To Be Clear, I like Fantasy and Hookah Smoking, but Not Little Girls

What does Alice in Wonderland have to do with psychological testing?
Click on this link.

Maybe I'm Just Having a Very Fourish Day

So, I just tried a couple of Enneagram tests I hadn't tried before. Prior to today, I had maintained a perfect record of scoring as a type 5 on every e-gram tests ever. I was a paragon of the type. But today, I'm 0 for 2.
Here are the tests:

First, the Ennegram Personality Type Indicator. It typed me as a 4. Type 5 was tied for second (with type 3!)

Next, the TestCafe Ennegram Test. It also typed me as a 4.

Friends, have you all noticed some sort of personality drift on my part, or are these tests just wrong?

Here's Brad from Enneagram Book on e-gram testing: "The BEST way to find out your type is to have a chat with somewhat who knows the Enneagram pretty well. They’ll be able to nail you down easily. The 2nd BEST way is to get an Enneagram book and learn a bit more about the types and go from there. The WORST way, (but the most fun!) is to use... Enneagram Tests."

Here, here Brad! Except I would rank the books over the consultation, but maybe that's because I'm one of those individualistic, withdrawn types. On that, myself and the tests agree.

A Couple of Free Tests

I thought this was timely enough that the history lesson could wait:

For just this week, Katherine and David Fauvre are waiving their usual $10 fee for their complete online Enneacards test. The results of this test will give you an idea of your Enneagram type and wing, your Tritype, and a lot of other information.

What is a Tritype, you ask?

Well, here's the Fauvre's explanation: ". The Tritype concept suggests we have three Enneagram Types that we use in a preferred order. These three Enneagram Types will always be located one in each of the three Enneagram centers: head (5,6,7), heart (2,3,4) and gut (8,9,1)... Your Tritype is like your own unique Enneagram thumbprint. It shows the strategies you employ to negotiate life and what motivates you. Further, it reveals why you are different from others of the same Enneagram Type with a different Tritype. Although one of the three Types in your Tritype is dominant, or your primary Enneagram Type, the other two Types play a large role in your life. "

According to the test, my trifix is 5 - 4 - 8. This means that, when I am confronted with a problem, I will first use the 5 strategy (searching for understanding), then the 4 strategy (searching for meaning), and then, when that fails to work, the 8 strategy (searching for solutions.) Frankly, I'm not sure I buy it, but it makes interesting food for thought. I'd like to hear how the test turns out for other people.

To take it, go to: http://www.enneagram.net/tests/paidlogin.aspx. When it asks you to enter your coupon code, use Tritype808.

Another free Enneagram test you can take is at http://ephil.org/enneaquiz.php. See how long it takes you to figure out this test's methodology.

What Punctuation Mark Are You?

Unsurprisingly, there is a quiz to help you find out. Here are my results:

You Are a Colon

You are very orderly and fact driven. You aren't concerned much with theories or dreams... only what's true or untrue. You are brilliant and incredibly learned. Anything you know is well researched. You like to make lists and sort through things step by step. You aren't subject to whim or emotions. Your friends see you as a constant source of knowledge and advice. (But they are a little sick of you being right all of the time!) You excel in: Leadership positions You get along best with: The Semi-Colon

What Punctuation Mark Are You?

Now, you take it.

The Moral Instinct by Steven Pinker

This morning's New York Times features an article by Steven Pinker called The Moral Instinct. It does not relate to the Enneagram per se, but it does touch on individual differences in several places. Pinker:

- asks who is the most admirable, Mother Theresa (2w1), Bill Gates (5w6), or this other, way less famous dude, Norman Borlaug, who's apparently done a lot for humanity.
- mentions the agreeableness and conscientiousness scales on the Big 5 personality test, also known as the OCEAN (for openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, neuroticism),
- explains how and why there may be evolutionary niches for some of us to be high-minded self-sacrificers, some to be grudging reciprocators, and others to be outright cheaters.
- mentions that Hitler probably thought he was acting morally, which I consider enneagram-related -- look at the chart in the back of Personality Types by Riso and Hudson that shows how each type is trying to SOLVE a problem when they're spiraling down the levels. (In this case, type 6.)

I'm also guessing that people interested in the Enneagram are likely to be interested in psychology and morality generally, which is what the article is about.

But before you read it, you will want to go to YourMorals.org and take the Moral Foundations questionnaire: Findings will be discussed in the Pinker article, so this is your last chance to take it before you are forever tainted by hearing what it's about. (The site also features many other tests you can take; most, if not all, are ongoing psychology experiments so if you take 'em, you're also helping some researcher.)

