Our
Methodology

How we research, write, and structure the personality content on Know Thy Type.

Source-first content

Every personality framework page on Know Thy Type is built from the foundational research and published literature behind each system. For MBTI, that means Jung's Psychological Types and the work of Isabel Briggs Myers and Katharine Cook Briggs. For the Enneagram, it means the contributions of Oscar Ichazo, Claudio Naranjo, Don Riso, and Russ Hudson. For Attachment Theory, it means Bowlby, Ainsworth, and modern researchers like Amir Levine. For the Big 5 Emotions, it means LeDoux, Tangney, Levine, van der Kolk, and the broader affective neuroscience and clinical psychology literature.

We cite our sources at the bottom of each page so you can verify claims and explore the research further.

Three tiers of evidence

Not all content on this site rests on the same evidentiary foundation, and we think you deserve to know the difference. We organize our content into three tiers based on the strength and nature of the evidence behind it.

1

Empirical Ground

Content grounded directly in peer-reviewed research, validated psychometric instruments, and replicable findings. This includes the Big Five personality model (Costa & McCrae, 1992), attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth, 1978; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998), the neuroscience of emotion (LeDoux, 2000; Panksepp, 1998), and the clinical psychology of self-conscious emotions (Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007).

You'll find this in: Individual framework pages (Big Five, Attachment Styles), the empirical sections of our emotion articles, and the scoring methodology behind our assessment.

2

Supported Synthesis

Content that synthesizes documented pairwise relationships between frameworks. The correlations between Big Five dimensions and MBTI preferences are well-established (McCrae & Costa, 1989). Enneagram type correlations with Big Five traits have been studied (Dameyer, 2001). Attachment style correlations with personality traits are documented (Noftle & Shaver, 2006). We draw on these established pairwise connections to build cross-system profiles, clearly noting when we are synthesizing rather than citing a single study.

You'll find this in: Convergent assessment scoring, MBTI type pages, Enneagram type pages, and two-framework comparison content.

3

Integrative Model

Content where we extend beyond what has been directly studied to build novel cross-framework profiles. When we describe how shame manifests specifically for an INFJ Type 4 with anxious attachment, we are integrating three personality frameworks with our emotional obstruction model in a way no peer-reviewed publication has yet attempted. We construct these profiles by combining the established characteristics of each component - what the literature says about INFJs, about Type 4s, about anxious attachment, and about shame - and reasoning through how those patterns interact.

We also draw on contemplative psychology traditions - accumulated observational knowledge about how emotions are experienced, stored, and processed - translating their insights into modern language and noting where their observations converge with or diverge from empirical findings. We never present contemplative claims as empirical fact.

You'll find this in: The Big 5 Emotions framework, multi-framework combination profiles, and the deeper-pattern sections of our emotion articles.

We believe this transparency serves you better than either pretending everything is peer-reviewed science or disclaiming everything as opinion. The building blocks are empirical. The synthesis is informed. The integrative model is our contribution - and we'll tell you which is which.

Convergent assessment

Our personality assessment uses a convergent design. Instead of testing each framework separately with its own set of questions, we use cross-loaded items that score across multiple frameworks at once. A single question about how you handle conflict, for example, provides signal for your Big Five traits, your Enneagram type, and your attachment style simultaneously.

This approach is built on established research showing where personality frameworks overlap. The Big Five and MBTI share well-documented correlations (McCrae & Costa, 1989). Enneagram types map onto distinct Big Five facet profiles. Attachment dimensions connect to specific personality traits. We use these convergence zones to write items that capture the shared behavioral space between frameworks, giving you a rich multi-framework profile in fewer questions than separate instruments would require.

The result is a multi-framework personality profile from a single sitting. You get your Big Five traits, MBTI type, Enneagram type, and Attachment style without taking four separate tests.

What we include - and what we don't

We aim to present each system as it was intended by its creators and as supported by research. That means:

  • ✓ Describing types in terms of motivations and cognitive patterns, not just surface behaviors
  • ✓ Including both strengths and growth areas for every type
  • ✓ Noting where research support is strong versus where claims are more speculative
  • ✓ Clearly distinguishing between empirical findings, supported syntheses, and integrative models
  • ✗ Reducing types to memes, stereotypes, or one-word labels
  • ✗ Presenting personality types as fixed, deterministic categories
  • ✗ Making clinical or diagnostic claims

Limitations

Personality frameworks are tools for self-reflection, not scientific diagnoses. No questionnaire can fully capture who you are. Our assessment provides estimates based on self-reported responses - your results may shift depending on your mood, life circumstances, or how well you know yourself at the time you take it.

The cross-framework combination content represents our best integration of established knowledge from each system. As research on multi-system personality profiles advances, we will update our content to reflect new findings.

We encourage you to read the type descriptions, compare them against your own experience, and use the results as a starting point for deeper self-understanding - not as a final label.

Continuous improvement

The content on Know Thy Type is regularly reviewed and updated as new research is published and as we receive feedback from our readers. Our psychometric pipeline includes synthetic data validation, item discrimination analysis, and reliability testing - and as we collect real user data, we will conduct factor analysis, refine item selection, and publish our findings transparently. If you notice an error or have a suggestion, we welcome your input.