# Concerning MBTI/Enneagram Combinations



## Shadow Tag (Jan 11, 2014)

Note: I am not going to cover Socionics/Enneagram combinations here, as I find the system to be neither correct nor helpful.

*Introduction*

What seems to be a flagship of typing culture here on PerC is the assumption that the MBTI and Enneagram are completely separate, unmixed systems. This is to say that someone may have cognitive functions skewing their personality and thought processes one way and an Enneagram type skewing them the _complete opposite_ way. Regardless, people still hate to mix the two and parade around the forums saying, "They're different systems!" And they are. But they are very much linked!

*Reasons for This*

*1)* Most people become adept at just one system. Somebody might be typed with 100% accuracy in regard to their MBTI type and take some random Enneagram test and call it a day.

*2)* People are afraid to mix the two systems. It's much cleaner to call one nature, one nurture, and leave it at that.

*3) & 4)* People are married to their types and no one is allowed to suggest alternative types without permission. Do I want this rule overturned? No. But there are negative side-effects. 

*5)* People use a mixture of their Enneagram type motivations and cognitive functions to build a personality where each type "accounts for" mutually exclusive and contrasting traits that don't actually exist outside of their head consistently. It's having your cake and eating it too.

*6)* We assume, based on writings from Enneagram theorists, that the Enneagram is based on nurture alone.

*What the Big 5 (and Science) Says*

Actually, this separation is unfounded and contradicts what we know about personality from actual scientific discourse. To examine this, let's look at the Big 5. Studies about Big 5 traits in people have told us a lot about what personality _is and isn't_, as well as where it _comes from_. If we use the umbrella term "personality" to mean quite generally "what a person is like" then there are some eye-opening inconsistencies between what science tells us and what Enneagram theorists claim. 

Going back to the "Enneagram being nurture" part, just how much of our personality is made up of "nurture?" Contrary to popular belief, not too much. According to David Nettle in his book *Personality - What Makes You the Way You Are*: 



> The area of environmental influences on personality is a morass of unsupported or poorly tested ideas (211).


While it feels clean and intuitive to divide things into nature vs. nurture, there is no backing for this. We simply do not know all of the details: not the Enneagram teachers, not scientists, not your average Internet typology enthusiast. But we do know that the biggest influence is genetics from studies done on twins in both similar and different environments. This is what Nettle has to say:



> Parenting style (to the extent it is consistent across all children) cannot have any measurable effect on child personality. Parental diet, smoking, family size, education, philosophy of life, sexual orientation, marital status, divorce, or remarriage cannot have any measurable effect on child personality. (215)


This throws a wrench into many Enneagram theorists' ideas about the origin of one's Enneagram type. The claim that one's type universally emerges from parent-child relations leads us to two general conclusions if we take into account the research: 

*1)* that the Enneagram is still just based on nurture, but isn't very useful because it doesn't describe things within the general umbrella of personality. If that's true, then type as whatever you want. 

*2)* that the Enneagram theorists are wrong and Enneagram types are largely genetic. This doesn't make or break the theory of the Enneagram. 

So why does it seem like our parents influence us so much? They do in a way.Specific rituals or actions are taken away from parents. Our parents also give/take away from us important growth opportunities through the manner in which they run a household. But the following quote explains a lot:



> How parents run the family will naturally shape relationships and behaviour between members of that household. The point is that this does not generalize to the adult personality with which the offspring addresses the rest of the world. (215-216)


Anyway, we've established that a useful theory of the Enneagram and its function in our lives must accommodate the fact that Enneagram types are at the very least heavily influenced by genetic predispositions, because personality (or what we're like) includes our Enneagram. While certain details may be unknown at this point, it's at least apparent that it's not decided willy-nilly after birth.

*Where the MBTI Comes In*

I want it to be clear that a functional approach to the MBTI and the MBTI test are a bit different, each having their own merits. I'm choosing to focus on cognitive functions. While cognitive functions were already assumed by many to be largely genetic, the above research supports further that idea. And we know that we don't have an Enneagram center of our brain and a separate MBTI center. So our umbrella term of personality includes an intermingling of the two. It is said that our unconscious motivations drive us to be a certain way whether we like it or not. We cannot hide our Enneagram type from the world because it controls us. _We don't control or filter it_. The same thing is said about our cognitive functions. So how can they be mutually exclusive? Humans are predictable and and consistent if you look hard enough. While we may think of ourselves as idiosyncratic and disjointed in what we do, what we actually do follows a pattern. While you can act one way one moment and another the next, typology is concerned with overall trends over long periods of time, and humans are consistent when one takes a bird's eye view of them.

*The Point*

What I'm trying to say is that our cognitive functions and our Enneagram necessarily need to work together. They can't be in some big Battle of the Psyche tournament or else we couldn't function as human beings. With this being said, certain functions and Enneagram types just don't go together. They just don't. Ti is focused on cold, calculating logical consistency and fitting logical nuggets into a grander theory at the expense of regarding highly value statements and emotions while the essence of 4 (in Naranjo's opinion at least) is quite the opposite. So a Ti-dom 4 makes no sense. Fe is concerned with the value judgments and accommodation of others' value judgments while 5 is oversensitive and un-attuned to the emotional atmosphere in favor of hoarding knowledge. So Fe-doms and 5 seem to be mutually exclusive as well. 

From the above, we can conclude that certain cognitive functions and Enneagram types _cannot_ go together and it's more likely that one who types this way has a false sense of what their personality is actually like. A well-developed structure will not break down because the different parts of it work together toward a common goal, even if the material is different. But trying to patch a structure with a few pieces of out-of-place tape and crediting the tape for holding it together more than the cement (which people take for granted and may not notice at first) just isn't helpful. 

If you disagree up to this point, then take a minute to think: Would I believe someone if they typed as ISFJ 8? ESFJ 5? If not, why not? Make sure that you aren't only open to iNtuitives typing however they want in the Enneagram because of some silly iNtuitive bias. An ENTP 4 is just as unbelievable as an ISFJ 8 from a neutral functional perspective.

*Some Closing Notes*

In the end, typology is about categorizing things. Personality typology is about categorizing what people are like. These categories and sub-categories should make sense together and not contradict each other. We're classifying people in broad categories, but these categories of what someone _is_ also come with what someone _is not_. Trying to account for complex mental processes in regard to every thought/action ever isn't useful. Think of the big picture: what you generally do/think automatically.

In a spoiler below I'm going to list types that don't make much sense together in my eyes. Is there someone out there who is actually a combination of these types? Maybe? Some I could buy in certain circumstances, some I couldn't. They're all stretches though. If you identify as a combination of these types, could you actually be this type? Maybe. Should you take a good hard look at your actual thought processes and see if you're not missing what's right in front of you and are instead twisting a type's words to make it fit just a little bit of who you are? *Definitely*. Most people _aren't_ going to be the exception to the rule, so keep that in mind.

*My Opinion of Generally Unreasonable Type Combinations*


* *




Si-Te-Fi-Ne (ISTJ) - 2, 4, 7, 8

Si-Fe-Ti-Ne (ISFJ) - 4, 7, 8

Te-Si-Ne-Fi (ESTJ) - 2, 4, 7

Fe-Si-Ne-Ti (ESFJ) - 4, 5, 7, 8

Ni-Te-Fi-Se (INTJ) - 2, 4, 7

Te-Ni-Se-Fi (ENTJ) - 2, 4, 5, 6*, 7, 9

Ti-Ne-Si-Fe (INTP) - 1, 2, 3, 4, 8

Ne-Ti-Fe-Si (ENTP) - 1, 2, 4, 8, 9

Fi-Se-Ni-Te (ISFP) - 2, 5, 7, 8

Ti-Se-Ni-Fe (ISTP) - 1, 2, 3, 4

Se-Ti-Fe-Ni (ESTP) - 1, 4, 5, 6*, 9

Se-Fi-Te-Ni (ESFP) - 1, 2, 5

Fe-Ni-Se-Ti (ENFJ) - 4, 5, 7, 9

Ni-Fe-Ti-Fe (INFJ) - 3, 4, 7, 8

Fi-Ne-Si-Te (INFP) - 2, 3, 5, 7, 8

Ne-Fi-Te-Si (ENFP) - 1, 5, 8, 9

*I could see these, but they're still rare


----------



## Monroe (May 13, 2016)

I'll comment on your entire post of course, but why is 2 a rare combo for some of these? It could be a narrow view of the 2 enneagram. Yes, they care for other opinions, but there can be a more complex motive for the 2 view. You can care for the greater view rather than the individual level for instance?


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Interesting post. A couple things to point out:

1) I wasn't aware that people thought of Enneatype as being primarily nurture. Some theorists describes Enneatypes as a reaction to a certain childhood environment, but I think they also say that people interpret their childhood environments a certain way _because_ of their Enneatype. For example, I've heard it said that type Ones become type Ones because of a choatic childhood environment in need of organization, but type Ones are also very likely to _interpret_ their childhood environments as choatic, and in need of better organization. Is it possible that you misunderstood and thought that people were saying Enneatypes are nurture when they were actually talking about the likely-to-interpret thing?
I honestly don't remember any theorist I've read talking definitively about nature vs. nurture; in many cases they seem to be assuming it's actually nature. 

