You know, I think every type is judgmental of types that are not like it.
We 1s are judgmental of people who don’t seem to care too much to do what is right (differing by culture as to whether those judged are the non-Calvinists or the rigidly gender-binary / homophobic or fill-in-the-blank). 2s are judgmental of people they see as lazy, self-centered and unhelpful. 3s write off those who are less successful or don’t have the right image. 4s shudder at the conformist, lemming-like masses. 5s tend to despise superficial small-talk-lovers. 6s … Well, I don’t really understand 6s at all but I think they must judge the disloyal or unfaithful. And so on; you get the idea.
This is why the Enneagram is so helpful, because it helps us not be so judgmental of those who are wired differently!
I tested as a 1w9. I don’t know what the scale is on the scores so… I score 6.6 as a 1w9 and 4.7 for 1 alone, though my second highest single score was 4.1 for 5, the investigator.
So… that makes me a reformer with a peacemaker wing.
A rather long personality test I took about 25 years ago measured me as having a perfectionist profile, so that seems to agree quite well with the “reformer” result.
You know… one flaw I see in both of these tests is that they are only based on the person’s own answers to questions so self-image is playing a big role. It would be interesting to compare to results based on how other people answer questions about you.
That’s a good point, and why I sometimes have difficulties with personality tests that ask whether “people say” I’m one thing or another… I have no idea what people say, and even when they do I can’t always gauge how reliable it is. I can see how someone with a poor (or inflated) self-image might answer differently than others even if their personality is similar.
Looks like I am a 9w1 also. Not a big surprise, as confrontation is painful for me, not always a good trait in a moderator!
Still, I agree that it is a little arbitrary, as my 2,3, and 5 scores are the next highest to 9. In any case, it does help you step back and see yourself a little more objectively, if that is possible.
One thing I learned from marriage, too, (and maybe this goes into a semi Biblical way of looking at peoples and tribes as one unit),-families carry a certain type of culture, too. My in laws are scads different from our family; but then, my family is a melding of my own parents’ unique groups too.
It’s not just being surprised as how we eat cornbread (as a main dish, with syrup and butter, but anytime of the day–whereas they do it only with butter, and as a side dish) but when to chat or be silent, etc. My brother married someone from New Jersey–the nicest family you can meet, and make wonderful dishes for Christmas–but they were so animated that this Midwesterner thought they were mad at each other when he first ate a meal with them. I’m sure that we sound too reserved and second-guessing. Maybe the shy and retiring folks find that the outgoing ones round us out.
Yes, corn bread with butter and sorghum molasses is good eating, after a meal of beans and cornbread with chow-chow relish.
Reflecting on the comments, I agree with @AMWolfe that it can help us see others in a better light once we understand that they are different, rather than wrong. Going through the questions sort of pointed out areas that I feel inadequate about, but maybe that is just my perfectionistic tendencies showing.
So what is the opposite of a perfectionist? I’m having trouble coming up with a term … “good enoughist”? “cut cornersist”? Realist? “Take a chill pillist”? There’s such a wide expanse between “total slob” and “perfectionist” that I think it’s hard to identify. All I know is that I’m not a perfectionist, … or if I am, I’m a pretty lousy one.
I’ve often repeated the phrase “don’t let perfection be the enemy of the good.” I think I may be (rightly or wrongly) equating perfectionism in some ways with legalism. And it may be safe for me to say I’m pretty much an anti-legalist.
And then there are the failed perfectionists, those who are so overwhelmed with failing in their desire for perfection that they collapse into a heap of disordered failure or are paralyzed with inability to act. I am a little bit of that.
Perhaps pragmatist is the word you are looking for.
There is probably more than one opposite to perfectionist. My wife is an Achiever (type 3) in the Enneagram, and has little patience for the paralysis of perfectionism. She wants things to be done right, but when perfectionism gets in the way of success, it has to go. Again I think there are probably multiple opposites to perfectionist but Achiever could be one of them…
Wrongly. VERY VERY wrongly. In fact I would say that you have committed the cardinal sin with regards to thinking of the these tests and instead of accepting the differences of people made them the basis for judgement.
I am also as anti-legalist as you can get, taking my definition of this from Paul in Romans chapter 10, where he equates legalism with having any way whatsoever of deciding who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Equating those who value responsibility with legalism is just weird. I can only guess that you have an extremely negative reaction to the word “perfection,” even more so than I do myself.
