# Socionics and Enneagram Types Correlations



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

Has anyone noticed any correlations between Socionics and Enneagram types? After going through hundreds of typings, I've noticed that some enneagram types are either extremely rare or even not present within some socionics types. This could have an effect on socionics intertype relations, since the Enneagram has it's own gridlock of intertype relations.

I started with the premise that any enneagram type is possible for any sociotype. The distribution that I observed showed something different:

Types 3,6,9 - called "primary" types - are omnipresent and can be found in 16 Socionics types. These might be the most common e-types in the population.
The "secondary" types 1,2,4,5,7,8 seem to have certain exclusions.
1 - present in IJ, EJ, and IP temperaments.
2 - present in ethical types
4 - present in introverted ethical types (possibly least common in population)
5 - present in introverted logical types (possibly least common in population)
7 & 8 - present in extroverted types

Breaking this down by sociotype:

IxFx types show the same ennea-type distribution.
SEI (ISFp) : 1,2,3,4,6,9 (not found : 5,7,8)
IEI (INFp) : 1,2,3,4,6,9 (not found : 5,7,8)
ESI (ISFj) : 1,2,3,4,6,9 (not found : 5,7,8)
EII (INFj) : 1,2,3,4,6,9 (not found : 5,7,8)

IxTx types also show same ennea-type distribution.
LII (INTj) : 1,3,5,6,9 (not found : 2,4,7,8)
LSI (ISTj) : 1,3,5,6,9 (not found : 2,4,7,8)
ILI (INTp) : 1,3,5,6,9 (not found : 2,4,7,8)
SLI (ISTp) : 1,3,5,6,9 (not found : 2,4,7,8)

The other types have shown same ennea-type distributions with their kindred type.
ILE (ENTp) : 3,6,7,8,9 (not found : 1,2,4,5)
SLE (ESTp) : 3,6,7,8,9 (not found : 1,2,4,5)

ESE (ESFj) : 1,2,3,6,7,8,9 (not found : 4,5)
EIE (ENFj) : 1,2,3,6,7,8,9 (not found : 4,5) 

LIE (ESTj) : 1,3,6,7,8,9 (not found : 2,4,5)
LSE (ESTj) : 1,3,6,7,8,9 (not found : 2,4,5)

SEE (ESFp) : 2,3,6,7,8,9 (not found : 1,4,5)
IEE (ENFp) : 2,3,6,7,8,9 (not found : 1,4,5)


Types EIE and ESE have shown the largest distribution of ennea-types, while introverted logical types IxTx as well as xLEs appear to have the smallest ennea-diversity.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

@Sylas, "not found" parts mean that you don't know people who share this combination of Enneagram and Socionics types or...?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

How did you gather the data and how was it verified? Anyway, I have run across one person that self-identified as an LII type 8, and there are two others I believe to be type 8 LIIs as well. Especially with regards to trying to correlate the systems self-typing becomes extremely unreliable.

I also happened to be an ILI type 8, and it's a fairly common typing imo. ILI type 4 as well.


----------



## FoggyEyes (Jan 14, 2017)

I don't have any tangible output but I am as all those who type whatever they want. Because they don't have any reliable data either duh.
LII e8 seems a total nonsense for me from what I understand. Now I am ready to get killed by PC gurus.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

A few more detailed thoughts:


I'd be hesitant to streamline/systematize the two theories in this way, because it could send the message that certain combinations _cannot_ exist without actual proof of that. Enneagram and Socionics both refer to ego structure, but it's mapped out in extremely different ways between the two theories and the role of ego structure is a lot more crucial to Enneagram than it is to Socionics. 

Aside from ego items, Socionics is described primarily at the level of information type, metabolism, energy, and interpersonal interactions. Enneagram is described at the level of fixation, ego ideal, defensive habit, and instinctive focus. 

When we say "any person can be any enneagram type" what is really said is that any fixation can persist under the context of any type of information. When we say "certain enneagram-sociotypes don't exist," what is really being said is that there is a specific attribute of certain fixations that conflicts with information elements - i.e. Te base IE conflicts with the Passion of Envy/Defense of Introjection, etc. It may be the case that nobody has ever met an ENTJ type 4, and that we can draw a no correlation between ENTJ and 4 - but all that specifically tells us is that nobody has ever claimed to seen it, not that there is anything essential about ENTJ and 4 that cannot exist together. Yet when we streamline, or systematize combinations together in that way the implication is that certain combinations _cannot_ exist. Although a chart of which combinations are likely is doable, it isn't a true stopper to people just typing as whichever combination they please; it's still highly subjective. There is no objective, theory-grounded reason ENTJ 4's can't exist, only opinions that they are one of the combinations that aren't likely. An opinion, btw, I actually _agree_ with. 

