> And Rosta <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >Mike S.
> >>
> >> But yes, INTP's are overrepresented here for sure.  BTW,
> >> the enneagram is interesting too.   Check out the description
> >> for type Five.
> >>
> >> If you get the gist of Riso's "wing" theory, then you'll know
> >> what I mean when I say I am a Five with a Four-wing which acts
> >> up now and then.
> >
> >Do you base this on reading the descriptions and matching yourself
> >to them, or on doing the online test?
> Besides these two methods, an enneagram typing can be gotten
> from someone who both knows the enneagram and knows you well
> enough, or knows what questions to ask.  It is usually not
> that difficult to type people once you understand the system.
> Still, I think a combination of at least two of these methods
> is to be recommended rather than relying on one.
> As for myself, I initially typed myself by reading the
> descriptions, but have since confirmed this using the other
> two methods.  It can be an uncanny experience.  When you read
> some of the type descriptions, you will recognize a few of
> your friends and family, with some of their deep motivations
> brought to light.  When you will read on your own type, you
> find yourself wondering how someone could so accurately
> describe aspects of your personal inner landscape, though
> not perfectly of course.

I recognize the sensation of reading a description and recognizing
oneself (and not recognizing oneself in the description of other
types), so I definitely feel that the classification of
personality is a valid and insightful activity. What I (and others)
balk at, though, is the idea that we can meaningfully be grouped
into 9 or 16 types. Far better to define a multidimensional
personality space. I was mildly interested by the free mini
enneagram diagnoser because though it was feeble in itself, it
presents results by showing the relative strengths of the
nine types in, if not one's own make-up, then one's responses.

> I recommend Riso's _Personality Types_ if you are interested
> in studying the system a bit more.  The only disagreement
> I have with that book is the author's one-to-one correlations
> between the enneagram types and the Jungian types, which
> I flatly reject.  Other than that, it's a superb book.

Can you recommend something along the lines of what I am
after: something that defines not so much a small set of types
but rather the principal parameters of variation?

> >[I shall desist from reporting on myself enneagrammatically,
> >because although I quite like these threads where we tell each
> >other about our personality types, others find them insufferable.]
> Well in view of the fact that about a dozen other folks have
> announced their types with no apparent ill effects, perhaps
> you will reconsider :-)

I'll succumb to your invitation with unseemly readiness!

The free enneagram test had me split almost equally on all
types with troughs at 3 and 8, which are at the least the types
most inapplicable. Reading the online descriptions it would be
5 or perhaps 4, though reading descriptions elsewhere, 5 fits

Doing Myers-Briggs tests before, I always come out as IN, but
with any of the other four combos, perhaps with INTP as the
most pronounced. Doing the online test other people have been
doing gives INTP (78, 56, 56, 33). As Roger said in his message,
the description by Joe Butt (
elicits much recognition:

  "INTPs are pensive, analytical folks. They may venture so
  deeply into thought as to seem detached, and often actually
  are oblivious to the world around them.
    Precise about their descriptions, INTPs will often correct
  others (or be sorely tempted to) if the shade of meaning is
  a bit off. While annoying to the less concise, this fine
  discrimination ability gives INTPs so inclined a natural
  advantage as, for example, grammarians and linguists.
    INTPs are relatively easy-going and amenable to most
  anything until their principles are violated, about which
  they may become outspoken and inflexible. They prefer to
  return, however, to a reserved albeit benign ambiance, not
  wishing to make spectacles of themselves.
    A major concern for INTPs is the haunting sense of impending
  failure. [...]"

I like that last sentence. One suspicious thing about these
popular expositions of personality type is that they harp on
their good points, so one is invited to bask in the pleasure
of being told about one's virtues and talents. I am far more
convinced by a description that accurately describes my
vices, weaknesses and defects. So, if some test tells me:

  "You are unlikely to lead a life conspicuous for positively
  improving the material wellbeing of the general population.
  Your are prone to self-indulgence, addiction and
  procrastination. You are stingy with time/money. You feel
  the world outside you is more your oppressor than your ally,
  that it is to be retreated from, held at bay; you feel
  imprisoned and often paralysed. What talents you have are
  squandered on you. None of your good fortune is really
  earnt, except in close personal relationships. Your
  risk-aversion, fatalism and pessimism renders you supine in
  resisting the prison that your personality makes of the world
  for you."

then I'll be very impressed with its perspicacity!