# MBTI/Enneagram combinations that generally indicate fake news



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

I've noticed that there's MBTI/Enneagram combinations that automatically make me question people's types.

For instance:
INFJ 5w4
ISxP 7
ISTP/INTJ 8
INTJ 4
ENTP 5

It's not like these types don't exist, but rather that they are horribly memefied to the point where people who wish to see themselves as archetypes (not specifically referring to "Jungian archetypes" although you can explore this concept using that construct as well) will adopt them together, leading to a potentially large bias in MBTI/Enneagram intersection when it comes to self-typing, or people typing other people.

I wonder if other people have noticed similar trends, potentially with other types, or the ones I already mentioned.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Them dirty INFJ 5w4s amirite?


----------



## Liove (Sep 16, 2017)

Yeah, Enneagram is yet another metric that can either solidify an MBTI type, or raise red flags like you stated.

One of the worst offenders being INTJ 9


On E9 *THE PEACEMAKER
*
_Nines are accepting, trusting, and stable. They are usually creative, optimistic, and supportive, but can also be too willing to go along with others to keep the peace. They want everything to go smoothly and be without conflict, but they can also tend to be complacent, simplifying problems and minimizing anything upsetting. They typically have problems with inertia and stubbornness. At their Best: indomitable and all-embracing, they are able to bring people together and heal conflicts._​

*snort*


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Liove said:


> Yeah, Enneagram is yet another metric that can either solidify an MBTI type, or raise red flags like you stated.
> 
> One of the worst offenders being INTJ 9
> 
> ...


I really haven't seen many self-identified INTJ 9's and I don't know of it as an archetype. I wouldn't imagine it'd be very common though. Maybe they are actually a different INxx, and/or 5's or 6's in denial?


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

I don't think I have seen anyone claim to be an INTJ 4. Is this something that is common in certain circles?

Kind of obvious, but INTJ mixed with 2 or 7 would be a big red flag, to the point that I would really like to meet an actual INTJ 2 and have lunch to pick the brain of such a unique specimen. ISFJ 8 falls under the same category, largely because I was discussing Enneagram with an ISFJ today and she was intensely critical of 8s. I am in the realm of speculative types now, however.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

PiT said:


> I don't think I have seen anyone claim to be an INTJ 4. Is this something that is common in certain circles?


Yeah it's sort of like this misanthropic, edgy, provocative, unique artistic type, which is rationalized as INTJ using "Tert-Fi" despite having a complete lack of anything "Te".

I think they are generally 4w5, but INxP.


> Kind of obvious, but INTJ mixed with 2 or 7 would be a big red flag, to the point that I would really like to meet an actual INTJ 2 and have lunch to pick the brain of such a unique specimen. ISFJ 8 falls under the same category, largely because I was discussing Enneagram with an ISFJ today and she was intensely critical of 8s. I am in the realm of speculative types now, however.


Yeah there's a lot of combinations like this (ESFJ 5 and ESTJ 4 too, for example) which really seem near unimaginable. However I don't see actual people repping them who seem like they are getting things wrong. I guess it's because I don't think people have these archetypal conceptions of such people even lurking around in their heads somewhere, so how would they somehow identify with them?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Any introvert can be a 5 and ISxP 7 makes more sense than INxP 7. I dont see why INTJ is incompatable with 4.


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

Ocean Helm said:


> I've noticed that there's MBTI/Enneagram combinations that automatically make me question people's types.
> 
> For instance:
> INFJ 5w4
> ...


INFJ 5 is the second most common type for INFJ after type 4.
ISTP 7 isn't that rare, not as common, but not rare.
ISFP 7 also isn't rare.
ISTP 8 is pretty common.
INTJ 8 isn't rare, for sure most are type 1 or 5, but I often find type 8 in their tritype one way or another.
INTJ 4 is pretty common in their tritype.
ENTP 5 isn't rare.

I'll show you some really rare combinations.
ISTJ; 2,7,8.
ISFJ; 3,4,7,8.
ISTP; 1,2,4.
ISFP; 1,3,8.
INTJ; 2,4,6,7,9.
INTP; 1,2,3,7,8.
INFJ; 3,7,8.
INFP; 1,3,7,8.
ESTJ; 2,4.
ESFJ; 4,5,7,8.
ESTP; 1,2,4.
ESFP; 1,5.
ENTJ; 2,4,9.
ENTP; 1,2.
ENFJ; 5,8.
ENFP; 1,3,5,8.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

PiT said:


> I don't think I have seen anyone claim to be an INTJ 4. Is this something that is common in certain circles?


There were quite a few of them in the socionics side a while back. Very tortured souls.


Apart from certain combinations being unlikely (and some combinations being used only to express certain... contradictory parts of one's personality, perhaps), I don't really see the point in pointing them out, these typologies are generally to be used for different purposes. It may be 'harmful' when it comes to typing people further, sure, but not bothering to study something in-depth usually is; I'm not sure these _types_ would provide any less biased perspectives even if they weren't over-identifying with such bizarre archetypes.


----------



## Froody Blue Gem (Nov 7, 2017)

I guess that some types can seem oxymoronic when combined. Humans are complicated creatures with multiple sides to their personalities so I guess some things can contradict. They are very hard to figure out. When looking at some of those types and taking it for face value, I kind of would question it as well. I might believe it if people showed signs. It's kind of hypocritical of me to say, looking at what my type is. I usually question it more if the people aren't quite showing traits of the type they say they. I find that the descriptions of INFJ/5, I relate to them both. I kind of wonder if I'm actually a 4 and still flipflop between 4w5 and 5w4 I admit so maybe there is a point in it being an oxymoronic combo. I kind of relate to taking pride and security in what I know and liking isolation/valuing privacy. 

