# MBTI and Enneagram Correlation



## Highlander (Dec 20, 2009)

So I ran some numbers and stuff to see how Enneagram correlated with MBTI. I've written up the results here. 

I used information from both Typology Central and Personality Cafe, which is why I'm sharing it here. One of the things that struck me is that there are so fewer self identified 8s on Personality Cafe and so many more 6s.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

I don't know that many 8s in real life either (or at least if I do, I don't recognize them as such). I want to know more of them!
Nice chart!


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Nice work! Thank you very much for putting in the time.

I'm not too big on the Enneagram as a whole, but there's no question that which Enneagram type (or types) someone most relates to can be useful information in trying to figure out their MBTI type, and I'll be pondering some of the stronger correlations you found.

Here's some recycled reckful on INs and the Enneagram...

I'm far from an Enneagram expert, but my understanding is that Enneagram 5 is basically INT country and Enneagram 4 is basically INF country. If you picture Enneagram 4 and 5 positioned on a spectrum (with 4 on the left), I'd position the four IN types along that spectrum (from left to right) in INFP–INFJ–INTP–INTJ order, with INFP the most firmly in 4 territory, INFJ close to the 4/5 borderline, and INTJ more likely than INTP to have a 6 wing. (But I don't necessarily think a 5w4 INTP is more likely than a 5w6 INTP; just that a 5w6 INTP is probably less likely than a 5w6 INTJ.) My experience with type-me subjects at INTJforum has been that it's maybe as likely for an INFJ to be a 5w4 as a 4w5 — but that could be because a 5w4 INFJ is more likely to enjoy hanging with a bunch of INTJs than a 4w5 INFJ.​
... and your PerC stats are consistent with that spectrum ordering.


----------



## Dyslexicon (Mar 9, 2013)

First of all, awesome job collecting, analyzing and presenting this information! 

I'd like to bring forward two ideas in reading this information that at least I find important and useful to keep in mind. 

One is that people on both forums are inevitably going to mistype themselves, which may skew the results (at least from one perspective, you do get accurate information about what people type themselves as, but not necessarily the full picture of what types these people actually are). This correlation has been discussed before, and I mentioned then an idea of presenting a statistic over how many members who identifies as previously mistyped and what types they mistyped as. There is no shame in being mistyped, and for many (including myself) it is a natural part of discovering your actual type. Some types seem to be prone to mistyping (i.e Ne doms typing as introverts, and type 3, 6 and 9 typing as various other types), and some types seem to be easier to mistype as (imo 4s and 5s, and probably all the INXXs). The actual examples are just impressions that I have from my experience, but the point is that the data may have certain systematical leaning one way or the other. 

If I take myself as an example I would at one (long lasting) point count as an INTP 4w3 in this kind of data, and I'm neither of those types. Of course it is hard to say how many people are potentially mistyped, and it's rather complicated to get around that "problem". I think the data is both valid and interesting for what it is, but it is something to keep in mind. It also strikes me that some of the members on these sites are probably the same people (?).

More importantly though, it is my opinion that it is extremely helpful to keep in check what these two theories are supposed to account for. And those are very different things. The MBTI is about cognition, how people think. The Enneagram is about what motivates people on a deeper level. These are very different things as far as I'm concerned, and it is therefore not possible to take a correlation between types to mean something like "X MBTI type is very Y Enneagram type-like" as in "INFPs are so 4-like, and ISTJs are so 1-like". Just because the theories are trying to make sense of very different areas within a person. This is also why I personally believe any MBTI type can be any Enneagram type, although correlations, negative and positive, will of course happen - as we can see from these statistics and other statistics. 

This does however raise many interesting questions, for example, if the MBTI and the Enneagram is two so different theories, why is there a correlation? It makes me ponder how the respective realms of the psyche may influence or form each other, or one the other. 

In dealing with trying to find your type within any of the theories I would personally encourage getting the best possible understanding for the relevant theory, and not marry a trait that has to do with one theory to the other. If anything be aware of certain biases in the different descriptions of all of the types as it is virtually impossible to write a description without generalizing beyond the actual theory (and really, it would be a lot less fun without the generalizations ). 

