Multiple Enneagram Subtypes/Instincts What do you think of this new variant test?

[Such Irony]

I found this one over on Personality Cafe

I know its still in its developmental stages.

I think it looks promising. It's one the few that was able to give me a clear-cut stacking.


SP 40/50
SO 30/50
SX 24/50

 

[Entropic]

[MENTION=5684]Elfboy[/MENTION]'s test does seem to be pretty accurate although I still think a lot of the questions could be worded so it's more universally applied across types or just capture the gist of the instinct better in general. I retook the test and got these results:

SO: 9
SP: 30
SX: 47

 

[Elfboy]

I found this one over on Personality Cafe

I know its still in its developmental stages.

I think it looks promising. It's one the few that was able to give me a clear-cut stacking.


SP 40/50
SO 30/50
SX 24/50

I wasn't planning on sharing it until I knew it was finished, but thank you for sharing it

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Another way for people to answer according to their own deluded self-image and then have this reflected back to them in a comforting reworded sense, allowing them to fool themselves that they have discovered something profound about themselves and that they are therefore, by extension, profound.

/Cynical bastard.

 

[Thalassa]

Another way for people to answer according to their own deluded self-image and then have this reflected back to them in a comforting reworded sense, allowing them to fool themselves that they have discovered something profound about themselves and that they are therefore, by extension, profound.

/Cynical bastard.

Well there are four parts to the perception of a personality: what is known to the individual but not to others, what is visible to the individual plus others, what is visible to others but not the individual, and what is unknown (usually these are repressed or rejected characteristics).

That's like Communications 101. So I made sure to collect a lot of feedback from people on forums when typing myself, especially people who were sincere, knew me somewhat (like knew me as an individual person and not as the forum Marmonator), and didn't have some lingering personal vendetta against me (like the ONE GUY on the ENTIRE FORUM who kept saying I was ESFJ. Right. OK. That totally makes sense, one guy on the entire forum projecting one's own anima issues, n'est-ce pas?). Which is why you have to be careful in collecting this objective feedback that is visible to others and not to yourself, you have to ask a wide variety of people, including people who like and are simply neutral toward you, or who may even dislike some things about you, but aren't personally hostile toward you.

There's this one chick where I have been living, and everyone keeps telling her she's irrational, and she's got this false self-image like "I'm a nice, important person" and I'm not saying she's never nice, but its rehearsed forms of "niceness" like giving people gifts, otherwise she's really rude, self-absorbed, and kind of a bully. Finally she's getting kicked out, she has to leave in two days. I wonder if she'll finally understand, or continue her life utterly unexamined. She's in her 40s, btw, not 20s.

 

[skylights]

Hey @Elfboy, I like the idea, but being a 6 made me answer high on almost all the SP questions, even though I'm SP-suck. Also I think the less personal commentary (eg "I frequently wish I didn't have to be so damn careful"), the better...

Another way for people to answer according to their own deluded self-image and then have this reflected back to them in a comforting reworded sense, allowing them to fool themselves that they have discovered something profound about themselves and that they are therefore, by extension, profound.

/Cynical bastard.

Who knows you better than yourself? An unfortunate truth.

I think the hope is that, when juxtaposed in certain ways, knowledge can give rise to new knowledge.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Who knows you better than yourself? An unfortunate truth.

I think the hope is that, when juxtaposed in certain ways, knowledge can give rise to new knowledge.

If someone knows themselves perfectly well, then they won't need MBTI. The idea of classifying yourself into 1 of 16 types certainly implies accepting that someone else (who never met you), on some level understand your personality much better than you do.

It is complicated really. I know my "essence" but is that "personality" or is "personality" defined by interaction and social roles assumed? In the case of the latter, is it not much harder to view oneself based on itnrospection, than to base oneself on external objective criteria?

Personally, I believe MBTI is limited to observing "roles" and tells you NOTHING about your "true self", therefore I believe it should not be based on introspection, but on external crtieria.

To truly "know yourself", forget MBTI or any other personality theory. IMO.

Both are userful btw.

 

[Thalassa]

If someone knows themselves perfectly well, then they won't need MBTI. The idea of classifying yourself into 1 of 16 types certainly implies accepting that someone else (who never met you), on some level understand your personality much better than you do.

It is complicated really. I know my "essence" but is that "personality" or is "personality" defined by interaction and social roles assumed? In the case of the latter, is it not much harder to view oneself based on itnrospection, than to base oneself on external objective criteria?

Personally, I believe MBTI is limited to observing "roles" and tells you NOTHING about your "true self", therefore I believe it should not be based on introspection, but on external crtieria.

To truly "know yourself", forget MBTI or any other personality theory. IMO.

Both are userful btw.

Actually I think delved into deeply enough, MBTI and Jungian function theory are great tools for self-development, and learning to see why other people value different functions than you do. It has to be delved into deeply enough, though. Half-assed understanding just perpetuates more lack of self and social understanding.

Knowing your Self, in some kind of spiritual sense or deep psychological healthy self-love of course has to come through some other form than MBTI, but MBTI can be one of the tools, a step on the road.

I've thought about what you're saying, but even when I've been studying Eastern mysticism and yogas, apparently some gurus and enlightened yogis still retain their individual personalities after reaching enlightenment, and they express it all differently.

It's why I get annoyed with people who are like "oh Mother Theresa still had flaws" and "Gandhi was a politician." It's like duh you jack-ass, they aren't God, they are simply enlightened human beings who are still going to show human flaws to some degree, even following enlightenment.

