Most of the "sorting hat" tests (questionnaires to bucket your personality type, like RHETI) that I've seen add up a bunch of Likert-type questions. I've wondered if something like an "even over" system (you would choose X _even over_ Y) could do better and if anyone does that?
For the enneagram, this would look like: "would you rather be loved but useless -- a teddy bear -- or useful but unlovable -- a bitter pill?" which would help sort between 2 and 5.
But maybe just "where do you gravitate" is good enough ...
"People use the frameworks at their disposal when they have predictive power, even when the causal explanation is lacking" — incredibly crisp and succinct general point. I've been having occasional conversations with people about astrology and wondering what do they get out of it, and I had some vague suspicions over the similar lines. I can now quote this essay and link it. Thanks!
I had a similar feeling of self-awareness when I first learned my Myers-Briggs type (INTP). But the Enneagram didn't really do much for me.
My theory is that none of the common systems for classifying personality types are actually better or worse than any other. But people get more insight from a system in which they stand out strongly as being one particular type rather than a mix of different types.
In more mathematical terms, if personality is a vector space, each system works mainly for the people who are clustered around the basis vectors. But people are distributed in such a way that no system works well for more than a fraction of people.
Fan and LOVED your being agentic post, so engaging in good faith.
I do think the point about strengths and weaknesses being related is super insightful. I personally find the enneagrams useful too, but I am a little disappointed in the claim that enneagrams are more predictive than the big 5.
The scientific literature of enneagrams is pretty weak, and this was one study based on like 550 people taking surveys about their own life outcomes. In addition, there's no one who will get enneagram results as a continuous scale, because it's a modification the researchers custom-made. That halves the predictive power as per the chart posted.
The big 5 was clustered with a lot of methodology such as factor analysis (which is also why astrology actually isn't right 1 in 12 times. It's randomly assigning bundles of traits. The 9% roughly equal to 1/12 is probably a coincidence from inflated self-identification)
It also feels weird to love the enneagram for its simplicity but then advertise the results based on the continuous spectrum? A medicine that is around half as effective but tastes better can't meaningfully be put as a "trade off".
Maybe... your enneagram was a broken clock getting it right?
If you want to understand your personality, please take the big 5!!!!
Ah, the joys of personality typing. I've been through Big 5, MBTI, astrology, Enneagram, DISC, and the OG, the four humors.
I think the thing with the Enneagram (and the MBTI) is they give you personality sketches for the types, so there's a better chance that someone says "hey, this is me!" The success of the MBTI may have to do with the fact that, with 16 types, you have a better chance of at least one fitting you.
What Big 5 doesn't do is discuss the properties of *combinations* of types--so you can talk about SFJs being busybodies or great at maintaining harmony, but talking about 'people with low openness, high agreeableness, and high conscientiousness' is cumbersome.
Personality Database (https://www.personality-database.com/) has crowdsourced MBTI and Enneagrams for major and minor characters from popular shows (and anime) and major characters from minor shows and anime. They reach pretty far back--you can find attempted types for characters from Romance of the Three Kingdoms (which is admittedly a huge deal in Asia). (Lots of NTs--Luo Guanzhong loved his schemers.)
The thing that interests me most about the Enneagram and astrology is how long they've been around. As you say, "The Enneagram has been around in various forms for several millennia, so maybe it’s better to ask why this is the version that survived." And astrology is also extremely popular. I suspect that's because it's much more elaborate. Which makes me wonder the same about the most successful religion(s). Is there some simple core aspect to, say, Christianity that makes it appealing for so many centuries and to so many different cultures? I'm also curious about how much you've researched Scientology. Although the Church of Scientology itself caters mostly only to a few rich people, the religion itself delves deep into personality types and other topics that modern audiences find interesting.
Astrology dates back to the Babylonians and evolved independently in China and India, but I'm not clear of any citations of the Enneagram before the 20th century with Gurdjieff, and the types themselves seem to start with Oscar Ichazo in the 1950s.
Most of the "sorting hat" tests (questionnaires to bucket your personality type, like RHETI) that I've seen add up a bunch of Likert-type questions. I've wondered if something like an "even over" system (you would choose X _even over_ Y) could do better and if anyone does that?