A few specific exceptions to those rules I've noticed: 

Type 1 ILE (i.e. Type 1 can also be any Thinking type, regardless of temperament)
Type 4 SEE, IEE, EIE (i.e. Type 4 can be any Feeling type, regardless of E/I)
Type 5 IEI, EII (i.e. Type 5 can be any introverted type, regardless of T/F)
Types 7 and 8 ESI, LSI (i.e. types 7 and 8 can be Extraverts, or any type with at least 3 dimensional Se)


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

@Sylas oh no I'm not real! (8w9 LSI)

I think socionics and enneagram are so different you can have any combination really - different things driving each.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Think I know someone who is LSE 4. She's probably not the person you'll bump into every corner - she's different and all - but definitely not super-weird or let alone impossible. I don't see what is so counter to Te (or to any other IE) in the 4's motivations and fear of having no personal significance and desire to create identity. Both describe very different things.

Even though I agree that some combinations are more common than others, I think any pairing is possible, unless you measure people against your own biased idea of what they should be like instead of theoretical basis of motivations and information processing they actually demonstrate.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

To_august said:


> Think I know someone who is LSE 4. She's probably not the person you'll bump into every corner - she's different and all - but definitely not super-weird or let alone impossible. I don't see what is so counter to Te (or to any other IE) in the 4's motivations and fear of having no personal significance and desire to create identity. Both describe very different things.
> 
> Even though I agree that some combinations are more common than others, I think any pairing is possible, unless you measure people against your own biased idea of what they should be like instead of theoretical basis of motivations and information processing they actually demonstrate.


I know that @Schweeeeks has a brother who types as an LIE type 4, so yes, I agree. If that would be the case, then logicians in general should be unable to be a type 4 since at a very simplified level, every logician has 1D in ethics. I base this on the assumption that the implied argument here is that type 4 is a very "feelsy" type and reasoning with feelings is more of an ethical approach as opposed to something logicians tend to do. This would make it antithetical for a logician to be a type 4. Based on personal observations, however, I know this is not the case. 

I also think that a common mistake that people do is that they assume that because certain combinations are more common and thus also "manifest" in a way we think is more typical for that particular type e.g. an ILI type 5 or what have you, they have a tendency to dismiss that person and their type in favor of a different type. Just as an example because these are what I can think of from the top of my head, but both type 4 and type 9 are fairly common combinations for ILIs, but they don't necessarily look logically detached as ILI type 5s may do. Yet I think that people often associate type 5 with ILI than they do other types. So ILI type 4s and 9s can come across as more emotional or passionate towards people by virtue of not being 5s, so people have a greater tendency to assume that they are ethicians. The problem with this approach is quite obvious - then you aren't typing them on the level of information processing but based on behavior. While there is a correlation between information processing and behavior e.g. high vs low Fe is like night and day in people, it doesn't mean that a lack of expression must always mean low Fe, for example. We see this clearly in LxIs that may try to engage their Fe more actively due to age or because of other factors. 

I also think that it's logically fallacious to assume that certain combinations aren't possible because it's based on flawed inductive logic; because we haven't seen it we assume it doesn't exist. Lack of observation does not equal to non-existence; it just means we haven't observed it. It may make it implausible but not impossible. That was exactly the problem with the black swan phenomenon and why we must approach these things with greater scientific rigor by actually making sure that we are not overlooking information.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Entropic said:


> I know that @*Schweeeeks* has a brother who types as an LIE type 4, so yes, I agree. If that would be the case, then logicians in general should be unable to be a type 4 since at a very simplified level, every logician has 1D in ethics. I base this on the assumption that the implied argument here is that type 4 is a very "feelsy" type and reasoning with feelings is more of an ethical approach as opposed to something logicians tend to do. This would make it antithetical for a logician to be a type 4. Based on personal observations, however, I know this is not the case.
> 
> I also think that a common mistake that people do is that they assume that because certain combinations are more common and thus also "manifest" in a way we think is more typical for that particular type e.g. an ILI type 5 or what have you, they have a tendency to dismiss that person and their type in favor of a different type. Just as an example because these are what I can think of from the top of my head, but both type 4 and type 9 are fairly common combinations for ILIs, but they don't necessarily look logically detached as ILI type 5s may do. Yet I think that people often associate type 5 with ILI than they do other types. So ILI type 4s and 9s can come across as more emotional or passionate towards people by virtue of not being 5s, so people have a greater tendency to assume that they are ethicians. The problem with this approach is quite obvious - then you aren't typing them on the level of information processing but based on behavior. While there is a correlation between information processing and behavior e.g. high vs low Fe is like night and day in people, it doesn't mean that a lack of expression must always mean low Fe, for example. We see this clearly in LxIs that may try to engage their Fe more actively due to age or because of other factors.
> 
> I also think that it's logically fallacious to assume that certain combinations aren't possible because it's based on flawed inductive logic; because we haven't seen it we assume it doesn't exist. Lack of observation does not equal to non-existence; it just means we haven't observed it. It may make it implausible but not impossible. That was exactly the problem with the black swan phenomenon and why we must approach these things with greater scientific rigor by actually making sure that we are not overlooking information.


