Personality Cafe banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
(ノ´ヮ´)ノ*:・゚✧
Joined
·
5,108 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
This is based on the original questionnaire, with some alterations and additions.

Here is a template of questions specifically designed for those looking to find their Enneagram type(s).

Please answer truthfully. The more info you provide, the better. If a question makes you feel uncomfortable or frustrated, state this. The optional questions are less important but may help determining type. Feel free to provide further information or new questions!

Please do not respond here. Create a new thread in this sub-forum with your responses.



Prerequisites


What age range are you in?

Any disorders or conditions we should know about?

Main Questions

1. What do you think your life is about? What drives you in life? This can be something like a goal or a purpose, or anything else that comes to mind.

2. What were you like as a kid?

3. Describe your relationship with your parents. Does anything stand out about the way you interacted?

4. What values are important to you? What do you hope to avoid doing or being?

5. Aside from phobias, are there any fears that characterized your childhood? Have they continued into the present day, or not, and if not, how have you dealt with them?

6. a.) How do you see yourself?
b.) How do you want others to see you?
c.) What do you dislike the most in other people?

7. Which habit do you most automatically act on? Rank the following habits from most to least automatic, on a scale of 1 (most) to 3 (least).
a.) Work for personal gain with more concern for self than for others.
b.) Strive for a sense of tranquility in yourself and the world around you
c.) Decide what is right for the betterment of something or someone else.

8. Where does the wandering mind take you? What provokes this?

9.What makes you feel your best? What makes you feel your worst?

10.
Let's talk about emotions. Explain what might make you feel the following, how they feel to you or how you react to the emotion:
a.) anger
b.) shame
c.) anxiety

11.
Describe how you respond to the following:
a.) stress
b.) negative unexpected change
c.) conflict

12.
a.) What kind of role are you naturally inclined to take in a group? Why?
b.) If put in power, how do you behave? Why?
c.) Do you tend to struggle with others who have authority over you? Why?

13.
What do you see or notice in others that most people don't?

14.
Comment on your relationship with trust.

15. Briefly: What religious and/or political beliefs do you have? Do you think they influenced your responses in this questionnaire?

Optional Question (due to personal nature)

Discuss an event that has impacted your life significantly; more importantly, how you responded to it.

Extra Questions

Which of the following temptations do you find yourself acting upon the most? (And briefly state why)

- To constantly push yourself to be “the best”
- To be without needs, well-intentioned
- To replace direct experience with concepts
- To have an extreme sense of personal moral obligation
- To think that fulfillment is somewhere else
- To cyclically become indecisive and seek others for reassurance
- To overuse imagination in searching for yourself
- To avoid conflicts and asserting yourself
- To consider yourself entirely self-sufficient


What's something you are: a.) thankful you have b.) wish you could have? Why?

Temptations: Source

Credits

Original questionnaire: Spades, Paradigm, and Boss with the help of Owfin, madhatter, listentothemountains, and others.

Additions and alterations: Wake, Flatlander

Reviewed: Timeless, MBTI Enthusiast
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,540 Posts
Good work guys. We were thinking of adding the illness and/or life circumstances question as well.

I'd like to know if questions/comments etc. can be posted on this thread or would the Editors/reviewers be posting another thread specifically for that purpose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,321 Posts
Good work guys. We were thinking of adding the illness and/or life circumstances question as well.

I'd like to know if questions/comments etc. can be posted on this thread or would the Editors/reviewers be posting another thread specifically for that purpose.
Thanks. I'm fine with talking about it here. I don't think it'll bother anyone, it seems like standard practice.
 

·
MOTM February 2014
Joined
·
4,781 Posts
Honestly, I'm not sure a "new questionnaire" was required. I completely understand making revisions to the original, but trying to imply this is an alternative is slightly disingenuous. It's the same with additions... So why would anyone bother with the other one?