For the enneagram, this would look like: "would you rather be loved but useless -- a teddy bear -- or useful but unlovable -- a bitter pill?" which would help sort between 2 and 5.
But maybe just "where do you gravitate" is good enough ...
"People use the frameworks at their disposal when they have predictive power, even when the causal explanation is lacking" — incredibly crisp and succinct general point. I've been having occasional conversations with people about astrology and wondering what do they get out of it, and I had some vague suspicions over the similar lines. I can now quote this essay and link it. Thanks!
Wonderfully written!
I had a similar feeling of self-awareness when I first learned my Myers-Briggs type (INTP). But the Enneagram didn't really do much for me.
My theory is that none of the common systems for classifying personality types are actually better or worse than any other. But people get more insight from a system in which they stand out strongly as being one particular type rather than a mix of different types.
In more mathematical terms, if personality is a vector space, each system works mainly for the people who are clustered around the basis vectors. But people are distributed in such a way that no system works well for more than a fraction of people.
Hey Cate,
Fan and LOVED your being agentic post, so engaging in good faith.
I do think the point about strengths and weaknesses being related is super insightful. I personally find the enneagrams useful too, but I am a little disappointed in the claim that enneagrams are more predictive than the big 5.
The scientific literature of enneagrams is pretty weak, and this was one study based on like 550 people taking surveys about their own life outcomes. In addition, there's no one who will get enneagram results as a continuous scale, because it's a modification the researchers custom-made. That halves the predictive power as per the chart posted.
The big 5 was clustered with a lot of methodology such as factor analysis (which is also why astrology actually isn't right 1 in 12 times. It's randomly assigning bundles of traits. The 9% roughly equal to 1/12 is probably a coincidence from inflated self-identification)
It also feels weird to love the enneagram for its simplicity but then advertise the results based on the continuous spectrum? A medicine that is around half as effective but tastes better can't meaningfully be put as a "trade off".
Maybe... your enneagram was a broken clock getting it right?
If you want to understand your personality, please take the big 5!!!!
I find astrology similar to open-label placebos. Self-fulfilling prophecies indeed work.
Ah, the joys of personality typing. I've been through Big 5, MBTI, astrology, Enneagram, DISC, and the OG, the four humors.
I think the thing with the Enneagram (and the MBTI) is they give you personality sketches for the types, so there's a better chance that someone says "hey, this is me!" The success of the MBTI may have to do with the fact that, with 16 types, you have a better chance of at least one fitting you.
What Big 5 doesn't do is discuss the properties of *combinations* of types--so you can talk about SFJs being busybodies or great at maintaining harmony, but talking about 'people with low openness, high agreeableness, and high conscientiousness' is cumbersome.
Personality Database (https://www.personality-database.com/) has crowdsourced MBTI and Enneagrams for major and minor characters from popular shows (and anime) and major characters from minor shows and anime. They reach pretty far back--you can find attempted types for characters from Romance of the Three Kingdoms (which is admittedly a huge deal in Asia). (Lots of NTs--Luo Guanzhong loved his schemers.)
Your engaging way of writing and tackling of the counterarguments in my head could almost convince in the power of healing crystals, too!
I'd be curious to read about more specific examples of how the Enneagram has helped you.
The thing that interests me most about the Enneagram and astrology is how long they've been around. As you say, "The Enneagram has been around in various forms for several millennia, so maybe it’s better to ask why this is the version that survived." And astrology is also extremely popular. I suspect that's because it's much more elaborate. Which makes me wonder the same about the most successful religion(s). Is there some simple core aspect to, say, Christianity that makes it appealing for so many centuries and to so many different cultures? I'm also curious about how much you've researched Scientology. Although the Church of Scientology itself caters mostly only to a few rich people, the religion itself delves deep into personality types and other topics that modern audiences find interesting.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to introduce you to the biggest rabbit hole on the Internet: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/TheEnneagram, just in case you haven't already had the pleasure of meeting.
Astrology dates back to the Babylonians and evolved independently in China and India, but I'm not clear of any citations of the Enneagram before the 20th century with Gurdjieff, and the types themselves seem to start with Oscar Ichazo in the 1950s.
Almost nobody has heard of Marko Rodin either (https://youtu.be/fI93jeaXGvs?t=160). So what?