Personality Cafe banner

Which do personality type system you prefer?


  • Total voters
    192
21 - 40 of 66 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,052 Posts
I don’t really like enneagram. It seems like it’s too simplistic, I bounce all over the place in those with my moods and have resonated with many of them over time. It’s not helpful the way MBTI has been for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
871 Posts
I prefer Enneagram because it focuses more on emotional hang-ups and the things that people struggle with. MBTI can capture some of that by pointing out trends among groups of people that process information in the same way, but it's not the focus and it shows. I think MBTI and Socionics are pretty good at what they do, I just don't find them as enriching.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,041 Posts
I don't see any personality theory fully describing the human experience. I am most involved with MBTI informed by Cognitive Functions and Keirsey Temperaments; but I see that Enneagram adds another dimension to personality theory not covered by MBTI but also not at odds with it (complementary). I dislike the nomenclature Jung provided and adopted by Myers & Briggs for the two major dichotomies: F/T and S/N. They are needlessly misleading terms.

I don't like the cutesy names that have been assigned to the 16 types. It seems more appropriate that they go simply by the 4 letters for type and 2 letters for Temperaments.

I don't know too much about Socionics. Its seeming pragmatic nature has made it less attractive to me to investigate it more than I currently have.

Big 5/OCEAN/SLOAN seems to be tapping the same elements that MBTI does on 4 of the 5 facets. It, therefore, adds something more in the Neurotic or Calm/Limbic axis. I also appreciate how it IS a sliding scale, that the polar facets are shown along a continuum rather than presented in binary fashion like MBTI facets are. I dislike this system for 2 reasons:
1) it is all based upon fitting within a bell curve of responses and is subjective as such; and,
2) it values certain responses and disparages others, such as social being seen as psychologically healthier than reserved (E > I); or inquisitive as healthier than non-curious (N > S).​
This theory also diverges from MBTI in 2 other major ways:
1) MBTI posits that a given mind forms a specific cognitive preference for interacting with the world that remains fairly constant regarding preference of use/approach over one's entire life whereas SLOAN suggests that personality type is mutable over time; and,
2) MBTI offers that each of the 16 types has its own set of weaknesses and strengths, that no type is better than another; but SLOAN is based upon certain personality types being less healthy than others.​
SLOAN is a device, therefore, to figure out where one is and how to be better whereas MBTI is simply a list of attributes that aren't ranked, valuing one type over another.

I don't know about DISC.

At PerC I spend most of my time hanging out in INFP Land these days with a few stops in the MBTI Forum and the NF Forum. Most of my visits to Enneagram involve using reference posts for descriptions (e.g., the Tritype Archetypes). I rarely read any threads there, and I don't recall ever posting there.

I would prefer a system that developed a sorting hat that would work for any person regardless of gender, age, cultural background, or language facility that would most fully describe personality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,436 Posts
Big Big Five fan here!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,896 Posts
I've got, studied, reference Gifts Differing by Briggs-Myers, and once I got around to reading and referencing it, I could pick out my seemingly obvious type by reading the description; on reflection, it's simplistic, like astrology--leaving no room (nor did she intend to) for the impact of extreme poverty, violence, mental ill caregivers and other stresses. She admitted she left "the abnormals" to Jung.

I've got, studied, reference Riso & Hudson, and I prefer going straight to them rather than muddy my mental waters with online, dumbed down, second or third-hand HelloQuizzy kinds of tests.

Enneagram, as worked out and improved by Riso & Hudson provide an open-end system, and one intended to show us where we are, and where we can be, if we work on it, i.e. so we are, say, 'average' in terms of growth, OK, we can move up or down. And they write about what that means, looks like, could turn into, e.g. The Unibomber would be Level 9 (most out of touch with reality) for a 5w6--and it isn't hard to see him as INTJ, though enneagram and MBTI are not twin personality typing systems.

Riso started out saying that most people had only one wing; then after more reflection, research, personal and professional growth--and the input of Hudson, he broadened his view; he could perceive more as having two wings; and further, got into tri-typing, though it isn't requisite.

I wonder where he would have taken it if he'd lived longer as he put in 25 years or so before he died of cancer.

I like a lot about Socionics, too, especially as there are descriptions provided by different theorists, and I can read each one and see where I fall, or don't, according to one of them describing, say, INFj.

No one can fit into one model, although it's human nature to categorize and want either closure/fast, or possibilities galore. Sort of like "OK, that's it, I'm done, this is me" or "I can see parts of me here, there, everywhere but I'm not locking myself in a box."

So, MBTI and Enneagram and Socionics all have merit, have helped me sort through some obstructions, look at my actions more clearly.

Gotta say, though, that meditating before and after taking any of these tests alters the results. I'm not talking about "relaxation" kinds meditating, but mindfulness, i.e. Vipassana.

That's when how often our thoughts change comes up to remind me that I don't have a "Basic Personality"; or perhaps a better way of putting it is that I am not my Personality. It's a construct, so which one(s) do I like, prefer, cling to the most. (Rhetorical.)

Never heard of DISC; or if I have, not under that name. *Goes off to Google it; see if it has anything to reveal that the other systems haven't; and is it valid; does it resonate; will I do more than nod at some descriptions and move on...


ADDITION: I took the DISC via 123test dot com; I started a thread on it, actually, on PerC.

I came out INTP. :Smilies1:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I prefer MBTI because it seems to be very exact and complicated in its typing. I don't mind Enneagram, but MBTI has always seemed to be more relatable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,567 Posts
The MBTI makes sense, the Enneagram doesn't, the Big 5 is baseless,
and nothing else competes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EidolonAlpha

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,840 Posts
I prefer Enneagram because it's easier to absorb. Being made up of discrete functions, the meaning of each Myers Briggs type is difficult for me to remember and the system seems fragmented.