The basic fear of a 5 also hits home for me more than the basic fears of any of the other enneagram types. I have experiences with taking pride in what I know, wanting to observe and test things out for myself and getting pissy with people giving me too much help when I could have figured things out on my own for as far back as I can remember. I was even like that when I was in elementary school and kindergarten/preschool. I believe I do show signs of Fe and my mind more works like that of an F type than an NT mind. It's either I'm wrong about my type or I'm a walking contradiction.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Perhaps. But we are also a bunch of intuitive/introvert(s) in this thread. All of our resources are (online-stuff/bias). I am perhaps skeptical of everyone instinctively at one point or another (via) virtual/digitalized simulations of humanoids. To claim otherwise, is myself lying. If I am being honest - I biased-ly think all of the specimens in Typology are likely off by a letter/digit. Who am I to confirm this with certainty of a specimen online; or believe what they say. There is* no choice *but to assume INTJ-8 is bogus/fake news; and be skeptical of most types. 

And ESTJ 2? I would not believe that stuff either, until I saw it demonstrated somewhere in real-time; and being a bunch of intuitive introvert(s) skeptical first; it is of course, more effective/satisfying to just discuss over it like we know, than just get up (&) go see. Of course this thread is filled with nothing but intuitive-introvert(s). This is what they are best at.


----------



## 0wl (Mar 12, 2018)

There are so many contradictory combinations. I don't get it how people can in one theory type themselves introverted in MBTI and then pick the most extroverted types like 2 or 7 in enneagram. So what are you then? You have to lie in one way or another.

I think that:

- P types can't be 1s
- introverts are not 2s neither 7s, nor 3s
- thinking types cannot be 4s, nor 2s (Expect maybe INTJ 4s as Ni is heavily connected to the type 4)
- feelers can't be 5s
- all types can be 6s
- 8s are usually extroverted sensors
- extroverts are rarely 9s


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

Source: Here : Time of recording: 25/03/18 : From: Me

This is what I have collected from counting all the users with an MBTI type and an E type from this site's database.










Source: Here : Time of recording: 20/8/14 : From: Dalton

Same thing I did but 4 years ago, seems like they were able to gather a larger pool size, not sure how.

From these 2 sources you can make what you want from it.


----------



## Liove (Sep 16, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> I really haven't seen many self-identified INTJ 9's and I don't know of it as an archetype.
> I wouldn't imagine it'd be very common though. Maybe they are actually a different INxx, and/or 5's or 6's in denial?


An E9 is most likely an IxFJ or ExFJ, meaning Fe-Dom or Fe-Aux.

The description of E9 is the personification of Fe: Extrinsic Interpersonal Motivation in which causation is assigned to an individual or individuals outside the self.

An INTJs default Enneagram is:

1 - growth: 7 / stress: 4
5 - growth: 8 / stress: 7
3 - growth: 6 / stress: *9*


So if an INTJ tests as an E9, they're either really an unhealthy 3 in the direction of stress, or they are a mistype. If an otherwise self-identified healthy or non-stressed person tests as an INTJ E9 as default, they are most likely a mistype as described above.

Personally I'm a 1w9 5w6 3w4.









1w9 
Stress is at 4. My superiority complex is triggered where I'm thinking I'm not just different from everyone, I'm actually superior.
Growth is at 7. I don't think I've reached this yet, as I'm only learning to appreciate 'the now' (Se).









5w6
Stress is at 7. I get super slutty and impulsive with regards to sex.
Growth is at 8. It's a dream where I want to be in charge and tell everyone what to do.

*Going back to your first post about INTJ E8, it's actually possible that that's a healthy INTJ 5 in its direction of growth 8. 
See Bill Gates INTJ 5w6 growth towards 8. He still prefers to be 'in the background' though.









3w4
Stress is at 9. I've never noticed any 9 behaviors or motivations whenever I get stressed.
Growth is at 6. I'm integrating the belief that I can't do everything on my own, and that it's more 'efficient' to seek the aid of others.


----------



## lifeinterminals (Mar 19, 2018)

I'm an INTP 7 lol

Also, super sorry, but I'll try to not mix the three models. I know the dichotomies and Grant/Berens/Beebe function orders don't play nicely together.

- MBTI inventories type me INTP

- Grant function inventories type me INTP in general (Keys2Cognition, Similar Minds), except for the newer Sakinorva one which surprisingly ranks me ENTP

- Those same function tests almost always rank my Ne incredibly close to my dominant Ti

- In Socionics I'm an LII-Ne (INTj)

- If we're going by the descriptions I've seen for Enneagram Type 7, I'd say these may align with how I've seen Pe functions described. 

- You could make the case for an INTP 7 if you account for bloated Ne in the Grant stack.

- My Enneagram scores had 7w6 and 5w6 within .3 points margin of each other in favor of 7.

- I identify with the dominant use of Ti, and always take the internal logic of things into account before finding any issues I might want to explore. Once I "get to work", I find my Ne goes haywire and I kind of just get into that zone. It typically just cycles on from there until I get bored with the thing or run out of things to address.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

I think any type can be a 3 but INFP. ESTJ is clearly the most 3. I think that having any letter in common with ESTJ means you can be a 3, they all seem equally as important and 3 is an easy type to relate to.


----------



## Krayfish (Nov 3, 2015)

Ocean Helm said:


> I've noticed that there's MBTI/Enneagram combinations that automatically make me question people's types.
> 
> For instance:
> INFJ 5w4
> ...