My point is merely to share my perspective on how I think these statistics should be viewed, namely with a bit of caution and skepticism. This does not mean that I don't find the information valid and interesting, because I find it valid within realistic circumstances (ideally noone would be mistyped (actually that's not a real ideal of mine)) and it's definitely extremely interesting. I think it's a great source of information that can also act as a platform for discussion around how stereotypes, traits and misunderstandings can spill from one theory to another. I'd love to hear other people's perspective on this!^^

I know at least for me my own confusion about the possibilities and limits of the theories made it pretty difficult to figure out both of my respective types, possibly because I found the ENTP description a bit "id-heavy" (3, 7 and 8), and the type 9 a bit "NT-ignoring" if you will.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Dyslexicon said:


> More importantly though, it is my opinion that it is extremely helpful to keep in check what these two theories are supposed to account for. And those are very different things. The MBTI is about cognition, how people think. The Enneagram is about what motivates people on a deeper level. These are very different things as far as I'm concerned, and it is therefore not possible to take a correlation between types to mean something like "X MBTI type is very Y Enneagram type-like" as in "INFPs are so 4-like, and ISTJs are so 1-like". Just because the theories are trying to make sense of very different areas within a person.


I've never understood how anyone with any significant exposure to Jung, Myers, Keirsey or other well-known MBTI-related sources could say that the MBTI doesn't involve people's "motivations." Jung said each type had its own _Weltanschauung_ ("world view"), and Psychological Types is full of descriptions relating type to what people value most, their religious and philosophical beliefs, and countless other aspects of type that motivate their type-typical behaviors.

As one example, here's Jung describing extraverts and introverts:

[W]e shall come upon individuals who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions *feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force, or who at least give weight to them no matter whether causal or final motives are in question*. I will give some examples of what I mean. St. Augustine: "I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." ... *One man finds a piece of modern music beautiful because everybody else pretends it is beautiful. Another marries in order to please his parents but very much against his own interests. ... There are not a few who in everything they do or don't do have but one motive in mind: what will others think of them?* "One need not be ashamed of a thing if nobody knows about it."

[The previous examples] point to a psychological peculiarity that can be sharply distinguished from another attitude which, by contrast, is *motivated chiefly by internal or subjective factors*. A person of this type might say: "I know I could give my father the greatest pleasure if I did so and so, but I don't happen to think that way." ... *There are some who feel happy only when they are quite sure nobody knows about it, and to them a thing is disagreeable just because it is pleasing to everyone else. They seek the good where no one would think of finding it.* ... Such a person would have replied to St. Augustine: "I would believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did _not_ compel it." *Always he has to prove that everything he does rests on his own decisions and convictions*, and never because he is influenced by anyone, or desires to please or conciliate some person or opinion.​
Jung said the Se-dom "is the lover of tangible reality, with little inclination for reflection and no desire to dominate. *To feel the object, to have sensations and if possible enjoy them—that is his constant aim.*"

He said the Ne-dom "seeks to discover what possibilities the objective situation holds in store. ... It is *constantly seeking fresh outlets and new possibilities in external life*. In a very short time every existing situation becomes a prison for the intuitive, a chain that has to be broken. ... Facts are acknowledged only if they open new possibilities of advancing beyond them and delivering the individual from their power. *Nascent possibilities are compelling motives from which intuition cannot escape and to which all else must be sacrificed.*"

Describing the motivations behind an Fe-dom woman's choice of a husband, Jung explained that her "feelings harmonize with objective situations and general values. This is seen nowhere more clearly than in her love choice: the 'suitable' man is loved, and no one else; he is *suitable not because he appeals to her hidden subjective nature — about which she usually knows nothing — but because he comes up to all reasonable expectations in the matter of age, position, income, size and respectability of his family, etc.*"

He said the Te-dom "will, by definition, be a man whose constant endeavour ... is to make all his activities dependent on intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always oriented by objective data, whether these be external facts or generally accepted ideas. ... This type of man elevates objective reality, or an objectively oriented intellectual formula, into *the ruling principle not only for himself but for his whole environment*. ... Because this formula seems to embody the entire meaning of life, it is made into a universal law which must be put into effect everywhere all the time, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for their own good, everybody round him must obey it too, for whoever refuses to obey it is wrong. ... If the formula is broad enough, this type may play a very useful role in social life as a reformer or public prosecutor or purifier of conscience, or as the propagator of important innovations. But the more rigid the formula, the more he develops into a martinet, a quibbler, and a prig, who would like to force himself and others into one mould."

