The Enneagram , valid?

Freiheit

Hi I'm just wondering whether its really possible to isolate different personality types? . I think there's always some element of overlap and people change due to experience anyway.

Thoughts?

dar100

Hi,

I would be very sceptical of any theory which claims to have a concrete description of all personality types, more so of one which puts forward 9 personality types. I have not read much on the model you mention, so I would not be sure on it's psychometric properties and how reliable and valid it is.

For example, the Myers Briggs based on Jungian methods puts forward 16 types, which I still feel is to narrow to measure such a complex construct. The Big Five Inventory is another example of measuring brightside personality, personally I would favour this model as it views personality on a continuum of opposing traits; introvert-extrovert.

I am not sure on how recent this method that you mention is? But I dont think any new addition to the field can operate without measuring the characteristics of the BFI. JMO

Lbeard

It's woo. It originates from some Russian Rasputin type esoteric religion.

Karl Jungs personality types are also Woo. Briggs-Meyers as, is nearly every other personality test, based on Jung.

Woo makes money.

seamus

The Enneagram resonates well with a lot of people because unlike a lot of other personality "tests", it's not quite so pigeonholing. How it's interpreted has been expanded over time in such a way that while it gives you a base type, there are links and lines drawn between all of the types so a person is defined as their base type but "borrows" traits from other types.

Meaning that when someone displays a trait which does not conform to their base type, they are simply said to be "borrowing" from a linked type which does contain that trait. In essence this can be used in such a way that it appears to describe anybody's personality with great accuracy while at the same time providing zero useful information about that personality.

MaxWig

Lbeard wrote: »

It's woo. It originates from some Russian Rasputin type esoteric religion.

Karl Jungs personality types are also Woo. Briggs-Meyers as, is nearly every other personality test, based on Jung.

Woo makes money.

Jung's personality types are far from 'woo'.

I don't think it is ever suggested that they are exhaustive.

But they are certainly valid enough to be used by companies throughout the world.

dar100

MaxWig wrote: »

Jung's personality types are far from 'woo'.

I don't think it is ever suggested that they are exhaustive.

But they are certainly valid enough to be used by companies throughout the world.

Maxwig I agree that they may not be woo, but utilising the Myers-Briggs for hiring people has many flaws

dar100

Lbeard wrote: »

It's woo. It originates from some Russian Rasputin type esoteric religion.

Karl Jungs personality types are also Woo. Briggs-Meyers as, is nearly every other personality test, based on Jung.

Woo makes money.

Five Factor model is not based on Jungian methods

Lbeard

MaxWig wrote: »

Jung's personality types are far from 'woo'.

They are complete and utter woo.

Reducing the complexities of subjectivity and inter-subjectivity to a handful of types is worse than woo. It's harmful.

MaxWig

Lbeard wrote: »

They are complete and utter woo.

Reducing the complexities of subjectivity and inter-subjectivity to a handful of types is worse than woo. It's harmful.

They don't even attempt to reduce " the complexities of subjectivity and inter-subjectivity to a handful of types".

They simply identify and tendencies and proclivities, seen in such consistency and numbers as to make them valid.

It is not a precision tool, it is a broad scope.

@Dar100, I agree that hiring anyone based on a Myers-Briggs would be daft.
As I understood it, they are mainly used as short cuts with large numbers, no?

dar100

MaxWig wrote: »

They don't even attempt to reduce " the complexities of subjectivity and inter-subjectivity to a handful of types".

They simply identify and tendencies and proclivities, seen in such consistency and numbers as to make them valid.

It is not a precision tool, it is a broad scope.

@Dar100, I agree that hiring anyone based on a Myers-Briggs would be daft.
As I understood it, they are mainly used as short cuts with large numbers, no?

Hi MaxWig, yes I am sure that utilising the Myers-Briggs to cut numbers down for the interview process is done. But individuals/organisations also use it to point to career paths for people, which is full of flaws. Each of the 16 types has a different type of occupation attached to it, also it has been pointed out that this method is lacking in reseach. I could be wrong, but the population it was designed on may not be representative enough to make generalisations

Also it is possible to end up with two different scores (personality profiles) when taking this assessment and is subject to the usual limits of self-report questionnaires. Test re test reliability is also low. I do believe it has exploration validity for personal development though, which is the best way for these assessments to be used IMO.

Lbeard

dar100 wrote: »

Hi MaxWig, yes I am sure that utilising the Myers-Briggs to cut numbers down for the interview process is done.

Myers-Briggs have had profits of over a hundred million. There are millions of these tests done every year. The results are used to screen people. They're also used to select people for redundancy.

But individuals/organisations also use it to point to career paths for people, which is full of flaws. Each of the 16 types has a different type of occupation attached to it, also it has been pointed out that this method is lacking in reseach.

The sciency sounding name for these kinds of tests is psychometric testing. If you read any of the promotional literature from the companies who sell these tests, they will make scientific claims.

Even better; get your hands on the marking manuals. The manuals instruct the test giver to lie to the participants. To tell the participants that there are no wrong answers. Oh yes there are. Jung's model is vague enough, these tests have been around for a long time, and obliging psychologists have added screening questions for things like homosexuality and social deviancy (Social deviancy typically means the person is not a small brained Irish conservative). The homosexuality screening questions are as laughably simple as choosing the colour pink in a colour test. It's illegal in Ireland to discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexuality, in the US, land of the free, it is not, employers are allowed actively screen and fire employees on the basis of their sexuality.

