# MBTI Loopers/Jumpers and Enneatypes



## Karkino (May 25, 2017)

I got a question in regards to MBTI and Enneagram comparison. For example, would an INFP having a heavy FIVE wing or a FIVE in their tritype identify more with their tertiary function (Si) instead of their secondary (Ne)?

Furthermore, could an ESFJ with a strong SEVEN influence have more affinities with their Ne instead of Si too, and so on with the other MBTI types?


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

I'm still trying to think about it but I can't get past asking: "Why would a INFP with a heavy FIVE wing or a FIVE in the their tritype identify more with their tertiary function instead of their secondary?"

If Fi-Si exists (I think it does, but much rarer than how common they claim it to be) then yes, I think you would be correct. Of all the Fi-Si people I've had the pleasure of observing, they happen to be very very introverted and are not only 4w5 but they were all 4w5 459, so I think you're onto something.

If their identification with their tertiary is affected, then perhaps their relationship with their inferior is also affected? Maybe?


----------



## goodvibe (Aug 23, 2013)

Yeah, I see no reason why someone can't value their lower functions thus identify and use them more than the MBTI assigned function stack of a type. I am not a believer of the fixed function stack from childhood hypothesis...we would all be so much closer to the 16 stereotypical archetypes (which do exist), and only a few of us are.

IMO, this starts crossing over into deep philosophical questions of free will, if someone has the ability to have control over their own mental processing. Aside from the top function, I think most people have a degree of control, but it isn't perfect and depends on other factors like environment, level of personal freedom, etc. It gets complicated.

But, without going there, I see no reason why a highly introverted person — for all intents and purposes — to function as Fi , Si.....Or a highly extaverted type 7 ESFJ to be Fe, Ne... This all may change during a person's life (college life, parenthood, job) and aside from the top function, I am in the camp that sees functions in a state of fluctuation, not in some fixed order state.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

I find that ENTP, CapCom, auditory learner, affirmation love language, assertive and empathic Champion temperament tend to be Enneagram Type 5, while ENTP, CapCom, auditory learner, affirmation love language, charmer and empathic Champion temperament are Enneagram Type 8. In that sense, Enneagram is like a personality compound (compound of distinct temperaments).


----------



## hiddenglass (Feb 18, 2021)

Karkino said:


> I got a question in regards to MBTI and Enneagram comparison. For example, would an INFP having a heavy FIVE wing or a FIVE in their tritype identify more with their tertiary function (Si) instead of their secondary (Ne)?
> 
> Furthermore, could an ESFJ with a strong SEVEN influence have more affinities with their Ne instead of Si too, and so on with the other MBTI types?


no. why would you think this?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

I think if you prefer S then you are not N. Which is a simple truth people seem to miss with all the mental gymnastics done in the neojungian theories. And the completely off way of defining N and S by the MBTI and rest.



secondpassing said:


> If Fi-Si exists (I think it does, but much rarer than how common they claim it to be) then yes, I think you would be correct. Of all the Fi-Si people I've had the pleasure of observing, they happen to be very very introverted and are not only 4w5 but they were all 4w5 459, so I think you're onto something.


"Fi-Si" is in fact the normal Jungian Introvert, Sensing, Feeling type, aka ISF


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> I think if you prefer S then you are not N. Which is a simple truth people seem to miss with all the mental gymnastics done in the neojungian theories. And the completely off way of defining N and S by the MBTI and rest.
> 
> "Fi-Si" is in fact the normal Jungian Introvert, Sensing, Feeling type, aka ISF


ISFJ uses Si and Fe

ISFP uses Fi and Se

Where did you get Fi-Si?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Sparky said:


> ISFJ uses Si and Fe
> 
> ISFP uses Fi and Se
> 
> Where did you get Fi-Si?



Like I said, the (original) Jungian theory


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> I think if you prefer S then you are not N. Which is a simple truth people seem to miss with all the mental gymnastics done in the neojungian theories. And the completely off way of defining N and S by the MBTI and rest.


Most people using MBTI, to at least some extent also use Grant function stacking, which does not describe a person being Fi-Si. I think most that are typed INFP or ISFP will have a preference for a thought process described by Fi-Ne-Si-Te, Fi-Se-Ni-Te, etc. Moreover, the way INFPs and ISFP exhibit their F trait is similar to other types that supposedly have Fi as 1st or 2nd, including ENFPs and ESFPs. 