2) Personally, I do think Enneatype and MBTI are separate; but, like you, I _also_ think personality is completely integrated. I think your Enneatype and MBTI come together and make a certain combination that becomes your personality. They are like two alleles that make up a gene; the actual expressed trait is your actual personality; the Enneatype and the MBTI are two different influences that go into the mix. 

3) I'm not sure what to say about the typical combination thing. Following my point in #2, theoretically any MBTI could be combined with any Enneatype. But, I agree that some combinations seem highly, highly unlikely. ISFJ type 8, INFP type 8, ESTJ type 9... But... I honestly can't find it in me to say that any combination would be totally impossible. 



Ivy said:


> ISTJ - 2, 4, 7, 8


ISTJ type 8 seems okay to me.



> ISFJ - 4, 7, 8


I'm sure ISFJ type 4 is possible. 



> ESTJ - 2, 4, 7


Don't assume that Thinkers can't be 2s. 



> ESFJ - 4, 5, 7, 8


ESFJs can definitely be 8s and 4s. And I think my mom is an ESFJ type 5. 



> INTJ - 2, 4, 7


INTJs can definitely be 7s. 



> ENTJ - 2, 4, 5, 6*, 7, 9


ENTJ type 5 seems quite likely. And I think type 6s can _easily_ be any MBTI type. 



> INTP - 1, 2, 3, 4, 8


Nah, don't rule out _five_ types from INTP! People are more diverse than that. 



> ENTP - 1, 2, 4, 8, 9


I know literally so many ENTP type 9s!



> ISFP - 2, 5, 7, 8


I think ISFPs could easily be 2s, 5s, or 7s. 
I'm surprised you didn't put type 1 with ISFP; type 1 seems to combine particularly strangely with any SP. HOWEVER, my sister is a type 1 ISFP! It took me forever to type her, but now I'm certain of her type. 



> ESTP - 1, 4, 5, 6*, 9


There are definitely ESTP type 9s; don't rule out type 9s from being extroverted, in general. Many of them are. And they can also be 6s of course. 



> Fe-Ni-Se-Ti (ENFJ) - 4, 5, 7, 9


Oy vey, I think ENFJ can *easily* be any of those!!



> INFJ - 3, 4, 7, 8


Wait wait wait what?! INFJ and type 4 is literally the most typical combination! 
type 3 and type 7 also seem pretty INFJ-ish in some ways. 



> INFP - 2, 3, 5, 7, 8


Nah, INFPs can easily be any of those except 8. And if someone told me they were INFP type 8, I wouldn't disbelief them. 


You're being way too restrictive in general. I grant you that a couple combinations seem highly unlikely, but there honestly aren't that many that I would put in that category.


----------



## Shadow Tag (Jan 11, 2014)

Monroe said:


> I'll comment on your entire post of course, but why is 2 a rare combo for some of these? It could be a narrow view of the 2 enneagram. Yes, they care for other opinions, but there can be a more complex motive for the 2 view. You can care for the greater view rather than the individual level for instance?


Not sure what you mean? I don't think my view is narrow, just some cognitive functions don't breed 2's motivation no matter which way it's spun.


----------



## Brains (Jul 22, 2015)

@charlie.elliot Take the first three functions - they give a good sense of a type's overall character. Then take enneatype. Does it make sense?

Like: 

Fe-Ni-Se 5? Retracted, withdrawn-from-life overthinker? 

" Don't assume that Thinkers can't be 2s. "

Two, literally by definition, is an emotional type. Thinking (especially high in the stack), in the Jungian sense, is an ingrained mental habit of evaluating things in a cold, detached, mechanistic way, reducing even people and animals into systems and objects to be studied. Now tell me how these two make one lick of sense as simultaneous definitions of overarching trends of a personality at the same time. Because _defining the stable, long-term trends of a personality is what all these systems_ - academic psychology with the Big 5, the MBTI test, Jungian typology, Enneatypes are trying to do. _Dominant/auxiliary functions and core enneatypes posit to be large enough trends to form the foundation of a person's personality._ It's equivalent to saying dish's most-used ingredient is marshmallows and that the most-used ingredient is salt pork.


----------



## Shadow Tag (Jan 11, 2014)

@charlie.elliot

See I don't think that I'm being restrictive at all. This is primarily a result of people shoe-horning different types together for so long. For example, I'd bet money that your mother is not an ESFJ 5. AND Fe-Ni 5? That's quite simply ludicrous.

You say that you know many ENTP 9s, but do you type them yourself or do you not see the difference between Naranjo's 9 and Ne-Ti? It's a matter of two completely opposite things being in the same space.

INFJ 4 is a by-product of an oversaturation of INFJs and an oversaturation of 4s in typology communities. A couple may exist, but Ni-Fe does not lend itself to a 4 mindset one bit.

You say I'm being too restrictive, but I'm just trying to keep typology somewhat consistent. There is none on PerC, and the fact that an ISFJ 8 is believable makes me wonder if typology means anything...


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Ivy said:


> @charlie.elliot
> 
> See I don't think that I'm being restrictive at all. This is primarily a result of people shoe-horning different types together for so long. For example, I'd bet money that your mother is not an ESFJ 5. AND Fe-Ni 5? That's quite simply ludicrous.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I just don't know where you're getting these things. Not necessarily saying I agree/disagree, I just don't know your "sources", so to speak. 

Enneatypes and cog functions target different things in the psyche. @Brains as well--
Jung/MB's "Thinking" and "Feeling" are not related to the Enneagram's "Heart Type" concept. Remember that the words we use are just labels, approximations. Just because 2/3/4 are labeled "Heart" doesn't mean they automatically have anything to do with Jung's "Feeling".

Type 2s have a ego-fixation centered around people seeing them as self-sacrificing and generous. That doesn't _require_ a Feeling-type MBTI. 

Ni-Fe does not "lend itself" to the type 4 mindset? I just don't... .I don't get it. Ni, Fe, and type 4 are all quite compatible. Can you be more specific about why you think they're not? 

What do you mean do I see "see the difference" between type 9 and Ne-Ti? What _are_ the differences/ similarities between the two? I certainly know plenty of 9s who are Ne-users... type 9 is one of the most common Enneatypes for INFP. What about Ne or Ti even has anything to do with Type 9, directly? 

There is nothing "opposite" about type 9/ Ne or type 9/Ti, etc... They're simply not related. They're involved in the same behaviors (i.e. expressed personality), but they're separate concepts. Remember, I'm NOT saying the personality is fragmented. Personalities are whole. A good analogy is a recipe. A cake is composed of many parts, but a cake is a whole, solid, indivisable thing. The Enneatype is like the sugar, the MBTI is the flour. They are fundamentally separate, they start out separate, but they get blended together, and together form a unique product. And, to continue the analogy, there are other components to the recipe that are not related to Enneatype or MBTI at all. So an individual is composed of many unique things. 


I think that considering Enneatype/ MBTI combinations is actually one thing that makes personality truly fascinating. Without allowing for combinations, the whole system is far too restrictive. Oftentimes I don't successfully type someone at all until I consider their unique Enneatype/ MBTI combination. Like my sister for instance! She's an ISFP type 1. I was so stumped about her type for so long because she literally didn't seem to fit _any_ MBTI type. Without knowing she was _also_ type 1, I would have given up on MBTI right then and there.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

P.S. Also, yes, there are direct contradictions between types. Like, ESFJ like going out and being active, type 5 likes staying home... Yes, that's a contradiction. But that doesn't mean one person can't be both ESFJ _and_ type 5. 

Picture this: Their ESFJ is influencing them to be out-going and active. Their Type 5 is influencing them to be withdrawn and anti-social. So, in reality, they are in between those things. Their actual expressed personality is somewhere in between those two.

Don't think of Enneatypes types of MBTI letters as absolute traits -- i.e. "All Type 5s are like this", "All S-types are like this", etc.-- rather they are each influences. Like how sugar is an influence on a cake. You put more sugar, it gets sweeter. 

I don't think your whole theory holds up in the long run. The direction you're going, it seems like we could allot MBTI types to Enneatypes, to the point where it would be like...

Type 1 [Type ISTJ, ESTJ, ENTJ..]
Type 2 [Type ESFJ, ISFJ..]
etc. etc. 
I mean, you almost have more exclusions in your list than inclusions.

I just don't think that's what we see in reality. 

If I take a single Enneatype, and think of all the people I know with that type... They're a diverse range of MBTI types. 
For example, if I take all the type Ones I know, here are all their MBTI types:
-- ISFP
-- ENTP
-- INFJ
-- ESTJ

Those particular MBTI types don't have anything to do _with each other_. They don't have to.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

I think you're both wrong  I think @Ivy is too "restrictive" but @charlie.elliot is too "permissive." 
(By the way, Ivy, your OP font _hurts my eyes_. I couldn't read it, too small of font.)

