my description for the paid version of this (which is the same questions) is linked (to my forum blog) from my Subterranean enneagram thread...but I tried to answer the questions again yesterday, so there'd be a comparable free version to compare to (which would just be much reduced, essentially). I found it impossible to answer a second time: I could not remember how I answered for many of the questions, and I had a feeling for some that I was answering in reverse order to before.

The first time I took it, I tried to answer as it asked (by which I most liked the sound of, regardless of skill and experience etc.). But I found that when the option was "psychologist, counselor, or spiritual worker", I could not choose that option, because such a role would always be too emotionally taxing, and thus there would be no rationale to choose it. I didn't however consider that "psychologist" could have a research-only focus, and that avoiding such questions (teaching was another one!) might have a wider impact on my people orientated results.

I think I also I tended to avoid the "theoretical" options, preferring the "ideas" or "procedure" ones: I think there was one that put theoretical + strategy vs. technical & scientific research. The "ideas" one/s didn't go into whether I was expected to come up with ideas, or refine ideas, or a combination of both (which might be more procedural). With "theory", if it is not of realistic utility (in the short to medium term), and if it is always going to be "theory", and not practical results, I am not going to enjoy it.

There was a question which asked which of three clubs you would prefer, and one of the options was stock investment with friends (or similar). I thought this was a bad question, because of the nature of stock investing (it is not something that mixes well with group thinking!).