IxTP 4s 
TJ 9s (excluding ISTJ)
INFP 8
INxP 7
INFJ 7


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Any introvert can be a 5 and


The point of this thread is not about what "can be". It's about what specific combinations indicate "fake news". For example, purely hypothetically, if 1% of the forum is actually INFJ 5, but 3% is putting it in their profiles, then at least 2/3 of the "INFJ 5" people are mistyped.


> ISxP 7 makes more sense than INxP 7.


And why does it make more sense to you?


> I dont see why INTJ is incompatable with 4.


It's not necessarily that INTJ is totally incompatible with 4 (I specifically said in my OP "It's not like these types don't exist"), but I believe people are overtyping as such.



Aluminum Frost said:


> I think any type can be a 3 but INFP. ESTJ is clearly the most 3. I think that having any letter in common with ESTJ means you can be a 3, they all seem equally as important and 3 is an easy type to relate to.


I would believe that ENTJ is more 3 than ESTJ.

ISFP 3 would be a lot more "fake news" than INFP 3 because I do think there is this image of the "aesthetic artist" which may lead some people into typing as ISFP and 3 together, despite not being both ISFP and 3. INFP 3, however rare it is compared to ISFP 3 (I would guess about the same rarity), probably would not have this same issue.

You can see in Narcissistic's stats, how ~3% of ISFPs identified as 3, while ~1% of INFPs did.



Krayfish said:


> IxTP 4s


INTP 4s are not uncommon, and also not memefied. 4 was actually the 2nd best correlating type with INTP in an old survey posted on the 9types forums, from a time prior to the development of most of these memes.


> TJ 9s (excluding ISTJ)
> INFP 8
> INxP 7
> INFJ 7


None of these are memefied to my knowledge. Do you think there is some kind of biasing influence that would make them identify as both of them together? I guess wanting to be special may make INFP 4's identify as 8.

Also look at INxP 7 stats vs. ISxP 7 stats. You'll see more ISxP 7's even though there's more ENxP 7's than ESxP 7's. If anything, I'd guess INxP are more likely to be 7, although they do have 4 and 5 which generally fit them better.

I wonder if you are thinking of the same thing I'm trying to get at with my post though.

@lifeinterminals if you'd like me to try to spot the fake news in your profile, I'd guess LII and 7. They don't seem to go with each other at all. But it's the first time I've ever seen that.


----------



## Krayfish (Nov 3, 2015)

I wasn't thinking so much memeafication, though I have seen some of these types become memes semi easily.


Ocean Helm said:


> INTP 4s are not uncommon, and also not memefied. 4 was actually the 2nd best correlating type with INTP in an old survey posted on the 9types forums, from a time prior to the development of most of these memes.


 Well I'd agree that Type 4 INTPs are not uncommon (as with ISTP 4s if you look at stereotypical Jazz musicians), but I don't think either of those as being particularly common either. Despite there being a seemingly high correlation between INTP and type 4, it sort of makes more sense for 4 to be present as more of a wing or a fix rather than a core type, though perhaps that's more of an opinion than anything else. Outside of obvious biases that exist, I'm somewhat shocked that types 6 and even 9 don't come out as highly correlating with the type in surveys. I'm somewhat skeptical of surveys to begin with due to chronic mistyping/the INT bias as well.



> None of these are memefied to my knowledge. Do you think there is some kind of biasing influence that would make them identify as both of them together? I guess wanting to be special may make INFP 4's identify as 8.
> 
> Also look at INxP 7 stats vs. ISxP 7 stats. You'll see more ISxP 7's even though there's more ENxP 7's than ESxP 7's. If anything, I'd guess INxP are more likely to be 7, although they do have 4 and 5 which generally fit them better.
> 
> I wonder if you are thinking of the same thing I'm trying to get at with my post though.


INFP 8s are so meme-afied it's not even funny (INTP and IxFJ 8s too, but to a lesser extent). A lot of the "INFP 8s" end up being social 1s or cp6s and occasionally 9w8s(not to say there isn't at least one INFP 8 out there), so I'd imagine there's a disconnect with the way the stereotype of INFP is portrayed and the internal feelings inside them. Many INFPs see their individualism and desire to correct social inaccuracies/bluntness as being very aggressive in nature despite INFP descriptions depicting them as emotionally deep flower children. I'd imagine those who type themselves as INFP 8s tend to see themselves as more outwardly aggressive versions of their type or as being completely comfortable with their anger/feelings, and it's memefied because a lot of times it's very obvious to others that that's not entirely the case much of the time. Si isn't an aggressive function by nature, so it's unlikely that anyone with Si in a position that's not inferior (outside of ESTJ and occasionally ESFJ) is an 8, though it's not impossible under certain circumstances.

Tbh though, ISFP 7 makes more sense to me than INFP 7 purely because Se is more centered around the outside and tangible world than INFP. ISFPs tend to lean towards the ambiverted edge of the spectrum anyhow, and I notice that usually if you have an ISFP 7, their core type is complimented by a 4 and/or a 9 fix to tone the 7 down a little bit.

In the end though, if what you're trying to get at is that certain types in the mbti and enneagram theory don't line up together well at all and are very unlikely to be paired together, I'd be inclined to agree. I don't think it's impossible for any mbti type to be combined with any enneagram type, but I do think some types are significantly more common/more healthy combinations than others


----------



## lifeinterminals (Mar 19, 2018)

Ocean Helm said:


> @lifeinterminals if you'd like me to try to spot the fake news in your profile, I'd guess LII and 7. They don't seem to go with each other at all. But it's the first time I've ever seen that.