Similarly, there's no shortage of values and motivations in Myers' characterizations of the preferences and the types. As she explained in Gifts Differing, "Type research has shown that the types differ in their *interests, values, and needs*. They learn in different ways, *cherish different ambitions, and respond to different rewards*."

Keirsey explains: "Different people value different things, and it is in this, the domain of values, that the four types of personality stand apart most noticeably. The temperaments differ in their preferred mood, in what they put their trust in, in *what they yearn for, in what they seek, in what they prize, and in what they aspire to*. These contrasts in values are usually what people see first in others, when they begin to recognize the four temperament patterns."

Keirsey says INTJs "base their self-image on being ingenious, autonomous, and resolute. They would if possible be calm, they trust reason, are hungry for achievement, seek knowledge, prize deference, and aspire to be wizards of science and technology." And those two sentences are pulled from his summary introduction. Keirsey goes on to discuss each of those aspects of an INTJ's personality in greater detail, and he has similar discussions of what each of the other 15 types "yearn for," "seek," "prize" and "aspire to."

And the more well-known function-centric MBTI theorists — like Thomson, Berens and Nardi — hardly neglect motivations either. Berens and Nardi explain that, for INTJs, "life is a process of maximizing achievement — not just accomplishments — but achievements that reflect penetrating thought and insightful integration of all they've learned. And they can never learn enough. A constant drive for self-mastery is what keeps them focused on achievement, whether masterminding a project or venture or developing their social or physical skills. They enjoy mastering anything that attracts them — the more challenging, the better."

I'm no Enneagram expert, but my understanding is that the Enneagram associates each of its nine primary types with a single core "motivation" in a more simple/schematic way than the MBTI, and also that there's quite a lot of difference between what the Enneagram has to say about various types — from their motivations to other aspects of their personality — and what someone might be inclined to see as the corresponding MBTI types. But the fact that the Enneagram may have different things to say about the nature of anyone's motivations hardly means that "motivations" are an area of personality that the MBTI doesn't have a lot to say about.


----------



## Highlander (Dec 20, 2009)

Dyslexicon said:


> One is that people on both forums are inevitably going to mistype themselves, which may skew the results (at least from one perspective, you do get accurate information about what people type themselves as, but not necessarily the full picture of what types these people actually are). This correlation has been discussed before, and I mentioned then an idea of presenting a statistic over how many members who identifies as previously mistyped and what types they mistyped as. There is no shame in being mistyped, and for many (including myself) it is a natural part of discovering your actual type. Some types seem to be prone to mistyping (i.e Ne doms typing as introverts, and type 3, 6 and 9 typing as various other types), and some types seem to be easier to mistype as (imo 4s and 5s, and probably all the INXXs). The actual examples are just impressions that I have from my experience, *but the point is that the data may have certain systematical leaning one way or the other. *


My initial thinking was that the mistypes would equal out but I actually think your bolded comment is probably correct. As an example, if you look at the number of 6s vs 8s and the differences between the two forums, it is clear that there is some kind of systematical thing going on. There are almost half as many people who self identify as 8s on Personality Cafe as do on Typology Central. It is 4x as common to be an INTJ 6 here as it is on TypoC (20% vs 5%). 

I think you have to take it all with a grain of salt but there are some things that just leap out at you when you look at the data. 



Dyslexicon said:


> More importantly though, it is my opinion that it is extremely helpful to keep in check what these two theories are supposed to account for. And those are very different things. The MBTI is about cognition, how people think. The Enneagram is about what motivates people on a deeper level. These are very different things as far as I'm concerned, and it is therefore not possible to take a correlation between types to mean something like "X MBTI type is very Y Enneagram type-like" as in "INFPs are so 4-like, and ISTJs are so 1-like". Just because the theories are trying to make sense of very different areas within a person. This is also why I personally believe any MBTI type can be any Enneagram type, although correlations, negative and positive, will of course happen - as we can see from these statistics and other statistics.
> 
> This does however raise many interesting questions, for example, if the MBTI and the Enneagram is two so different theories, why is there a correlation? It makes me ponder how the respective realms of the psyche may influence or form each other, or one the other.