In a similar contrast, the way ISFPs and ISFJs seem to perceive is different, but the way ENFPs and INFPs seem to perceive is similar. So I also accept Grant function stacking to be an okay descriptor of people. 

Since most people who are into MBTI use Grant function stacking, I think it's fine to refer to a Fi-Si-Ne individual as an INFP. It's less confusing than to refer to the same individual as an ISFP.


> "Fi-Si" is in fact the normal Jungian Introvert, Sensing, Feeling type, aka ISF


It seems the problem you have is: "It's not Jung" instead of analyzing whether or not there is a relationship between enneagram and how much one would identify with their tertiary function.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

secondpassing said:


> Most people using MBTI, to at least some extent also use Grant function stacking, which does not describe a person being Fi-Si. I think most that are typed INFP or ISFP will have a preference for a thought process described by Fi-Ne-Si-Te, Fi-Se-Ni-Te, etc. Moreover, the way INFPs and ISFP exhibit their F trait is similar to other types that supposedly have Fi as 1st or 2nd, including ENFPs and ESFPs.
> 
> In a similar contrast, the way ISFPs and ISFJs seem to perceive is different, but the way ENFPs and INFPs seem to perceive is similar. So I also accept Grant function stacking to be an okay descriptor of people.
> 
> ...


The problem is that the Grant stack has no internal consistency and thus its description of reality is limited too. It redefines what functions are based on arbitrary qualities, so people can be everything and its opposite which is not how psychological preferences really work. You can say SI is "thinking about the past", many people will agree to doing that but it has nothing exclusive to do with "Sensing" and "Introversion". ENFP and INFP have similar ways of perceiving when they're actually both NE, if either is not but for x,y reason identifies with the label then they don't have a similar way. I've observed that a lot over the years. So if you choose only the cases that fit your conclusion you're gonna miss all the problems with how people define functions and identify with the types.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> The problem is that the Grant stack has no internal consistency and thus its description of reality is limited too. It redefines what functions are based on arbitrary qualities, so people can be everything and its opposite which is not how psychological preferences really work. You can say SI is "thinking about the past", many people will agree to doing that but it has nothing exclusive to do with "Sensing" and "Introversion". ENFP and INFP have similar ways of perceiving when they're actually both NE, if either is not but for x,y reason identifies with the label then they don't have a similar way. I've observed that a lot over the years. So if you choose only the cases that fit your conclusion you're gonna miss all the problems with how people define functions and identify with the types.


I feel like Si-Ne is more about recalling past experiences, like specific smells, touch or texture, or taste as if the person is reliving that moment. On the other hand, Se-Ni is more about taking experiences in one moment to the next, with a very rudimentary or conceptual framework about an experience, as if the person knows it exists at a moment in time, just not be able to relive that moment as well.


----------



## Deuce (Feb 16, 2021)

Mmh I think enneagram plays on the willingness of the person to use their inferior function (even if not particularly skillfully) ? I know an INFJ 7 who had frequent spells of using Se at some point, engaging himself in extreme physical activities or experimenting with drugs. It was still done in a sort of INFJ fashion with a very intellectual framework of expanding his own consciousness and he ended up liking the recounting of it and conceptual discourse about it more than the activity itself.
But I don't think it plays on one's natural abilities. All the INFP with withdrawn enneagram I've known still seemed to be more agile exploring concepts than being attentive to surroundings or details or sensual impressions. 
So far to me the jumper theory has been relevant for typing people on the autistic spectrum with an autistic INTP for example appearing very Ti-Si because they need to keep a chaotic overstimulating environment in order.


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> The problem is that the Grant stack has no internal consistency and thus its description of reality is limited too. It redefines what functions are based on arbitrary qualities, so people can be everything and its opposite which is not how psychological preferences really work. You can say SI is "thinking about the past", many people will agree to doing that but it has nothing exclusive to do with "Sensing" and "Introversion". ENFP and INFP have similar ways of perceiving when they're actually both NE, if either is not but for x,y reason identifies with the label then they don't have a similar way.