Besides, careful examination of the results of this test show that it does not work like this. There are no opposites, there is only a question of what things you value most. The reformers (what you are calling perfectionist) are those who value improvement and responsibility more than other things like appearances/validation, issues of loyalty or control, pleasure/excitement, uniqueness, observation/preparation, helping/selfless, peace/harmony. And frankly there are some of all these in all of us because nobody is completely selfish, totally chaotic, blind, spurning all identity/uniqueness, avoiding all pleasure/excitement, wanting to be controlled, seeing no value in loyalty, recognition, or responsibility.
So think about this. Does your antipathy to perfection mean that you do not value responsibility at all? Does it mean that when you do a job that you care absolutely nothing about doing a good job? Thinking about this test in terms of opposites is just the wrong way to think of this test!
Another thing you see in reading the description of the results is that it usually talks of healthy and unhealthy versions of these categories. It leads me to suspect that really high scores (which I am guessing are close to 10) for any of these types may suggest a greater danger of an unhealthy imbalance (but again I am just guessing here). It also suggests that really low scores (close to one) may mean that there is something of a deficiency in this area (and I have no problem admitting that my personality has a few of those).
My brother in law says, “Moderation in all things–including in moderation!” so–most of us react to be perfectionist in one way or another, whether it’s perfectionism or in moderating perfectionism (the conversation was actually when I had expressed regret at jogging so far that I was sore; he was saying it was ok to be sore once in a while).
It is pretty complicated. My mom lent me a book called The Sacred Enneagram by Christopher Huertz for my long plane ride today. Skimming it, it seems the point of the whole Enneagram thing (which was developed by monks a long time ago) is to provide an individualized path for spiritual growth by exploring the different ways we get lost, and the different paths we take to find our way back to a “true identity.”
The goal is moving toward “integration” and moving away from “disintegration,” and everything is organized in triads. So every number forms a triad with a number whose strengths it will be moving toward in security, and a number whose weaknesses it will be moving toward under stress. (So as an example for me as a 7, in integration I would be developing the sobriety of a 5, and in disintegration I would be crushed by the perfectionism of a 1).
There is a triad of modes of perceiving the world; “intelligence centers:” body, heart, and head: 8, 9, 1 tends to view experiences through the lens of instincts, 2, 3, 4, through emotions, and 7, 6, 5 through thoughts. This also affects one’s most accessible emotional response: frustration or anger for instinct-centered people, fear or shame for emotion-centered people, and anxiety or distress for thought-centered people.
There is a “harmony” triad of modes of relating to the world. 8, 5, 2 are relational. 9, 6, 3 are pragmatists. 7, 1, 4 are idealists.
There is a triad of “dominant affect groups” that tell us how we relate to the world specifically as a result of our defining family relationships and childhood experiences. It is the “why” behind the harmony triads.
2, 5, 8 are “rejection types”
2-felt their love was not reciprocated
5-rejected nurturing as intrusive and withdrew
8-felt controlled by love and is feels a need to self-protect
3, 6, 9 are “attachment types”
3-attached to a nurturing caregiver and became self-nurturing
6- attached to a protective caregiver and became self-protective
9-attached to both nurturing and protection and becomes both self-nurturing and self-protective
1, 4, 7 are “frustration types”
1- was frustrated by a protective caregiver that was not safe enough and becomes self-protective
4-was frustrated by nurturing and protective caregivers who were not safe or nurturing enough and becomes self-protective and self-nurturing
7-was frustrated by nurturing caregiver who was not nurturing enough and becomes self-nurturing.
Then there are triads of spiritual disciplines that are supposed to be paths to integration. These correspond to the intelligence centers. 2, 3, 4 need solitude (feelers). 5, 6, 7 need silence (thinkers). 8, 9, 1 (instinctive types) need stillness.
The harmony triads align with “prayer intentions” in the practice of solitude, silence, and stillness. Consent: 8, 5, 2 need to learn to consent to having their needs met. Engagement: 6, 3, 9 need to learn to loosen their grip on on their desires. Rest: 7, 1, 4 need to learn to let go of their perpetual agitation and dissatisfaction.
The Enneagram says your true self is characterized by a specific essential nature rooted in holy ideals and virtue. Here are the Holy ideals and virtues:
1- Perfection/Serenity
2- Will and Freedom/Humility
3-Harmony and Hope/Truthfulness and Authenticity
4-Holy Origin/Equanimity and Emotional Balance
5-Transparency/Detachment
6-Strength and Fatih/Courage
7-Wisdom/Sobriety
8-Truth/Innocence
9-Love/Action
This core virtue is susceptible to a particular kind of wounding or attack. The virtue disposes you to certain basic desires and basic fears that drive your passions (how you manage the loss of disconnects from your true nature) and negative fixations (negative tactics you use to justify your passions to yourself).