I (and I'm sure others) would have enjoyed being involved, or at the very least notified. I do appreciate the credit at the end, but it feels a bit like you guys went behind our backs and did your own thing based off of all the original stuff. It's been stated that alterations/criticisms were welcome in the other thread, and I thought that it was said that we were open to making a new version with whoever wanted to help. Why wasn't that route taken instead? Why the secrecy?

I'm not trying to start a fight, but it was a little... irksome to find this posted randomly. I'll be willing to PM this conversation if it makes it more comfortable.
 

·
fire breathing dragon
Joined
·
2,810 Posts
Honestly, I'm not sure a "new questionnaire" was required. I completely understand making revisions to the original, but trying to imply this is an alternative is slightly disingenuous. It's the same with additions... So why would anyone bother with the other one?

I (and I'm sure others) would have enjoyed being involved, or at the very least notified. I do appreciate the credit at the end, but it feels a bit like you guys went behind our backs and did your own thing based off of all the original stuff. It's been stated that alterations/criticisms were welcome in the other thread, and I thought that it was said that we were open to making a new version with whoever wanted to help. Why wasn't that route taken instead? Why the secrecy?

I'm not trying to start a fight, but it was a little... irksome to find this posted randomly. I'll be willing to PM this conversation if it makes it more comfortable.
I thought the exact same thing.

minus the behind the back part.>____> since I wasn't involved in the first one.

and start a fight. lets see which questionnaire emerges from the rubble. *secretly roots for original questionnaire*

I agree that listing illnesses is helpful, but that could have been added to the first one easily.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,321 Posts
Honestly, I'm not sure a "new questionnaire" was required. I completely understand making revisions to the original, but trying to imply this is an alternative is slightly disingenuous. It's the same with additions... So why would anyone bother with the other one?

I (and I'm sure others) would have enjoyed being involved, or at the very least notified. I do appreciate the credit at the end, but it feels a bit like you guys went behind our backs and did your own thing based off of all the original stuff. It's been stated that alterations/criticisms were welcome in the other thread, and I thought that it was said that we were open to making a new version with whoever wanted to help. Why wasn't that route taken instead? Why the secrecy?

I'm not trying to start a fight, but it was a little... irksome to find this posted randomly. I'll be willing to PM this conversation if it makes it more comfortable.
I thought the exact same thing.

minus the behind the back part.>____> since I wasn't involved in the first one.

and start a fight. lets see which questionnaire emerges from the rubble. *secretly roots for original questionnaire*

I agree that listing illnesses is helpful, but that could have been added to the first one easily.

I'm too busy to respond to your concerns at the moment, but will do so when I'm free of obligations.
 

·
(ノ´ヮ´)ノ*:・゚✧
Joined
·
5,108 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
There's never been a consistent method for handling questionnaires. There were many questionnaires before this one and I'm sure there will be many after; historically, someone would just pop up with a new one whenever they felt like it. Eventually some faded away and some persisted, and there you go. The circle of life.

I was unaware that this would be a problem when I posted it, since I hadn't read the original questionnaire. So I see that this was one was inspired by the last one. What would you all say about merging the two questionnaires into a SUPER-QUESTIONNAIRE?

Edit: We should have one person who is the official spokesperson for each questionnaire to make it easy.

Edit 2: Please note that it doesn't need to be a super-questionnaire. It could be a mega-questionnaire or an uber-questionnaire. It's all up to you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,540 Posts
@timeless

I don't think it's a problem at all that the existing questionnaire has been revised. I welcome revisions and improvements always. I like some of the changes here and had been thinking of editing the other one to reflect a few of these.

That said, it would have been inclusive, and I must say respectful, to inform all three co-authors, of the previous questionnaire, of an upcoming one (esp. since it's heavily based on the original), so we could have offered our critique during the editing process seeing as we had come together for the original one and were more than willing to contribute to its improvement. We would have appreciated a heads-up.