If I know someone's Enneagram type, I can instantly get some idea of what sort of person she may be. When I know someone's Myers Briggs type, I have no holistic idea of what that person is like and have to consciously break her apart into dom and aux functions just to get a partial picture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
I chose "other" because I like MBTI, Enneagram, and other systems equally. I think they all address different dimensions and raise different ways of looking at ourselves.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,936 Posts
So far, Enneagram gave me a far more detailed and realistic outline of my personality, especially in regards to instinct type, than MBTI. What @ElectricSlime described as a flaw, I think is an advantage. MBTI is too static in comparison, Step II does little to fix it (not that it's meant to). This could be beneficial if you view it as pure typology, but Enneagram, imo, is stronger as self-learning tool.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,070 Posts
So far, Enneagram gave me a far more detailed and realistic outline of my personality, especially in regards to instinct type, than MBTI. What @ElectricSlime described as a flaw, I think is an advantage. MBTI is too static in comparison, Step II does little to fix it (not that it's meant to). This could be beneficial if you view it as pure typology, but Enneagram, imo, is stronger as self-learning tool.
I agree. The Enneagram is about potential. It shows me how a given personality structure has the capability to be great, dysfunctional or anywhere in between, and that helps me see that when people are in an unhealthy spot in their life, by no means do they have to stay there. There's always a way out, but the way out isn't the same for everyone. I also appreciate that it doesn't only talk about the way people behave or think, but also why they behave or think in that way. Finally, I like the idea that everyone has all Enneagram types inside them, just in different proportions. this helps me see what motivations and fears people have in common with each other even when they look so different on the surface.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,227 Posts
The biggest misunderstanding I see on fora is that people take the enneagram to be a theory of cognition; it isn't. The enneagram is about psycho-structures, and by extension assumptions, attitudes, and triggers. It's also a lot harder to "get" than MBTI is, because it's more complicated.

The enneagram is a much more intricate, psycho-dynamic model. When you understand enneagram types in terms of the specific terminology of the theory (fixations, passion, defense, trigger, etc) it becomes an extremely potent tool for understanding people specifically as they interact with their environment. When you learn something about yourself or someone else through the enneagram, it will rear its head in a clear and consistent way through almost any length of time and across an equally consistent set of situations.

In other words, as a type 1, I respond largely the same way to events that trigger my 1-ish fears every time they're triggered. The enneagram gives us a set of terminology that describes all of that as well, i.e. "passion" of anger/standing against, fixation of perfection, and so on.

The enneagram is a worse theory than MBTI if the only level of detail you take a test, read a type description, answer a questionnaire, and try to find which type you relate with. Those activities aren't the optimal way to study enneatype but unfortunately are what most people think is the way to approach it.

My main criticism of MBTI is that it is a static theory. Myers and Briggs did an extremely poor job in assessing the underlying framework of their theory. MBTI's system is based on very vague impressions instead of psycho structures, and was never designed in a way that made it possible to exclude certain types from others. I can be an ESTP one day if I want, and an INFP the next if I feel and assess myself differently - the theory does not have anything in it to stop that. Not to mention, the J/P flip departs from Jung's original definition of what those dichotomies mean.

If you are interested in a more cognitive based theory, JCF's, Beebe's model are my picks. Socionics is a great extension of that, but mostly just for an alternative explanation of what makes a JCF what it is, and for the intertype relations, if you want to apply type to interpersonal dynamics.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,042 Posts
I know none of the systems in-depth so I can only go by personal preference, which would be Enneagram. When I read the 1w9 descriptions, I couldn't find a single thing that I could refute or went against. Reading the xNTJ descriptions of MBTI wasn't such a revelatory experience on the other hand. And sure enough, there will be people on this site who'll disagree with my MBTI type because I don't fit the appearance of a successful businessman as ENTJs are expected to be but no one can contest my Ennea type... but that's probably because many people don't know Enneagram lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Parrot

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,739 Posts
I prefer MBTI, though mainly because I have spent more time working with it and understand it better.
 

·
Birdie Borracho
Joined
·
9,379 Posts
Discussion Starter #37
I know none of the systems in-depth so I can only go by personal preference, which would be Enneagram. When I read the 1w9 descriptions, I couldn't find a single thing that I could refute or went against. Reading the xNTJ descriptions of MBTI wasn't such a revelatory experience on the other hand. And sure enough, there will be people on this site who'll disagree with my MBTI type because I don't fit the appearance of a successful businessman as ENTJs are expected to be but no one can contest my Ennea type... but that's probably because many people don't know Enneagram lol.
I can't stand the stereotypes people place either. I've met enough ENTJs to know they aren't all business driven. I know one that is ENTJ 4w3 and he fronts a band. He makes good money as a real estate agent but doesn't wear suits or anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
MBTI is far more appealing to me.

Enneagram gives me a specific description, but that's all I want to know.

Socionics is intriguing, but I haven't really had the motivation to learm more about it.

As for the 'others', absolutely no interest!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
640 Posts
MBTI/Cognitive Functions/Socionics stuff better describes how I think; Enneagram stuff better describes how I actually behave. I won't claim that that rule of thumb holds true in applying the systems to everyone, but it's been true often enough for me in typing people close to me that that is how I tend to apply them.

Big-5 inventory is far and away the most scientifically useful of any of these, but as an archetypal personality typing system... well, it kind of just isn't one. Apples and oranges.
 
21 - 40 of 66 Posts
Top