Exactly. I started working on this and kept finding things and was like "wow", so I kept working on it and doing different graphs and stuff.

One of the things is that I believe there are a lot of really poor Enneagram tests out there so that doesn't help.


----------



## Dyslexicon (Mar 9, 2013)

reckful said:


> I've never understood how anyone with any significant exposure to Jung, Myers, Keirsey or other well-known MBTI-related sources could say that the MBTI doesn't involve people's "motivations." Jung said each type had its own _Weltanschauung_ ("world view"), and Psychological Types is full of descriptions relating type to what people value most, their religious and philosophical beliefs, and countless other aspects of type that motivate their type-typical behaviors.
> 
> As one example, here's Jung describing extraverts and introverts:[W]e shall come upon individuals who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions *feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force, or who at least give weight to them no matter whether causal or final motives are in question*. I will give some examples of what I mean. St. Augustine: "I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." ... *One man finds a piece of modern music beautiful because everybody else pretends it is beautiful. Another marries in order to please his parents but very much against his own interests. ... There are not a few who in everything they do or don't do have but one motive in mind: what will others think of them?* "One need not be ashamed of a thing if nobody knows about it."
> 
> ...


I'm not as well versed in the various and vast readings of the different branches of Jung's work (and not even his own work) as I would want to be. Thanks for pointing out the "motivation issue" and providing quotes.

My point still remains that the theories are accounting for different things. "Motivation" is a pretty spacious term, especially in this context imo. Regardless of that, a core issue would be what the theories are based off of. In my view (limited, of course, especially when it comes to the MBTI variants), Jung's theories starts with the cognitive functions, ways of thinking that one attributes certain motivations to (among other things). Would you agree to this, or do you have a different perspective on it? 

In the case of the enneagram it is the core belief about the world that is the starting point that mushrooms into a character if you will, which I see as different from the structure MBTI has. So the "motivation" you get comes from different sources. 



Highlander said:


> My initial thinking was that the mistypes would equal out but I actually think your bolded comment is probably correct. As an example, if you look at the number of 6s vs 8s and the differences between the two forums, it is clear that there is some kind of systematical thing going on. There are almost half as many people who self identify as 8s on Personality Cafe as do on Typology Central. It is 4x as common to be an INTJ 6 here as it is on TypoC (20% vs 5%).
> 
> I think you have to take it all with a grain of salt but there are some things that just leap out at you when you look at the data.


Yes, I agree. As mentioned I think overtyping in INXX types and 4s and 5s would be likely to occur. And as you mentioned types that can be hard to differentiate, like 6 and 8. 



> Exactly. I started working on this and kept finding things and was like "wow", so I kept working on it and doing different graphs and stuff.
> 
> One of the things is that I believe there are a lot of really poor Enneagram tests out there so that doesn't help.


Yeah, a lot of the correlation I read from it strikes me as things that makes sense to me intuitively. I.e how Fe dom types strongly correlates to the Type 2. What makes it such a topic for me is that I personally have two types that aren't necessarily intuitively linked together, but I can still strongly recognize myself as very much both of these types. This makes me again wonder about the possibility of a certain "spill over-effect" when people type themselves. My main point is really to encourage people to understand enough of the respective theory to type themselves. The "danger" of i.e identify with certain Fe traits that looks Type 2-ish on the surface, but isn't necessarily a result of the core issue of a Type 2, but simply traits of Fe is pretty real to me. From a theoretical standpoint, and at the very least from my own experiences with mistyping myself.

Edit: About the poor Enneagram tests. Yes, this is a problem, but also for the MBTI, I think. I.e I will almost always test as an introvert on an MBTI test unless I consciously make myself answer to "hit my type" as it were. And the Enneagram can get into people's blindspot pretty hard, so it may require a certain level of maturity to answer truthfully on some of the questions. Personally I like taking tests as mere indicators and delving into the theory more to actually decide upen type.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Dyslexicon said:


> In my view (limited, of course, especially when it comes to the MBTI variants), Jung's theories starts with the cognitive functions, ways of thinking that one attributes certain motivations to (among other things). Would you agree to this, or do you have a different perspective on it?
> 
> In the case of the enneagram it is the core belief about the world that is the starting point that mushrooms into a character if you will, which I see as different from the structure MBTI has. So the "motivation" you get comes from different sources.


