Combination Enneagram and MBTI Test

[estorm]

This is exactly how it struck me - that if I was in a different mood, I could have answered some of the questions differently.

I have in the instructions: "Answer in terms of how you are most of the time, not at your best or in your current mood." But that assumes that one is able to filter out one's current mood.

Any suggestions for this issue would be helpful.

Thanks.

 

[estorm]

I guess, to clarify what I just said there... I act as I need to most of the time, not as I want to

I'm not exactly sure what you mean there. Did you answer as you are most of the time? If so, that's great. (See reply to highlander above, too.)

 

[miss fortune]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean there. Did you answer as you are most of the time? If so, that's great. (See reply to highlander above, too.)

I'm sorry... I'm not a good example. I'm really not sure where me as a person begins and me as a thing ends most of the time. I'm not sure how to answer as I am most of the time really

the choices were just a bit definite for me, I guess

 

[Kas]

Thanks. Though to be honest, that isn't a design feature
I didn't assume that most people taking the would be as knowledgeable as this crowd.

Did the types fit you?

Thanks.

I type as INFP 4w5 5w4 9w1
So it got right my MBTI. If I’m right my 5 should be strong, but I don’t think it’s my main type.

I noticed that the question that I answered after choosing “so so” was almost the same as the question I anwered before, it drew my attention .
I answered questions again to find it:

18.
Which one of these descriptions best fits you?
I create systems and relationships that are mutually beneficial. I am a good planner and a practical problem solver.
I experience my feelings deeply. I dislike the ordinary and can always see how to add creativity, meaning, and my unique style to whatever I do.
I want to master an interesting subject or a skill, and I use my knowledge to develop detailed understandings of the world.
I can understand different people's points of view and see the common ground. I know how to go with the flow and get along with others.

I was considering second and third answer , but I believe 3rd is more true about me.

The question before was:

15.
Which of the descriptions below best fit you?
I am a people person and care about the needs of others. I'm quick to offer a sympathetic ear and advice, while accepting support is hard for me.
I experience my feelings deeply. I dislike the ordinary and can always see how to add creativity, meaning, and my unique style to whatever I do.
I want to master an interesting subject or a skill, and I use my knowledge to develop detailed understandings of the world.

Maybe it would be better to ask different question (or even questions) during checking results? I answered the same as I answered before and I don’t think it brought any more information about myself. If it’s made to determine whether the person was sure of the answer (I think it was) then maybe put the question differently into words, or change it a little. That’s common trick in tests made by psychologists to make it less likely that the person in answering randomly. Or that one word or one part of statement didn't determine which answer the person chose (e.g. seeing "feeling special" or "unique" is making me less likely to choose answer)
Of course I’m only analyzing it basing on the question I got.

I find it a good thing that during checking results as options I got every type that I put in my tritype (I guess the last one is 9)

Now I believe it was enough of feedback...

 

[Olm the Water King]

Your answers indicate that you are likely an Enneagram type 4 and a Jungian type INFP.

 

[Hive]

INTJ 8, lol.

 

[meme duchess]

INFP 2.

Maybe!

 

[estorm]

I noticed that the question that I answered after choosing “so so” was almost the same as the question I anwered before, it drew my attention .
...
Maybe it would be better to ask different question (or even questions) during checking results?

Thanks, [MENTION=24824]Kas[/MENTION]. I think that is a good suggestion.

 

[Bush]

Thanks for the idea. Since so far about 80% agree with the test's initial results (before they have a chance to give feedback) and only 3% get to the "screw it page" (nice short hand), it may not be worth the effort (luckily!). Finding a good set of correlation figures to work with may be harder than the coding and algorithm for factoring it in. I guess I say that because, while there are some significant correlations, many aren't, and even then individuals (versus averages) vary so much.

How useful do you find the correlations when typing?

There are a bunch of different charts out there. Some have been constructed empirically, where someone's recorded what Enneatype/MBTI combos a bunch of people have claimed for themselves and draw correlations from those. Others compare common traits between Enneagram type and MBTI type descriptions (or their underlying concepts) and see combos that seem to fit together. Many of the tables, individually, "make sense," but I wouldn't rely on them for anything.

I think that incorporating correlations would throw off your whole "sometimes yielding odd combos" thing, which is what makes your test unique. They'd also be difficult to implement in your algorithms, yeah. You could compare your results to correlations that have been thrown out there, if not just for kicks. It'd be a way to kinda-sorta validate your results, but you may not want to put much stock in them.

Only 3% make it to the "screw it" page!? Damn, man.

 

[estorm]

You could compare your results to correlations that have been thrown out there, if not just for kicks. It'd be a way to kinda-sorta validate your results, but you may not want to put much stock in them.