Also, you will want to take this test, the Moral Sense Test (also an actual research project. You will be helping out a researcher named Fiery Cushman, if that makes a difference. If you are like me, you are wondering whether Fiery is a man's name or a woman's; a foreign name or just some American whose mom and dad thought Fiery was underused as a first name. He is a man and looks to be a regular American; his brother's name is O'Neill and his sister's name is Holly. Here is a website that he and his wife Julie have started.) Again, findings from this research project (or a very similar one) are discussed in the article so here's your chance to take it fresh (although granted, the Moral Foundations test is sort of a spoiler for part of the Moral Sense test. So, like, half of y'all take this one first, ok?)

Now, here is the article:
The Moral Instinct by Steven Pinker

Some thoughts, randomly presented:

Who can explain the significance of the Adrian Tomine drawing of two women running to catch a cab?

I'm not sure I agree with Pinker about human cloning. In other words, I think this Kass fellow is onto something with his "wisdom of repugnance" as it relates to human cloning. A cursory web search shows that most writers agree that Kass's argument is bogus, and Wikipedia has it listed under fallacies here. (You might also want to check out some of the links; for example, the Uncanny Valley is pretty cool.) And yes, everybody's making really valid points that lots of other things like interracial marriage, homosexual sex, and in vitro fertilization either were once considered repugnant, (or still are, at least to some people, at least the homosexuality.) However, to me human cloning is more similar to murder in the sense that there should just be a line drawn there. For instance, let's say there are some good reasons to kill somebody -- ok, I don't have to think too hard, since I've been reading ethical dilemmas. You are a doctor, and you have five patients needing organs who will die if they don't get organs. And a pharmaceutical rep comes in, who happens to have matching versions of all five organs. And for whatever reason you would never be caught if you were to take them out of the pharmaceutical rep and put them in those five people, saving five people but killing one, and just a pharmaceutical salesman at that. Should you do it? Of course not, and you didn't even have to think hard about it. Should be the same with human cloning; a bright line should be drawn between things up to human cloning and human cloning itself.

As for the trolley problem: I've heard of it before, and I always wondered why most people say that yes, they would push the lever. (Note: here begin those spoilers I was talking about.) Because I said no. For the same reason as not harvesting the organs; you can't kill people even if you think it would help in a utilitarian sense. However, when I actually took Fiery Cushman's test (ok, it's not just his test), I said yes; why? Because what was asked was not whether you'd do it, but whether it is morally permissible, and I think it is: I can certainly see why someone else would do it. Also, in the version where you are actually DRIVING the train, of course I would turn down the track with only one person on it to avoid hitting five. Why is this different? This scenario doesn't posit an inanimate object barrelling down on those five as a fact of nature with me as a by-stander who has the option to not get involved (and not be hauled into court); it is me driving an out-of-control vehicle and I know when I am in that situation I will turn to avoid the worse obstacle to hit; that's just how driving is. Also, there is no question of being a criminal versus not; if there is a question of vehicular homicide it would apply in both cases here.

About a month ago we held a poll about who is more famous, Steven Pinker or E. O. Wilson. The (statistically meaningless) results were: Steven Pinker 2, E.O. Wilson 3, and I've never heard of either of them, 2. Our discussion of this "controversy" here and here. Well, this morning I woke up at 3:35 am, January 13th. This Pinker article came out on January 13th. I'm on Central time, so it had been out for about 4 and a half hours, assuming it comes out right at midnight. In that 4 1/2 hours in the middle of the night, enough people had emailed it around that it had already shot up to number one on the NYT's most emailed articles list. (New articles usually appear on the list after everybody's woken up and had time to look at them.) I think this speaks to Pinker's fame (and the quality of the article, and the appeal of the subject matter.) But don't count E.O. Wilson out! Because a brief web search also turns up this article, Moral Psychology and the Misunderstanding of Religion, which is where I first encountered these ideas about the 5 strands of morality (harm, fairness, authority, purity, and ingroup loyalty) and the Trolley Problem. In it, the author states:

"Most people who study morality now read and write about emotions, the brain, chimpanzees, and evolution, as well as reasoning. This is exactly what E. O. Wilson predicted in Sociobiology: that the old approaches to morality, including Kohlberg's, would be swept away or merged into a new approach that focused on the emotive centers of the brain as biological adaptations. Wilson even said that these emotive centers give us moral intuitions, which the moral philosophers then justify while pretending that they are intuiting truths that are independent of the contingencies of our evolved minds."

and

"I think E. O. Wilson deserves more credit than he gets for seeing into the real nature of morality and for predicting the future of moral psychology so uncannily. He's in my pantheon, along with David Hume and Charles Darwin. All three were visionaries who urged us to focus on the moral emotions and their social utility. "

Incidentally, if you like articles like these, check out the blog http://www.3quarksdaily.com/, which is where I found this article initially.