Here's some (mildly tweaked) recycled reckful from an October post:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Jung's descriptions are full of contrasting behaviors that he believed were typical of the various types, and this post includes a collection of passages in which Jung associates extraversion and introversion with lots of behaviors.

And you know what else? In one very significant sense, Jung thought that _behavioral results_ was really what type was about. Jung believed that extraversion and introversion were products of _evolution_, and had evolved as two opposing psychological orientations for the purpose of producing two different types of people who pursued two opposing _survival strategies_ — i.e., two different _sets of behaviors_.

Here's part of what Jung said:

There are in nature two fundamentally different modes of adaptation which ensure the continued existence of the living organism. The one consists of a high rate of fertility, with low powers of defense and short duration of life for the single individual; the other consists in equipping the individual with numerous means of self-preservation plus a low fertility rate. This biological difference, it seems to me, is not merely analogous to, but the actual foundation of, our two psychological modes of adaptation. ... [T]he peculiar nature of the extravert constantly urges him to expend and propagate himself in every way, while the tendency of the introvert is to defend himself against all demands from outside, to conserve his energy by withdrawing it from objects, thereby consolidating his own position. Blake's intuition did not err when he described the two classes of men as "prolific" and "devouring."​
Evolution results from _actual reproductive success_ — and that's a product of how the organism _behaves_. So as Jung saw it, introversion didn't evolve because Mother Nature wanted a substantial chunk of the human race to _think a certain way_. Introversion evolved because Mother Nature wanted a substantial chunk of the human race to _act a certain way_ — and accordingly hardwired introverts with "a hesitant, reflective, retiring nature that keeps itself to itself, shrinks from objects, is always slightly on the defensive and prefers to hide behind mistrustful scrutiny"; while hardwiring extraverts with "an outgoing, candid, and accommodating nature that adapts easily to a given situation, quickly forms attachments, and ... will often venture forth with careless confidence into unknown situations."

As I said in my last post: at the end of the day, Jung's original typology and the MBTI (in both its dichotomy-centric and function-centric forms) both deal, at their core, with _internal_ temperament dimensions and the various ways they end up being typically manifested _both_ internally (by way of values, motivations, thinking processes, attitudes, emotional responses, etc.) and externally (through speech and behavior) — and in any case, and regardless of what Jung or Myers may have said, given what we know today about the typical impacts of the four MBTI dimensions, it's definitely a mistake to have an overly limited take on the MBTI that says your type is basically just about "information processing" or similarly dry "cognitive functional" stuff.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

@reckful



Jung said:


> There are in nature two fundamentally different modes of adaptation which ensure the continued existence of the living organism. The one consists of a high rate of fertility, with low powers of defense and short duration of life for the single individual; the other consists in equipping the individual with numerous means of self-preservation plus a low fertility rate. This biological difference, it seems to me, is not merely analogous to, but the actual foundation of, our two psychological modes of adaptation. ... [T]he peculiar nature of the extravert constantly urges him to expend and propagate himself in every way, while the tendency of the introvert is to defend himself against all demands from outside, to conserve his energy by withdrawing it from objects, thereby consolidating his own position. Blake's intuition did not err when he described the two classes of men as "prolific" and "devouring."


It seems to me that what Jung is describing there corresponds to what the Enneagram would call the self-preservation and sexual instincts. It's interesting that he doesn't have a category for the social instinct, but I've come to think that, while sp vs. sx makes sense as a dichotomy (though I think it's unlikely to be independent of type, or to interact with type in the ways any Enneagram authors suggest) the social instinct is a different kind of thing altogether and, to the extent that it even makes sense as a dimension of personality, it is separate from the aforementioned sp vs. sx dichotomy.