I tend to think there are going to be very unlikely combinations to the point of effectively dismissing them. I don't tend to think that being X increases your chance of being Y, though. And I think outliers will always exist because human nature.

Anyway, my list is closer to this:
Si-Te-Fi-Ne (ISTJ) - 2, 4, 8
Si-Fe-Ti-Ne (ISFJ) - 5, 8
Te-Si-Ne-Fi (ESTJ) - 2, 4, 5
Fe-Si-Ne-Ti (ESFJ) - 4, 5, 8
Ni-Te-Fi-Se (INTJ) - 2, 4, 8
Te-Ni-Se-Fi (ENTJ) - 2, 4 
Ti-Ne-Si-Fe (INTP) - 2, 4, 8
Ne-Ti-Fe-Si (ENTP) - 1, 2, 4, 5
Fi-Se-Ni-Te (ISFP) - 2, 5, 8
Ti-Se-Ni-Fe (ISTP) - 2, 4, 8
Se-Ti-Fe-Ni (ESTP) - 1, 4, 5 
Se-Fi-Te-Ni (ESFP) - 1, 2, 5
Fe-Ni-Se-Ti (ENFJ) - 5, 8
Ni-Fe-Ti-Fe (INFJ) - 5, 8
Fi-Ne-Si-Te (INFP) - 3, 5, 8
Ne-Fi-Te-Si (ENFP) - 3, 5, 8

I have a much broader view of type 7 than most do, and maybe of 9. Also not really a hard list, here.


----------



## Maedalaane (Jan 20, 2015)

As someone who's scant studied Enneagram and even then only to figure what my own triad was years ago, I can only speak for myself. How my MBTI and Enneatype correspond with each other. 

And I'm unsure of what to think just yet. I've never thought of it in this light. Your theory sounds right on paper, but being on paper is akin to being in a vacuum but functioning reality is always more intricate and complicated. 

However, according to the search feature for registered users, there are only 10 Type 2 ISFPs out of 120,769 total users. Of course, a ton of those are dummy accounts but I'm sure there are more legitimate users out of the ones currently considered active, which totals to 539. I want to say 10 is quite low and would indeed support your theory that it's an unlikely combination, but on the other hand there are a _a lot_ of permutations to account for and it's not feasible to query up search results for the hundreds of permutations. Perhaps, because there's so many, 10 could be a normal amount. 

Numbers and theories aside, the cognitive function that one would most readily associate Enneatype 2 with would be Fe. Other people and how they feel is the center of this type's core. This type strives to make other people feel the best they can and help them in any way, and the feedback from thus dictates the type's emotions. This sounds like something a Fe-dom would be easily inclined toward. Though morality derived from environment is _not_ the same thing. It's just what would easily link up with Enneatype 2.

But on the other hand, what if _that's simply the way that a Fi-dom's values coalesced?_ I believe that's how mine did. That is to say, that I formed my own view that service unto others is the way of life for me. Nobody raised me like that. Nobody told me to be like that. I thought for myself that this world needs more love, and I'm going to give it that.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

@Paradigm - won't argue too many specifics, except I'm surprised how many types you put type 5 on your list. The only MBTI types you allow type 5 to be are ISTJ, INTJ, ENTJ, INTP, and ISTP... Only Thinkers. 

Ditto with type 4. The only type you allow type 4 to be are ISFJ, ISFP, ESFP, and all the NFs.

I don't think it's necessary to be as restrictive with these types. I think Feelers can _definitely_ be Type 5s. Not sure about Thinkers being type 4s, but.... my INTJ dad can be the most emotional person I know. He's a 6, not a 4, but still. 

And, because as I've said, I think my mom is ESFJ type 5, and the last (self-typed) type 5 I've met besides her was a very attractive and assertive business lady who dressed in snazzy clothes and danced like crazy. Not sure of her MBTI type, but not a typical type 5 portrait by any means.

I wish people wouldn't stereotype these types in particular. I think it comes from a more theoretical/ "on-paper" view of type 5/ 4, having them so connected to NTs and NFs... in real life, there are wacky combinations. Type 5 actually seems like a relatively flexible type to me.


----------



## Brains (Jul 22, 2015)

charlie.elliot said:


> Enneatypes and cog functions target different things in the psyche. @Brains as well--
> Jung/MB's "Thinking" and "Feeling" are not related to the Enneagram's "Heart Type" concept. Remember that the words we use are just labels, approximations. Just because 2/3/4 are labeled "Heart" doesn't mean they automatically have anything to do with Jung's "Feeling".
> 
> Type 2s have a ego-fixation centered around people seeing them as self-sacrificing and generous. That doesn't _require_ a Feeling-type MBTI.


Yes, I know. There's a reason @Ivy thinks 3 is entirely reasonable for Jungian Thinking types. I look at the types themselves, not the labels. Just what kind of person the category describes. 

Three, for example, is a Heart type but distinctly about "business" such that it doesn't contradict cold, detached, mechanistic analysis as a foundation of personality. But a Jungian Thinking type who _represses most sentimentality_ and deals with things in that above objective manner does run contrary to Two and Four, which are expressly openly emotional and highly emotion-centric types. _A dismissal of emotion in favour of objective fact and an openly emotional stance to life cannot simultaneously be broad, fundamental descriptions of the same personality, and describing the broad, overarching fundaments of personality is what both systems try to do._ That is the fundamental point of the essay: That the descriptions should converge, because they are talking about the same damn thing: Stable, overarching, huge personality-defining trends. Two utterly contradictory descriptions of that kind about the same person _do not work._

Take ETJ 9 as another example: It is undeniably true that inferior Fi has a component of self-forgetting in it, but it is not the whole picture: Action orientation, willingness to challenge others and and press your views on them is an even larger part of the Thinking extravert: Three and Eight fit this much better, and both types have a theme of forgetting their genuine, inner priorities, just as the Te type does. What they do not do, and what the Thinking extravert does not allow others to do, is for others' desires to trample over their own while suppressing their objections.

This is what the article is trying to get at: Undoubtedly pieces of different Jungian types and Enneatypes fit together, and people definitely act in contradictory ways sometimes, but with regard to things like "general manner of expressing sentimentality", there is one trend. The whole picture has to match.

Thus far, your counterarguments have by and large amounted to "hey, don't do that!". Do you have anything to actually offer to the discussion?


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Brains said:


> Three, for example, is a Heart type but distinctly about "business" such that it doesn't contradict cold, detached, mechanistic analysis as a foundation of personality. But a Jungian Thinking type who _represses most sentimentality_ and deals with things in that above objective manner does run contrary to Two and Four, which are expressly openly emotional and highly emotion-centric types. *A dismissal of emotion in favour of objective fact and an openly emotional stance to life cannot simultaneously be broad, fundamental descriptions of the same personality, and describing the broad, overarching fundaments of personality is what both systems try to do.* That is the fundamental point of the essay: That the descriptions should converge, because they are talking about the same damn thing: Stable, overarching, huge personality-defining trends. Two utterly contradictory descriptions of that kind about the same person _do not work._


I disagree. I think an ESTJ, for example, could be a Type 2. Any SJ type has an orientation towards society and helping it run smoother, and is likely to engage in Two-ish behaviors. I know an ESTJ who is 1w2. She can be quite callous, yelling at people and calling people stupid. But at other times, she can be quite Two-ish, in that she has this aggressive kind of caring towards people, thinking of all the ways she can help them and trying to insist that they need her help. 
It's quite possible. 




> Thus far, your counterarguments have by and large amounted to "hey, don't do that!".


That's kind of my impression of the OP, actually. There wasn't any explanation of WHY those things don't fit together. 



> Do you have anything to actually offer to the discussion?


LOL, why are we getting like that? I just wanted to discuss ideas, does it have to get snippy?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Maedalaane I agree with you on principle, but then we get this quote here:



Maedalaane said:


> Numbers and theories aside, the cognitive function that one would most readily associate Enneatype 2 with would be Fe. Other people and how they feel is the center of this type's core. This type strives to make other people feel the best they can and help them in any way, and the feedback from thus dictates the type's emotions. Sounds very Fe-dom.


But how is this behavior, because what you are describing is ultimately a behavior, linked to Fe as a style of cognitive reasoning? For clarification, type 2 is about an intrinsic idea built on a sense of worthlessness/poor self-worth, which the type 2 copes with by creating a personality that is seen as helpful, self-sacrificing and loving. This helpfulness can manifest in a myriad of ways, and focusing on people's emotions is but one of many aspects of how a person can be helpful/come across as loving.

Let's take this definition of Fe which is from socionics, just so we have something else to compare to:



> Extroverted ethics is an extroverted, rational, and dynamic information element. It is also called Fe, E, the ethics of emotions, or black ethics. Fe is generally associated with the ability to recognize and convey (i.e. make others experience) passions, moods, and emotional states, generate excitement, liveliness, and feelings, get emotionally involved in activities and emotionally involve others, recognize and describe emotional interaction between people and groups, and build a sense of community and emotional unity.


