# Enneagram and MBTI type correlation - do you fit?



## suicidal_orange (May 6, 2010)

Acording to "The theory of the Enneagram" (a book by Don Riso and Russ Hudson) the eight Jungian types correspond with Enneagram types and I am wondering how well this holds up with the members here. The suggested matches are:

Te - 1
Fe - 2
Ni - 4
Ti - 5
Fi - 6
Se - 7
Ne - 8
Si - 9

So does your primary or secondary function match or are you a 3 (yes, you're automatically special :laughing or do you not fit these correlations at all?


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

I'm a 9w8. So it goes without saying that I don't fit Riso and Hudson's correlations, haha. From what I've observed, there's no exact correlation between the two systems, so I question Riso and Hudson's supposition. Is there any explanation in their book on how they came to that conclusion?


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

They are two completely different systems.They were never meant to be compared i think.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

I think the correlations should come at an individual basis. Personally, I can see how 9 correlates to my ISTP. However, complications ensue when one tries to streamline and generalize the process, because we're all individuals, and we're not going to fit in the box; i.e. all 9s are Fs, etc.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

madhatter said:


> I'm a 9w8. So it goes without saying that I don't fit Riso and Hudson's correlations, haha. From what I've observed, there's no exact correlation between the two systems, so I question Riso and Hudson's supposition. Is there any explanation in their book on how they came to that conclusion?


I am 9w8 as well. Jung's cognitive functions are too specific for the enneagram. At best they may match somewhat with MBTI. My understanding from R&H, the correlations are:

1 = XXXJ
2 = EXFX
3 = EXXJ
4 = IXFX
5 = IXTX 
6 = EVERY TYPE
7 = EXXP
8 = EXTX
9 = IXXP


----------



## suicidal_orange (May 6, 2010)

madhatter said:


> I'm a 9w8. So it goes without saying that I don't fit Riso and Hudson's correlations, haha. From what I've observed, there's no exact correlation between the two systems, so I question Riso and Hudson's supposition. Is there any explanation in their book on how they came to that conclusion?


There is a Jungian function quote in each type's description which appears to fit nicely, but in the part at the end the explanation is simply 

"As you can see, the problem with correlating the eight Jungian types to the nine types of the Enneagram is that the Enneagram has one more personality type than the Jungian typology. so a one-to-one equivalence might not exist between the two systems. However, a careful reading of Jung's descriptions indicates that these two systems broadly correspond, some elements very closely, some only in part 

If you consult Jung's_ Psychological Types_, you will see how his eight types correspond to the Enneagram types, except for the Three."

Plus a bit about Jung's descriptions not all being full developed and this rather elitist sounding nugget "It is something of a paradoxical truism to say that once you understand what Jung means, you know what he means. You have to get 'inside' each of his descriptions to know what he is talking about. Here again the Enneagram can help"

Immediately followed by

"From the point of view of the Enneagram, we can see that Jung usually describes some of the traits of the average person of each psychological type, freely ranging around what we consider to be the levels of development. He intuitively shifts to the direction of disintigration at the end of each of his descriptions when he mentions neurotic and psychotic developments"

I can't read Jung (too many big words and too impersonal - I get bored :laughing to verify these claims.




Surreal Snake said:


> They are two completely different systems.They were never meant to be compared i think.


That's what I thought as well - something along the lines of Jung being about brain functioning and Enneagram about behaviour. But these guys say differently and they have seen more people than me so I don't feel confident arguing - hence seeking more data!



Functianalyst said:


> I am 9w8 as well. Jung's cognitive functions are too specific for the enneagram. At best they may match somewhat with MBTI.


MBTI functions aren't just dumbed down Jungian ones? Great... that ruins everything :crazy:



Functianalyst said:


> My understanding from R&H, the correlations are:
> 
> 1 = XXTJ
> 2 = EXFJ
> ...


Interesting - that means that as an ISFJ I have to be a 6?


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

asmit127 said:


> Interesting - that means that as an ISFJ I have to be a 6?


Sorry, I went to look at the source and modified them accordingly, and although they were on the Enneagram Institute, they came from Renee Baron and Elizabeth Wagele.  But interesting statement here, which you would apply to R&H's theory as well, don't you think? Based on what you say:

Te - 1 = ETJs 
Fe - 2 = EFJs
Ni - 4 = INJs
Ti - 5 = ITPs
Fi - 6 = IFPs
Se - 7 = ESPs
Ne - 8 = ENPs
Si - 9 = ISJs

If one claims that for example 1/Te relates to anyone using Te at the dominant, auxiliary or lesser, then it's claiming ennegram is not getting the full essence of the person's type since ITJs have a dominant function not being taken into consideration. That applies for all the other types that may use the cognitive functions at a lower level than dominant.