The basic desires are:
1- To be good and have integrity
2-To feel love
3-To feel valuable
4- To be themselves
5-To be capable and competent
6-To have support and guidance
7-To be satisfied
8-To protect themselves
9-To have peace of mind and wholeness
The basic fears are:
1- Of being bad, imbalanced, defective, corrupt
2- Of being unloved
3-Of being worthless
4- Of having no identity of significance
5- Of being helpless, incompetent, and incapable
6- Of being left without support or guidance
7- Of being trapped in pain and deprivation
8-Of being harmed, controlled, and violated
9- Of being lost, separated, and fragmented
The basic passions and fixations are
1- anger/resentment
2-pride/flattery
3-deceit/vanity
4-envy/meloncholy
5-avarice/stinginess
6-fear/cowardice
7-gluttony/planning
8-lust/vengeance
9-sloth/indolence
I think this really nails it. The point isn’t to describe how you are so you can understand your reactions and relationships better. The point is to identify really basic level fears, woundings, drives, and temptations, so that you can identify a path to grow spiritually and become a more whole and harmonious individual.
Yeah, and also how you interpret the questions. Sometimes you can get a better handle just reading the descriptions and figuring out what resonates.
A long time ago I was in a small group at church with a young couple who were going through pre-marital counseling. The pastor made them take this big, long multiple choice test that was supposed to identify areas of potential conflict so they could talk them through with the counseling. The pastor assigned to this task was kind of old and tactless. So anyway, they go to talk about the results and the pastor was like, “Well Crystal, according to this test, Matt has very little interest in sex and I foresee this being an issue for the two of you, and you should talk about how you are going to handle this” And Matt was like, “Wait, wait… WHAT? I didn’t think this was the kind of test you could fail, but obviously I did!”
And your mistake here leads you to further error in surmising that I am somehow against perfectionism. Nothing of the sort is true. I am (along with you) against nearly all of “legalism”, though, and while I gladly concede that it shouldn’t be equated entirely with perfectionism, I do stand by the understandability of a casual comparison between the two. I think more accurately, the thorough-going perfectionist has a kind of legalistic approach to whatever things he/she is perfectionistic about. In other words, the application of perfectionism (even selective as it may be) can lead to legalism.
While I often feel affinity with Calvin’s Dad, I do [NOT] sympathize (much) with him here. But that does not mean I don’t care about getting things done right. My response to Calvin’s dad would be that while we may be grateful that control freaks have often done very great things for their corporate communities, they also will not uniformly be perfectionists in every area of their lives and will quite often lack any tact, empathy, or apparent ability to work well with others. In other words their “perfectionism” turns into the despised “slobbishness” when it comes to other very important areas of life. And so it may often be the case with people who are geniuses with “things” or “work-place accomplishment” etc. How many super-great people in history had exemplary family lives or could even just keep a marriage together?
So … no. I’m not against perfectionism. Aiming high is something we ought all to do. I’m against myself or other people having meltdowns when we fail to meet the goal. And I’m also against having others dictate to me what they think my “highest” goals ought to be that I pursue at the expense of all others. My boss at work will obviously have quite a bit of legitimate authority over my workplace priorities however.
Frankly the opposite of having a high score in number 1 or perfectionism is only that of having a low score in number 1 or perfectionism.
And I continue deny that there is any link whatsoever between perfectionism and legalism. Just because you value improvement does not mean that you try to improve people, let alone value people accordingly. I am just as much a perfectionist in my opposition to legalism as I am perfectionist in other things. In fact that seems to be linking up something in which I am particularly weak in - the desire and ability to influence people.
I think in the context of this test, it wasn’t measuring a bunch of continua (perfectionism to whatever, or extroversion to introversion). It was measuring your resonance with certain virtues over others. To resonate with the idea that a holy ideal exists is a righteous thing that isn’t the “opposite” of anything. Someone with this orientation may get trapped in perfectionism, but they could also strive in very positive ways to make the world better and themselves better.
This is a curious thread. On an evangelical Christian discussion board that places a high premium on scientific rigour and accuracy, am I really seeing a discussion about Myers-Briggs and the enneagram, both of which, as far as I’m aware, are little more than New Age woo?
or fill-in-the-blank). 2s are judgmental of people they see as lazy, self-centered and unhelpful. 3s write off those who are less successful or don’t have the right image. 4s shudder at the conformist, lemming-like masses. 5s tend to despise superficial small-talk-lovers. 6s … Well, I don’t really understand 6s at all but I think they must judge the disloyal or unfaithful. And so on; you get the idea.