There's no emphasis on helpfulness here. Instead the focus is on expressiveness, how to emote emotions and to make others emote with you. The only way I can envision Fe being helpful is more that they try to help others express their feelings by creating an emotional atmosphere that makes it possible for people to express themselves adequately. 

This is why I think this becomes so circular, because type 2 is defined in a way that sounds like Fe and Fe is defined in a way that sounds like type 2, but none of them are actually defined independently of one another in a way that really captures the gist of each type and that's a problem. Instead they are built on certain behaviors that reinforce certain stereotypes. And I do want to note that while I think there is some truth to that, we need to think about what kind of truth we are seeing in it. 

Now, if we were to compare to how I just re-framed the core neurosis of type 2 which is a much more psychospiritual approach in understanding the type, we now see how it opens up for the possibility to realize how type 2 is not necessarily intrinsically linked to Fe. Take an ENTP type 2, for example. They lead with Ne so their idea of being helpful then, would be on the basis of providing others with their intuition; they brainstorm with them, think of novel ways to change our understanding of the world or help others connect various experiences together in order to see the bigger picture. 

Just because a certain combination is unlikely it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and frankly, I've seen enough examples from fiction, yes, fiction, to know that the assertions made in this thread are something I don't agree with; the creators of these characters were ultimately inspired by someone or something, and that someone or something is a real person out there, non-stereotype as they may be. Examples from the top of my head include INTJ type 8s and 4s, ESTPs with strong 4 influence, an ESTP type 2 and the list goes on. 

Anyway, I think @charlie.elliot summarized my opinion quite well on this subject:



> I wish people wouldn't stereotype these types in particular. I think it comes from a more theoretical/ "on-paper" view of type 5/ 4, having them so connected to NTs and NFs... in real life, there are wacky combinations. Type 5 actually seems like a relatively flexible type to me.


I'll also go ahead and quote myself in another thread that is very similar in to this one that I just posted in recently:



> Riso and Hudson do the same thing btw [in reference to the fact that Naranjo mentions the MBTI/Jung in Character & Neurosis], 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 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 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.


In the end, all we have are opinions but people that think only certain combinations are possible seem to base their opinions based on behavior, not by seeing people in themselves. There's a reduction in people's complexities by comparing their behaviors to established definitions/archetypes in the mind's eye but what's in the mind's eye is not objective and real; people are. Types should fit people, not people fitting types.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Entropic said:


> @*Maedalaane* I agree with you on principle, but then we get this quote here:
> 
> 
> 
> But how is this behavior, because what you are describing is ultimately a behavior, linked to Fe as a style of cognitive reasoning? For clarification, type 2 is about an intrinsic idea built on a sense of worthlessness/poor self-worth, which the type 2 copes with by creating a personality that is seen as helpful, self-sacrificing and loving. This helpfulness can manifest in a myriad of ways, and focusing on people's emotions is but one of many aspects of how a person can be helpful/come across as loving.


Very good point. I know an ESTJ who has a lot of E2 in him, not necessarily as his primary type, but it may well be part of his tritype. Actually, I know several ESTJs and an ENTJ who are very E2. I don’t know whether it’s their primary type, but bossing others for their own benefit plays a huge part in their life.
I could also imagine that INTPs, ISTPs, ENTPs, ESTPs who constantly give (unsolicited) Ti-based advice have 2 in their tritype.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Very good point. I know an ESTJ who has a lot of E2 in him, not necessarily as his primary type, but it may well be part of his tritype. Actually, I know several ESTJs and an ENTJ who are very E2. I don’t know whether it’s their primary type, but bossing others for their own benefit plays a huge part in their life.
> I could also imagine that INTPs, ISTPs, ENTPs, ESTPs who constantly give (unsolicited) Ti-based advice have 2 in their tritype.


I mean, I type as 8 but I have a lot of 2 traits in me because it's connected to 8 and is a growth point. I also know two other ILIs who type as 2 in their tritype. There's a good argument that some SLEs I have had experience with have a lot of type 2 in them as well, as a part of tritype or as a wing/other form of connection. 

In actuality, I think the fundamental problem I have with this is the idea that types are somehow mutually exclusive when they are not. The enneagram is a very organic system and the original idea is that all of us possess every type, just that some are more neurotic in us than in others. From that vantage point, to assert that only certain combinations are possible, is actually quite silly and stifling with regards to self-growth, which is the ultimate goal of the enneagram system.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Entropic said:


> I mean, I type as 8 but I have a lot of 2 traits in me because it's connected to 8 and is a growth point. I also know two other ILIs who type as 2 in their tritype. There's a good argument that some SLEs I have had experience with have a lot of type 2 in them as well, as a part of tritype or as a wing/other form of connection.
> 
> In actuality, I think the fundamental problem I have with this is the idea that types are somehow mutually exclusive when they are not. The enneagram is a very organic system and the original idea is that all of us possess every type, just that some are more neurotic in us than in others. From that vantage point, to assert that only certain combinations are possible, is actually quite silly and stifling with regards to self-growth, which is the ultimate goal of the enneagram system.


I’m an INTJ and I have 2 in my tritype, despite not having an ounce of Fe (6-1-2 or whichever way round you put the 1 and 2). I think Naranjo (and Ichazo?) see “personality” in general as a neurosis, because it is linked to the ego and prevents you from achieving a state of pure “being”. So, they treat any E type as equally neurotic. I’m not quite sure whether they would recommend developing traits of all E-types or leaving types behind altogether. Either way, this is one of the reasons why you can’t even compare MBTI and Enneagram at all at a fundamental level, regardless of what type combinations you deem likely or unlikey: MBTI is affirmative and pretends not to be influenced by spiritual traditions (in reality, Jung made no secret of his spirituality, although he did subscribe to pseudo-science to prove the truth of his assertions). Enneagram is clearly spiritual despite the pseudo-scientific noises the authors make. In my personal opinion, neither MBTI nor Enneagram need to be scientific. I’m quite happy to study them as spiritual traditions. It depends on how people want to use them, though. If they try to use them predictively, they’d better be theoretically sound and empirically proven. I guess Big 5 would be the most “scientific” and reliable personality theory, but I don’t know. I find it profoundly boring, so I haven’t studied it.


----------



## Manuscript (Feb 12, 2017)

charlie.elliot said:


> And, because as I've said, I think my mom is ESFJ type 5, and the last (self-typed) type 5 I've met besides her was a very attractive and assertive business lady who dressed in snazzy clothes and danced like crazy. Not sure of her MBTI type, but not a typical type 5 portrait by any means.


I can almost believe ISFJ 5 as a thought experiment (e.g. some stereotype of a librarian or crazy cat lady), but how does ESFJ 5 work?


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Manuscript said:


> I can almost believe ISFJ 5 as a thought experiment (e.g. some stereotype of a librarian or crazy cat lady), but how does ESFJ 5 work?


I really am almost mystified that people are having trouble with this idea. I don't understand what part of ESFJ and type 5 are mutually exclusive (even though the whole concept of having "mutual exclusivity" between Enneatype/ MBTI doesn't really make sense to me).

-She loves to gather as much knowledge as she can about the subject she's most interested in. Primarily that includes American history, especially presidents. She has SJ- type interests and attacks them the way a type 5 would. She's analytical and seeks to understand the world, though her judgements come from a very people-centered, personally-judgemental place, in the way you'd expect an ESFJ to behave. 
-She's withdrawn, she loves to stay at home by herself, except for certain times when she decides to go out and socialize. When she does socialize, she's very talkative, and meets new people easily. 
These things are not mutually exclusive. Someone can overall like to stay home and withdraw, but still be an extrovert. 

I'm not certain that she's type 5, but suffice to say she exhibits many type 5 traits and many ESFJ traits. As for Fe itself, *there is absolutely nothing in the type 5 description that would prevent one from being also an Fe-user. *

Cognitive functions are just that-- _cognitive_. Enneatypes are not really cognitive at all. They are ego-fixations, which is a very specific part of the personality. By contrast, MBTI seems to really have little to do with the ego at all.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FlaviaGemina said:


> I’m an INTJ and I have 2 in my tritype, despite not having an ounce of Fe (6-1-2 or whichever way round you put the 1 and 2). I think Naranjo (and Ichazo?) see “personality” in general as a neurosis, because it is linked to the ego and prevents you from achieving a state of pure “being”. So, they treat any E type as equally neurotic. I’m not quite sure whether they would recommend developing traits of all E-types or leaving types behind altogether. Either way, this is one of the reasons why you can’t even compare MBTI and Enneagram at all at a fundamental level, regardless of what type combinations you deem likely or unlikey: MBTI is affirmative and pretends not to be influenced by spiritual traditions (in reality, Jung made no secret of his spirituality, although he did subscribe to pseudo-science to prove the truth of his assertions). Enneagram is clearly spiritual despite the pseudo-scientific noises the authors make. In my personal opinion, neither MBTI nor Enneagram need to be scientific. I’m quite happy to study them as spiritual traditions. It depends on how people want to use them, though. If they try to use them predictively, they’d better be theoretically sound and empirically proven. I guess Big 5 would be the most “scientific” and reliable personality theory, but I don’t know. I find it profoundly boring, so I haven’t studied it.