I've been waiting until I have more data, but I do look forward to seeing those kinds of correlations. As you say, more for my own amusement than being able to do anything with it.

I also imagine seeing which types are less satisfied with the results and seeing if there are tweaks to the test that would help. For example, changing words that seem not to resonate, changing descriptions of other types that seem too attractive, looking forward different attributes to highlight, etc.

Only 3% make it to the "screw it" page!? Damn, man.

Ah, shucks

 

[Ghost]

I'm happy to see someone working so diligently to create a good test. If I hadn't been so needlessly nitpicky about the description, my result would've been correct. I'd like to make my sister take this test because having the enneagram dimension might help, and this test isn't boring like the similarminds one.

Good job, overall.

Also, I want a portable [MENTION=26002]estorm[/MENTION] to take with me wherever I go.

 

[Bush]

[MENTION=24824]Kas[/MENTION] [MENTION=26002]estorm[/MENTION]

Man, I didn't even notice that the questions in round 2 had already been asked before. I guess it made me think about them again.. ?

Some other things.

1. Do you randomize the order of the questions on each page (e.g. on the Emotional Tone page, the Way You View the World page)? If you need to improve results, that's a thing you can try. Even better, you could come up with a few more questions and randomize which are presented. But both of these things take work. 'course, effort/reward tradeoff comes into play.

2. I'm sure that there's a way to make the "most"/"least like me" question pages a bit more intuitive, in terms of how participants respond. That is, that at the moment, they click two radio buttons in two columns. That threw me off for a split-second at first. I'm not sure what sort of recommendations I'd make.

I also imagine seeing which types are less satisfied with the results

Now this is interesting.

 

[estorm]

I'm happy to see someone working so diligently to create a good test. If I hadn't been so needlessly nitpicky about the description, my result would've been correct. I'd like to make my sister take this test because having the enneagram dimension might help, and this test isn't boring like the similarminds one.

Good job, overall.

Also, I want a portable [MENTION=26002]estorm[/MENTION] to take with me wherever I go.

Thanks, [MENTION=18763]Ghost[/MENTION].

 

[estorm]

Some other things.

1. Do you randomize the order of the questions on each page (e.g. on the Emotional Tone page, the Way You View the World page)? If you need to improve results, that's a thing you can try. Even better, you could come up with a few more questions and randomize which are presented. But both of these things take work. 'course, effort/reward tradeoff comes into play.

Another good suggestion. Thanks, [MENTION=22264]jscrothers[/MENTION]. They aren't randomized, but I can see doing that. Coming up with viable descriptions and distinctions is one of the hardest parts of this whole thing, though more would be better. Not only do you have to find significantly different characteristics, they have to be ones that the type can and will self-identify with. As you and [MENTION=24824]Kas[/MENTION] point out, variety in this area would be good.

2. I'm sure that there's a way to make the "most"/"least like me" question pages a bit more intuitive, in terms of how participants respond. That is, that at the moment, they click two radio buttons in two columns. That threw me off for a split-second at first. I'm not sure what sort of recommendations I'd make.

This has been a tough nut to crack. I have been surprised by all the ways people have interpreted instructions and possible answering methods. I've tried several and none have been intuitive, for at least some people. Visual presentation is one thing - that probably could be better. But even how to structure the question and which options to give. And suggestions in this department are much appreciated!

Thanks, I've appreciated you input.

 

[estorm]

Man, I didn't even notice that the questions in round 2 had already been asked before. I guess it made me think about them again.. ?

Given this feedback from you and Kas, I feel a little lazy ...

Since they didn't agree with the results enough I then offer the most likely choices (yes, using the same phrases). There should be more choices than before, so if they didn't pick the right one the first time, they have more to choose from which then may include a better one.

That said, I agree that using different phrasing, or even different aspects, would cast a bigger net and possible resolve more issues for why they aren't finding a result that fits.

Only about a quarter of test-takers see this set of options, but that's probably enough to need to deal with.

Thanks.

 

[estorm]

If anyone wants to check out their "owner's manual" at the end of the test and give me feedback, I'd appreciate it.

Here's a Promo Code for a free manual: MPMTypCen123
It's good for the first 50 people.

The manual will contain tips for you based on your Enneagram type as well as a record of your Jungian type.
Keep in mind that the audience for this is more mainstream than those of you with such a keen interest in personality types.
So I'd be curious if your friends and family might find this kind of information helpful.

Thanks again, everyone, for the helpful feedback

Special shout-outs to these folks:
[MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION]
[MENTION=23915]Sinclair[/MENTION]
[MENTION=18763]Ghost[/MENTION]
[MENTION=24824]Kas[/MENTION]
[MENTION=23583]21lux[/MENTION]
[MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION]
[MENTION=22264]jscrothers[/MENTION]

 

[Bush]

Alright, I'm throwing a bit at you here.

