I'm a 4w5 as well, followed closely by a 4w3. I'd say the descriptions are pretty accurate of my personality. Thanks for the link, I feel like I did some soul-searching.

Last edited by Crystalline_Dream (08-20-2011 10:32:45 PM)

I appear to be a 2w1-a helper-perfectionist. I wish so much to be helpful and yet, I see so much I want to do and correct and help with, especially things like social justice. I had issues as a teen with my view on my self-worth, mostly because I felt useless, unneeded and I was highly isolated for weeks at a time where I wouldn't see anyone.

Nowadays, I feel a strong want/need/desire to help others and find justice and maybe make things better. So yep. Pegged.

I've taken Enneagram tests before, including the print kind, but I liked this one more than most   I came out as 4w5, as usual, but this test rated me higher on 9 than I got when I took the test a few years ago; it was my second highest attribute, very close on the heels of 4.  Maybe it's just because this is a different test, or maybe it's actual change.

4w5 is consistent with how I sometimes describe myself on the websites where one does that sort of thing: part poet and part scientist, with neither half being very good at it   On the other hand, the description for Type 9 (peacemaking/trusting/unmotivated) says that Nines often misidentify themselves as Fours (individualist/sensitive/dramatic) or Fives (intellectual/withdrawn/overwhelmed).  I think I need all three to make any sense of myself.  It seems about right to say that I use my Nine faculties to make value judgments, my Five faculties to make judgments about reality, and my Four faculties to make decisions.

I think it would be fascinating if personalities could be categorized, whether it's through the Enneagram, MBTI, the Big Five, or the zodiac if it comes to that.  It's true that good personality tests can give us insight about ourselves and lead us to consider parts of ourselves we normally don't.  But I'm skeptical that they have much to do with reality.  It seems weird to think that there would be only nine components of personality, much less these nine, and it's hard to swallow some of the advanced aspects of the theory -- like wings, directions of integration and disintegration, and so on.  Those parts seem more like mysticism than like science.  Maybe personality is one of those things it's just too hard to apply empiricism to; maybe mysticism really is our best tool for investigating it.  But I hope not!

Unrelatedly: anyone mind if I move this to the Shaved Ice Lounge?  "Take this test and tell us what you got"-type threads usually go there.

Last edited by satyreyes (08-21-2011 07:57:28 PM)

QQQQQ wrote:

^ Would you also be shocked if I tell you we have only three primary and three secondary colours in our spectrum? But they're only base types, and the Enneagram - if you include wings, instinctual subtypes, and the levels of development, can account for hundreds.. thousands of different kinds of people. Ja. It is funny when you mention it, Science is meant for open-ended thinking, foraying into the unknown.

I like the analogy between the primary colors and the Enneagram!  But let's take it a step farther.  To a painter, the primary colors are red, blue, and yellow; you mix them in various proportions to get the other colors of the spectrum.  But to a computer graphic designer, the primary colors are red, green, and blue, which also happen to be the colors to which the cones in our eyes are most receptive.  To a photographer, the primary colors are cyan, yellow, and magenta.  It turns out that each of these sets is good for mixing some colors and not so good for mixing other colors.  Some choices are better than others -- you don't get much range if you pick red, vermilion, and orange as your primary colors -- but you wouldn't say, "these three colors are special, because every other color can be understood as a combination of these three and no others."  That would be an oversimplification.  Primary colors are convenient; they are not definitive.

In the same way, I'd suggest that there's nothing special or definitive about the personality types of the Enneagram: they might do a good job letting us "account for thousands of different kinds of people," as you put it, but the same might be true of any set of nine diverse personalities.  For instance, I bet descriptions of the first nine signs of the zodiac could be combined and mixed to do almost exactly as good a job describing a random person as the Enneagram.  Both systems probably have blind spots and strong points, and I can't think of a reason to think that either one is closer to "the truth about personality" (if such a thing exists) than the other.

One interesting fact about personality typology is that it's possible to do statistical analysis on people's answers.  There have been a number of studies, if memory serves, that show that people's answers tend to be correlated across five dimensions.  The Big Five model of personality tries to put names to those dimensions in order to understand in what ways people are consistent -- which means something like their personality.  Science at work, even if it's tentative science

Hmm.. Shaved Ice lounge seems more for quick posts and having fun; maybe it is better to leave this in General Discussion for some contemplation? I notice there's already an MBTI thread in this section.

Haha, we're definitely discussing and contemplating, so GD it is!

I have only taken the classic one currently but I rated as a 2w3. I mostly can see myself in the writeup for a type 2, though I'm definitely more introverted than extroverted. Type 2 rated a 12 for me while my second highest is type 4 at 9, which I can also see chunks of my personality in. It will be interesting to see how the other test rates me.

EDIT: Well the second test scored me as a 2w3 as well so I guess I can't deny that part. It says I'm the self preservation variant which I can very mostly say yes to except I do show emotion once I feel close to others. Pretty surprised that 6 is my third highest on both tests because I see more of it in me then the 3 (if I am understanding the wings correctly and it that is where we shift to). I don't quite figure myself a 3 at all if that is the case, though the first test did say my wings are balanced, so who knows.

Last edited by Calamity (08-21-2011 09:46:16 PM)

Yest another 5w6, but I'm only .4 away from 8w7, and both 8 and 7 score higher than 6.  So I guess I isolate myself, am prone to confrontation, am easily distracted, and am afraid of the world at large.  Whooooo!  Why is that not on my resume ?

That sounds about right, actually.

I'll also throw my agreement in with OITL.

Last edited by KaleMarsh (08-21-2011 09:40:22 PM)

@Calamity: HIGH FIVES 2w3 for me too. I'm such a goody goody

Last edited by chrisb (08-22-2011 12:09:53 AM)

I'm pretty rare - a 6w5 followed by a 6w7 and 9w1.
I'm pretty much a loyalist - in conflict with trust and distrust

Just took the Enneagram...

According to this... I'm a 9w8. I'm not sure how the "w8" influences the 9, though.

Both tests give me a 6w5. I wouldn't describe myself as being particularly "loyal" though...

I'm also a 6w5. I find this incredibly accurate and insightful.

Thanks for posting this!

Challenger, definitely.