Finally, one last link, the brain in a vat problem here. Hee.

Great Minds Think Similar?

There are quite a few personality tests you can take on the Similar Minds personality tests page. All the ones that I looked at had a similar setup -- you rank a list of statements on a five-point scale from "very inaccurate" to "very accurate", according to how well they describe you. I took the "Short Test" under the "Percentile Tests" category. One of the statements was "I am ambivalent", so I marked the midpoint of the scale, meaning "it's about 50/50." I don't think the testing instrument got the joke, though.
There is also a category devoted to Enneagram tests. Similar minds defines the Enneagram as "a nine factor personality system that is sort of a historical mutt, many different influences. The nine factors are - orderliness, helpfulness, image focus, hypersensitivity, detachment, caution, adventurousness, strength, and calmness. " Needless to say, I find the reduction of each of our nine types to a single "factor" a bit, well, reductive.
One interesting test is the Enneagram "Word Test", which reminded me of the WEPSS.
There are also some Enneagram tests under the "Compatibility Tests" category. The multi user test requires you to coordinate with a friend, so, since Mary Beth is out of town, I put the two of us into the self-reporting test. It correctly pegged us as a 5 and a 6, and said we are 73% similar and 73% complementary, which, as you may remember from geometry class, are not the same thing. No word yet as to our actual compatibility as friends.
When Mary Beth returns, I have a proposal regarding how to create a holistic Enneagram test. I figure there is about a 73% chance she will want to work on it.

Animal Companions -- Real and Imagined

Shown here are our real-life animal companions. (I have cats like normal people; Mary Beth keeps a pair of green anole lizards.)

However, in the world of The Golden Compass, I'd be going around with a lion and Mary Beth would be accompanied by a whippet.

How do we know? It's because we visited the Golden Compass movie website. It lets you generate a "daemon" in the form of an animal, based on questions you answer about your personality.

The movie opens nationwide this Friday. Mary Beth saw a sneak preview last night, and she says it's good.

Katherine Chernick Fauvre on Type 6

I am pleased to note that Katherine Chernick Fauvre has made her way to our humble blog. (Granted, I pointed it out to her, but still...) Here's what she had to say about the blog, the difficulty of typing 6s, and her Enneacards Tests:

"Thank you, I appreciate your reference. Typing is an intriguing process. I I loved the 6 observation. Friendly, funny and nervous certainly is 6 from the outside...... I'm sure that is why 6s make great comedians. In my experience, the phobic 6 tends to know that they are a 6 earlier that the counter-phobic 6. [From the Enneagram Institute website: "Sixes tend to use two different methods of coping with their anxiety: a phobic response or a counterphobic response. Sixes who are more phobic often deal with their fears through a dependent stance. They are more aware of their anxiety and turn quickly to others, particularly authority figures, for support...Sixes who are more counterphobic are much more likely to question, or even rebel against authorities. They are quicker to confront others and are more prone to suspiciousness than phobic Sixes. They are more determined to be independent and resist turning to others for support. " -- Cindi] The one that has the most difficulty is the social 6."

[If you don't know what a "social 6" is, check out this link on instincts. -- C]

More from Katherine:

"Both 6 and 9 struggle with identifying themselves in testing instruments as doubt is built into the defense strategy. As you know, 6s seek certainty and 9s have the believer/doubter dichotomy. They also both tend to seek balance. In the complete Enneacards Test, only the 6 (and sometimes 9) will choose one card in one selection and another in the second sort. When interviewed they say that they are trying to be fair and it depends on the situation, knowing that they can be either. They do best taking the sampler test 3 times as they relax and feel more comfortable choosing the 6 cards. Since it is free, I recommend it to everyone as it is a process in and of itself.
I have found that the 6 might relate to the responsibility of the type 1, the helpfulness and giving of type 2, the professionalism of type 3, the romantic nature of the type 4, the reserve of the 5, the flexibility and optimism of type 7, the fight for justice of the type 8, and the humbleness of type 9 with the cautiousness and/or rebelliousness type 6. The social 6 is the only type that uses all of these words. The social 6 also has tremendous difficulty confirming their type as they can be any of these qualities... because for them, it truly does depend of the situation.
The 9 tends to identify with aspects of many of the types as well. I find that 3, 6 and 9 all seek this balance as they are the primary types [central types of each emotional triad -- C] and out of touch with the focus of their center i.e., the 3 modulates feeling to keep doing, the 6 doubts what they know and the 9 is passive-aggressive rather than showing their anger. The 3 seeks balance by trying to adapt to people and situations so as to be seen in a positive light. The 3, however, is strongly identified with being successful so they do not struggle as much as the 6 and the 9 in confirming their type.
The Enneagram is a wonderful system and I never tire of learning more about the subtle distinctions within type. The Trifix [according to the Enneagram Explorations site, a person's trifix is his or her "dominant Enneagram type in each of the three centers: head, heart, and gut." -- C] research has yielded incredible data about out we see ourselves. Since the potential Trifix is given in the complete Enneacards Test, I am able to correlate the data with the Enneaspread. It is in the Enneaspread that we can see the 6 even if they do not choose 6 as their final card. In all fairness to the 6s, their defense strategy is to be evasive to stay safe. The 6 Enneaspread will have a 'poker' hand of cards that are consistently inconsistent. The inconsistency is the pattern. For example, their last two cards may be 5 and 7 which are their wings. The Enneaspread and Trifix will have the 6 in it but not necessarily as their first choices. Usually, in the Trifix it is the third choice. The combination of information is very revealing. For example, a 6 that has the 694 Trifix tends to be even more doubting and reserved as a 6 than the 683 which is more assertive and confident. The social 694 is often shy even if extroverted. And, if they are a ENFP they are often quite romantic and 7ish, the INTJ is more 5ish and withdrawn. Add the instincts and it yields a lot of information.
Good luck with your blog,
Katherine Chernick Fauvre"

[If you are interested in more correlations between the Enneagram and Myers-Briggs typology, check out "The Enneagram and the MBTI: an Electronic Journal." There is a wealth of info available there. -- C]

Self-Typing Advice from Cindi

When people ask me how they can determine their Enneagram type, I almost always give the same advice: go out and get a really good book on the Enneagram, one with really detailed type descriptions, read it cover to cover, and pick out the type that seems most like you. Pretty simple, huh?

Well, almost everyone rejects this advice in favor of either: (a) taking every Enneagram test they can find and getting conflicting results [this way lies madness], (b) attempting to apply whatever out-of-context remark they happen to hear about a person of any of the types to themselves (i.e., "If that guy's a 7, then I'm not one! He's a Republican!"), or (c) some combination of a and b. It can go on for years.

I recognized my type (5 - the Observer) upon reading Helen Palmer's book The Enneagram in Love and Work; a friend of mine recognized his type from Riso and Hudson's Understanding the Enneagram. You could also use Palmer's The Enneagram: Understanding Yourself and Others in Your Life or Riso and Hudson's Personality Types. These are all serious, detailed works that do a good job of capturing the gestalts of the types.

Here's how it works: You read various type descriptions, you might even recognize some of the people you know in them, and you think, "Oh, how horrible! Why, if I thought like that, everything would be all screwed up! I mean, behaving that way is just gonna make it impossible for you, or anyone else, to win." And then, you come upon something different -- a perspective that doesn't seem so bad. In fact, it just seems true.

Everyone IS always interrupting you, just as you're about to discover something really important! (type 5) Those bastards ARE always taking from you and never giving back! (type 2) The world IS falling apart because no one ever cleans out the lint tray! (type 1)

But strangely enough, this perfectly reasonable way of looking at the world is written out here, along with eight other worldviews that suck. And you don't see what sucks about it, at least not at first, until it hits you. That's your type, and it's just as bad as all the others. And you've been doing it relentlessly for a long, long time. The sinking feeling in the stomach. The sick feeling. The ringing bell.

These epiphanies can also occur while you are listening to a teacher describe your type. I am happy to report that, when last we taught, Mary Beth and I were able to induce the sick feeling of recognition in several of our students.

These approaches work because they are holistic -- they give you more or less the whole thing all at once, the sum as well as the parts. A good description is thorough, nuanced, and anecdotal. Recognizing yourself in it is like identifying with a character in a book or a movie. You might be of a different age, sex, race, life situation, and political affiliation than that character, but somehow you just know that, at an archetypal level, that person is like you.

Enneagram tests often fail because they are too analytical and too straightforward "I am an avaricious person. Strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree?" How's a person supposed to respond to that? Plus, there's no guaranteeing that the test-taker will believe his or her results, since, if the question is faulty, he or she might not even fully believe the data he or she fed the test. Garbage in, garbage out.

I am interested in developing more holistic approaches to typing. I am sure I will be blogging about them, at length, soon enough. In the meantime, you might try the method shown above. If the spinner lands on zero, you have to promise to go away and amuse yourself with Myers-Briggs typology exclusively for at least one year. Then, you can spin again.