Yes, I agree. I also think that people frequently confuse conventional ideas of "feelsy"/"logical" for ethics/logic in Socionics, so what they percieve as emotional or composed/detached attitude may have little to do with information processing in Socionics sense and constitutes just behavior. And there are other much simpler systems if people want just that - like psychosophy (or whatever is the name they currently use), which is straightforwardly focused on behavioural patterns. In comparison to other typologies Enneagram seems to me pretty universal system in the meaning that it appeals to universal desires and motivations all people share to a greater or lesser degree, independently of whether they are logicians or ethicians, and both "camps" may develop any of the fixations, depending on early developments in their life.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

This is only partially relevant, but I'll post it here anyway: The other day I was skimming through Naranjo's _Character and Neurosis_. He gives MBTI - Enneagram correlations, but I noticed that there are some MBTI types that he doens't use at all, while other MBTI types are correlated to more than one Enneagram/ one Enneagram goes with two MBTI types.
I'll copy some quotations here and add the corresponding socionics notation in brackets. When I quote an MBTI type, that means Naranjo referred directly to MBTI and used the four letter code. In some cases he referred to Jung, rather than MBTI.

Enneagram 1: ESTJ [ESTj]

Enneagram 2: "Jung's descriptions .... the extraverted feeling type" [no specific type mentioned, but could inlcude both ESFj and ENFj]

Enneagram 3: ESTP [ESTp]

Enneagram 4: INFJ and INFP [INFp, INFj]

Enneagram 5: INTP [INTj]

Enneagram 6: "Jung ....Introverted Thinking Type" [it's implied that this refers to phobic 6; no specific type mentioned, could be INTj or ISTj]; "counterphobic.... ENTJ"

Enneagram 7: INTJ [INTp]

Enneagram 8: "In Jung.... Extraverted Sensation Type" [no specific types mentioned, but could include both ESTp and ESFp]

Enneagram 9: "Jung: Introverted Feeling Type" [INFj, ISFj?]; von Franz: Extraverted Sensing Type [ESFp, ESTp?]; 
test profiles: ISTJ [ISTp]; ESFJ [ESFj]"


*---> MBTI/ socionics/ Jung types that are not accounted for at all: ENTp, ENFp, ISFp

*Somehow this bothers me massively. 
*1.* Why is E3 explicitly correlated with "ESTP"? vs. E8 "extraverted sensing type", which could be ESTP or ESFP? I think that should be the other way round, ESTp as the archetypal E8 (but could be 3) and ESFP as the archetypal 3 (but could be 8 or 7, as well).

*2.* Why are there no Ne-doms at all and no ISFps either? If his correlations are based on "test profiles", he should have come across lots of ISFps if his study was representative at all.

*3.* 6cp = ENTJ? Really? I'm sure there will be lots of ENTJs who are 6cp, but why are there no ENTJ 1, 8 or even 3?

*4.* 4 = either Ni-Fe or Fi-Ne ... how does that work?

*5. *ISTP/ ISTj = phobic 6 and no other type? I could see ISTj as counterphobic 6, 8, maybe 5?

*6. *Why does E9 correlate to the broadest range of vastly different types? Fi-Ne, Fi-Se, Si-Te, Fe-Si ???

*7.* Why are INTJ [INTp] exclusively correlated to E7? Sure, it's possible, but 5, 6, 1, maybe 9, are just as likely. ESFp and ISFj would make a way better E7, as well. 


Sorry if this isn't relevant, but this theoretical inconsistency bothers me no end. In some cases, Naranjo uses Keirsey's four-letter codes (E4 INFJ, INFP), while in others he refers to cognitive functions (E8 "Extraverted Sensing"). Is he just trying to prove that he's read lots of MBTI literature and his Enneatypes are true because someone else has also said something similar?

