I don't think this sort of thing is actually accurate to how the world works. As in, I don't think there's 9 types of people in the world, etc. I do think that the sort of things like "Don't do X to a person who fears Y" are real enough but they don't need a 9-type model to figure them out necessarily. There's a zillion models of personality out there and you can get those same ideas from every one. So I view this sort of thing as just a fun pastime more than anything, and I think believing in it as some kind of template to reality might be useful to some people, but in the end it's just another mental widget people use and I prefer reality to widgets in the end, like actually looking at people and seeing what they're like.
That said, I do find it fun to do these things.
I listed all the stuff in the baron2.html thing and came up with percentages for each type.
By that, I'm a 5w4 most strongly (77.3% 5, 36% 4), but have a lot of qualities of an 8w9 (50% 8, 40% 9) as well. Which is usually how these things go for me. I also out of curiosity totaled things up by Self-Preservation, Relational, and Social, and found that my answers tended to be 47.6% self-preservation, 23.1% relational, and 40.3% social. Similarly on that other test someone just posted, 5w4 (54 and 46 respectively) with 8w9 also pretty high but lower than that (47 and 39 respectively).
I don't think it's your happiness people are responding to this way, but your characterization of other people as "rotten".
What Five said makes sense.
But it also only makes sense if the solutions offered actually match the problems in question.
It is a problem to refuse to do something when there is a way to do it.
It is also a problem to offer solutions that do not fit the problem and then complain (when people are not jumping up and down with gratitude for your solution) that nobody wants to solve their problems.
Imagine the "teach a man to fish..." analogy.
One person sees the hungry person and only gives pity. That is a problem.
Another person sees the hungry person and gives them fish. That is better than the first person, and possibly a temporary solution, but still could be a problem if the hungry person is capable of getting their own fish.
A third person tries to teach the hungry person to fish. This third person does so by telling the hungry person to hang a fishing net in the tree next to their house. The hungry person says, "But there are no fish in the air." The third person gets disgruntled with the hungry person and says "Don't be so negative, do you want fish or don't you?"
The fourth person actually shows the hungry person how to catch fish in the lake by the house.
The tricky part is that the third person is dead certain that he's actually identical to the fourth person.
Wow, well I guess if you assume everyone has (and should have) identical goals in using a forum to your own goals in using it (and identical ways of going about those, that are always recognizable to you), then you are going to end up incredibly disappointed and possibly angry.
No one in the history of the Internet has ever said, "Well, that's it. I'm leaving," and actually left.
Point.
That's why I tend not to announce my departure from somewhere unless it's to let people know where to find me or something. (Among other things, it creates all kinds of sudden posts on other people's parts on the order of "Don't leave," which when I really do want to leave at least for that point, is heavily annoying.)
I don't think all people who announce they're leaving are just trying to get people to ask them to stay. I'm sure some are. But others are just not thinking about that at all when they say they're leaving. They either think it's polite to say something, or they are doing some equivalent of slamming the door on their way out, or they have some other reason to say they're leaving altogether (I'm sure there are tons).
Only place I've ever been banned on (that I remember, at any rate) is here, and that was only a temporary one. Surprised, given that I used to have a really nasty temper, that it never happened more places.
What always makes me skeptical of these systems, actually, is the fact that just about any type can be linked to any other, such that if you behave more like another type than your typing category seems to suggest, it can be explained away.
For instance, let's say we're talking about a Type 6.
If you act like a 5 or a 7, those are your wings.
If you act like a 3 or a 9, those are the directions you go when healthy or unhealthy.
You can also apparently be, as Five described, like a 1 (feeling supports doing) or a 2 (doing supports feeling).
And if you are a 6 who is like a 1, you might also show traits of a 4 (or a 7 I'd presume). So if you are a 6 who is like a 2, you might also show traits of an 8.
So, then you could be like a 1 (one type of 6), like a 2 (another type of 6), a 3 (one direction a 6 might go in), a 4 (a direction a 6-like-a-1 might go in), a 5 (a wing of the 6), a 6 (the type you supposedly are), a 7 (another wing), an 8 (a direction a 6-like-a-2 might go in), and a 9 (a direction a 6 might go in).
So the system conveniently accounts for any traits you have that are in any other type that your own, therefore being impossible to prove wrong. Which is why I don't take it as seriously as some do. A little handwaving can explain any discrepancies.
(And I suppose if I analyze the thing in this way it "proves" I'm a type 5 :-P )
I'm not actually that interested in "identifying with my fiveness" -- that would presume that such a thing as "fiveness" actually existed. I find widgets such as this one entertaining but not a useful way of looking at the world.
By which I mean, it's far more interesting to me to look at the world in order to understand it, rather than to look at a bunch of little pretty artistically-designed ideas that float in the air above the world, and get so wrapped up in those that I actually think they represent the world. The Enneagram and similar things strike me as the latter sort of thing. They are symbolic systems for understanding the world through, and that's my least effective method for understanding the world. Symbols seem useful for communication, but for understanding what's in front of you they seem to leave a lot to be desired. I'd rather just look at what's in front of me. I see patterns but they sure don't conform to any 9-type model no matter how complex it's made.
I didn't say I had an aversion to it, I just don't believe in it the way some people do. It doesn't mean I don't ever want to discuss it, or that I need to "move on" just because some people take it a lot more seriously than I do. As I said before, it's interesting, and kind of fun (thus hardly an "aversion"), I just feel the need to insert a reality-check now and then as to what exactly it is we're talking about here.
As in, basically, I didn't know this was a thread solely for people who believed over a certain amount in the Enneagram. I thought it was a thread for discussion of the Enneagram, which includes varying degrees of skepticism about it.
People on here talk about how useful they find it to type people or themselves by the Enneagram, and from the look of it this thread includes everyone from people with a vague casual interest to people who attend entire conferences on the thing.
I actually have read a number of books on the topic due to friends who were interested in it, which puts me beyond the vague casual Internet test-taking sort of person in terms of how much research I've done in the topic, but I also have not spent any money or time going to conferences about it and probably wouldn't even if I had the money to throw around. So to that degree my interest in it has probably gone beyond some others who have posted to this thread.
(I have also studied the MBTI in roughly as much depth, which is to say, not as far as a person could, but further than most people do. I have identical reservations about reality of the the MBTI although I find the Enneagram more fun than the MBTI.)
At any rate, the thread seems to contain people of varying degrees of interest in it, and also of varying degrees of belief in it. I would think that if people on this thread are entitled to repeatedly type each other as if the types are real and discuss that in depth, then I am equally entitled to (when the topic seems to come up) mention what I see as the shortcomings of personality-typing systems such as this one, and elaborate on why I believe this. I have no clue why both ideas could not exist on this thread or why the one would detract from the other.
My mistake: I just realized that there are only 18 possible combinations on the Enneagram, and 6w4 is not one of them.
Only because 6 and 4 are not seen as "next to each other" in a relatively arbitrary classification system. I'd wonder why 6w4 should not be possible.
On the MBTI the only thing I consistently and strongly seem to score is I and to a lesser extent P.