Yes, because helpfulness doesn't have to be emotional, like I said. I actually really like to help people; I work with helping people. My way of helping people is more problem-solving oriented, however. Perfectly reasonable seeing how I am an NT. Similarly, my type 2 grandmother is an ESFJ, but her way of helping people is more with physical comfort. She's the go-to person if you have a cold because she'll pamper you as if you suffer from a terminal illness. So even though she's actually a type 2 and an Fe dom (she fits both type portraits to a T btw; never met such a stereotype person in my entire life that fits the descriptions as accurately as she does), her way of helping fits neither of what is asserted here. Now that's funny in its contradiction, however.

I do want to clarify that when I say neurosis, I do mean on a more spiritual level. I agree about Jung, though, and you actually see a lot of overlap with Jung and the enneagram with the focus on dismantling the ego and integrating into a higher self. He even calls it the Self even though the enneagram has no such name for it. It's obvious they are referring to the same thing, however.

As for the MBTI, I think it's such a mixed bag because the MBTI doesn't know what it wants to be. As a result people can't agree on what the MBTI really is, either. Because of that it cannot be scientific even though it claims to be scientific. In such a sense, I actually the enneagram would fare better because it would be possible to somewhat translate into a psychological system but it would require some serious tweaking. The only comparable system to the MBTI is the Big 5, as you said, but like you, I too find it overly bland and boring.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Entropic said:


> In actuality, I think the fundamental problem I have with this is the idea that types are somehow mutually exclusive when they are not. The enneagram is a very organic system and the original idea is that all of us possess every type, just that some are more neurotic in us than in others. From that vantage point, to assert that only certain combinations are possible, is actually quite silly and stifling with regards to self-growth, which is the ultimate goal of the enneagram system.


Yeah, when you bring self-growth and the dynamics of the Enneagram into play, the idea of hitching certain MBTI types to certain Enneatypes makes even less sense. The Enneagram is dynamic while the MBTI is rigid, so attaching them together seems doomed to failure. 

Personally I think of certain Enneatypes as having influences on your MBTI type-- as in, it doesn't change your MBTI type, but it does inspire you to act in certain ways that make you appear more like certain MBTI letters. 
So that would be something like this (this isn't the first time I've brought this up):

Type One: __TJ
(So this doesn't mean type Ones have to be xxTJ's -- they could easily be INFPs-- but it would be an INFP that appeared more TJ-ish than other INFPs).

Type Two: E_F_

Type Three: E__J

Type Four: INF_

Type Five: INT_

Type Six: no particular influence

Type Seven: E__P

Type Eight: E_T_

Type Nine: I_FP


----------



## Manuscript (Feb 12, 2017)

charlie.elliot said:


> I'm not certain that she's type 5, but suffice to say she exhibits many type 5 traits and many ESFJ traits. As for Fe itself, *there is absolutely nothing in the type 5 description that would prevent one from being also an Fe-user. *
> 
> Cognitive functions are just that-- _cognitive_. Enneatypes are not really cognitive at all. They are ego-fixations, which is a very specific part of the personality. By contrast, MBTI seems to really have little to do with the ego at all.


I can see where you're coming from, but doesn't the MBTI measure your cognitive preferences, more than your cognitive strengths? For example, some ENTJs have excellent social skills, while some INFPs have great analytical skills, yet they're both still T and F types because they don't put the corresponding functions at the helm.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

I'll answer more in detail later, but I was under the impression we were talking core type only, not tritype. Because I think anything can be in anyone's tri. My dad is a hella-2ish ESTP, but I think he's a core 8 since the type isn't really "compatible" as core. So... What's the stipulations here?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> Yeah, when you bring self-growth and the dynamics of the Enneagram into play, the idea of hitching certain MBTI types to certain Enneatypes makes even less sense. The Enneagram is dynamic while the MBTI is rigid, so attaching them together seems doomed to failure.
> 
> Personally I think of certain Enneatypes as having influences on your MBTI type-- as in, it doesn't change your MBTI type, but it does inspire you to act in certain ways that make you appear more like certain MBTI letters.
> So that would be something like this (this isn't the first time I've brought this up):
> ...


Yes, I completely agree with you. I think enneagram can make some people appear a certain way, depending on what framework we are judging something against. I commonly see INTJ 4s and 9s being mistyped as INFJs because the 4 or the 9 is not as emotionally detached as say, a 5, that people somehow think an INTJ should be like. But being emotional is not the same as being able to think in terms of Te in a high-quality way that INTJs do. One of the best celebrity examples when it comes to this is Marilyn Manson. Most people agree on that he's a 4, but few people agree on that he's an INTJ and most assert him to be some kind of NF. Fallaciously so, I'd say, based on that they simply judge him based on that he seems to be sensitive and emotional than what they think an INTJ should be like, just like how you bring up that an INFP type 1 may come across as more rational, cold and detached than how people otherwise think of INFPs. 

And the problem with that is that people are typing people based off behavior, then, not based on their actual cognition. Let's say we have an ESFP type 8. ESFPs are feelers, so someone would argue that it means they must be good with being emotionally aware etc., except that's not what it means to be a feeler. It just means that you evaluate the word based on Fi principles, whether you like or dislike something, whether it lines up with your own values etc. Nowhere does it say that Fi also equals emotional awareness and intelligence. These are social skills anyone can develop regardless of type. Being a feeler does not mean that you are good at processing emotions; it just means that you judge the world based on ethical principles. 

Unless you're a sociopath, everyone has feelings and arguably, what matters in terms of the enneagram is how you process them, not that you have feelings in themselves. I mean, a type 4 processes feelings very different from a type 5. And I think that's the problem in that people want one system to explain everything about a person so instead of seeing how there are may different dimensions to feelings, being emotional becomes very monolithic experience. There is only one, or a few ways, to fundamentally be emotional. 



Manuscript said:


> I can see where you're coming from, but doesn't the MBTI measure your cognitive preferences, more than your cognitive strengths? For example, some ENTJs have excellent social skills, while some INFPs have great analytical skills, yet they're both still T and F types because they don't put the corresponding functions at the helm.


Yes, but the reason for that is that "cognitive strengths" can include dimensions not related to cognitive preferences. Social skills is such a dimension, for example. People tend to over-attribute what is actually related to type and what isn't, by ascribing all kinds of attitudes and behaviors to type even when it's not related. I think it's a very common cognitive error to perform because the human mind prefers taking logical shortcuts like that in order to keep reality simplistic so you don't have to constantly over-analyze everything, but sometimes that also creates a lot of unnecessary bias when it comes to our understanding of people. Racism is a great example of when this cognitive error really rears its truly ugly head, and arguably, typism is simply just another way of being racist. Both build on fundamental erroneous assumptions about people based on some external quality you perceive them to possess/represent to the point it becomes detrimental and hurtful.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

I think one of the main reasons the theories aren't mixed is that they're actually based on a scientific system within the field of psychology. For example, there are different trait theories. 

Because trait theories try to narrow human traits down to the fewest traits, it's sort of silly to try to combine two trait theories; it would essentially take psychology back about 25 years. One example is if one would mesh the four humor temperaments with Kiersey's four temperaments: both theories have broken temperament down into four basic temperaments. 

Then, there are different types of testing that can reveal personality. For example, projective testing and MBTI are both personality tests that are based on psychodynamic theory.

The reason certain systems aren't combined is that they're based on different pillars of psychology (enneagram being Humanistic theory, MBTI being Psychodynamic theory). It would be the equivalent of using an inkblot test to infer someone's IQ.

- - - - - - - - - - 

The best way to get more insight from a theory is to expand on that theory. For example, Kiersey and the temperaments is an expansion on the Myers Briggs Theory. That doesn't mean that combining them doesn't lead to insight, though. I've been really interested in looking at MBTI and Enneagram and how they affect the different flavors of the types. 

Just wanted to explain why people don't combine theories. : )


----------



## Brains (Jul 22, 2015)

charlie.elliot said:


> I disagree. I think an ESTJ, for example, could be a Type 2. Any SJ type has an orientation towards society and helping it run smoother, and is likely to engage in Two-ish behaviors. I know an ESTJ who is 1w2. She can be quite callous, yelling at people and calling people stupid. But at other times, she can be quite Two-ish, in that she has this aggressive kind of caring towards people, thinking of all the ways she can help them and trying to insist that they need her help.
> It's quite possible.


The thread was only an objection to core enneatype and the leading Jungian functions - both theories amply account for smaller, but still significant influences on a person's character. 2 influences among Thinking types are indeed common, the issue is just with contradictions in key elements of descriptions that have really high coverage. Two is indeed the more common wing for STJ Ones, for example.