I don't understand Socionics as much (yet), and I don't retake the Socionics questionnaire as often as the other type inventories. For the Enneagram, I consistently score 7, which I initially thought was a testing error until periodic retakes yielded similar results/trends for me.

If I'm a mistyped ENTP, that might make more sense, but my MBTI has always been consistent with INTP. Function tests follow similar distribution for the Grant/Beebe INTP, EXCEPT for Ne, which scores either a bit under Ti at times, or lately superseding Ti.

I've typed an LII in Socionics, and some type friends introduced me to Socionics' subtypes for LII as well. I didn't seem to be an exact fit for LII-Ti but given my previous results in all of these, we could probably make a case for LII-Ne.

My armchair guess would have me believe that Type 7 is largely a Pe thing. Only way I could make sense of my results across these systems would be:

MBTI - INTP with a preference for intuition (or should I be saying perception here?)
Grant/Beebe - INTP with over-developed Ne
Socionics - I'm still thinking the LII-Ne subtype makes more sense to me than regular LII or LII-Ti
Enneagram - 7w6, which points toward an overused Pe function or dichotomy preference

I'd wish for clearer lines, but that's what I've been consistently typing. I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this!

This is kind of a pain in the ass given we're dealing with different systems.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> The point of this thread is not about what "can be". It's about what specific combinations indicate "fake news". For example, purely hypothetically, if 1% of the forum is actually INFJ 5, but 3% is putting it in their profiles, then at least 2/3 of the "INFJ 5" people are mistyped.
> 
> And why does it make more sense to you?
> 
> ...


What I'm saying is that the most important factor when it comes to enneagram 5 is introversion by far. That's really all that matters. The others matter infinitely less. So no, logically an INFJ 5 or any other Ixxx 5 isn't an unlikelihood. 

7 is more SP than NP. People try to make it seem like enneagram 7 is also intellectual but really it's not. It's the exact opposite actually. There's probably more ENxPs typing as 7 than ESxPs (barely) because of this stereotype that ENxPs are "oH sO rAnDoM" and because ESxP is more compatible with other types. ESxP fits better than ENxP when it comes to 3 and 8, and 2 for ESFP and 6 for ESTP. It's also why the non ENTP 7s often type as 5s and the non ENFP 7s as 4s. Despite 4 and 5, especially 5 being the opposite of 7 in more than a few ways.

I have to read more up on 4 but if INTP and INFJ fit well into 4 I don't see why not INTJ.

It's more ESTJ. Enneagram 3 has heavy S implications.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

narcissistic said:


> INFJ 5 is the second most common type for INFJ after type 4.
> ISTP 7 isn't that rare, not as common, but not rare.
> ISFP 7 also isn't rare.
> ISTP 8 is pretty common.
> ...


I'd reckon INTJ 6s aren't rare by any means. Wouldn't surprise me if there's more INTJ 6s than INTJ 5s. 5w6 and 6w5 are both pretty INTJ.


----------



## Liove (Sep 16, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> I'd reckon INTJ 6s aren't rare by any means.
> Wouldn't surprise me if there's more INTJ 6s than INTJ 5s.
> 5w6 and 6w5 are both pretty INTJ.


It's also possible that an INTJ 6 is a mistyped ISTJ 6.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Liove said:


> It's also possible that an INTJ 6 is a mistyped ISTJ 6.


Yeah but the two have much in common anyways. Both ISTJ and INTJ fit into 5 and 6 well.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Krayfish said:


> INFP 8s are so meme-afied it's not even funny (INTP and IxFJ 8s too, but to a lesser extent). A lot of the "INFP 8s" end up being social 1s or cp6s and occasionally 9w8s(not to say there isn't at least one INFP 8 out there), so I'd imagine there's a disconnect with the way the stereotype of INFP is portrayed and the internal feelings inside them. Many INFPs see their individualism and desire to correct social inaccuracies/bluntness as being very aggressive in nature despite INFP descriptions depicting them as emotionally deep flower children. I'd imagine those who type themselves as INFP 8s tend to see themselves as more outwardly aggressive versions of their type or as being completely comfortable with their anger/feelings, and it's memefied because a lot of times it's very obvious to others that that's not entirely the case much of the time. Si isn't an aggressive function by nature, so it's unlikely that anyone with Si in a position that's not inferior (outside of ESTJ and occasionally ESFJ) is an 8, though it's not impossible under certain circumstances.


Yet a whopping 4 out of 1107 of INFPs in the stats posted by Narcissistic actually identified as 8. That's under 0.4%. If typings are that rare, it's hard to believe they are memefied to any significant degree. Am I really supposed to think it is overtyped? Should it be 0? I don't know but I'm not going to take a stance and say that 8 should be under 1 out of 276 INFPs. Instead, I'd be more likely to focus on the 15.1% of ISTPs (wow!), or the 7.1% of INTJs.

I guess people can say stuff about "Si" and whatnot but that gets into the "not MBTI" territory.



> Tbh though, ISFP 7 makes more sense to me than INFP 7 purely because Se is more centered around the outside and tangible world than INFP. *ISFPs tend to lean towards the ambiverted edge of the spectrum anyhow*, and I notice that usually if you have an ISFP 7, their core type is complimented by a 4 and/or a 9 fix to tone the 7 down a little bit.


Is this true? It's something I see function lovers repeating but it doesn't seem to be backed up in actual evidence.







@Aluminum Frost this is for you too.