*On topic*: I do agree that in theory any socionics type could be any Enneagram, but some combinations are just very unlikely.

*Further "research"*: Would it be worth looking at socionics subtypes and correlating them to Enneagram types? .. Maybe including wings would help as well. E.g. I know an Ne-ENTp E 8w7 and a Ti-ENTp 8w9. One is a raging maniac bordering on sociopathic who is always running around and getting mixed up in everything and has an army of minions... . The other is a grumpy semi-turtle (almost like INTj, but more lively in a group and can take an initiative) who's got his act together.

@Entropic, I am vexed! Help us out.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@FlaviaGemina Riso and Hudson do the same thing btw, and they don't even agree with Naranjo lol. They for example think that the Ne dom is the quintessential 8. They arrived at that logic by directly correlating Jung's Ne portrait to how they understand type 8. So they didn't even test it but simply assumed. I assume in a similar manner that Naranjo just assumed. I also don't understand why he mixes so many ideas in his book since he wants to make the enneagram into something more grounded in human psychology but then he refers to such unscientific ideas as homeopathy it entirely kills his case. 

I think that's why I dismissed all of this as folly because you can't verify cognitive functions in people and you can't quantify the enneagram either, so how do you even verify this outside of self-typing? And that's when you get the mess of the Fauvres supposed research on the combinations entirely relying on self-reporting. I think Katherine herself has jinxed her own function order in the MBTI but that's an aside. 

I agree some combinations are more likely than others and that's obviously very interesting to study, but before we can do that we need to find a reliable way of how to delineate and quantify data; something all of these supposed correlations and studies entirely fail at. Enneagram authors are many things but it's evidently clear that none of them are scientists and seek to approach the system scientifically. All hail Augusta.

Addendum: I do see some correlations between Gulenko's DCNH subtypes with the enneagram, but after reading about a psychological theory called the 4F (fight, flight, freeze, fawn), I am inclined to think that it's a better possible theoretical foundation for behavior and the enneagram in many ways, than other psychological explanations. I do disagree with Freud on many things but I do agree with him on that much of the foundation for who we are and how we cope is based on our childhood experiences and it leads to various behavioral patterns later in life. I also think we are genetically predisposed towards adopting some attitudes over other attitudes, so I'm not entirely on the nurture side there. In such a sense, I suppose one could say I do think most of what we consider to be a type in typology is in-born. I have yet to see a strong argument for a person's ability to change type throughout one's life which would indicate it's more of a nurture thing, either way.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

OK, I'll attempt my own correlation of information elements with E-Types and then I'll match those E-types with socionic types that have those information elements in their ego block to give the most likely combinations. This is only a theoretical exercise. Just want to see how this would work out. I think any combination is possible, but some are just more likely.
I will also add my personal observations. I'm aware that this is purely anecdotal and other members may have completely different ideas.


*E3*: the need to_ appear_ competent ~ *Se*: surface perception of 'things as they are' taken to extremes: perception is given precedence over substance, sometimes even dishonestly
==> most likely sociotypes in theory: ESTp, ESFp, ISTj, ISFj [personal observation: ESFp, ENFp - could Te-hidden agenda be the decisive factor, rather than Se?]

*E8*: control, being strong, need for physical activity and risk etc.: ~ *Se*: territoriality, etc., but could also be (denial of ) tertiary Fe; ==> most likely sociotypes in theory: ESTp, ESFp, ISTj, ISFj (could include ENTp, if tert. Fe is the decisive factor, rather than Se!); [personal observation: ESTp, ENTp, ENTj, possibly some ISFj but they might be 6cp; in my experience ESTp are the most archetypal 8, followed by ENTJ whereas ENTp 8 almost seem conflicted between ENTpness and 8ness]

---- Types that are most unlikely to be 3 or 8: those with Se PoLR, INTj and INFj