Basically:









If one bubble in no uncertain terms says that the type dismisses emotion as a significant factor of decision or is very assertive or very prone to overthinking about systems and the other says the polar opposite, the whole simply does not add up. Fixes and wings have a far higher degree of freedom than core types because they describe less comprehensive and foundational amounts of a person's character.

Also, _typology - any typology - is a system of classification. It is a description and slotting into boxes of a phenomenon, not a definition of it, or the pieces that actually build it._ We simply have a person with a personality, and different category systems for describing it. Jungian type invariably proposes to cover a really large part of it, Enneagram invariably does the same, and for a lot of the same areas. If they are to describe the same personality accurately, they ought to contradict as little as humanly possible.





charlie.elliot said:


> That's kind of my impression of the OP, actually. There wasn't any explanation of WHY those things don't fit together.


That is fair, and is quite true. Arguing the specifics of the list wasn't quite the core point of the opening post as I understand it, the point that the cover a metric ton of shared space and should not contradict each other was, and that is the point I'm arguing for. I also provided some hopefully illustrative examples.



Entropic said:


> In actuality, I think the fundamental problem I have with this is the idea that types are somehow mutually exclusive when they are not. The enneagram is a very organic system and the original idea is that all of us possess every type, just that some are more neurotic in us than in others. From that vantage point, to assert that only certain combinations are possible, is actually quite silly and stifling with regards to self-growth, which is the ultimate goal of the enneagram system.


 @Ivy was talking about trait-level things. Tendencies, overarching patterns. Pattern is not a straitjacket, we can and situationally most definitely do adopt other kinds of outlooks, and can also work against ingrown tendencies (a person prone to addiction going cold turkey is just as much a demonstration of his addictive personality as his previous overconsumption was, for example).



Manuscript said:


> I can almost believe ISFJ 5 as a thought experiment (e.g. some stereotype of a librarian or crazy cat lady), but how does ESFJ 5 work?


Si-Fe-Ti Five works quite well in my opinion. Not necessarily common, but plausible to see how the personality structure would give to a 5-ish approach though the type is much more typically Sixish. I've seen a good amount of ISFJ system builders / logicians, and many are probably mistaken for Ti-Ne types.


----------



## Brains (Jul 22, 2015)

charlie.elliot said:


> I disagree. I think an ESTJ, for example, could be a Type 2. Any SJ type has an orientation towards society and helping it run smoother, and is likely to engage in Two-ish behaviors. I know an ESTJ who is 1w2. She can be quite callous, yelling at people and calling people stupid. But at other times, she can be quite Two-ish, in that she has this aggressive kind of caring towards people, thinking of all the ways she can help them and trying to insist that they need her help.
> It's quite possible.


The thread was only an objection to core enneatype and the leading Jungian functions - both theories amply account for smaller, but still significant influences on a person's character. 2 influences among Thinking types are indeed common, the issue is just with contradictions in key elements of descriptions that have really high coverage. Two is indeed the more common wing for STJ Ones, for example.

Basically:










If one bubble in no uncertain terms says that the type dismisses emotion as a significant factor of decision or is very assertive or very prone to overthinking about systems and the other says the polar opposite, the whole simply does not add up. Fixes and wings have a far higher degree of freedom than core types because they describe less comprehensive and foundational amounts of a person's character.

Also, _typology - any typology - is a system of classification. It is a description and slotting into boxes of a phenomenon, not a definition of it, or the pieces that actually build it._ We simply have a person with a personality, and different category systems for describing it. Jungian type invariably proposes to cover a really large part of it, Enneagram invariably does the same, and for a lot of the same areas. If they are to describe the same personality accurately, they ought to contradict as little as humanly possible.





charlie.elliot said:


> That's kind of my impression of the OP, actually. There wasn't any explanation of WHY those things don't fit together.


That is fair, and is quite true. Arguing the specifics of the list wasn't quite the core point of the opening post as I understand it, the point that the cover a metric ton of shared space and should not contradict each other was, and that is the point I'm arguing for. I also provided some hopefully illustrative examples.



Entropic said:


> In actuality, I think the fundamental problem I have with this is the idea that types are somehow mutually exclusive when they are not. The enneagram is a very organic system and the original idea is that all of us possess every type, just that some are more neurotic in us than in others. From that vantage point, to assert that only certain combinations are possible, is actually quite silly and stifling with regards to self-growth, which is the ultimate goal of the enneagram system.


 @Ivy was talking about trait-level things. Tendencies, overarching patterns. Pattern is not a straitjacket, we can and situationally most definitely do adopt other kinds of outlooks, and can also work against ingrown tendencies (a person prone to addiction going cold turkey is just as much a demonstration of his addictive personality as his previous overconsumption was, for example).



Manuscript said:


> I can almost believe ISFJ 5 as a thought experiment (e.g. some stereotype of a librarian or crazy cat lady), but how does ESFJ 5 work?


Si-Fe-Ti Five works quite well in my opinion. Not necessarily common, but plausible to see how the personality structure would give to a 5-ish approach though the type is much more typically Sixish. I've seen a good amount of ISFJ system builders / logicians, and many are probably mistaken for Ti-Ne types.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Brains said:


> If one bubble in no uncertain terms says that the type dismisses emotion as a significant factor of decision or is very assertive or very prone to overthinking about systems and the other says the polar opposite, the whole simply does not add up.


I think this is where we're misunderstanding each other. I don't think typology says anything "in no uncertain terms." It's not like if you say something is blue and not red then obviously you can't say its red and not blue. Someone could overall be a Thinking type, but that doesn't mean in strict terms that they always do this and never do this. All personality is shades of grey. 

And when you move into classifying the personality in different ways, like I said before, the "Heart" category is simply not the same thing as "Feeling". I know I already said that, and I know I'm being vague, but I really don't know how to describe it any better. All of these things are really hard to describe in precise terms, which is why it's hard to really debate them with other people. But, the more you read about it and the more you study other people, you get this intuitive sense for what a "heart type" is or what "a head type" is and what "thinking" is and what "feeling" is, and insofar as I've come to understand, they are just not the same thing.

What a Two is doing when they act Two-ish is not the same thing a Feeler is doing what they act Feeling-ish. It may appear the same on the outside, but the motivation for it is very different.


----------



## deviants (Dec 16, 2016)

Ivy said:


> Ne-Ti-Fe-Si (ENTP) - 1, 2, 4, 8, 9




I gave up on enneagrams because every time I take it I get different results, but interestingly the results I always got were 4, 8, 9, or 7. But seriously I've taken it probably 10+ times for four years and never have gotten a steady or satisfying answer/result. I say 9w8 because the last time I took the test thats what I got and I was tired of trying to figure it out so I just went with that.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Brains said:


> @Ivy was talking about trait-level things. Tendencies, overarching patterns. Pattern is not a straitjacket, we can and situationally most definitely do adopt other kinds of outlooks, and can also work against ingrown tendencies (a person prone to addiction going cold turkey is just as much a demonstration of his addictive personality as his previous overconsumption was, for example).


And that's where I disagree with the OP because I don't think type is simply about traits. There are some correlative traits but traits themselves don't define a type. I mean, didn't you bitch some time back about how you thought type 8 isn't about just caring about justice and truth? That's what I am talking about. Yet that's what is being expressed here, that if you are an 8, should literally care for justice and truth because these would, on a very superficial and literal trait-level, mean that you are a type 8.

And what I am saying of course, is that it's not that simple. Correlation does not equal causation. Caring for justice and truth are not explicit to being a type 8, but it's _why_ you do. Then a lot of 8s do care about justice and truth, but so do 1s, so do 6s, so do any other person that cares for justice and truth. 

Similarly then, with regards to cognition, Fe isn't just caring about other people's feelings. It's _why _they care. Fe and Fi types care about people's feelings differently but both can definitely care about them. I could reasonably and rationally come up with an explanation for any type combination and make it make sense for that combination. 

The enneagram is about coping mechanics and the MBTI about how you rationalize information. Both deal with cognitive aspects of the human psyche but do so at very different levels. I therefore fail to see how or why some combinations should be mutually exclusive.



charlie.elliot said:


> And when you move into classifying the personality in different ways, like I said before, the "Heart" category is simply not the same thing as "Feeling". I know I already said that, and I know I'm being vague, but I really don't know how to describe it any better. All of these things are really hard to describe in precise terms, which is why it's hard to really debate them with other people. But, the more you read about it and the more you study other people, you get this intuitive sense for what a "heart type" is or what "a head type" is and what "thinking" is and what "feeling" is, and insofar as I've come to understand, they are just not the same thing.


Let me try this for you  

In simple terms, the heart center is about personal value and significance. Do I matter and if so, how much? And how does this value matter in the eyes of others? So at the heart of all the heart types is an intrinsic idea of their authentic themselves as having no significance and value. They are meaningless and worthless. This causes a lot of shame because they feel like if they did show people who they really feel they are inside, being their own authentic selves, no one is going to like them or love them for who they really are. The heart center is a lot about interpersonal relationships and how to relate to people, which is one reason why it's called the heart or the emotional center, because at the center of our relationships are our feelings, how we feel about ourselves and how we feel about people.