Regarding "aggressive" being on the S side, that's consistent with my opinion that ISTJ should be the most 8 introverted type. Maybe not the most _likely_ to be core 8 as I do think there's a decent argument for ISTP, as there is both the forum data, and 6 and 5 probably not being as good of fits for ISTP as 6 and 1 are for ISTJ.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

lifeinterminals said:


> I've typed an LII in Socionics, and some type friends introduced me to Socionics' subtypes for LII as well. I didn't seem to be an exact fit for LII-Ti but given my previous results in all of these, we could probably make a case for LII-Ne..


Have you considered ILE? Subtypes are not really universally accepted and the LII-Ne primarily seems like an attempt to make the connection to INTP, by downplaying the leading Ti that is described in general LII descriptions that really goes against the idea of being 7. LII seems like a combination of 1w9 and 5w6.

People who are considered extraverts in Socionics like Einstein (ILE yet INTP) are not that rarely introverts in MBTI and vice versa.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Ocean Helm:41573570 said:


> Krayfish said:
> 
> 
> > INFP 8s are so meme-afied it's not even funny (INTP and IxFJ 8s too, but to a lesser extent). A lot of the "INFP 8s" end up being social 1s or cp6s and occasionally 9w8s(not to say there isn't at least one INFP 8 out there), so I'd imagine there's a disconnect with the way the stereotype of INFP is portrayed and the internal feelings inside them. Many INFPs see their individualism and desire to correct social inaccuracies/bluntness as being very aggressive in nature despite INFP descriptions depicting them as emotionally deep flower children. I'd imagine those who type themselves as INFP 8s tend to see themselves as more outwardly aggressive versions of their type or as being completely comfortable with their anger/feelings, and it's memefied because a lot of times it's very obvious to others that that's not entirely the case much of the time. Si isn't an aggressive function by nature, so it's unlikely that anyone with Si in a position that's not inferior (outside of ESTJ and occasionally ESFJ) is an 8, though it's not impossible under certain circumstances.
> ...


I cant take these stats seriously. The intuitive one is more N but it has things that are more associated with S as well. The S one literally just said conservative in 50 different ways.


----------



## Krayfish (Nov 3, 2015)

Ocean Helm said:


> Yet a whopping 4 out of 1107 of INFPs in the stats posted by Narcissistic actually identified as 8. That's under 0.4%. If typings are that rare, it's hard to believe they are memefied to any significant degree. Am I really supposed to think it is overtyped? Should it be 0? I don't know but I'm not going to take a stance and say that 8 should be under 1 out of 276 INFPs. Instead, I'd be more likely to focus on the 15.1% of ISTPs (wow!), or the 7.1% of INTJs.


 Just because the typing is rare doesn't mean it can't be meme-afied? When people joke about terrible mistypes, INFP 8 is typically one of the first types mentioned, maybe outside the more common INFJ 5w4 just because there's so many people who start out in the theory thinking they're INFJ 5w4s.



Ocean Helm said:


> I guess people can say stuff about "Si" and whatnot but that gets into the "not MBTI" territory.


There are multiple versions/interpretations of the mbti theory, one of which involves the cognitive functions. You don't have to think the theory is valid for it to exist within the scope of mbti.



Ocean Helm said:


> Is this true? It's something I see function lovers repeating but it doesn't seem to be backed up in actual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Aluminum Frost said:


> I cant take these stats seriously. The intuitive one is more N but it has things that are more associated with S as well. The S one literally just said conservative in 50 different ways.


 I second this.


----------



## lifeinterminals (Mar 19, 2018)

Ocean Helm said:


> Have you considered ILE? Subtypes are not really universally accepted and the LII-Ne primarily seems like an attempt to make the connection to INTP, by downplaying the leading Ti that is described in general LII descriptions that really goes against the idea of being 7. LII seems like a combination of 1w9 and 5w6.
> 
> People who are considered extraverts in Socionics like Einstein (ILE yet INTP) are not that rarely introverts in MBTI and vice versa.


Yes, I have considered that. Come to think of it, I could probably just say ILE but if the next person I talk to acknowledges the idea of subtypes, I'd still say LII-Ne is a closer fit. Also, thank you for the extra information. I'll try to read up on the subtype debate.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> I cant take these stats seriously. The intuitive one is more N but it has things that are more associated with S as well. The S one literally just said conservative in 50 different ways.


Well, that's how S types see themselves. 
That's not random bs thrust upon S types, that's words S types are choosing as ones they relate to most.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi:41580290 said:


> Aluminum Frost said:
> 
> 
> > I cant take these stats seriously. The intuitive one is more N but it has things that are more associated with S as well. The S one literally just said conservative in 50 different ways.
> ...


Highly doubt that lmao. Nobody describes themselves as "simple" and 50 other things basically saying conservative. A lot of these don't have to do with S/N and the intuitives have adjectives that actually describe sensors better. Like does S mean you just completely lack personality? So stupid.


----------



## Potatooesunshinerays (Dec 26, 2017)

I don't know but I want instant ramen


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Turi said:


> Well, that's how S types see themselves.
> That's not random bs thrust upon S types, that's words S types are choosing as ones they relate to most.


The ones with the 1 are self ratings, and the ones with the 2 are observer rankings. So it's not only how they see themselves, but also how other people see them.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Ocean Helm:41584778 said:


> Turi said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that's how S types see themselves.
> ...


It doesnt add up logically and is straight up contradictory so not buying it *shrugs*


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> It doesnt add up logically and is straight up contradictory so not buying it *shrugs*


Just because you personally don't understand it, doesn't make it less true.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi:41587834 said:


> Aluminum Frost said:
> 
> 
> > It doesnt add up logically and is straight up contradictory so not buying it *shrugs*
> ...