Anyway, do you know of any resources discussing correlations between MBTI and Enneagram instincts/subtypes? Given what you've said about MBTI correlations with types 4 and 5, I'd be very interested to know what you think, from an MBTI perspective, of these subtype descriptions by Beatrice Chestnut for type 4 and type 5. I'd be interested in any thoughts you have about the subtypes for the other types, or the instincts more generally (regarding possible correlations/similarities with MBTI) but I get the impression you're interested in 4s and 5s in particular.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> It seems to me that what Jung is describing there corresponds to what the Enneagram would call the self-preservation and sexual instincts. It's interesting that he doesn't have a category for the social instinct, but I've come to think that, while sp vs. sx makes sense as a dichotomy (though I think it's unlikely to be independent of type, or to interact with type in the ways any Enneagram authors suggest) the social instinct is a different kind of thing altogether and, to the extent that it even makes sense as a dimension of personality, it is separate from the aforementioned sp vs. sx dichotomy.
> 
> Anyway, do you know of any resources discussing correlations between MBTI and Enneagram instincts/subtypes? Given what you've said about MBTI correlations with types 4 and 5, I'd be very interested to know what you think, from an MBTI perspective, of these subtype descriptions by Beatrice Chestnut for type 4 and type 5. I'd be interested in any thoughts you have about the subtypes for the other types, or the instincts more generally (regarding possible correlations/similarities with MBTI) but I get the impression you're interested in 4s and 5s in particular.


I've read Riso's Personality Types, in addition to looking at various internet sites from time to time, but I definitely wouldn't say I've studied the Enneagram in much depth. I'd say I have a half-decent understanding of typical Enneagram characterizations of 4s and 5s and how they tend to relate to the four IN types (as described in this post), but I'm less familiar with the other seven types, and also haven't spent much time reading about the instinctual subtypes.

So on the one hand, no, I don't know of any resources discussing correlations between MBTI and Enneagram instincts/subtypes, but you shouldn't take that to mean they aren't out there.

I agree with you that the way the self-preservation and sexual instincts are typically described (in my limited experience) leads me to expect that there'd be significant correlations between introversion and self-preservation, on the one hand, and extraversion and the "sexual instinct," on the other hand.

Just doing a quick skim of those Chestnut descriptions you linked to and trying to do a "best fit" match to an MBTI type for each (and calm vs. limbic, in terms of Big Five neuroticism, in some cases), I came out INFJ (maybe more limbic INFJ) for the 4sp; limbic INFP for the 4so; eNFJ for the 4sx; calm INTJ for the 5sp; calm INFJ for the 5so; and damned-if-I-know for the 5sx.

That 5sx description, in particular, sounded to me like it might be more of a fictional character concocted to match the typology's expectations than a kind of person you'd be likely to find in any significant numbers in the real world. And that's somewhat consistent with the idea that 5's tend to be introverts, while sx's should be more likely (as you and I seem to agree) to be extraverts. (And the same is true, to a milder degree, of 4's, so I had a milder-but-somewhat-similar reaction to the 4sx description before saying, well, if I was _forced to choose_ a best-fit MBTI type, maybe a mild-E ENFJ.)

Also, for what it's worth, I consider all four of my INTJ preferences to be fairly strong, and also consider myself above-average (but maybe just mildly above-average) on Big Five neuroticism, and I tend to come out 5sp (also 5w6) on typical Enneagram tests. In terms of Chestnut's descriptions, I'd choose 5sp as the best fit, except that I also strongly relate to the hunger-for-knowledge stuff that she puts in the 5so category (while tying it, at the same time, to wanting to _relate to like-minded people_) and pretty much leaves out of her 5sp description. (Yet another Enneagram-as-messy-mix example, perhaps.)

Them's my quick thoughts, but again, the main point is maybe that I'm not really much of an Enneagram guy, and part of the reason for that is that I think the four MBTI dichotomies are tapping into four psychometrically valid and substantially genetic dimensions of personality, whereas I think the Enneagram type categories — while they may end up having insightful things to say about any particular person who feels they relate (or partly relate) to any particular E-type — tend to be more of a messy mix of attributes that often cross-cut the real, underlying components that contribute to the aspects of personality being described.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

reckful said:


> I've read Riso's Personality Types, in addition to looking at various internet sites from time to time, but I definitely wouldn't say I've studied the Enneagram in much depth. I'd say I have a half-decent understanding of typical Enneagram characterizations of 4s and 5s and how they tend to relate to the four IN types (as described in this post), but I'm less familiar with the other seven types, and also haven't spent much time reading about the instinctual subtypes.
> 
> So on the one hand, no, I don't know of any resources discussing correlations between MBTI and Enneagram instincts/subtypes, but you shouldn't take that to mean they aren't out there.
> 
> ...


