are what 6.3 Billion people in the world, if all the types of people, from every type of culture, I can meet fit into one of those groups then why should bother interacting with new people at all - I already must have met someone like them previously.

---

Well... think about it this way.

Their are thousands of animals in this world, and they are all divided into kingdoms... how many are there? well I forget.

Nevertheless in these kingdoms there still remain different types of animals.

Ok... so let's take it this way then.

There are many personalities in this world, but this system divides them into "kingdoms" into 9.

Nevertheless in these kingdoms there still remains different types of personalities.

Get it?

Digi,

It's not that I dont "get it" it's that I fundamentally disagree with it. Like I've said repeatedly it is fun for a laugh.

but

To think you can a statistically viable account of personalities which capture encapsulate those of 6.3 billion people, using this test, is wrong especially as this uses low grade statistical techniques, I do not have the time (nor inclination) to do the required research on the exact degree of error - however I believe it would probably be high.

However, I dont want to get into an argument about this so that is all I'll say on the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

Digi,

It's not that I dont "get it" it's that I fundamentally disagree with it. Like I've said repeatedly it is fun for a laugh.

but

To think you can a statistically viable account of personalities which capture encapsulate those of 6.3 billion people, using this test, is wrong especially as this uses low grade statistical techniques, I do not have the time (nor inclination) to do the required research on the exact degree of error - however I believe it would probably be high.

However, I dont want to get into an argument about this so that is all I'll say on the matter.

---

Hmm... I shouldn't have said "Get it" I didn't mean it to come of that way. Of course you get it... heh...

yeah... let's just forget I guess.