I trust reality. In reality Ns aren't more S than sensors, Ns arent that much different than Ss on average. It especially doesnt make sense when it's just describing N and S across all types. INxx types being described as more witty, sexy, resorceful, talkative, etc than ESxx types. Sure. This is describing an extreme ENFP and an extreme ISTJ.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> I trust reality. In reality Ns aren't more S than sensors, Ns arent that much different than Ss on average. It especially doesnt make sense when it's just describing N and S across all types. INxx types being described as more witty, sexy, resorceful, talkative, etc than ESxx types. Sure. This is describing an extreme ENFP and an extreme ISTJ.


Except, you don't trust reality - you trust your subjective interpretation of it that denies any and all possibilities you can't comprehend and excludes outer evidence and clinically validated statistics you personally disagree with as they don't align with your perceptions in life thus far.

Why are you telling me N types aren't more S than Sensors? Where is this stated?

Nowhere in the information provided by @Ocean Helm does it suggest INxx types, nor ESxx types - it is simply S, and N and it most certainly does not specify ENFP and ISTJ (neither of which, are INxx or ESxx types, by the way).


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> Except, you don't trust reality - you trust your subjective interpretation of it that denies any and all possibilities you can't comprehend and excludes outer evidence and clinically validated statistics you personally disagree with as they don't align with your perceptions in life thus far.
> 
> Why are you telling me N types aren't more S than Sensors? Where is this stated?
> 
> Nowhere in the information provided by @Ocean Helm does it suggest INxx types, nor ESxx types - it is simply S, and N and it most certainly does not specify ENFP and ISTJ (neither of which, are INxx or ESxx types, by the way).


Coming from the guy that says he trusts his "iNtUiTioN" and not facts, get off my dick. I gave my reasons, I've also given you and Ocean stats that say stuff you disagree with but what do you do? Say it's bullshit cause it doesn't add up logically to you. Most ridiculous thing was when Ocean had already made his mind up and then when I debunk him he just claims I'm making a strawman without being able to explain how. Yep, all you gotta do is say the other person is making shit up if you want to get out of being wrong, nice!

Resourceful, outspoken, trusting, sexy.

What two types do these describe best? ISTJ and ENFP. If it was exclusively about S/N than words like quiet, talkative, witty, etc wouldn't be a factor. ESxP is actually closer to the N description and INxJ to the S one which already is proof that it's wrong. Them not being INxx or ESxx isn't the point. The point is ESxx types would be closer to some of the things in the N description and vice-versa for INxx types. Also how can Ocean identify as INTP but also have a strong preference for I and N? According to this it's not even possible for an INTP to be strong N. Especially when one has strong I.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@Aluminum Frost if logical fallacies were gold, that post would have more than the Australians do at the Commonwealth Games right now.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> @Aluminum Frost if logical fallacies were gold, that post would have more than the Australians do at the Commonwealth Games right now.


You have no argument, got it!


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

Ocean Helm said:


>


I'm still hoping for a time when everyone who doesn't know what -.18 or .20 means stopps getting upset "because that's totally not me".

Conversely, I'd also like the page that says


Supplement said:


> It should be remembered that most of the correlations in this table are weak, eg a correlation of 0.2 accounts for only 4% of the variance in the data and a correlation of 0.1 for 1% of the variance. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted tentatively (eg “Extraverts tend to describe themselves as ‘active’ ”). The data should not be used as the basis for generalisations such as “All Extraverts describe themselves as ‘active’ ” or less accurate still “All Extraverts are ‘active’ ”.


to offer a TL;DR of "here's some statistical tinkering that is eminently useless for just about any practical purpose" so more people could skip to more productive things.

If I came with a Grand Theory of Everything that explained 1% of the variance in my data (meaning, 99% is in the "noise"), I'd be laughed out of room and could start flipping burgers instead of doing physics. But I suppose that's the difference between hard sciences (which are all about isolating effects in controlled environments) and social sciences.

If so, fair enough -- it's statistically significant, no disputing -- but it's still asserting _statistically significantly_ "Occasionally, Extraverts describe themselves as active". Or, my favourite, the inversion, "Occasionally, people who describe themselves as active are Extraverts" (which is then the basis for the entertaining party game, "typing by stereotypes").

Your call how useful (and "offending") you consider such a statement IRL.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

Ocean Helm said:


> I've noticed that there's MBTI/Enneagram combinations that automatically make me question people's types.
> 
> For instance:
> INFJ 5w4
> ...


Was thinking about it myself today. My mum scores Enfj and type 5 and I'm like...how...how...:idunno:
But it might be because of the test that sucked. She seems pretty much type 1, 2, 4 , 6 and 9 to me.
Least probably type 8. When she was younger, more 7'ish and ENFP'ish. But some say we J more when we grow old.


----------



## Belledonna (Mar 7, 2018)

Infj 5w4 here.

Compare to other Infjs in my life, I am more analytical and colder. 

I think Infj 5w4 are prone to Ni-Ti loop though.

Let's compare to fictional characters. Kreia from starwars, Dumbledore, are perfect example to 5w4 Infj. Specially Kreia, at first glance she is very Intj-ish because of her harsh and cold appearance. But her goal is Fe-based.

That's what I think.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Belledonna said:


> Infj 5w4 here.
> 
> Compare to other Infjs in my life, I am more analytical and colder.


So you're a Feeler-subtype Thinking. 


> I think Infj 5w4 are prone to Ni-Ti loop though.


Well... 5w4s are prone to preferring *Thinking* functions.