I believe since Truity is a fairly popular website, it can be used as a good reflection of how the typology community views Si (and by extension, how the Grant stack is interpreted). Their website (link) says:

Introverted Sensing (Si) – Stores and categorizes information, reviews past experiences.
...which I think is quite a bit different than your definition. Working with this more accepted definition one can definitely make a comparison between ISFPs and ISFJs. This sensing-difference is far more observable than "thinking about the past", where one can expect the ISFP to be more willing than an ISFJ to seek new experiences—to quit their job and go traveling, to go on hiking trips in different locations, to show up at their friends' house at 1:00 AM in the morning because why the heck not.

Since I think it was clear enough that I hold OPS (Objective Personality System/DSP) in higher regard than the Grant stack, your reply should not contain "you". I will not be the one saying "SI is 'thinking about the past'. OPS summarized SI as "Organizing known facts/things."



> The problem is that the Grant stack has no internal consistency and thus its description of reality is limited too. ...I've observed that a lot over the years. So if you choose only the cases that fit your conclusion you're gonna miss all the problems with how people define functions and identify with the types.


Not sure what you're expecting me to reply to this? The same criticism can be said of Jung, who based his own work on _personal _observations. Somehow though, each of us is able to give different theories a level of trust. Now, why would that be?

Have I missed the problems with how people define functions? Yes, but not entirely... which is why I believe Fi-Si exists in the first place? It's clear to me that not every INFP follows Fi-Ne-Si-Te, but it is also clear that there are less than 50% of INFPs that are Fi-Si-... that would be what OPS would claim.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

secondpassing said:


> I believe since Truity is a fairly popular website, it can be used as a good reflection of how the typology community views Si (and by extension, how the Grant stack is interpreted). Their website (link) says:
> 
> Introverted Sensing (Si) – Stores and categorizes information, reviews past experiences.
> ...which I think is quite a bit different than your definition. Working with this more accepted definition one can definitely make a comparison between ISFPs and ISFJs. This sensing-difference is far more observable than "thinking about the past", where one can expect the ISFP to be more willing than an ISFJ to seek new experiences—to quit their job and go traveling, to go on hiking trips in different locations, to show up at their friends' house at 1:00 AM in the morning because why the heck not.
> ...


It does say "reviews past experiences" there, so how was that different?

But thanks for reminding me the biggest blunder with defining SI to date, idk how I forgot it this time, I've mentioned it before in the INFP forums. SI can't be about organizing things because that requires a Rational process, and S is Irrational. That's because the Rational process is responsible for measuring things, comparing, contrasting etc. it's exactly what F and T are supposed to do. It's a problem that started from the MBTI and persists, unfortunately. MBTI ISTJs descriptions are basically just more shy ESTJs and not true SI, perceiving types. So INFPs get tricked into thinking it's their Si that does all that i.e. nostalgia and organizing when it's their F sorting things out. At least it's what I've seen in many many threads over the years.



> Not sure what you're expecting me to reply to this? The same criticism can be said of Jung, who based his own work on _personal _observations. Somehow though, each of us is able to give different theories a level of trust. Now, why would that be?
> 
> Have I missed the problems with how people define functions? Yes, but not entirely... which is why I believe Fi-Si exists in the first place? It's clear to me that not every INFP follows Fi-Ne-Si-Te, but it is also clear that there are less than 50% of INFPs that are Fi-Si-... that would be what OPS would claim.


Yes I have criticisms for Jung as well, I'm happy to go there if you like, but surely you don't expect me to write an essay about everything that's wrong with everything in every post right? I prefer to write short replies on a given context and respond as the discussion unfolds.

Yes you're right, accepting that there can be differences in the stack is definitely a step towards identifying the issues. I just disagree that such a person has an N _preference. _Which brings us to how are these functions defined to begin with, and where many of those issues lie.


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> It does say "reviews past experiences" there, so how was that different?
> 
> But thanks for reminding me the biggest blunder with defining SI to date, idk how I forgot it this time, I've mentioned it before in the INFP forums. SI can't be about organizing things because that requires a Rational process, and S is Irrational. That's because the Rational process is responsible for measuring things, comparing, contrasting etc. it's exactly what F and T are supposed to do. It's a problem that started from the MBTI and persists, unfortunately. MBTI ISTJs descriptions are basically just more shy ESTJs and not true SI, perceiving types. So INFPs get tricked into thinking it's their Si that does all that i.e. nostalgia and organizing when it's their F sorting things out. At least it's what I've seen in many many threads over the years.


I could reply to this part above but I'm hoping you will understand why I choose not to. Should be able to be inferred by the response that follows.



