When I read ER4YT I saw that I did fit the overall characteristics of an O: strong, optimistic, able to take risks and survive stress. But there are so many finer points and variations under those broad headings that I have a hard time thinking anybody could "type" personalities going by blood alone.

At my workplace, we took personality tests from a book of "colors," and I found that I am an orange, the artisan. This test is more slated to telling people what they will do best at, and how best to communicate with other people. It reminded me of the only really good reason to take a persoanlity test: to focus with better accuracy on doing good.

Discovering that I am creative, hard driving, hands-on, and independent pleased me, but I really knew that already. I think that most of us already know what we are. Learning how best to use those traits was the important part. Another benefit was that it showed the people around me how we could all accomodate to each other, and my supervisor has been very good at giving me the free rein that I like to carry out my own projects. In the meantime, I work hard to accomodate to the "greens" in the group (rationals), who just love the eensy-weensy details of what we do.

My opinion is that personality is something best analyzed in context and in terms of what people do best rather than as a tool to diagnose what they ARE. Persoanlity itself shifts around a lot and changes as we grow older.

JMO