> Let's compare to fictional characters. Kreia from starwars, Dumbledore, are perfect example to 5w4 Infj. Specially Kreia, at first glance she is very Intj-ish because of her harsh and cold appearance.


So what do we got here, 2 NTs?


> But her goal is Fe-based.


If we typed everyone F for having "Fe-based goals" almost everyone would be F.

Note: I don't think that INFJs can't be 5w4 or 5w4s can't be INFJs, but just that the majority of the people who identify as such or are typed as such by others would better be typed as something else.


Electra said:


> Was thinking about it myself today. My mum scores Enfj and type 5 and I'm like...how...how...:idunno:
> But it might be because of the test that sucked. She seems pretty much type 1, 2, 4 , 6 and 9 to me.
> Least probably type 8. When she was younger, more 7'ish and ENFP'ish. But some say we J more when we grow old.


What tests did she take, for MBTI and Enneagram? This is interesting. I've never heard of an ENFJ 5.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

From a dichotomy perspective, type 5 Extroverts doesn't make sense at all.


----------



## Belledonna (Mar 7, 2018)

Ocean Helm said:


> So you're a Feeler-subtype Thinking.
> 
> Well... 5w4s are prone to preferring *Thinking* functions.
> 
> ...


Oh I said it wrongly, thanks for clarifying my texts. And your point is legit.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

Ocean Helm said:


> What tests did she take, for MBTI and Enneagram? This is interesting. I've never heard of an ENFJ 5.


Me neigter. It as just picture tests but I have to test her again if she agrees. But on both she scored 5. I kinda expected her to score eighter 1, 2, 4 or 6 maybe 9. But she has this thing about justice. Ok, sorry; gotta run now, school


----------



## Kalista (Apr 8, 2018)

That's very interesting...

I'm ENFJ, but got Type 4 each time I took the Enneagram test. (The second place was always Type 2.)

I read somewhere that ENFJ Type 4 isn't very common...


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Kalista said:


> That's very interesting...
> 
> I'm ENFJ, but got Type 4 each time I took the Enneagram test. (The second place was always Type 2.)
> 
> I read somewhere that ENFJ Type 4 isn't very common...


Extroverted feeling correlates strongly with Type 2, whereas 4 points to introverted feeling. ENFJ 4 is weird, though not as weird as ENFJ 5.


----------



## Rouskyrie (Jul 20, 2016)

Ocean Helm said:


> I've noticed that there's MBTI/Enneagram combinations that automatically make me question people's types.
> 
> For instance:
> INFJ 5w4
> ...


I can't say that certain combinations automatically cause me to question someone's type, but I do know an ISFP 8w7 and would say that combination might cause suspicion, despite making sense when you see it in action (At least to me).


----------



## Kalista (Apr 8, 2018)

PiT said:


> Extroverted feeling correlates strongly with Type 2, whereas 4 points to introverted feeling. ENFJ 4 is weird, though not as weird as ENFJ 5.


I often feel like an ambivert (I got such results on the test, too), but I was told that there's no such thing as ambiversion... 

I found one thread on the forums - it seems that there are others with that combination, too. :smile:


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Kalista said:


> I often feel like an ambivert (I got such results on the test, too), but I was told that there's no such thing as ambiversion...
> 
> I found one thread on the forums - it seems that there are others with that combination, too. :smile:


I personally dislike ambiversion as a concept since it de-emphasizes the inflection point that exists between introversion and extroversion and wreaks havoc on cognitive function theories, but there definitely are varying levels of introversion vs. extroversion. I find dealing with extroverts and their effusive energy to be highly draining, and this has been affecting me pretty significantly as of late. I have spoken to other introverts about this, and while they have all had tales to share to this effect, the actual extent to which they struggled with it varied widely. Some extroverts are more introverted and some introverts are more extroverted.

Would an ENFJ who tends towards ambiversion be likely to identify more with Fi and other traits that correlate with Fi than your typical ENFJ? I am not aware of anything referencing this question in the literature, but I would suspect that it is true.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

'True' ambiversion doesn't really work - when you pick up a pen to write something, do you pick it up with both hands?
Always pick it up at a 50/50 ratio between left and right hands? 
Doubt it.

One hand will prove the victor.

However, as Jung said - we all possess _both _introverted and extroverted attitudes within ourselves - if we didn't, we'd be insane - but, one attitude will beat down the other.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

Ocean Helm said:


> I've noticed that there's MBTI/Enneagram combinations that automatically make me question people's types.
> 
> For instance:
> INFJ 5w4
> ...


Sorry for bringing up Heidi Priebe all the time, but not really, because she posted some science on the connection between the Enneagram types and MBTI types.

https://thoughtcatalog.com/heidi-priebe/2016/01/mbti-and-the-enneagram-2/14/

so it should go a little something like this if I got it correctly:

Heidi Priebe & MBTI+Enneagram
In a recent survey, over 3000 participants indicated their Myers-Briggs personality types and their Enneagram types (including wings and instinctual variants if known). The compiled responses are as follows: 

NF Cooperative idealist
INFJ Type 4/2
ENFJ Type 2 (/3)
INFP Type 4/9
ENFP Type 7/2/4

SP Utilitarian guardian 
ISTP Type 5
ESTP Type 8/7
ISFP Type 9/4/6
ESFP Type 7/2 (/3/8)

NT Utilitarian rational 
INTJ Type 5/1
ENTJ Type 8/3 / 3/8 (!)
INTP Type 5/9/4
ENTP Type 7/8


SJ Cooperative guardian 
ISTJ Type 1/6/5
ESTJ Type 8/1
ISFJ Type 6/2/9
ESFJ Type 2 (/6)


----------



## Kalista (Apr 8, 2018)

PiT said:


> I find dealing with extroverts and their effusive energy to be highly draining, and this has been affecting me pretty significantly as of late. I have spoken to other introverts about this, and while they have all had tales to share to this effect, the actual extent to which they struggled with it varied widely. Some extroverts are more introverted and some introverts are more extroverted.


