# Warning!



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

The tests suck. There are *several* reasons why this is truth.

The variant stacks (so/sx/sp) are chosen by the tests based on global indicators that are just poor for determining your stacking order.

If you are stressing or feel threatened in general, or are just plain unhealthy you can very easily test as your "stress point" type.

Same can be true if you're very healthy too... you could test as your "growth point" type.

Lots of types can be tough and aggressive... the tests tell many of them they are 8s. Same as with variant stacks this is due to poor global indicators.

I _*STRONGLY*_ recommend you read through the profiles instead of taking the tests. See what makes sense to you. It is up to you, but I'd guess you have about a 50% or even greater chance of being mistyped if you rely on the tests... so there's a high chance you'll just end up wasting your time.


----------



## Andrea (Apr 20, 2009)

50% is pretty pessimistic


----------



## Ungweliante (Feb 26, 2009)

I agree with Bear. Much better to read through them and see what is you. After all, isn't that the whole point of psychological profiling? To find out what you are? 

I think I, for example, mistook myself for a 7. Sometimes 7s are actually 4s. The key is in the little things, which the tests don't show you.


----------



## SummoningDark (Mar 10, 2009)

I agree with Bear too, I took some tests, but I found reading through the type descripitions to be much more helpful for figurering out which type I am than any of the tests.


----------



## Sidewalk Balloonatic (Mar 10, 2009)

Bear said:


> The variant stacks (so/sx/sp) are chosen by the tests based on global indicators that are just poor for determining your stacking order.


Where can I go to get a more comprehensive understanding of variant stackings themselves? It appears to me that many sources have very different interpretations of what it actually refers to and how it can be determined.


----------



## Andrea (Apr 20, 2009)

i forgot to mention that i do agree with Bear. i just like tests.


----------



## amberheadlights (May 16, 2009)

I think tests can be useful, but they also need interpretation. The person who takes them needs to look at their overall score and consider other types they get high scores on, especially if those types are the wing, stress or security type of the highest score. It also helps to have someone interpret them (e.g. someone from the Enneagram Institute if it's the RHETI, etcetera) who can discuss the results, your patterns, etcetera. Also, having someone who knows you very well answer as you can sometimes yield useful information.


----------



## NewSoul (Mar 27, 2009)

amberheadlights said:


> I think tests can be useful, but they also need interpretation. The person who takes them needs to look at their overall score and consider other types they get high scores on, especially if those types are the wing, stress or security type of the highest score. It also helps to have someone interpret them (e.g. someone from the Enneagram Institute if it's the RHETI, etcetera) who can discuss the results, your patterns, etcetera. Also, having someone who knows you very well answer as you can sometimes yield useful information.


+1


The Enneagram tests especially suck for me, though, because I get completely different results for each quiz. Reading through the descriptions doesn't help me much either. I've basically narrowed my Enneagram type down to types 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9. :tongue:


----------



## openedskittles (May 24, 2009)

To demonstrate how poorly tests predict your Enneagram Type, here is a chart I found. They got these results by asking people to type themselves, then take each test and see if the results were the same:
Test.......Accuracy of highest score
 RHETI...................27%
WEPSS..................33%
SEDIG...................58%


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

openedskittles said:


> To demonstrate how poorly tests predict your Enneagram Type, here is a chart I found. They got these results by asking people to type themselves, then take each test and see if the results were the same:
> Test.......Accuracy of highest score
> RHETI...................27%
> WEPSS..................33%
> SEDIG...................58%


So in all but one instance my prediction of 50% was actually pretty liberal.


----------



## Siggy (May 25, 2009)

I took the test and ended up with a 1 and 8 for the highest scores. Both described me equally well and I'm just going to leave it like that. Its just a tool, albeit a innaccurate one.


----------



## MellowMarcello (May 19, 2009)

cassini said:


> I took the test and ended up with a 1 and 8 for the highest scores. Both described me equally well and I'm just going to leave it like that. Its just a tool, albeit a innaccurate one.