In healthy relationships, a person is liked and loved not because of what they do or become, but because by virtue of existing in and of itself. Everyone possesses an intrinsic value and self-worth which no one can take away from us, though this self-worth is largely built on our own ability to love ourselves, too. This means that whether you fail or succeed at any given task is not a reflection of your true value as a person, yet this is incomprehensible for type 3s to understand, just like it's incomprehensible for type 2s to understand that they can be loved even if they do not give, that love is not an emotional transaction of giving-receiving. Sometimes it is absolutely right to simply receive or simply give. This is because true love is unconditional. 

Similarly, it is incomprehensible for a type 4 to understand that someone can love them even if they are not always "authentic" and that always evaluating whether we are authentic or not in any given moment means that we are not acting spontaneously and we are always the most natural when we are spontaneous. Type 4 really signifies how there is a deep crisis of identity within the heart triad. To understand your value and worth is of outmost importance, and our value is measured against how others receive us in our environment. If we cannot be loved for who we naturally are, then the next logical step is to put up an image in order to draw attention to ourselves so people can really begin to see our value. This is what the heart triad is about.

Now, when it comes to Jung's definition of the feeling function or MBTI feelers, the feeling function is more about logical evaluation. In fact, Jung himself calls the feeling function rational and people that have the feeling function as their dominant are rational types. 

This is because just like the thinking function, the feeling function is constantly categorizing and classifying the world based on the world of feelings. However, Jung himself was also frustrated with the word "feeling" being much too ambiguous and nebulous and I agree; calling it the "feeling" function creates a connotative meaning which was something Jung did not quite intend because Jung did not necessarily refer to feelings as being equivalent to emotional states. This is exactly why he claims the feeling function is a rational function. Instead, I prefer how socionics calls it "ethics". 

So there is a difference between occupying a certain emotional state and to evaluate the world based on how one feels about it. One does not need to feel any particular emotion in order to evaluate the world based on feelings. You can be in a good mood and in high spirits but yet think that it is wrong to kill kittens, for example. One reason why socionics calls the feeling function ethics over feelings is because morality or ethical thinking really demonstrates how the feeling function can be a highly rational and emotionally detached way of classifying the world and have very little to do with what current emotional state we are in.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

To be able to link the two you must go back to the source and link that.
In other words link Freud and Jung.
As someone who have read both, I can say that the link is the ego/unconcious 
and to integrate their different views on it.
That is a tall order and no one will ever truly agree on any integrative result.
I have made my own integration of them, but I'm hesitant to share the results too much.
*As I know the light of salvation can easily burn the heathen to a crisp!*
:exterminate:


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

charlie.elliot said:


> @Paradigm - won't argue too many specifics, except I'm surprised how many types you put type 5 on your list. The only MBTI types you allow type 5 to be are ISTJ, INTJ, ENTJ, INTP, and ISTP... Only Thinkers.
> 
> Ditto with type 4. The only type you allow type 4 to be are ISFJ, ISFP, ESFP, and all the NFs.
> 
> ...


Well, firstly, I did say *there's always outliers*, and I implied it *wasn't as well thought out* as I could have done.

But anyway, I think 4 is an "emotional" type (F) and 5 is a "non-emotional" type (T). A 4 withdraws into their emotions, a 5 withdraws into their thoughts. (No I'm not saying Fs can't think or Ts can't feel.) I think ExTJ is about the only "5ish" ExTx; I think an ExTP 5 would be really rare. Same with a Feeling 5. They're not impossible, just rare enough to question if something else might fit better. If everything else has been ruled out, go to the "unusual types." Same with anything else I listed.

I'm of the opinion that most people who type at 4/5 misunderstand what they really are, honestly. I'm not saying 4s are all artistic emo-goths, or that 5s are all recluses with bad social skills, just both types sound very relatable on paper to many folks, especially many folks who are drawn to the Enneagram. I don't believe things like "(insert types) are more interested," I believe people have the preconception that if you are interested in X you must be Y type.



charlie.elliot said:


> Type Six: no particular influence


Typically 6 is thought of to sound SJ-ish.


----------



## Brains (Jul 22, 2015)

charlie.elliot said:


> I think this is where we're misunderstanding each other. I don't think typology says anything "in no uncertain terms." It's not like if you say something is blue and not red then obviously you can't say its red and not blue. Someone could overall be a Thinking type, but that doesn't mean in strict terms that they always do this and never do this. All personality is shades of grey.


I am strictly talking about overarching tendencies and patterns, and those only. Every Thinker has a Feeling function and not every 2 acts out a blatant 2 neurosis every second of their lives. They are not absolutes.

The problem is both typologies themselves say "the major patterns of the personality are like these". If the two typologies are used to describe the same personality, those major patterns should match. The "not all the time" stuff is accounted for by:
1. These being general trends, so the person does not act according to them all the time
2. The typologies themselves contain influences: Lesser functions, wings, arrow lines, tritype, what have you.
3. The typologies miss parts of personality.
4. It's a categorization system. Some things won't fit 100%.

So I'm just saying "heavily emotional" and "emotion-denying cold systems thinker" cannot be the fundamental pattern for the same personality. This does not mean it cannot be a lesser one - a One's or Five's Heart Center wing, say, or a lesser Feeling function. But a Thinking Enneatype 2 does not compute.




charlie.elliot said:


> And when you move into classifying the personality in different ways, like I said before, the "Heart" category is simply not the same thing as "Feeling". I know I already said that, and I know I'm being vague, but I really don't know how to describe it any better. All of these things are really hard to describe in precise terms, which is why it's hard to really debate them with other people. But, the more you read about it and the more you study other people, you get this intuitive sense for what a "heart type" is or what "a head type" is and what "thinking" is and what "feeling" is, and insofar as I've come to understand, they are just not the same thing.


They are not, I know, I've been at this for years, and pretty obsessively so. Read my posts again and you will see that I don't think they are the same thing. That doesn't mean they are not similar. I treat Two and Four as not being likely to be Thinking types because:

1. They are universally described as highly sentimental
2. Thinking types repress sentimentality.

Three is a Heart type but I treat it differently because Threeness does not involve a high degree of emotionality, and thus can fit Jungian Thinking types quite fine.



charlie.elliot said:


> What a Two is doing when they act Two-ish is not the same thing a Feeler is doing what they act Feeling-ish. It may appear the same on the outside, but the motivation for it is very different.


Again, I know. I don't look at the labels. I don't give a fuck about the labels. I only care about what the types are like, and some typings contradict such that they plainly cannot describe the same person, even if he displays those traits in more minor capacities.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Well if someone was a type 2 and also a Thinker, on whatever parameter those two things contradicted each other, the individual's expressed personality would be somewhere in the middle between the two. That's how I see it.

And if you think about it, some people have very extreme personalities and some have relatively mild/ normal personalities. I think the extreme personalities are the ones were there are no contradictory features -- for example, a heavy F-type who was also type 2 - so the feeling element was VERY strong.
A less extreme, mild individual would be someone with a lot of contradictions/ canceling-out in their personalities, so they are more balanced.

A J-type type 1 would be extremely anal and organization-focused, but a P-type type 1 would be in the middle between organized and disorganized, very balanced.
A J-type type 9 would be in the middle (balanced), whereas a P-type type 9 would be _very_ disorganized. 
(I.e. going with the assumption that being type 9 and being a P-type would influence you to be disorganized, and being a J-type and type 1 would influence you to be organized and anal.)

So according to that, theoretically, you could have the craziest combo, i.e. you could have an INFP type 8..... and any spot of contradiction would result in an expressed personality somewhere in the middle. 
Do I really believe there are INFP type 8s? I would be very surprised to meet one... but according to what I'll call the "cancel out theory" (or something), it's theoretically possible. Or the "meet in the middle" theory. idk. 
It all has to do with MBTI types and Enneatypes being influences, not actual traits you are necessarily going to have.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

charlie.elliot said:


> Well if someone was a type 2 and also a Thinker, on whatever parameter those two things contradicted each other, the individual's expressed personality would be somewhere in the middle between the two. That's how I see it.
> 
> And if you think about it, some people have very extreme personalities and some have relatively mild/ normal personalities. I think the extreme personalities are the ones were there are no contradictory features -- for example, a heavy F-type who was also type 2 - so the feeling element was VERY strong.
> A less extreme, mild individual would be someone with a lot of contradictions/ canceling-out in their personalities, so they are more balanced.
> ...


Yeah, this also can explain why some people are easier to type than others. The more balanced examples may stand less out, therefore you need more time for observing which MBTI type and which Enneatype are likely for them. While a more caricature like example will be rather easy to type.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Mordred Phantom said:


> charlie.elliot said:
> 
> 
> > Well if someone was a type 2 and also a Thinker, on whatever parameter those two things contradicted each other, the individual's expressed personality would be somewhere in the middle between the two. That's how I see it.
> ...


Yeah definitely, and it's not like typing everyone is a linear process. Some people take some real figuring out, and I think it has to do with unusual enneatype and MB combos.

Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily saying theres no limit to this. I don't necessarily think that *every* possible combo is going to show up in real life. 
But who knows, in all the 8 billion people in the world, maybe there is some INFP type 8 or ESTJ type 4 out there.
Haha, that second one is way stranger actually.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

charlie.elliot said:


> Yeah definitely, and it's not like typing everyone is a linear process. Some people take some real figuring out, and I think it has to do with unusual enneatype and MB combos.
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily saying theres no limit to this. I don't necessarily think that *every* possible combo is going to show up in real life.
> But who knows, in all the 8 billion people in the world, maybe there is some INFP type 8 or ESTJ type 4 out there.
> Haha, that second one is way stranger actually.


I feel like we're basically in agreement but phrasing it completely differently. You phrased it much stronger and almost as if you thought it was common, rather than "rarely possible," at least from my point of view.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Descriptively, it's very likely that there are combinations of MBTI and Enneagram types that are either absent entirely, or extremely rare one off's. 

My personal hypothesis is that the entire script for MBTI type is static, and largely predetermined before birth, possibly randomly, and enneatype is predisposed before birth, but fully fleshed out and developed later once the child develops a fixated fear. MBTI type would create the spectrum of what types of input a very young child would be hard coded to use to process the world (are they fact-obsessed, or more affectionately-inclined etc). These foci then make it possible to develop a handful of different core fears, and passively bar the child from ever developing others which creates the prevalence of certain enneatypes over others. 

As a more practical example - child is born ESTJ. From an early age he is inclined to actively look for a lot of factual information, consistency, and so on. With this mindset he can become aware of error and feel a need for a 1-ish strategy, become aware of uncertainty within facts and become a 6, tie facts to results and his worth and become a 3, use facts and correcting unfair and wrong people to get back at them and dominate as an 8, and so on. But there wouldn't be much information come in to ever define himself by emotions and a deficient self image like 4's defend against. It's not that ESTJ and 4 can't exist, but by what channel would an ESTJ ever get the information needed to develop the belief that a 4 ego defense would protect him? 

I'd be interested to know if these one off type combinations had parents who were very strongly one or another type, or if there were extraordinary circumstances in childhood that led a certain enneatype to seem more protective than the usual ones. 


3, 6, and 9 are universal types and can truly go with every MBTI type. 

There are also some type influences that are less unlikely than they sound on paper. You wouldn't meet many INTJ or ENTJ type 2's, but there are a lot of INTJ and ENTJ 1's and 3's with 2 wings, and you still see clear influence of passion of pride with these people. There are ISFJ 9w8's, ESFP 9w1, and the like.


----------



## Shadow Tag (Jan 11, 2014)

I'll need more time to formulate responses to other points, but for now, some of the main things I want to address.

@charlie.elliot

RE: ESFJ 5 (for example) being behaviorally in the middle.

When Jung and Naranjo describe personality, they do so independently of each other, and each claim to have a fairly comprehensive view of personality. Jung would not describe and Fe-dom being "tempered" by this opposite force as an "in-the-middle" ESFJ. He would call that person a different type entirely because his system does not call for people being "in the middle," but being described under one criterion.

The same goes for Naranjo and other Enneagram authors. Being a 5 for example in Enneagram literature doesn't connotate somebody being "kind of" oversensitive to their space being invaded or "kind of" obsessed with hoarding knowledge as a reaction against fear. It envelops the person.

If it is claimed that somebody's psyche can hold these two trait clusters/mindsets in opposition, then one of them needs to be incorrect if the theory of either personality system is to hold true. It's like a Western. "This town ain't big enough for the two of us!" And, again, that's because neither system leaves THAT much room for opposite trends in mindset/behavior to co-exist in somebody long-term.

My lingering question is: where are you getting your theory from? Because, and sorry if this is dismissive, I believe what formal psychological research says about the human mind and behavior over what somebody on a forum is saying without appealing to some sort of research. I feel as though you're focusing on my list rather than the message. Fair enough, some type combinations may have been a bit too much to dismiss. But that doesn't mean that there are no restraints.

@Entropic

RE: Enneagram/functions not describing traits as much.

I see what you're saying, but the Enneagram was not founded on this, and neither were Jungian functions. Jung saw outward traits and mindset as complimentary. People don't hide their true cognitive processes and they are easily picked up by how people operate. And Naranjo didn't either. In addition to dedicating most of his words to what people were LIKE on the outside, he says this: 



> The view that I outline throughout the book’s chapters may just as well be called cognitive as psychodynamic, and is also one in which personality is viewed as a *system of traits*. *I think that we can only artificially separate traits from motives and from modes of seeing things*. (From the Foreword)


He goes on to say this as an endnote to the foreword:



> Though sometimes I emphasize the behavioral or the cognitive or the affective, an implicit point of view, to the effect
> that every behavioral trait is associated to a cognitive aspect and a motivational aspect, will pervade this book. (From the Foreword)


Now, I do know that Maitri and some others have a more disembodied view of the Enneagram, but my question is: why? To me, they seem to just take liberties without appealing to any observed phenomenon or any formal psychological research about personality. So, to be a bit hyperbolic, authors who do this bastardize the Enneagram and rip it from reality, watering down its usefulness. Under their view, ANYBODY can relate a bit to a type and be that type. So I truly fail to see the point of this. Naranjo's take on the Enneagram is so potent because it exposes us. Not only our hidden thoughts, but us and our traits. 

@Figure

RE: Functions as a lens through which fears manifest, creating Enneagram types.

This feels plausible to me, because the best guess at what the environment does for personality is that our genetic predispositions REACT to environmental stressors. And there are some genetic predispositions (ie. functions) that would NEVER react to stressors in the way that some Enneagram types would (ex. Ti reacting like Naranjo's 4; Fe reacting like Naranjo's 5). However, my disagreement has to do with the family life portion. Again, my view that I defended in my main write-up is that parental interactions determine how you interact with your parents, not how you view the rest of the world. So I do think that there is a lot of truth to what you're saying here, but it still seems to eager to cleanly cut nature and nurture between functions and Enneagram types.

Again, I'll get to other people's points later.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Ivy said:


> @charlie.elliot
> 
> RE: ESFJ 5 (for example) being behaviorally in the middle.
> 
> When Jung and Naranjo describe personality, they do so independently of each other, and each claim to have a fairly comprehensive view of personality. Jung would not describe and Fe-dom being "tempered" by this opposite force as an "in-the-middle" ESFJ. He would call that person a different type entirely because his system does not call for people being "in the middle," but being described under one criterion.


That's where I disagree with you. I think it's all a spectrum-- there is no "either/or" in the MBTI. In fact, I think there are *many* people that are so near the middle of the spectrum that it becomes almost meaningless to put them in one category or the other.
It seems as if with an "either-or" theory, you're (sort of) saying that all people of one type should be pretty much the same. I know you probably don't actually believe that and I may be pulling a red herring on you... But doesn't a "spectrum" theory address diversity among types much better than an "either-or" theory? Of course not all INFJs are the same... Because we are all at different points along the spectrum for each letter pair... Etc.





> The same goes for Naranjo and other Enneagram authors. Being a 5 for example in Enneagram literature doesn't connotate somebody being "kind of" oversensitive to their space being invaded or "kind of" obsessed with hoarding knowledge as a reaction against fear. It envelops the person.


In terms of the Enneagram, I sort of agree with you, because I think the system is somewhat "either-or" in the sense that you simply ARE one of the types. (Although don't forget that the whole Enneagram itself IS a spectrum-- with each type blending into the next-- which is why it makes sense to have wings).

However (and this is super important) even though you ARE a certain Enneatype, that doesn't mean that you absolutely must be the traits listed under the type. It only means *you are being influenced* to be the traits assigned that type. If you have enough other influences *in the opposite direction*, (for example, from a contradictory MB type) you will not end up actually expressing that trait.




> My lingering question is: where are you getting your theory from?


Lol, I'm wondering the exact same about you 



> Because, and sorry if this is dismissive, I believe what formal psychological research says about the human mind and behavior over what somebody on a forum is saying without appealing to some sort of research.


What research are you referring to?? We're both just random people on a forum, interpreting this theory we would. There's no formal scientific evidence of MBTI at all, and especially none that says for sure whether it's a spectrum or a dichotomy (unless I'm missing something?)



> I feel as though you're focusing on my list rather than the message.


I don't think so, I described my theoretical background on it various times.




> Fair enough, some type combinations may have been a bit too much to dismiss. But that doesn't mean that there are no restraints.


Yeah I agree, I mean there are some type combos that would surprise me very very much. I actually said a couple times... Obviously some type combos are way way more common than others. But the way I understand the theory, it's not *impossible* for highly unusual combos to exist. It makes sense if you think of the various typings as *influences* rather than destined expressed traits. Does that make sense? Is my point coming through?
And given that nature has a way of sometimes creating highly unlikely things (I.e some kids are randomly born with eyes and so on) I'm sure there those highly unlikely types exist *somewhere* amongst all people in the history of humanity....


----------