I propose that @Flatlander serve as spokesperson for the editors since he has been alerted of the concerns already, though I would much prefer if critiques and comments were openly directed from creators/editors of both questionnaires. So, it removes the extra time consuming step of consulting things in the background before posting here. There are only 2 editors and 3 co-authors, anyway. I see a productive discussion ensuing, with input from other forum members should they choose to offer suggestions. So, I want open dialogue. Keep in mind that the previous questionnaire was discussed extensively on another thread before being 'released' so to speak.

As I suggested a earlier, a fresh thread can be started just to discuss the current questionnaire where people can drop by and communicate at their own convenience. Either we keep this thread clean, start another and incorporate suggestions to the OP later or continue discussion here. Like I said, I prefer the former.

P.S. Having two questionnaires is ok. I would just edit the original one to add the illness/life circumstances question. Then, people are free to choose whichever questionnaire they prefer. I don't see a point to a super-questionnaire. This one, as I said, is very heavily based on the original. So, many questions would be redundant.
 

·
MOTM February 2014
Joined
·
4,781 Posts
There's never been a consistent method for handling questionnaires. There were many questionnaires before this one and I'm sure there will be many after; historically, someone would just pop up with a new one whenever they felt like it. Eventually some faded away and some persisted, and there you go. The circle of life.
Except that on PerC, there wasn't another questionnaire before ours and nothing about it has "faded away." The original co-authors are still here and the original questions are used almost daily. This isn't the "circle of life."

I was unaware that this would be a problem when I posted it, since I hadn't read the original questionnaire. So I see that this was one was inspired by the last one. What would you all say about merging the two questionnaires into a SUPER-QUESTIONNAIRE?
That's my point. The biggest issue I have is that two of the three main authors were unaware (and AFAIK, one third doesn't care), and our material was edited and played with without our consent. The "super-questionnaire" is this one here, since it has almost the same questions as the original but with about three different ones. This isn't an "alternative form," either.

I truly, truly don't care about the prospect of improving the original. I like improvements, I think they can be made on almost everything, and I welcome ideas to further this goal. What I don't understand is why we were highjacked, why we weren't allowed in on this Important Project. We were highly disrespected, basically implied that the "old hats" are too old to play, too unimportant anymore to bother letting help.

What should have happened, and frankly what should still happen, is a thread for a "revised questionnaire" be opened and everyone who wants to help can. Without this political crap going on, because that's not a game everyone plays. The original questionnaire was devised by us, by the people, and that's the way it should continue if anyone feels the need to use the majority of our questions.
 

·
fire breathing dragon
Joined
·
2,810 Posts
I was unaware that this would be a problem when I posted it, since I hadn't read the original questionnaire. So I see that this was one was inspired by the last one. What would you all say about merging the two questionnaires into a SUPER-QUESTIONNAIRE?
How about just adding: "Do you have any illnesses?" to the first questionnaire, and this one could be discarded completely.

My point is, this questionnaire isnt better or equal to the last one. So it seems a little pointless.
 

·
(ノ´ヮ´)ノ*:・゚✧
Joined
·
5,108 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Except that on PerC, there wasn't another questionnaire before ours and nothing about it has "faded away." The original co-authors are still here and the original questions are used almost daily. This isn't the "circle of life."

That's my point. The biggest issue I have is that two of the three main authors were unaware (and AFAIK, one third doesn't care), and our material was edited and played with without our consent. The "super-questionnaire" is this one here, since it has almost the same questions as the original but with about three different ones. This isn't an "alternative form," either.

I truly, truly don't care about the prospect of improving the original. I like improvements, I think they can be made on almost everything, and I welcome ideas to further this goal. What I don't understand is why we were highjacked, why we weren't allowed in on this Important Project. We were highly disrespected, basically implied that the "old hats" are too old to play, too unimportant anymore to bother letting help.

What should have happened, and frankly what should still happen, is a thread for a "revised questionnaire" be opened and everyone who wants to help can. Without this political crap going on, because that's not a game everyone plays. The original questionnaire was devised by us, by the people, and that's the way it should continue if anyone feels the need to use the majority of our questions.
There were MBTI questionnaires. I should have clarified.