And I think that may be where things like personality type is still quite relevant.

 

[King sns]

normal results

sp: 37
sx: 14
so: 6

 

[skylights]

Knowing your Self, in some kind of spiritual sense or deep psychological healthy self-love of course has to come through some other form than MBTI, but MBTI can be one of the tools, a step on the road.

In the case of the latter, is it not much harder to view oneself based on itnrospection, than to base oneself on external objective criteria?

Personally, I believe MBTI is limited to observing "roles" and tells you NOTHING about your "true self", therefore I believe it should not be based on introspection, but on external crtieria.

On the contrary, the MBTI is a classification of your internal thought processes, and is an analysis of introspection. That it was developed by people outside oneself doesn't make it unapplicable internally. The MBTI is a reflection of how you think - if you're basing it on societal roles, that's a very different application than what it was developed for, and it crosses the line of internal thoughts to external behaviors. As far as I am aware, most people here see the MBTI as an internal descriptor, not an external measurement.

If it were external, shouldn't we be asking more questions about behavior?

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

:

If it were external, shouldn't we be asking more questions about behavior?

Yes. I only trust tests which ask questions about behaviour, IMO the rest is as a I described above, a reflection of self-delusion, pretentious, and a waste of time.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I am a bastard sometimes but it's not out of maliciousness, just honesty.

 

[greenfairy]

Hey @Elfboy, I like the idea, but being a 6 made me answer high on almost all the SP questions, even though I'm SP-suck.

I was concerned about this myself, as I'm pretty sure I have 6 in my tri-type (even though I don't suck at it). And most people think I'm sx/sp, which is what I thought at first, but then some people think I have so first or second. I don't know, as other tests have always put sx first and then sp and so equal and close behind it. But yours did this:

sp: 38/50
sx/so: 29/50

 

[Entropic]

As far as I am aware, most people here see the MBTI as an internal descriptor, not an external measurement.

The way I see people treating the MBTI here though is based on external measurement or what Jung called the persona.

If it were external, shouldn't we be asking more questions about behavior?

And it does ergo the I/E and J/P dichotomies for example if I am going to be really obvious, and both are very foreign and far away from what Jung intended. I think Jung is much more about cognition than the MBTI is, which is mostly about behavior and appearances.

 

[Entropic]

I was concerned about this myself, as I'm pretty sure I have 6 in my tri-type (even though I don't suck at it). And most people think I'm sx/sp, which is what I thought at first, but then some people think I have so first or second. I don't know, as other tests have always put sx first and then sp and so equal and close behind it. But yours did this:

sp: 38/50
sx/so: 29/50

Stop concern yourself with tritypes. Focus on your dominant type first, then instincts in that order. After you've figured that out you can start looking at wings and tritype.

 

[greenfairy]

Stop concern yourself with tritypes. Focus on your dominant type first, then instincts in that order. After you've figured that out you can start looking at wings and tritype.

Well, I'm not absolutely sure of my dominant type yet; so I have to consider everything. And if I can nail down my instincts that could explain some type characteristics, and might help narrow it down. At least if you agree with what Elfboy said about them overlapping somewhat. You probably don't, but I don't know what the answer is.

 

[Faceless Beauty]

With the edits made so far to the test:

so- 21/50
sp- 27/50
sx- 33/50

 

[Entropic]

Well, I'm not absolutely sure of my dominant type yet; so I have to consider everything. And if I can nail down my instincts that could explain some type characteristics, and might help narrow it down. At least if you agree with what Elfboy said about them overlapping somewhat. You probably don't, but I don't know what the answer is.

Don't. Focus on one thing which is your core type. It's too easy using tritype as an excuse to claim to be a core type you're not because of tritype.

 

[pinkgraffiti]

Good test. SX is so me it hurts. Although I have a comment to make [MENTION=5684]Elfboy[/MENTION]: question 6 is not entirely "correct" (for me, and i think generally for an sx-dom): i do have the feeling of being somewhat incomplete, but it's not directly related to another person...it's related to a meaning... i don't think sx-doms are necessarily looking for another person, they are just looking for something to complete them, but that can also be a "sexless" passion like music or an adventure or food, i don't know. i know that indeed i'm all or nothing, i like to experience, i like to feel, i like to "unite" and normally i like one-to-one relationships BUT i can replace a person with a wonderful piece of music or something else that makes me "feel" and completes me, in a way.

SO 16
SP 31
SX 44

 

[greenfairy]

Don't. Focus on one thing which is your core type. It's too easy using tritype as an excuse to claim to be a core type you're not because of tritype.

Well if I've isolated 3 of them as the tri-type, I've narrowed it down, but if I don't know which is the core type, any of then could be potentially. And if I'm not sure it's one of those 3, then I'm back to where I started. How are you presuming I'm supposed to be sure of one type?

 

[Entropic]

Well if I've isolated 3 of them as the tri-type, I've narrowed it down, but if I don't know which is the core type, any of then could be potentially. And if I'm not sure it's one of those 3, then I'm back to where I started. How are you presuming I'm supposed to be sure of one type?

By reading, introspecting, more reading...? Sure, trying to narrow down your core type by first going to tritype isn't always a bad idea but it also easily leads to false assumptions about yourself because you're in denial which we are all about our type to some degree or another. I was for example which is why I rather typed as 4 than 5.