Type 3 - The Achiever
Type Threes work hard to achieve their goals and success. They are good at seeing what's possible and figuring out how to get the job done. They value and know how to make a good impression. Emotionally, Threes contain their feelings and offer a friendly and optimistic face to the world. They have difficulty acknowledging their deeper feelings, and they can overlook the emotional needs of others. Three's absorption in their own pursuits can lead them to overtax themselves and the people around them.
INFP
INFP's are quietly idealistic and interested in being of service to others. They are creative, have quick minds, and are able to see possibilities. They are contemplative and have a well-developed set of principles by which they live. They are loyal and compassionate, but need lots of time alone. They are modest to the point of being self-critical and are sensitive to feeling rejected. They do well when they are acknowledged for their depth of feelings and ideas.
As a Three, I'd say that the Three description is pretty good.
Overtaxing others does happen, and it's not something that most descriptions address. When the Three picks up the workahol, the people around him have to pick up the slack in every other area of life. Bravo for addressing that.
Intuitively, we'd think that an INFP / 3 combination is pretty much impossible. But taking a look at the descriptions, there's no reason why both can't fit at the same time to some degree. Both hate being rejected and want to be accepted, and they're both sensitive in that way. And, as your descriptions say, both see can see possibilities and act upon them.
The only problem in combining these two types is that we're stating that the participant can't find his feelings and that, at the same time, he wants his feelings to be acknowledged.
But if one or the other doesn't fit me so well, I can simply say that and the test tries some more. And if it's still stuck after that, it asks "screw it; which of these are you?" That's actually a pretty good approach. The options that it presents in these extra questions does make sense. You're casting a wider net, but not enough to just list all the types. Very few tests have that sort of iterative feedback mechanism, where the test presents a result and asks the participant if it seems legit, course-corrects accordingly, and then presses onward again. More tests need to do that.
And this odd combo also indicates that your test doesn't simply map Enneagram type to some MBTI type and call it a day; it analyzes each with the same set of questions. And the questions are presented fluidly enough to make the test flow naturally.
That's in the general.
As far as how it pegged me -- I relate to intuition first and foremost anyway, and so I wouldn't say that the INFP description is flat-out wrong. Seriously, it didn't screw up.
What I like about being emotionally positive is that it helps me get along well with others.
What I like about being emotionally expressive is that it helps me relate emotionally to others.
What I like about being emotionally self-controlled is that minimizes emotional entanglements with others.
The way I read this that it shows what I
value. I might value, say, being emotionally expressive because it helps me relate. It might be easy to express myself. But it might be hard for me. Though even if it's hard for me, I can still value it (see also: the basis of Socionics).
It's fine if that's what you mean by it. You may want to clarify whether you mean to tease out what the person values or what the person does.
Thanks, [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION], for sharing the test. I'm already learning things.
As I developed this test, one feedback I got is that some people really have a hard time with / feel uncomfortable with forced-choice type questions where you must choose one over another. While I completely sympathize, from a test maker's perspective, giving the option for a tie makes finding a result almost impossible. One way around this is to ask 120 questions hoping for a (slight) majority vote on something asked many times in slightly different ways. So having chosen the short test format with forced-choices, I apologize to this who find it irritating or difficult.
The first section's "forced-choicedness" was a bit difficult to navigate, but the rest of the test was fine. I'll have to mull over potential solutions to that one.
It's a sticky issue in psychometerics overall -- how many "points" do you need to present? Two? Five? A hundred?
You don't want to force the participant to choose between one or the other, absolutely, black-and-white. Present the freedom to say that one's "kind of right," and, if possible, that they're about equal. However, you also don't want to ask at a level of precision that's just plain impractical.
I think five points is (almost always) a good balance.
Sometimes, a test needs a forced-choice, but not a black-and-white one. Depends on whether you
need to have the user choose at least a little bit of preference in order to process his results meaningfully. Having six (or any even number of) points leaves out the "I don't know" option, which may give results that are more practical to process.
I have to say as one who had taken many tests, being on the developing end has really changed how I see tests. There are a lot of variables (many beyond my control) to juggle in order to get accurate results for most people, for example, mood, self-awareness, knowing the Enneagram and MBTI, quality of attention in the moment, etc. Versus the things I can control: wording, sequence, scoring algorithms, etc. I have reached a point that if at least 80% of the test takers feel okay about their result, then I'm feeling pretty good about the test.
Yeah, no kidding.