That is true. 

Being extroverted doesn't necessarily mean being loud, energetic, chatty, always surrounded by people, the centre of attention and similar things many people seem to think. Those are some extreme extroverts. Most extroverts are just people who feel comfortable around other people and relatively easily make contact with new people. For example, the most relaxing environment for me is to be in a group of people where I could stay in the background, mostly listening, letting others take the spotlight, while keeping the harmony of the group when necessary. I don't like when someone wants to make me the center of attention. One-on-one conversations are much more demanding for me than group ones, because I cannot switch from active to passive and back, but have to be an active listener (that is easier for me) or an active talker if the other person is quiet (that is harder for me). If the conversation flows nicely and naturaly back and forth - then I'm happy - but that doesn't happen always. However, since I generally find people interesting, they don't drain my energy so much - it's much more difficult for an introvert, I guess, especially with tiring people. :smile: 



> Would an ENFJ who tends towards ambiversion be likely to identify more with Fi and other traits that correlate with Fi than your typical ENFJ? I am not aware of anything referencing this question in the literature, but I would suspect that it is true.


I don't know, but I'm definitely not INFJ. Actually comparing myself to INFJs shows me that I am ENFJ, just not the "extreme type", as they often describe everywhere. :smile:


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Kalista said:


> That is true.
> 
> Being extroverted doesn't necessarily mean being loud, energetic, chatty, always surrounded by people, the centre of attention and similar things many people seem to think. Those are some extreme extroverts. Most extroverts are just people who feel comfortable around other people and relatively easily make contact with new people. For example, the most relaxing environment for me is to be in a group of people where I could stay in the background, mostly listening, letting others take the spotlight, while keeping the harmony of the group when necessary. I don't like when someone wants to make me the center of attention. One-on-one conversations are much more demanding for me than group ones, because I cannot switch from active to passive and back, but have to be an active listener (that is easier for me) or an active talker if the other person is quiet (that is harder for me). If the conversation flows nicely and naturaly back and forth - then I'm happy - but that doesn't happen always. However, since I generally find people interesting, they don't drain my energy so much - it's much more difficult for an introvert, I guess, especially with tiring people. :smile:


It's a matter of perspective. To me, what you describe emblematizes "effusive energy" and is "highly draining". I prefer one-on-one conversations, since I can only really deal with social situations actively. Engaging passively somehow seems "useless" to me, for lack of a better term, and I would be much more comfortable sitting in a quiet room alone.



> I don't know, but I'm definitely not INFJ. Actually comparing myself to INFJs shows me that I am ENFJ, just not the "extreme type", as they often describe everywhere. :smile:


One question that has always interested me is what causes unusual MBTI-Enneagram pairings. I am generally of the opinion that any MBTI-Enneagram pairing is possible, but some are quite natural while others are vanishingly rare. ENFJ 2 or INFP 4 are obvious matches, but what leads someone to be an ENFJ 4? That is the sort of thing I like to ponder.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Electra said:


> Heidi Priebe & MBTI+Enneagram
> In a recent survey, over 3000 participants *indicated Myers-Briggs personality types and their Enneagram types* (including wings and instinctual variants if known).


Was this self-selection?
If so, it's not usable.

The article is called Cognitive Functions and the Enneagram - she's using peoples MBTI types to draw the up the data though - there is literally no proof that the cognitive functions line up with peoples MBTI types.

Whole article is built upon the shakiest of all foundations.
Also, over 3000 participants? Maybe my math is wrong, but I count 2,436.
More than this, 804 of them - so, basically 25%, are supposedly the two rarest types - INTJ and INFJ.
I don't know about you guys, but that is massively sketchy.

Sounds like *B*ia*S* to me.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi:41607074 said:


> Electra said:
> 
> 
> > Heidi Priebe & MBTI+Enneagram
> ...


Whats the difference? Both rely on you knowing yourself. Even if people have no knowledge of enneagram they can fudge the results to get what they want to get.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Whats the difference? Both rely on you knowing yourself. Even if people have no knowledge of enneagram they can fudge the results to get what they want to get.


The 'difference' is that the results are therefore unusable, due to being completely subject to unconscious bias.
I don't believe they're the results of being professionally typed via the official MBTI, or being typed in any independent way whatsoever.
Not to mention the foundations of the article are built upon the not-clinically-validated-in-any-way parallels between cognitive functions and dichotomy.
Doesn't check out.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> The 'difference' is that the results are therefore unusable, due to being completely subject to unconscious bias.
> I don't believe they're the results of being professionally typed via the official MBTI, or being typed in any independent way whatsoever.
> Not to mention the foundations of the article are built upon the not-clinically-validated-in-any-way parallels between cognitive functions and dichotomy.
> Doesn't check out.


How are they both not "unconscious bias" and you're just assuming everyone is this way by default. Why must they be?

Even if they are so what? That doesn't invalidate them. If anything it proves it's true. But I ain't going to argue that. You can't just label everything "biased" when it doesn't back up what you think. I could show you plenty of things that don't line up with functions anyways. 5 being highly correlated with IxTJ for example despite IxTJs having no Ti according to Grant stacks. Same with ESTP 8s who have no Te.


----------