*E9*: sense of not being important as an individual, *over-adaptation*: I sort of agree with Naranjo that this could be either Fe or Si, but I lean more towards Fe, ... could even be Ni or Ne, but I think over-adaptation in those types would be more situational, e.g enabling them to survive. Not sure about Fi ... Fi could go either way.
*Fe*: over-adapting because they value the group more than their own needs; *Si*: over-adapting because it is their duty? (sorry, I don't understand Si very well)
===> most likely sociotypes: ESFj, ENFj, ISFp, ISTp, ESTj (not so sure about ISFj and INFj) [personal observations: ISFp .. ESFj can have some element of this, but I think they're more likely to be 2; I think it's very unlikely for an ENFj to be 9. All the ones I know are the _leader_ in social settings. While they do subject themselves to Fe-values even when they personally disagree, they subject everybody else to them even more ... it's like they are the living embodiment of Fe,... I don't think they over-adapt...to Fe, they _are_ Fe. ... Same goes for ESTj, only that they are more concerned about the logistics of organising a social event rather than the 'let's all be together' aspect. But just like ENFj, they take the necessity of the event as a given and then set out to persuade everyone to attend.
I know one E9 INTp who is a bundle of contradictions.) 

*E1*: Te/Si/Ni can all contribute to perfectionism: Si - wanting to do everything in the right, traditional way; Ni - choosing the best option for future development; Te - wanting to do things 'the way it is commonly done'/ 'the most efficient/ purposeful way'
==> ISTp, ESTj, ENTj, INTp [personally, I lean towards ISTp and ESTj for E1 rather than types with Ni... but who knows].
Might tertiary/ inferior Fi also play a role in perfectionism? It could lead to a certain rigidity and self-righteousness when combined with high Te? But the same can be seen in Fi-doms?

*E2*: agree with Naranjo, but actually, when you look at the definition of Fe, it's not a foregone conclusion ... anyway 
==>ESFj and ENFj; maybe ISFp and INFp
--- sociotypes that are less likely to be E2 in theory: those with Fe PoLR?? In reality, I have E2 in my tritype and I'm ILI; my ILI friend also seems like a 6-1-2 (or whichever way round)

*E4*: dominant Fi ~ the need to be individual, interest in drama could correspond to suffering of E4 (creating a drama for themselves so they can suffer and feel important?); Ni could also lead to a dramatic victim mentality if Se is very repressed? Superficially, the "victim" romantic style may be reminiscent of the suffering of E4? I'm not sure, because I personally identify with the "pseudo-aggressor" style more and the aim of that seems to be a playful struggle for dominance, not to make yourself suffer.
==> INFj, ISFj, maybe INFp, INTp [personal observations: mainly INFj]

*E5*: I'm not very clear on this.... ITNj would definitely correspond to 'substituting concepts for experience', due to Se PoLR... but so would INFj. I'm not sure about ISTj... I would exclude them because they have Se, when it comes to concepts > experience. But it might be a very different story when you look at inf Fe... Ni-dom could also substitute concepts for experience, but I don't actually believe that their Se could be permanently repressed to that extent. 
==> INTj would be the prototypical E5 [personal observation: INTj]

*E6*: this depends very much on what is meant by "security". On the surface, "security" sounds like Si. Conversely, Si also sounds like the Sp instinct. But I think that the "security" issues of E6 are more metaphorical can the material security of Si/ sp. So I'll go for *Ni*,generating too many frightening options without a grounding in reality/ seeing things behind the surface even when there is nothing there ==> anxiety
==> Most likely types: INFp and INTp, ENTj, ENFj; quite a few ISFps might type as E6, but I don't actually believe they are, I think they're more likely to be E9 or E2, sp

*E7*: "gluttony" could be manifested as *Se* or *Ne: *Se - gluttony for new (more or less) tangible experiences; Ne - gluttony for more options, not wanting to settle for just one thing
==> ESFp, ESTp, ENFp, ENTp; ISFj, ISTJ, INFj, INTj [personal oberservation: somehow I think INFj and INTj are less likely, don't know why]
@*Sylas* @*Entropic* what do you reckon? @To_august @Figure

My brain is hurting from typing all those abbreviations, I hope I got the j/p dichotomy the right way round, I don't often write this much about socionics types, sorry if there are any errors.
Should I make a table to summarize this?


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Hum... just realised: neither Ne nor Ni seem to exist for Naranjo. His classification of INFP and INFJ as 4 is based on F. 
Why do N-doms not exist at all in his correlations? @Entropic


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@FlaviaGemina if purely correlating type descriptions?