Anyway, it's not like this questionnaire was designed in secret to hijack your questionnaire. I wasn't involved in this questionnaire's creation except for posting it and adding one minor change, but from what I can tell, there was no ill will in this project. There's nothing political going on with it. If there was, then the other questionnaire would be unstickied, yes?

There's no need to assume malice or conspiracy when there is none here. I think Wake and Flatliner didn't think that anyone would have a problem with it. It's not like they were out to disrespect people.

It sounds like the best solution is to merge the two questionnaires and repost it. What do you think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,540 Posts
@timeless

This is not to answer on Paradigm's behalf, but I don't see anyone assuming malice/conspiracy here at all. It's presumptuous to think that ill will is being implied only because objections are being raised about the lack of inclusiveness and respect in not involving or even notifying the original creators of changes. What's being said is that we'd like opening it up to discussion and having our input taken, and yes input from other members, and changes made. And yes, as co-authors of the questionnaire, Paradigm and I certainly had every right to receive prior notification about changes to our work. That questionnaire was posted by Spades, but it was a collaborative effort.


The previous Q. was a collaborative enterprise as I said, so I don't see why that shouldn't be the case this time. So again, no ill will is being assumed on Flatlander etc.'s end. They want to make it better, and we share this goal with them.

And, the solution is to open this one for discussion and incorporate improvements. There's no point having a long redundant questionnaire that combines apparently flawed questionnaires.
 

·
fire breathing dragon
Joined
·
2,810 Posts
Points about the questionnaire itself would be welcome, to explain why you hold this standpoint.
Thats fair.

Okay, here we go:

12. a.) What kind of role are you naturally inclined to take in a group? Why?
b.) If put in power, how do you behave? Why?
c.) Do you tend to struggle with others who have authority over you? Why?
This whole block of questions seems leading. Why did it need to be framed? On the other questionnaire it simply asks the persons relationship with power and authority. It was open to interpretation by the OP and could have been taking to mean "how do you view power/use power/interact with power etc?" I cant see the relevance of such a closed question. It give less wiggle room and isnt an improvement upon the last one. Same for authority. I like how a person interprets the question as well as how the answer it cause it says something about their type. At least, I think so anyway.

7. Which habit do you most automatically act on? Rank the following habits from most to least automatic, on a scale of 1 (most) to 3 (least).
a.) Work for personal gain with more concern for self than for others.
b.) Strive for a sense of tranquility in yourself and the world around you
c.) Decide what is right for the betterment of something or someone else.
And this question. There is an assumption that people identify with them even though there are only three. Personally, from reading over them, I wouldnt know how to rank them cause I don't related too heavily to any of them. They are all applicable, to a small degree to all people, but I wouldnt say any of them are automatic. And it would annoy me to have to say that any of them were.

15. Briefly: What religious and/or political beliefs do you have? Do you think they influenced your responses in this questionnaire?
And whats the point of this one? Wont it smack of superego if the person is deeply religious but isnt a superego type? Maybe instead we should ask "have you read many enneagram books and do you have a type in mind that you like (maybe a little too much), and has that influenced your responses to this questionnaire?" Surely that seems more relevant, wouldnt you say?

Which of the following temptations do you find yourself acting upon the most? (And briefly state why)

- To constantly push yourself to be “the best”
- To be without needs, well-intentioned
- To replace direct experience with concepts
- To have an extreme sense of personal moral obligation
- To think that fulfillment is somewhere else
- To cyclically become indecisive and seek others for reassurance
- To overuse imagination in searching for yourself
- To avoid conflicts and asserting yourself
- To consider yourself entirely self-sufficient
There are 9 these, so the represent each of the types correct? Surely that wouldnt be hard for anyone to figure out. These are all too stereotypical of X type. And I think they are also general enough that a person could related to each of them equally for a different reason. So how does one choose?

The one that stands out to me the most is this one:

- To cyclically become indecisive and seek others for reassurance
this is supposed to be indicative of 6 right? Not one CP 6 would choose this. Hell, I doubt a phobic 6 would choose this because they usually arent very aware of their behavior and have a habit of denying it like hell.