How to determine your Enneagram type: some recommendations

Because I am such an Enneagram enthusiast, I often find myself emailing back and forth with new acquaintances, old friends, etc., to try to help them determine their type.

First, I send them the link to the Eclectic Energies Enneagram Tests. There are two tests there, and I recommend you take them both. The format of the questions is different, and I find them equally illuminating. Results are provided in the form of a list of potential types in their order of likelihood.

After the person sends me copies of their results and we discuss them (usually via email), I send them Riso and Hudson's QUEST. This one's good because it's quick to take, and it doesn't even try to pick out your type: it ranks the nine types into a top three, middle three, and bottom three in terms of likelihood. The prediction is that one of the top three has an 80% likelihood of being your type. This is a good check on the Eclectic Energies results; if, say, Eclectic Energies suggests a type but it's in the bottom tier of the QUEST, it's probably not the one.

After that, I recommend they read my favorite Enneagram book, The Wisdom of the Enneagram by Riso and Hudson. Other good introductions are Personality Types by Riso and Hudson and The Enneagram by Helen Palmer.

The subtext of what I've been saying is that determining your Enneagram type isn't always easy. Some people are able to figure theirs out immediately upon picking up The Wisdom of the Enneagram, but others have a harder time, and there are several people in our Enneagram discussion group whose types are still mysteries to the group.

You'd think it'd be easy to figure out -- you'd just take a test, like with the Myers-Briggs. But it's not that easy -- the Enneagram is not really a science. (Ignore for the moment that there are those who say the same thing about the Myers-Briggs!) In my experience, the MBTI will tell you your type, it'll be correct and it will stay stable over time. But the Myers-Briggs schema consists of continua between four poles. It's obviously much easier to write a test in the forced-choice format for four pairs of opposites than it is for nine types based on 7 deadly sins plus 2! This is why I've never been very impressed with the RHETI (Riso and Hudson's other test), which uses the forced-choice format.

Here's my story of figuring out my own type. It spans the decades:

In 1987, I saw Riso and Hudson's original Personality Types and just had to have the book. (I've always been very interested in both personality and testing.) I read it, and sort of enjoyed it, but didn't much understand it. The types didn't remind me of the people I knew, and I certainly couldn't pick myself out. I wanted to be a 5, cause that seemed like the smart one, but I didn't relate at all to the idea of the withdrawn observer. (My self-image at that time was of someone who was both talkative and needy.) I thought maybe a 4, because it seemed pretty interesting to be the artistic one, but that one was a withdrawn type, too, plus it just didn't feel right. Of all of them, I thought the 7 might be closest, even though I knew that wasn't right either, really, because I was the opposite of a compulsive do-er -- I was more of a compulsive non-doer. I just didn't see any of these patterns in myself or others I knew.

So 12 years pass -- 12 years in which I read every Enneagram book and take every Enneagram test I come across, and get a little better at seeing the patterns in others, and still I don't know my type, although I suspect 7w6. (The RHETI said I was either 7 or 2.) I have a friend named Jeff who likes the Enneagram too, and one day his sister Suzy and I are both hanging out with him on the same day, and we talk about the Enneagram. I told her I didn't know my type, and she says "Oh, you're a 6." I asked how she knew, and she said I just was, and she'd been to an Enneagram conference, and I reminded her of the other 6s, and she'd heard that 6s never knew they were 6s anyway, so if you don't know, it's a good guess. (Pretty good advice, by the way -- if you can't tell, consider 6 or 9.)

Two years later, I met Cindi. We started talking about the Enneagram, and she, too, said "Oh, you're a 6." I asked how she could tell. She said "friendly, funny, nervous." And she's right; I am 6w7.

My reading of profiles of The Loyalist hadn't really evoked "friendly, funny, nervous." That said, the 6 is a particularly hard one to grasp compared to, say, the 1 or the 2. But there's something to the idea that the types can sometimes be easier to identify from the outside. Not only are Enneagram tests just hard to write, but also, you need to see yourself fairly clearly in order to answer the questions correctly. And seeing yourself clearly is why you need the Enneagram in the first place!

Think about it: if you're in the "trance" of your style, and you saw yourself clearly, you wouldn't like what you saw, and you probably wouldn't be choosing those particular strategies. People at the unhealthy levels usually have justifications for their behavior, sometimes elaborate ones, that skew their perspective. [Example from the current news: Lori Drew (the 47-year old woman who pretended to be a 16-year old boy, had an internet flirtation with her 13-year old neighbor that ended in the 13-year old's suicide) thinks: I am a good person, good people don't do bad things, therefore I didn't do anything wrong, therefore why did you attack my Foozball table with an ax? I'm going to the police!]

That's all for right now.