Yes, it would have helped to have seen the full list of type scores.
Why would you see that beneficial?
We were thinking to show only a possible sub-type along with the main type.
Yes, it would have helped to have seen the full list of type scores.
We were thinking to show only a possible sub-type along with the main type.
Well, it gave me type 2. Am not type 2, am type 9. There were like 50 questions to get that far! Too many questions seemed instinct-based to me, as a social dominant nine it does make it tricky to discern.
I did do that, yes.EDIT: Or did [MENTION=23115]BadOctopus[/MENTION] just find a picture of September and paste it. Didn't think about that.
I did do that, yes.
(Because get it? "The Observer"? Yeah, I'll see myself out.)
Are the subtypes indicated by the picture or person received with the enneatype? Two others who scored as fives received a picture of September, while I received a picture of Albert Einstein.
If so, what do the subtypes themselves indicate?
EDIT: Or did [MENTION=23115]BadOctopus[/MENTION] just find a picture of September and paste it. Didn't think about that.
Thanks for your feedback. Our goal is to find the dominant type, because between 4 and 6 is a big difference.
Do you see your self more as 4 or more as 6?
4 and 6 definitely are different, but they do share commonalities. Namely, the two are both prone to depressive, anxious, self-doubting etc. attitudes, which I definitely identify with. My main motivations are to belong (6) and figure out who I am and what will make me happy in life (4). Some descriptions tend to put me off of 6 (traditions and authority) and some descriptions tend to push me off of 4 (creativity and pompousness). In general, I feel like 6 might be the better fit of the two, but I am not certain.
I agree, 4 and 6 are both anxious and self-doubting. The main difference is that 4 wants to be unique (also dress in an unusual way) 6 is looking for security.
Would you rather stick at secure job or rather change jobs or be an independent even for less money...
Yup!This is the first online test that has recognised me as a 6, so congratulations! I was particularly impressed with the disclaimer you added. Test takes should only answer "yes" if they have illustrated a behaviour before, but this is something many Enneagram tests neglect to emphasise. What you want is not the same as who you are.
This is the first online test that has recognised me as a 6, so congratulations! I was particularly impressed with the disclaimer you added. Test takers should only answer "yes" if they have illustrated a behaviour before, but this is something many Enneagram tests neglect to emphasise. What you want is not the same as who you are.
Thanks for feedback.
Questionnaire uses complex data-mining algorithm to converge as quick as possible to your dominant type, however when one has a strong sub-type, in your case that could be 9 or vice versa 2, then it takes more questions to end.
Maybe you take a test once again, to check if questionnaire finds the same dominant type again?
In drive-response theory that subtype exists, and types 2 and 9 are very close to each other.
Well I did it again. Still gave me type 2. Same as last time, the Dalai Lama's fuzzy picture comes up then goes away, then Mother Theresa comes up and goes away. (The first time I did it, the Dalai Lama showed up three times, disappeared 3x then poof suddenly I was Mother Theresa!)
I counted the questions this time, 45 until it gave me an answer, and one that I consider incorrect for myself. I actually found that annoying, the disappearance / reappearance of the pictures, the number of questions, not that a lot of questions is a big deal, but when the picture comes and goes, comes and goes, it's clear to me that the test is changing its mind lol.
I suppose this is something you are going to explain when you publish your work? I am interested to know more of what you mean by this. I do score high in 2, that's not unusual. However, I am quite certain I'm a 9.
Why would you see that beneficial?
We were thinking to show only a possible sub-type along with the main type.
You are probably personality type 2.
Well, that's new. The biggest issue I had was the fact that I had to say no unless I completely agreed with the statement. There were a lot where I mostly agreed, or knew what they were asking and applied to me, but the details made me say no.
I took it twice. First time it bandied about between 3, 4, 5, and eventually 2. Second time, it went through those same options in the same order; but rather than 2 it settled on 1. It was neat to see the algorithm just drill more and more into questions that honed in on a type.
I read the descriptions and, verily, I do see myself in those descriptions (among others). Yes, I can be critical/self-critical/perfectionistic like a 1; I an be self-sacrificing and appeasing like a 2, etc etc. I'm surprised that it tossed away 3 as an option, but then again I'm not as outgoing as most. I am, however, more surprised at how long it kept 3 around for me, unlike most other tests.
I also appreciate the emphasis on 'how you have traditionally been.' The phrasings of the questions emphasizes that, too. (Yes,' I admit; I like my successes to be seen by others in some capacity.')
I'd also think it helpful to list other results if they're close. If 2 beat out 1 by a 1% margin, it'd probably be nice to include it as a potential. "You are probably personality type 2. You may also consider type 1." Worst case, if the person does in fact resonate with 1 (possibly along with 2), he might read the type 2 description, regard it as 'not him,' and think the rest of the endeavor to be a waste of time. If 2 beat out 1 by a 10% margin, though, there's no need to list 1; as those of us who are out to explore typology and thus would likely be pretty curious aren't really your target audience.
Perhaps you could slip in a question at the end -- "What is your type, if you know it?" -- at least to a select few. Perhaps the link you give out to typology forums could trigger a flag that triggers the question to be asked, where normally that question wouldn't be seen? If you have a few questions that turn out to falsely lead the algorithm to skew one toward a type 6, say, you might identify those. In developing tests, I've found techniques like that useful in determining bad questions -- ones that don't measure accurately what you're trying to measure.
Anyhow, I'll be watching this test. I'm a fan.