Anyway, these are my experiences and observations, ignoring trying to correlate because as I wrote, I just gave up on it:

*E1: *Fi leading is very common (there's an ESI at work I think is an E1); SLI, ILI, LSE, ESE
*E2: *ESE, SLE (!), ESI, IEI
*E3:* SEI, ESE, ILI, ILE, I once typed an EIE as a type 3 also, IEE
*E4:* ILI (very common!), ESE (very common!), EII, IEE
*E5:* LII, LSI, ILI ESI (!; I also typed her that way; she is one of the most stereotypical 5s I've ever spoken to) EII (I have not run into many 5s honestly)
*E6: *SEE, SLE, ILI, IEI, LIE, LSI, ILE, EII, ESI (from the top of my head)
*E7:* SLE, SEE, potential IEI at work, ILE, ESE (I barely know any 7s)
*E8:* ILI (more common than what people think), LII, LIE, SLE, ILE, SLI
*E9: *ILI, LII, LSI, ESI, EII from the top of my head, but I feel like I am missing out on something

As you can see, I can't tell any discernible pattern whatsoever outside of maybe there being somewhat of a correlation between introversion/extroversion as a general whole, but then again the data isn't even close to sufficient to actually verify if such a pattern does exist. 

These are typings I am fairly sure of or at least have some credibility. Then there's anecdotal stories I've heard and if I add those it'd look like this:

*E1: *Fi leading is very common (there's an ESI at work I think is an E1); SLI, ILI, LSE, ESE
*E2: *ESE, SLE (!), ESI, IEI
*E3:* SEI, ESE, ILI, ILE, I once typed an EIE as a type 3 also, IEE, *LSE*, *SEE*
*E4:* ILI (very common!), ESE (very common!), EII, IEE, *LIE*
*E5:* LII, LSI, ILI ESI (!; I also typed her that way; she is one of the most stereotypical 5s I've ever spoken to), EII (I have not run into many 5s honestly)
*E6: *SEE, SLE, ILI, IEI, LIE, LSI, ILE, EII, ESI (from the top of my head)
*E7:* SLE, SEE, potential IEI at work, ILE, ESE (I barely know any 7s)
*E8:* ILI (more common than what people think), LII, LIE, SLE, ILE
*E9: *ILI, LII, LSI, ESI, EII, *SEE*

More chaos? Yup. I also trust these sources, I should add, or I wouldn't add them. 



> Why do N-doms not exist at all in his correlations?


No idea. Ask Naranjo why he forgot about N doms. Riso & Hudson made a point to correlate each enneagram to a Jungian type, I think, but I would have to go re-read Personality Types to verify that.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Here's an article based on a survey of 3000 participants.

Here Are The Most Common Enneagram Types For Each Myers-Briggs Personality Type | Page 18 | Thought Catalog


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

@Entropic

I've found Riso and Hudson's correlation on a website:
*Correlating the Enneagram Types to the Jungian Function Pairs*



Once the definitions are understood – how the functions are defined in the MBTI and how the characteristics are defined in the enneagram, some likely correlations can be made. ​Don Riso and Russ Hudson, in Personality Types, pp 441-443, (copyright 1996) make the following possible correlations: ​Type 1 – Extroverted Thinking
Type 2 – Extroverted Feeling
Type 3 – no corresponding type
Type 4 – Introverted iNtuiting
Type 5 – Introverted Thinking
Type 6 – Introverted Feeling
Type 7 – Extroverted Sensing
Type 8 – Extroverted iNtuiting
Type 9 – Introverted Sensing
Enneagram-Spirituality: The Enneagram and the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

LOL, "Type 3, not corresponding type" LOL, why might that be? 8 and 9 don't line up neatly and we decided that 3 can be the one that has no corresponding type?

I massively disagree with Ne being the main function for E8.

1. E8 = ENTP seems plausible enough. E8 = ENFP, less so; I'm not saying ENFP can't be 8, they sure can, but making them one of the main types that are most likely to be 8 is going a bit too far.

2. While all of the male ENTPs I know are clearly 8, they lack certain E8 characteristics that are easily found in the ESTp. All the male ENTPs I know are either insufferable feminists or follow a mixture of chivalry/ feminism. Sexual aggressiveness in a literal (physical) sense is also not common in ENTPs. While they aren't as shocked about sexual/ physical matters as INTPs (INTj), they don't like acting like a "pervert" and shrink away from/ ridicule people who express their sexuality in a crudely physical way. I think in socionics, ENTps are said to process sexual/ romantic feelings in a metaphorical way. They might well be described as sexually exploitative, but their exploitation will be based on some theory, such as "Monogamous relationships are oppressive and were designed by the patriarchy." etc. E.g. my ENTp brother is convinced that "the romantic 1:1 relationship" is the root of all social evils and he'll preach about it no end. He's also a hopeless romantic who wants a mental (and emotional) connection with his (numerous) partners. He doesn't just go "It is my right to fuck half the population of the world because I want to and I rule."