I could be wrong, but the population it was designed on may not be representative enough to make generalisations

It's based on Karl Jung's more trippier and mystical ideas.

Also it is possible to end up with two different scores (personality profiles) when taking this assessment and is subject to the usual limits of self-report questionnaires.

It's a little more complicated. What if the subject thinks you're looking for a specific "personality" type? Then they turn in a performance.

I do believe it has exploration validity for personal development though,

So do horoscopes, palmistry, and tarot cards. I believe Jung based his system on tarot cards.

Enneagram sounds close to Ron L Hubbard's engrams, doesn't it. He literally cobbled his sci-fi religion together in a weekend, with whatever ingredients he could grab.


Actually the most sickening thing about these tests is they're often sold to the morons on the basis they can reveal the hidden true personality of the person being tested. This is a Jungian idea; the true personality of the subject is repressed from themselves. The idiot giving the test usually believes this is a scientific idea. Why does the idiot believe this? Because they've paid a lot of money to use these tests. And it's also a very attractive idea to a certain kind of malevolent idiot - they believe it gives them an asymmetric insight unavailable to the subject.

dar100

Lbeard wrote: »

Myers-Briggs have had profits of over a hundred million. There are millions of these tests done every year. The results are used to screen people. They're also used to select people for redundancy.

It's called a capitalist society, do psychologists and therapists in private practice not make money off their theories and how they utilise them?



The sciency sounding name for these kinds of tests is psychometric testing. If you read any of the promotional literature from the companies who sell these tests, they will make scientific claims.

I am aware of what a psychometric "test" is

Even better; get your hands on the marking manuals. The manuals instruct the test giver to lie to the participants. To tell the participants that there are no wrong answers.

There are no wrong answers if you have no hidden motivation for given a subject an assessment, this is also to take pressure off the participant as for some individuals can view such procedures like school exams







It's based on Karl Jung's more trippier and mystical ideas.

Jung has many mystical ideas I am not a fan of




It's a little more complicated. What if the subject thinks you're looking for a specific "personality" type? Then they turn in a performance.

I am wary of individuals who think ideas, constructs etc have to be wrapped up in terminology and made only understandable to those in certain positions. This is a problem with all self-report questionnaires that don't contain measures inherent within the assessment to counter this.




So do horoscopes, palmistry, and tarot cards. I believe Jung based his system on tarot cards.

Yes it's called the Barnum effect, these assessments measure traits to a greater or lesser extent, not give circular feedback

.


Actually the most sickening thing about these tests is they're often sold to the morons on the basis they can reveal the hidden true personality of the person being tested. This is a Jungian idea; the true personality of the subject is repressed from themselves. The idiot giving the test usually believes this is a scientific idea. Why does the idiot believe this? Because they've paid a lot of money to use these tests. And it's also a very attractive idea to a certain kind of malevolent idiot - they believe it gives them an asymmetric insight unavailable to the subject.

So is this your view of all psychometric instruments?? Would you consider the MMPI in the same light, I would be interested to hear your opinion on projective personality assessments:)

dar100

It's based on Karl Jung's more trippier and mystical ideas.

Myers-Briggs based their original research on women during one of the world wars as a way of getting people back into work. My initial point was regarding this population as been representative of others now completing the assessment for career purposes

Lbeard

dar100 wrote: »

It's based on Karl Jung's more trippier and mystical ideas.

Myers-Briggs based their original research on women during one of the world wars as a way of getting people back into work. My initial point was regarding this population as been representative of others now completing the assessment for career purposes

The basis of Myers-Briggs is still Jung. To accept their tests in having any credibility, you have to accept their interpretation of Jung. There is nothing scientific in Jung's idea. What I believe Myers-Briggs have is an idiotic and fallacious asymmetric insight. One of the things I hate most about idiots, is they believe they know what other people are really thinking, and what they really want.

I had a particularly bad experience of this test when I was a teenager.

So is this your view of all psychometric instruments?? Would you consider the MMPI in the same light, I would be interested to hear your opinion on projective personality assessments

A test for a psychopathology is not the same as a psychometric "personality" test.

JuliusCaesar

Lbeard wrote: »

A test for a psychopathology is not the same as a psychometric "personality" test.

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory is a test for psychopathology? News to me.

Lbeard

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory is a test for psychopathology? News to me.

The original MMPI in 1939 was diagnositic tool for clinical psychopathologies. It had ten categories: Hypochondriasis, Depression, Hysteria, Psychopathic Deviate, Masculinity/Femininity, Paranoia, Psychasthenia, Schizophrenia, Social Introversion. The Masculine/Feminity was a probe for homosexuality, considered a psychopathology at the time.

Now Pearson Publishing are involved - There's a huge market for Woo; pre-employment "personality" tests. Dimwits in Human Resources love these things. It makes them feel like scientists.

The reasons these tests are so popular, is it is no longer legal to discriminate against people on the basis of age, race, gender, sexual orientation (there isn't a law for class, because we live in a wonderful classless society where we're all free to achieve our full potentials.) It's perfectly legal to discriminate against someone on the basis of not having the right personality - "they didn't have the personality we were looking for. And we had a scientific test". The results are disregarded if they want to hire someone.