I ran through the test again to get to the results page to download my manual. Because, yeah; why not?

On one of the pages you have "somewhat" and "fairly" as options. I like that. I like "fairly" as the strong answer; rather than, say, "definitely always all the time"; as more people could probably relate to that. Otherwise, you wouldn't have many responses that are outside of "somewhat." And if all of the responses you get are middling, you don't have much to work with.

This time, I got 3 and INFJ. Nothing to worry about. I distinctly remembered some of my responses and, this time around, thought -- 'Wait, this particular response is actually a better one.' That typing is in fact also more plausible for me, personally, than INFP; and I didn't explicitly look at these questions and think -- 'Yup, this will give me INFJ.' That's a good thing.
__

I like your manual overall. It's not meant for hardcore typologists, of course; and it doesn't need to be.

You might give some thought about the roles of the Enneatype and Jungian type descriptions that you give.

You give a thorough enough explanation of the Enneatype, and you place Jungian type as secondary to Enneagram. If you want to keep Jung at that scope, cool. I think it's appropriate. But if you do, you may want to handle it just a bit differently.

I suggest combining the whole thing into a single narrative, sort of; or reorganizing the narrative that you already give. This is train-of-thought here, but..

The manual says -- "Alright, here's your Enneagram type. Here's a bunch of good stuff about it. The end. You can learn more at [link]. (Oh, and here's something about a Jungian type or something.)" There's got to be a way to build one's 'personality manual' such that the Enneagram and Jungian type descriptions flow together, as if the two both describe your personality. I don't mean gathering descriptions for each Jung/Enneatype combo; there could be a way to segue into any description of the Jung type.

Maybe stick "Your Jungian Type" as a narrative above "Learn More." After all, it's some more information on the reader's personality. You may not need to flesh out your Jung descriptions any more. Including too much information about the Jung type would be overkill. There's no need to include, say, strengths of preferences for each dichotomy.

The following is all tentative thoughts, I don't feel so strongly about them and haven't given them much mulling over: You may think about combining the lists for what one "scored highest" on and which Enneatypes are common for the Jung type that I get. Whittle it down to three entries or so. Either way, perhaps you could also place some very brief verbiage about the other Enneatypes that apply to the reader. Again, this is much more of a mere spitball than my thoughts about the Enneagram/Jung descriptions.

Spitball #2: You may think about outright combining the two (Enneatype and Jungian) in the manual. Shove bullets for Jung types' "Work Styles" and "Self Care," for example, into those existing sections. That might not be appropriate to do.

 

[estorm]

You might give some thought about the roles of the Enneatype and Jungian type descriptions that you give.
...
I suggest combining the whole thing into a single narrative, sort of; or reorganizing the narrative that you already give. This is train-of-thought here, but..
...
There's got to be a way to build one's 'personality manual' such that the Enneagram and Jungian type descriptions flow together, as if the two both describe your personality. I don't mean gathering descriptions for each Jung/Enneatype combo; there could be a way to segue into any description of the Jung type.
...
Maybe stick "Your Jungian Type" as a narrative above "Learn More." After all, it's some more information on the reader's personality.
...
You may think about combining the lists for what one "scored highest" on and which Enneatypes are common for the Jung type that I get. Whittle it down to three entries or so. Either way, perhaps you could also place some very brief verbiage about the other Enneatypes that apply to the reader.
...
You may think about outright combining the two (Enneatype and Jungian) in the manual.

Thanks, [MENTION=22264]jscrothers[/MENTION]. All very thoughtful. I definitely see things in there to follow up on (better transition, move Learn More ...).

 

[estorm]

I'm also thinking that after this flurry of test taking happens, that I'd see what the reported accuracy was for just these few days, knowing that the vast majority are directly or indirectly from this thread.

I can also see what percentage was from which type and a few other nerdy things. Any requests?

 

[Yama]

I wanted to see the manual so I retook the test and this time got ISFJ 9. I can be very borderline T/F. Both descriptions for ISTJ and ISFJ fit me quite well.

Very much enjoyed & resonated with the 9 descriptions in the report. I love that the report gives suggestions and tips for how to overcome potential weaknesses, and in multiple different areas of life (and I love that there are more than just one or two suggestions!). Very thorough enneagram discussion. My only complaint would be that enneagram has 3 pages of stuff to talk about, but the MBTI part is more of an afterthought; considering it's a combination test for the two, I would have assumed it spends an equal amount of time discussing each half of the result (or at least more than a paragraph for MBTI). I agree with jscrothers that putting it above the "Learn More" would help it seem like less of an afterthought in this regard.

Overall, I liked it.