When it comes to the general aggressiveness of Se, ENTp 8s might holler all they want, but when confronted with an ESFp or ESTp they get very uncomfortable and would probably scamper up the nearest tree like a squirrel if they could. Even I can make ENTps very uncomfortable by displays of Se and mine is only inferior. OK.. I realize I'm talking about Se here, rather than E8, but E8 are supposed to have "sensor-motor" dominance ... ENTps walk like a squirrel. Even if they are E8 and march about like it's WW3, they'll randomly stop and shake their arms (very much like an ISTp).

The "love of physical adventure" that is said to be typial of 8 is not as pronounced in ENTps as in ESTps. E.g. I had this ENTp boss who was 8 and strove to be the only sporty person in the world. So another colleague told him about Felix Baumgartner's supersonic free fall, thinking the ENTp would find that amazing. However, the ENTP found it ridiculous and irrational. Similarly, my silly ENTp brother tried a really dumb, jackass thing once, but he thought about it in advance for months, had to get drunk to do it, got frightened when he did it and decided that it was dumb.

I would say that ENTjs are far more comfortable with these aspects of E8 than ENTPs. E.g. I know an ENTj who describes herself as an “adrenaline junkie” and she’s also quite openly sexual, doesn’t mind ogling actors, kawaii maids etc.

Don't know why I'm so obsessed about this  I guess I would put those the other way round:

E7: 1. Ne, 2. Se
E8: 1. Se, 2. Te/Ne

Equally, I'd say 4 and 6 should be both Fi and Ni.​


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FlaviaGemina said:


> <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->
> @<b><a href="http://personalitycafe.com/member.php?u=39512" target="_blank">Entropic</a></b>
> <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->
> 
> ...


Yeah, and that's the thing, when reading those things, I'm just like "ok". I mean, when I was at definitely one of my more unhealthier levels in my life, I made my ESE grandmother scared of my aggression. She has 4D Se and I have 1D Se. 

That's why I don't experience any of those things to pertain much to 8ness outside of just typical quadra values with betas being betas. I mean, what you described is typical of SLEs in general, I think. It's just how beta STs are like, especially when immature, and same thing with ILEs. 

Speaking about ILEs and sex and metaphors lol...


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

FlaviaGemina said:


> OK, I'll attempt my own correlation of information elements with E-Types and then I'll match those E-types with socionic types that have those information elements in their ego block to give the most likely combinations. This is only a theoretical exercise. Just want to see how this would work out. I think any combination is possible, but some are just more likely.
> I will also add my personal observations. I'm aware that this is purely anecdotal and other members may have completely different ideas.
> 
> 
> ...


By "correlation" are you shooting for a correlation between types and anecdotal prevalence, a correlation between the way two types read when you read the type description, or a correlation between structures within types of the two theories?

Also, a quick tip - the 3 letter typing is sooooooo much easier when talking about specific types and actually makes more sense than the MBTI-esque ones : )


Type 1: Any type, but more commonly Rational types and Rational subtypes of Irrational types. E__p's would be one off cases, with ILE the most likely of those.

Type 2: Mostly Feeler types, with slightly more weight given to Fe valuing. Thinking types are one-off cases. 

Type 3: Any type, but the type description fits worst when Introverted and Feeler. 

Type 4: Mostly Feeler types, with slightly more weight given to Introverted (though both Fi and Fe). Thinking types are one-off cases. 

Type 5: Mostly Introverted types, with slightly more weight given to Thinking. Extraverted would be one off cases, or at most quite unusual. 

Type 6: Any type. The type descriptions cover only certain archetypes of 6, and this type has a very wide variegation. Sociotype can steer true 6's far from 6 descriptions, especially for Extraverts. 

Type 7: Mostly E__p types, with occasional I__j and handful of E__j. I__p are rare one off cases. E__j who are 7's are easily mistaken for E__p or other enneatypes (frequently types 3 and 8), but the visibility of the E__j temperament is persistent. A very non hard and fast rule is that many 7's will resist being "labeled" or "boxed in" as a 7. 

Type 8: Mostly Extraverted, or Se adept Introverts with slight sway given to Thinking types within those groups. If Se Introvert, usually the Se subtype as well though not always. Si valuing Introverts and Intuitive Introverts would be one off cases. The type description loses sway when compared to Intuitive or Feeler 8's and best suits SLE and LSE. Most mistypes here come from self-idealizations that don't match the person's actual behavioral habits, common of all sociotypes. 