> Yes I have criticisms for Jung as well, I'm happy to go there if you like, but surely you don't expect me to write an essay about everything that's wrong with everything in every post right? I prefer to write short replies on a given context and respond as the discussion unfolds.


Sorry, it seems I failed to make myself clear enough. I did not expect you to write an essay. When I asked: "Now, why [can we give different theories a level of trust]?" I meant it as a rhetorical question; it was designed to let you know that our analysis of different typology systems is subjective. We both know that we are unlikely to perform double-blind experiments, do statistical analysis on personality, and employ computers to weed out personal bias. Thus, I will be bound to cherry-picking examples that support my conclusion. That's inevitable.

How then, do we decide which theory to trust? Possibly: We look at theories and compare them to reality. We examine how useful each theory can be. We extrapolate with the given assumptions the theories make and then compare them to reality. I've concluded that, while Jung provided a good groundwork, MBTI/Grant stacks/OPS are far more applicable theories.



> Yes you're right, accepting that there can be differences in the stack is definitely a step towards identifying the issues. I just disagree that such a person has an N _preference. _Which brings us to how are these functions defined to begin with, and where many of those issues lie.


Yes, I agree. Writing INFP Fi-Si is mostly just a communication shorthand, but as explained before, in my opinion, writing ISFP or ISF would likewise be odd.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

secondpassing said:


> I could reply to this part above but I'm hoping you will understand why I choose not to. Should be able to be inferred by the response that follows.
> 
> 
> Sorry, it seems I failed to make myself clear enough. I did not expect you to write an essay. When I asked: "Now, why [can we give different theories a level of trust]?" I meant it as a rhetorical question; it was designed to let you know that our analysis of different typology systems is subjective. We both know that we are unlikely to perform double-blind experiments, do statistical analysis on personality, and employ computers to weed out personal bias. Thus, I will be bound to cherry-picking examples that support my conclusion. That's inevitable.
> ...


I think the inevitability of this is likely related to one's type, at least how extensive it becomes.

The problem with your method is that it doesn't take under consideration what I said about internal consistency - if the definitions you make don't follow from your premises then you're bound to run into some problems with the validity of your theory, as then you're likely to shift in inconsistent ways with reality and become very susceptible to confirmation bias in order to save it. So, pragmatism or applicability can lead people quite astray and isn't necessarily a good measure by itself. Multiple people can misunderstand something.



> Yes, I agree. Writing INFP Fi-Si is mostly just a communication shorthand, but as explained before, in my opinion, writing ISFP or ISF would likewise be odd.


why is it odd to say that someone who favors F, S and I is an ISF?


----------



## Pluisje1 (Mar 27, 2020)

Karkino said:


> I got a question in regards to MBTI and Enneagram comparison. For example, would an INFP having a heavy FIVE wing or a FIVE in their tritype identify more with their tertiary function (Si) instead of their secondary (Ne)?
> 
> Furthermore, could an ESFJ with a strong SEVEN influence have more affinities with their Ne instead of Si too, and so on with the other MBTI types?


I actually do believe this. I think that's where a lot of mistypes come from. No personality theory is completely separated from others - and certainly not in the way it manifests to the outside world. For instance my ISFP 8w7 friend's Se manifests very clearly, she is extremely impulsive and often seems extraverted (type 8 and the 7 wing). Still her preference for Fi is very clear. She also goes to Te very quickly in anger and can be quite bossy when threatened, type 8 making the manifestation of the inferior function easier. Contrast this with my mother who is an INFP 4w5. Her Fi is very soft and emotional and she has huge problems accessing her inferior Te except when she's put under_ intense _pressure. I think that's the 4 making her very emotional and much less assertive than the type 8 from the example before. She also tends to get stuck in nostalgia Fi-Si loops, something that's also typical 4 behaviour. Last example would be me, an ENFJ 2w3. w3 makes for quite the obsession with presentation, image, looks, the outer world, pretty stuff and experiences. This correlates with me looping Fe-Se very often. I may seem less responsible, humanitarian and cautious than most ENFJ's. I also have a sx/so subtype so that makes Se even more pronounced - I'm impulsive, a tad wild and the function just shows more. So in conclusion, yes, I believe your Enneagram or even subtypes influence your MBTI in a way - that's where all the different personalities on our earth come from!