I feel like the last questionnaire was open ended enough that we could string things together and reach conclusions without it being as skew-able as this one. I also felt like people could be more honest on the last questionnaire because they werent being led down a certain path toward a certain answer and had to fill in the blanks themselves. This one is like a choose your own adventure type deal.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,477 Posts
Thats fair.
I sent you an explanation to all of those issues when you raised them with me via PM, did you not read it? I was talking with Flatlander for the reasoning, so you'll probably get the same response out of him as you did me, but it is good to address questions taken publicly. Since Flatlander has decided to respond I'll allow him to.
 

·
MOTM February 2014
Joined
·
4,781 Posts
There's no need to assume malice or conspiracy when there is none here. I think Wake and Flatliner didn't think that anyone would have a problem with it. It's not like they were out to disrespect people.
It sounds like the best solution is to merge the two questionnaires and repost it. What do you think?
Allow me to concisely restate my points:
- Spades, Boss, and I "own" the original, thus should have say in how it's treated.
- We were disrespected when this did not happen.
- An "editing thread" should be open to the public; editing should not done in private.

I did not say anyone intended malice or that there was a conspiracy. I did not insult anyone. I said it was wrong to do it without us when (and this is key) our questions were used. Especially, I do not think @Flatlander, nor @MBTI Enthusiast, nor you, intended anything unkind. I'm aware--and apparently I should have stated, since it was not obvious--that most, if not all, of the participants were largely innocent and, yes, even meant this in goodwill. But ignorance is not an excuse.

I think both questionnaires need work and editing and improving. Trying to compromise by "merging" is slightly redundant (what is there to merge?), though a commendable attempt at smoothing things over. I think this version has a few good additions and a few bad ones. I think the same of the original, and I'm aware there has been critiques against it. Had I been aware there were enough to take serious consideration as to how to make it better, I would have done something about it (with help).

So yeah. If you mean "merging" as meaning "a discussion on how to make it better," sure. I'll make a more detailed post later tonight and we can get this going. I'm completely willing to work together as long as everyone else is. If we manage to make something everyone is content with, I'm even willing (though I speak for myself, not Spades, Boss, or anyone else) to have both of these two threads unsticked/deleted in favor of version three.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,477 Posts
Public forums where 10 people can respond to a request, pile on, and play politics is a bad solution to setting up desired changes. One or more members promoting a change and PMing the desired change to an admin would allow a filtering process to take place without the politics of who thinks they should have control, admins, they're entrusted with control. @TreeBob placed Timeless in control of our thread, what does he think of this situation?
 

·
fire breathing dragon
Joined
·
2,810 Posts
I sent you an explanation to all of those issues when you raised them with me via PM, did you not read it? I was talking with Flatlander for the reasoning, so you'll probably get the same response out of him as you did me, but it is good to address questions taken publicly. Since Flatlander has decided to respond I'll allow him to.
I said it again, not only because flatlander asked, but because I know that other people have the exact same problem with it. Why rehash it over and over again post after post when I can articulate it once and others can disagree/agree or add to it if need be? Thats rhetorical of course.
 

·
The Doer King
Joined
·
13,680 Posts
As I mentioned to you originally wake, I was not comfortable with spades thread being removed from sticky. As this is a large forum, there is no reason why there can't be multiple enneagram surveys. That said, it would be ideal if you could all work together to make one survey. If you can work together Timless will be in charge of the posting. All authors who wish to have their names on it will be mentioned at the bottom of the thread.

The big issue here is that there seems to be two opposing groups that don't get on very well. I'd be very happy of you could all get over your past issues. If you all agree to work together than you will need to talk to one another. Therefore, whatever thread is chosen to discuss, there will be an amnesty for any groups which have separation agreements (just in this thread). So if want to work on a combined survey then that means you agree to put the past behind you for the duration of this.

This isn't a free pass to be asses to each other either, so please play nice together.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top