Type 9: Any type, but the type descriptions lose effectiveness for E__j type 9's and conflict with those of I__j when they shouldn't/aren't that incompatible. I__j 9's are extremely common, along with I__p, and E__p less so.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Figure said:


> By "correlation" are you shooting for a correlation between types and anecdotal prevalence, a correlation between the way two types read when you read the type description, or a correlation between structures within types of the two theories?


Eh? You lost me there, but I think your reply is what I was looking for. When I said correlation, I meant I want to establish theoretical correspondences that are at least based on some sort of coherent logic, as opposed to what Naranjo does. 
This theoretical equivalence could then serve as a hypothesis and data can be studied to see whether the hypothesis is valid or not.
Obviously, the most empirical approach would be to just get lots of data (i.e. people's type in both systems) and identify patterns, like in the article that I linked above.




> Also, a quick tip - the 3 letter typing is sooooooo much easier when talking about specific types and actually makes more sense than the MBTI-esque ones : )


I don't frequent the socionics forum as often as I should (given that I prefer socionics to MBTI), so I'm very slow at even reading the three letter codes. I know how they work, but I'm not used to looking at them. So typing them would take a while. LOL, maybe I should open a word document to practise. Does that sound sad?


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

@FlaviaGemina

I see that we come from a bit different theoretical background, so we'd probably disagree on some correlations. Tbh I know less about enneatype descriptions so focus more on fears, motivations, fixations:

E1: Depends on what they perceive as an "ideal" and what they mean by good vs corrupt concepts. Fi base types would be the most common among 1s that go from ethical/moral grounds (and the most common correlation on the basis of fixation on literally good vs evil, right vs wrong etc). Also Ti base types (LSI more so than LII) where fixation is build around creation of abstracted systems and structures "the way things ought to be". Both ESI and LSI are more likely than EII and LII (strong conscious Ne kinda gets in the way of seeing things in a contrasted right/wrong way). Super-id Fi and Ti types as well. Overall, I think, there's a somewhat correlation with rationality here.

E2: Desire to be loved and fear of being unloved seem like a fixation on having a particular relation aka Fi, so any ethical type with flexible Fi/Fe will fit.

E3: Again, depends on what kind of ground fixation on worthlessness and feeling valuable is built upon. Typically I'd say extraverted Se, Te and Fe ego types with Ne being less likely (especially Delta NF), as sizing up people's talents and potential is their theme, they supposed to feel pretty confidant in this area and fixation on one's own worthlessness seems off, but then again, it depends on what it means to be worthy.

E4: Most likely ego ethicians Beta and Delta NF. Also it's a common Ne HA trope to want to be interesting and original coupled with insecurity in this area, so maybe it's not so unusual as people think for those types. I think, 4 fix is pretty common for Ne Super-id types, at least.

E5: Type that feels unprepared for the dangers of the environment unless figures everything out, thus withdraws and thinks everything hundred times through before doing anything. I exaggerate but, yeah, basically types with poor-dimensional Se and slight correlation toward logical egos. LII and ILI.

E6: A varied bunch. I can think of basically any correlation here and each of those seem pretty common.

E7: Correlates best with extraverted types in general. Probably more so with extraverted perceivers from peripheral quadras (on the surface fear of being deprived and in pain, desire to feel satisfied and thinking that next best thing is somewhere out there sounds Ne-Si valuing, but LIE, for example, also fits such image, I think).

E8: Types with some kind of focus on Se (can be just Se valuing, or strong valued/devalued Se, or even Super-ego Se, so generally, any type, lol), depending on the way of how person goes about this fixation. Both valuing/devaluing and having strong/weak Se may play its role in specific shaping of this ennea personality. Most likely Se base types, of course, and LSE fits too, I think.

E9: All kinds of Pi leads plus Delta NF.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Enneagram and Socionics can *seem* to overlap sometimes because of similar descriptions. But the core of the issue is that *Enneagram is about Ego fixation* (The driving force behind most of the things a person doing); socionics is about how the *information processes, what path it will take*, what "hierarchy" it will obey according to different types.

So because tests are not that reliable, if a person tests as extraverted in socionics, he/she will usually type as 7, 8 or 2 in enneagram and rarely as 4, 5 or 9. Another example that was already mentioned: people who type as "ethicals" in socionics will rarely get tested as ennea 5 or 8. That doesn't mean they typed themselves right or that strange/different combos cannot exist. 

If I understand right, your ennea type is acquired somewhere through your childhood due to an event that have greatly impacted you. On the other hand your sociotype is something you are born with (like in mbti and jung cf).


----------