That sounds more 1ish with the value judgement of the enneagram based on the inaccuracy of a test. Test or no test 8s tend to know they are 8s right off the bat. I may be projecting here...but I interpret the "I'm just going to leave it at that" as a reluctance to override the poor test with common sense...with an underlying 1ish stream of consciousness that I shouldn't override my test for if everyone did that there would be chaos.

A 1's inner critic causes them to be compliant to their superego while an 8 is anything but.

An 8 doesn't think they have to follow rules to be a righteous person. They are very comfortable putting themselves above the rules.


----------



## amberheadlights (May 16, 2009)

openedskittles said:


> To demonstrate how poorly tests predict your Enneagram Type, here is a chart I found. They got these results by asking people to type themselves, then take each test and see if the results were the same:
> Test.......Accuracy of highest score
> RHETI...................27%
> WEPSS..................33%
> SEDIG...................58%


That's pretty interesting. I've taken both the RHETI and WEPSS, but not the SEDIG. Did they find there was any validity to the "top three" approach (e.g. your enneagram type is usually one of your three highest scores) or were those results also poor?


----------



## Rushing Wind (Jun 22, 2009)

Bear, I agree with you in that tests are unreliable sometimes. But that's even the case with MBTI tests, PD tests, etc. 

In my experience, I find the RHETI quite reliable, but then I don't adhere to the one type/one adjacent wing philosophy (meaning I find it better to go with the idea that we are a mix of all 9 types--and I consider the top 3 to be your true types)

And I don't know where you got those results on reliability, but studies have been done on the Enneagrams validity. It was statistically compared to the Big 5 (the most empirically consistent personality theory) and only in types 3 and 5 were there poor results (in the 50's percentages). The majority of the types were recorded to have reliability in the 70's percentages (which for a personality theory---is pretty solid). 

I may be mixing up two different experiments, so if so.....woops.:crazy:

But here is one of them. "The Riso-Hudson *Enneagram* Type Indicator: Estimates of Reliability and Validity." I could post the link, but you have to sign into a database. lol. sorry.

Still. I agree that tests aren't always accurate. But I think the RHETI has a lot going for it. Too many people I have told about the system look at me after reading their type and say "You're creeping me out--Its as if I'm reading my life!"

So, be skeptical--yes. However, don't judge a system until you've read up on it (and if you have, then good for you) roud:


----------



## amberheadlights (May 16, 2009)

Rushing Wind said:


> And I don't know where you got those results on reliability, but studies have been done on the Enneagrams validity. It was statistically compared to the Big 5 (the most empirically consistent personality theory) and only in types 3 and 5 were there poor results (in the 50's percentages). The majority of the types were recorded to have reliability in the 70's percentages (which for a personality theory---is pretty solid).
> 
> I may be mixing up two different experiments, so if so.....woops.:crazy:


IIRC, the Big 5/RHETI test didn't include self-typings but rather correlated how people test on the RHETI with how people test on the Big 5. So, they were very reliable in terms of raw test scores, but didn't correlate at all with how people ultimately typed themselves after reading the literature. The reliability percentages posted here investigated something different, from what I understand: the extent to which people's self-typing correlated with their actual highest scores. When you factor in self-typing, the numbers go down considerably. 

Earlier in this thread, I advocated looking to test scores, though over the past couple of months I've changed my tune on that a bit. I actually had a series of phone sessions with an enneagram author who gave me his test. I didn't think my top score was me because, among other things, I didn't have that particular passion and fixation, but I began to realize that he believed in his test so strongly that even when I expressed the motivations of other types while denying the one of "my" type, he declined to look into it because it wasn't in my top three and kept trying to "sell" me on my test results. That's the danger with testing, I think. In theory, it can be helpful for some people in discerning their type, but sometimes they can be off, and some people can put too much stock in them, becoming closed off to new information that would contradict the test's findings.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

The best way to find your type is to read the descriptions.


----------



## openedskittles (May 24, 2009)

Don't worry, cassini. I'm an ENTJ type 1, too. I scored high 8 as well as high 3, but I'm fairly certain any ENTJ would simply because we have confidence and drive, which the test pins with 8 and 3 respectively. A 1 can exhibit and make use of either trait just as well.


----------