Out of Chestnut's 27 subtype descriptions, her sx 5 is by no means the worst offender in terms of not seeming like a real person. In fact, I think all of her descriptions have an oddly stilted/scripted/artificial quality, even the quotes from the exemplars of each subtype. I'm not sure how much of that is the content (the subtypes possibly not reflecting what real people are like) and how much is writing style. As far as I know, Chestnut's book is the most definitive source on the subtypes; other books have, at most, a paragraph on each, so a fair comparison with other sources isn't really possible. I don't think she manages to vividly bring the types to life on the page as some authors do; the descriptions in Personality Types, for example, seem to me much more like descriptions of real people.

That sx 5 description might fit some limbic introverts, maybe especially INFs, who are emotionally inexpressive outwardly but quite sensitive and romantic on the inside. The so 5 does have some things that struck me as NF-ish, so I can understand why you're suggesting INFJ. The sp 5 is definitely I and T, but I'm not sure if there's anything there that particularly suggests an N preference, except perhaps that an N preference might reinforce the introversion. I'd agree with INFP as the best fit for so 4. I can understand why you're suggesting limbic INFJ for the sp 4, though it doesn't really fit the older title for the type, "reckless/dauntless". Out of all the 4 and 5 subtypes, the sx 4 is the one that puzzled me the most when trying to figure out the most likely MBTI correlation. I'd thought maybe ENTJ, because of the competitiveness and the comparisons with 3s and 8s, but I guess the kind of anger being described has a more personal quality and so an F preference might be more fitting. It's a very poor description of a typical ENFJ, but I don't think it's a good description of a typical member of any MBTI type. I agree with you about the contradiction between type 5 and sx. Type 4 isn't contrary to the sx instinct to the same extent that type 5 is; both 4 and sx are dramatic, emotional and intense, and place an emphasis on relationships, but there's still the same introversion/extraversion problem.

Probably the only conclusion that can be drawn from all my rambling is that the subtypes are a mess. It also doesn't help that the MBTI works on dichotomies whereas everything in the enneagram comes in threes (what's the word for a dichotomy of three things? a trichotomy?) and that makes it harder to figure out how they fit together.


----------



## Brains (Jul 22, 2015)

Upvoting a reckful post feels hard. That said, that sea of motivation quotes deserved one. It cast a wide net and brought in a good haul.


Correlations-wise, I think 5 gets sold as an INTJ type way, way too much. It's a trivial superifical typing, sure, especially insofar that many people who fancy themselves INTJ fancy themselves to be impartial and logical and whatnot. But I don't think it's the real thing much.

Consider David Daniels' keywords for the centers of intelligence, for example:

*Thinking Center Key Words:* _Security_, Safety, Certainty, Assurance, Predictability, and Opportunity.

At least for me, they don't do much. Certainty and opportunity, maybe a bit. But overall it's a resounding "meh".
They don't seem like very Ni-Te-Fi-Se things, to me in general either.

*Heart Center Key Words:* _Love_, Connection, Affection, Bonding, Image, and Approval

Connection, Affection, Love, Bonding? Don't really fit the typical NTJ image from the greats and theory. Personally, it's getting there, but something's a smidge wro-

*Body Center Key Words:* _Worth_, Congruence, Protection, Comfort, Harmony, and Belonging

Oh my fucking god fireworks. Worth. Yess. Congruence and belonging absolutely nail those tingles from earlier. The part somewhere in the back of my head that's intrigued by the spiritual is after congruence and harmony with the world, a sense of belonging in it.

More interesting than little old me, though, is the words _Worth_ and _Congruence_, especially as they contrast to the words describing Thinking Center mentality. Now, look at many typical INTJ exemplars. How many of them are after some kind of security or safety? I'd say surprisingly few. You see the kind of "thought we can rely on" type pattern a lot more with the NTPs. Very 5w6 stuff. But not very NTJ. Just look at the CT.com page. A quest of worth, a desire for congruence all over the place, a bias for action.

I'd campaign for 1w9 as the default INTJ type over the current 5.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

The E8 descriptions are terrible without tritype taken into account.


----------

