What is your Myers Briggs or Enneagram type, and has it meant anything to you?
The_Riv
Shipmate
This arises from the fact that I just shared on the "Alone" thread (but not for the first time on these boards, surely) that I'm a fairly strong introvert. It's reminded me that years ago I tested as an INTP, and fairly strongly in each category, according to the Meyers Briggs system: Introversion--Intuition--Thinking--Perceiving. Maybe not so surprisingly, Mrs. The_Riv tested as an ISFJ.
On the other hand, I have eluded clear classification via the Enneagram system. Apparently I'm a 4/5 hybrid with regular 8-ness mixed in. I took this assessment a couple/few of times during a few months of counseling, and just couldn't land it on anything decisive.
Anyway, this isn't a thread to say that these assessments are Authoritative, or necessarily represent our innermost Truths, but that they can be helpful tools of insight. So, if I may, What type(s) are you, and What has that meant to you?
On the other hand, I have eluded clear classification via the Enneagram system. Apparently I'm a 4/5 hybrid with regular 8-ness mixed in. I took this assessment a couple/few of times during a few months of counseling, and just couldn't land it on anything decisive.
Anyway, this isn't a thread to say that these assessments are Authoritative, or necessarily represent our innermost Truths, but that they can be helpful tools of insight. So, if I may, What type(s) are you, and What has that meant to you?
Comments
Learning that didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.
Right! Well, we first took the MB Assessment as part of a congregational development initiative -- the whole parish took it (or was, at least, encouraged to take it) in an effort to detail a different awareness of "Who We Are/Were," as well as provide strategies for how different MB types could better work together in shared ministry areas.
I also remember hearing an Episcopalian comedian do a few bits on MB types and Parish Life at something called The Great Church Conference which, if I remember correctly, took place annually at All Saints ECUSA in Beverly Hills.
Myers-Briggs is similar but not identical to the Five trait personality model, which apparently has some scientific backing.
Edited to add: What I've gotten out of being made to be assessed by people who take these things seriously is mainly angry at all the wasted time.
The Enneagram was different. I found an accessible book, as some make it far too complicated. Once I had read it through a few times to absorb it, I homed in on the one with the closest fit and recognised where in my childhood it had arisen from. That was helpful in itself.
From then on I have known why I react the way I do, and I can see that others react according to their own direction so that I understand them better as well as myself. All good.
The test doesn’t tell me anything I don’t already know, though. If I remember correctly, it can be variable as to how I answer the questions according to whether I am manic or depressed.
I put both MB and Enneagram in the category of having the potential to be helpful if not taken too seriously or treated like blood tests. I don’t think either told me anything I didn’t know, but they did give me a framework for thinking about what I know about myself.
But as said this is really a form of Rorschach inkblot, more useful for what it stimulates than in itself.
I didn't pay it much attention at the time as my views on these things are similar to @Ruth's.
I tend to think they're all woo-woo, which may sound a bit rich from someone who believes 6 impossible things before breakfast.
I never found it of any practical use in the work-place and I have a general aversion to manage-speak and bollocks.
Which is probably why I didn't get any further up the greasy pole.
If that doesn’t sound too paternalistic ... 😉
I tend to agree with @KarlLB that this stuff tends only to tell you what you already know.
I've had no exposure to the Enneagram. It all sounds bollocks to me but I've met people who swear by it.
I imagine less introspective people might learn something about themselves, though I'd advise such a person to put more trust in the views of a trusted relative or friend.
As I am an INTJ/5, I of course already knew what the assessments would say about me and how I relate to others - and was not the least bit motivated to grow as a person. If anything, the opposite!
I rather think if I were to do the assessment again now there might be a different result, if that is possible.
I think they can be actively harmful and discriminatory when they start being used in professional contexts.
My sense is that the M-B may be capturing some real aspects of personality (albeit imperfectly) but attempting to dichotomize the way it does is a mistake. There is some overlap between the M-B categories and the Big 5 and I’ve even seen a recent-ish test that was effectively trying to combine them (though not in so many words).
AIUI the Big 5 is regarded as having some degree of clinically proven validity and importantly it does not try to reduce everything to dichotomies.
Well, it rather depend on whether I'm choosing a paint colour for the lounge or writing a powershell script really, doesn't it?
I think that MB and Enneagram model human personality about as well as the D&D alignment system models ethics.
D&D?
