Posted by K.B. on October 31, 2000 at 03:13:48:
In Reply to: Re: Answer posted by Freddie on October 30, 2000 at 15:01:17:
> > > > As I read your post, Freddie, I remembered a system that classifies people as being visually oriented, aurally oriented etc. Some pick up clues on sight, others by sound, smell etc. Its also interesting that you don't believe people can type others by description. I strongly doubt anyone can read many people's type on first sight.
> I assume you're referring to the Neuro-Linguistic Programming sensory representational typology (read Richard Bandler and John Grinder, Tony Robbins, etc.) I'm primarily an auditory representational type, followed by kinesthetic, and visual last.
> > > Is it possibly we both may be right about ourselves and wrong about the other? Actually, I feel its easier logically{this is my opinion and not a fact} to read another if you are given his whole spectrum-his test scores from best to worst in order, than it is to read someone on surface clues or even body language.
> Actually, K.B., I'll admit that this bias about the "unreadability" of the RHETI is due in part to the nature of the test itself. I know the type correspondent of every statement on the RHETI, and I know also that none of the 288 statements is designed to pinpoint a particular type. Each statement was designed by Riso and Hudson to match roughly half the types (including the type "assigned" to that statement, of course), and even then, with a limited degree of reliability. For example, choosing "I have often wondered what others want from me" over "I have often wondered how I could get closer to others" would increase your score for type 6 by one point. Yet, Riso might have designed that statement to apply "probably" to types 1, 3, 5, and 8 as well, and "not so probably" to types 2, 4, 7, and 9. This method is designed to increase the likelihood that your TOP score is your correct type, at the expense of the validity of the subsequent (and especially the lower) scores. It works like this: if you're a 6, you'll "probably" choose this statement. If you're not a 6, then there's a "roughly" equal chance that you either will (1, 3, 5, 8?) or won't (2, 4, 7, 9?) choose this statement.
> I know one other way that the RHETI can be analyzed with significant reliability. Let's say the test results give you a poser: your highest scores are 4 and 8. In that case, you can calculate your scores on the "withdrawn" and "aggressive" groups. This is defensible: the generalistic nature of both the orientation groups and the RHETI questions guarantees an appreciable level of correspondence. But again, this method is reliable only when you use it to determine your MAIN type. It may allow you to assess, with some accuracy, the hierarchy of orientation triads (withdrawn, aggressive, compliant) in your personality, but that brings me to the next issue: notwithstanding the issues I've raised so far, you must account for the flexibility of the scores. As Riso and Hudson said, if you take the test multiple times on different days, in different moods, in different situations, your highest score will probably be the same (again, the test is designed to produce the most reliability in the HIGHEST score), but your scores on the other types will probably be different. Cory and I (to name two people at least) have taken the RHETI many times. EAch time, our scores were different. My highest scores are almost always 3, 4, and 1. My scores for 8, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 2, however, have been all over the map, each number occupying both a high and a low position on the scoreboard. Is the KTS any more reliable? It may be even less reliable. My score on the KTS or the KCS or the DDLI or the IPTI is always NF, but at different times (on the same tests), I've scored highest in all the NF types - INFJ, INFP, ENFP, and ENFJ (in roughly that order of frequency).
> What's Cory doing analyzing the RHETI anyway? According to him, the RHETI is worthy of as much respect as alphabet blocks. I think he assumes that each statement is "supposed" to pinpoint a particular type with reliable validity, and therefore, that an analysis like the one you're proposing should be possible.
> > You may be gifted visually, Freddie and may be able to do this, I don't doubt your belief that you can.
> For me, it's a process that combines listening to their vocal expression, gauging my visceral responses to their demeanor, and watching their conveyances. Each of those three most commonly-preferred senses has its place in unfiltered interaction - face-to-face, voice-to-voice, presence-to-presence. Claiming a preference for a sense other than visuality is no excuse for defending the "superior serviceability" of test scoresheets in this case. That's similar to declaring that your powers of telepathy and clairvoyance serve you reliably since you lack either the ability or the inclination to ask questions and venture forth to see things yourself.
> In any case, neither the written word nor the presentation of test scores (particularly the RHETI) can afford any comprehension of the subtle level of expression required to assess something as general and intangible as an Enneagram type. The dynamics of relationship are a step beyond that, even, and therein, the level of intangibility is greater. So don't even start! I know that if I gave you my test scores (selected at random from the wildly varying instances), and expected you to even connect with my pitch, I'd be sorely disappointed. You'd probably strike out in the first few sentences, not because you're a dunce, but because I haven't told you enough, and what I gave you was bogus for all practical purposes anyway.
> The rest of this score-analysis nonsense is all just preconceived notion. I'm sure it's fun to do, but if I were you, I'd leave it where it belongs - on paper, with the other word and number games.
> Anyway, it's been stimulating.
> Freddie, 3/4, xNFx. :)