----------



## HolyMoony (Mar 11, 2021)

secondpassing said:


> I'm still trying to think about it but I can't get past asking: "Why would a INFP with a heavy FIVE wing or a FIVE in the their tritype identify more with their tertiary function instead of their secondary?"
> 
> If Fi-Si exists (I think it does, but much rarer than how common they claim it to be) then yes, I think you would be correct. Of all the Fi-Si people I've had the pleasure of observing, they happen to be very very introverted and are not only 4w5 but they were all 4w5 459, so I think you're onto something.
> 
> If their identification with their tertiary is affected, then perhaps their relationship with their inferior is also affected? Maybe?


I'm Fi-Si INFP 9w1 946 (9w1 4w5 6w5) and I'm veerryy introverted.


----------



## 7rays (Dec 3, 2021)




----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

7rays said:


> View attachment 891606


Cool. Somehow, I managed to be a Ne dom 5w6, but I have all the same functions as an INTP, just in a different order (I spent a lot of my childhood and early adulthood at 7).


----------



## Teen Rose (Aug 4, 2018)

You are right. Type 7 ESFPs and ENFPs use Te as aux. ESFP Se - Te and ENFP Ne - Te
Poor Type 2s have strong Fi and suffer more like Fi doms due to heavy Fi. ESFP Se - Fi and ENFP Ne - Fi


----------



## skyboy (Jul 6, 2021)

@secondpassing

I just realized you're really INFP. Maybe you don't care about it but it sounds like a revelation to me. I was kind of wondering why you seemed to write the way I wanted to while feeling a crucial lack of "F" in me. I was kind of trying to figure out what INFP was like (as opposed to INTP which is my mbti).

I was also fascinated by your speaking of statistics, confidence intervals... in a sort of nice parenting way... explaining to people the idea of pondering uncertainty with prudence but still allowing discovery. To an INTP, this sounds like explaining people how to walk : put one foot forward, then the next... Strangely, this does not feel irritating at all, just nice (to me at least). This for example sounds like "Be an INTP for dummies" :



> How then, do we decide which theory to trust? Possibly: We look at theories and compare them to reality. We examine how useful each theory can be. We extrapolate with the given assumptions the theories make and then compare them to reality.


I realize a strange attempt in me to sometimes parent people at Fi as you do at Ti (I just read a theory of the place of each function/attitude as hero, parent, child...) while I always feel like an awkward beginner at it. Well, just a nice moment to realize the mysterious INFP I was looking for was in front of me for a while and maybe why your cognitive style attracted my attention so much.


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

skyboy said:


> @secondpassing
> 
> I just realized you're really INFP. Maybe you don't care about it but it sounds like a revelation to me. I was kind of wondering why you seemed to write the way I wanted to while feeling a crucial lack of "F" in me. I was kind of trying to figure out what INFP was like (as opposed to INTP which is my mbti).
> 
> ...


Can't say I understand hero or parent, but I'm glad you found something to learn from one of my posts. I don't think I use much Ti. The way I've seen Ti-users explain things is to present the whole deal. I think I try (and sometimes fail) to present just the necessary information so that someone gets to get to the right conclusion.

It shouldn't matter that others would reaffirm my typing, but it is comforting. So, thank you.


----------



## skyboy (Jul 6, 2021)

> I don't think I use much Ti. The way I've seen Ti-users explain things is to present the whole deal.


Yes. that's what I meant. I think that for many Ti, the use of logics and reasoning to get to true / false is so much a reflex that they often use it without explaining it. It does not mean Ti are always right, just that they use it a lot.

Actually, my main difficulty with MBTI is struggling to perceive the difference between F and T, and get a realistic perception of F. I found observing you useful because you sound "a bit like a T" at times (to my perception, I'm still a beginner at all this), and I have this impression for most Fs. The fact that you express yourself in a longer and personal way is very appreciated from my side because I find short messages do not give a clear sense of the underlying functions.

I realize I know a few "bizarre" types like INFP, INFJ... around me who are rather close friends (ESFJ feeling more "standard" for subjective reasons and INTPs is the normality by definition since they are like me  ).



> It shouldn't matter that others would reaffirm my typing, but it is comforting. So, thank you.


Cool that is comforting but I don't consider I have yet the skill to confirm it. I am still a bit in the first stages of perceiving things.



> Can't say I understand hero or parent


I still need to think of it, it's still very unclear to me... you may forget what I said about it.


----------