Pretty sure those are both googleable, but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_&_Dragons
One of the Great Three Ken Rants - Myers-Briggs, Dear Lord and Father of Mankind, and Mild Cheddar.
Re Ken: @KarlLB You've forgotten Away in a manger
Yebbut if I change it to Four Great Rants now we'll end up with the Spanish Inquisition sketch.
All the books start off by saying no type is necessarily better at any job than any other - people who aren't the most intuitive fit for a job on paper can approach the job in non-standard ways and so on.
Corporate recruitment apparently uses them as forms of job aptitude test.
My experience of the Enneagram was very different (initially done over a three day course) and pretty transformative at the time as I came out as a type (8) I'd never have thought I was but it made sense of a lot of things. I've done quite a bit of work with it since, although not as much as my husband has - he's become a qualified teacher and one-to-one coach since that initial three day course, which we did together. It's helped me understand myself in terms of motivations and helped us to understand each other a bit more - and given us a different language to talk about things. I'm sure anyone who's been in a longterm relationship has found, as we have, that the same issues come up and we tended to talk about them in the same way.
It does not, of course, define me, and everyone is always more than their type but I've found it a useful tool. I agree with @chrisstiles that these things can be harmful when misused in a work/power context.
And this was the specific aim of the congregational MB inquiry I was a part of years ago.
This was exactly the way in which I was introduced to the Enneagram and in my experience at least it has not been about being put into a box but rather about seeing the box I was in and being shown a way out of it.
Or worse "You have X personality. You can't possibly do Y".
I’m not sure actually that people could accurately self-categorize without taking the test… it may seem that way but that may be because lots of people have actually done the tests any number of dozen times.
But agreed on everything else.
The one time I actually took a professional-level MBTI it also reported subcategories on the various scales which may well be more informative than the broad I vs E or N vs S etc. I’m middle of the road between J and P (and other things as well) but on some of the subcategories I was definitely one way or the other in a way that wouldn’t necessarily have occurred to me until it was pointed out. It’s a question of aggregating data enough to provide a lens that is illuminating without being distorting.
I'm pretty sure they could accurately self-categorize if they thought about it. All the test does is tell you what you have told it. So, the test measures how you see yourself, which is why so few people say the test was completely wrong. The test does not measure how others see you or how well you work in a team because you are the only one who has given information, and that is how you see yourself.
I just read the thread to see if anyone else would remember Ken, in response to it. And it seems I am the fourth
My results might be very different if I took the test again, but here they are:
Agreeableness: 68
Extraversion: 12
Conscientiousness: 31
Openness to Experience: 95
Neuroticism: 86
The career counselor who had me take the test used Jordan Peterson’s version (I’m sorry that he made money from my taking the test given all that he has said). The test had the following scores for subcategories:
Subcategories of Agreesbleness:
Compassion: 55
Politeness: 76
Subcategories of extraversion:
Enthusiasm: 25
Assertiveness: 9
Subcategories of Conscientiousness:
Industriousness: 3
Orderliness: 84
Subcategories of openness to experience:
Intellect: 92
Aesthetics: 90
Subcategories of Neuroticism:
Withdrawal: 83
Volatility: 84
You can see how Peterson tweaked the subcategories to reflect his “make your bed and study classical Western civilization” schtick. I don’t know how I would have scored if I took the non-Peterson version of the test.
The very, very low industriousness score and very high orderliness score means that I am lazy and leave things a mess but that I am incredibly bothered by that - not that that seems to have motivated me to do much about it in my almost 40 years of life.
The test did say not to take it if I am experiencing clinical depression or some other serious mental health issue. I’m not sure if I was experiencing that at the time or if I am now though. But it might explain why my results are so all over the place.
I do sometimes wonder how well these tests distinguish between genuine introversion and other things (like social anxiety) that might generate similar answers on an I-E-type scale.
Like "I enjoy parties and social gatherings" - is this a small gathering of immediate family or a big do with people I don't know? How formal is it? Why is it being held? Until I know that I don’t know how I feel about at and it could be anywhere from Strongly Agree to Strongle Disagree.
I tend to go with gut reaction: if someone says to me "come to this party on Saturday, it's going to be great!" then my first instinct is "nope, nope, did I mention? Nope." Sure there are exceptions where my answer would change but I think the first answer is good enough for these sorts of questions.
My first gut instinct is "it depends"