In your example ISTP can only be E5s since they dominate with Ti. If you indicate they could be E7s also because they use Se at a lesser level, then you're focusing on a lesser function. This again is why cognitive functions cannot be used in enneagram and can only be correlated to dichotomies from MBTI.


----------



## reletative (Dec 17, 2010)

I am not sure if I"m a 5 or a 9. I relate to about 60/40 : 5/9. I suppose it's up to my psychiatrist which mental issues are effecting what. =P


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Khys said:


> I am not sure if I"m a 5 or a 9. I relate to about 60/40 : 5/9. I suppose it's up to my psychiatrist which mental issues are effecting what. =P


 A detailed comparison and contrast between Fives and Nines is warranted because so many Nines mistakenly think that they are Fives; typically, the misidentification almost never happens the other way around. Particularly if they are well educated and intelligent, average male Nines tend to think that they are Fives. (As noted in the discussion of Twos, average female Nines tend to think that they are Twos.)

Of all the personality types, Nines have the most difficulty identifying which type they are because their sense of self is undefined. Average Nines have little sense of who they are apart from those they have identified with; hence, they are usually at a loss to know where to begin to find their type. (As we have seen, either they think they are Fives or Twos or they see a little of themselves in all the types and make no further effort at identifying themselves. If they have no guidance, Nines in this predicament usually shrug their shoulders and give up on the Enneagram and more important, on acquiring self-knowledge.)

Even relatively healthy Nines still have a somewhat diffused sense of self because it is based on their capacity to be receptive to others—and to be unself-conscious. Moreover, average Nines have problems identifying their type because doing so arouses anxiety, something completely anathema to them. Whatever disturbs their peace of mind is ignored or met with a blind eye. They avoid introspection in favor of entertaining comforting notions about themselves, whatever they may be. Maintaining an undefined understanding of themselves, and thus, maintaining their emotional comfort, is more important to average Nines than acquiring deeper insights.

None of this is true of Fives, and the two types are opposites in many ways. Nines are gentle, easygoing, patient, receptive, and accommodating, whereas Fives are intense, strong-minded, argumentative, contentious, and highly resistant to the influence of others. Nines like people and trust them; perhaps at times they are too trusting. By contrast, average Fives are suspicious of people and are anything but trusting, perhaps at times too cynical and resistant. Both types are among the three withdrawn types of the Enneagram, and (as we have seen with Fours and Nines), there are genuine similarities between them, although only superficial ones (PT, 433-36).

Despite their similarities, the main point of confusion for Nines arises around the notion of "thinking." Nines think they are Fives because they think they have profound ideas: therefore, they must be Fives.

Part of the problem stems from the fact that individuals of both types can be highly intelligent, although as a group Fives are probably the most intelligent of the nine personality types. (When Nines are highly intelligent, they can be as brilliant as Fives, although their intellectual prowess is compartmentalized. They are brilliant at work but unfocused and inattentive everywhere else, whereas Fives are focused and attentive everywhere all the time.) Although intelligence can be manifested in different ways, being intelligent does not make Nines intellectuals, just as thinking does not make them thinkers. As we have seen, the pattern as a whole (and the motivations) must be taken into consideration, not one or two traits in isolation. Since all the types think in one way or another, thinking alone, with no further distinction, is not a sufficient basis for a personality diagnosis.

The fundamental difference between the thinking of Nines and that of Fives is that Nines are impressionistic, involved with generalities, imaginative ruminations, and fanciful situations. Nines typically do not concern themselves with details, nor are they usually good at following up once they have acted. By contrast, the thinking of Fives is highly focused, penetrating, and almost microscopic in the narrowness of its frame of reference. Fives love details, losing themselves in research, scholarship, and complex intellectual pursuits. They think in depth, concentrating so much that they block out other perceptions (eventually to their detriment). By contrast, even brilliant Nines tend to have problems concentrating; they also tend to lose interest quickly and to allow their attention to drift off when they become bored or anxious.

Nines tend to spin grand, sweeping, idealistic solutions to problems, while Fives tend to speculate on problems, then on the problems that their problems have raised, then on those problems, ad infinitum. Nines may be gifted storytellers, able to communicate simply and effectively to others, even to children. Fives usually communicate to only a few or keep their ideas entirely to themselves. (Moreover, their ideas may be so complicated that they are difficult to communicate to all but other specialists.) Nines usually do not consider the consequences of their actions; Fives are extremely interested in predicting the consequences of every action. Nines idealize the world and create imaginary worlds in which good always triumphs over evil; Fives analyze the real world and create horrifying scenarios in which evil usually triumphs over good or exists in tension with it. Nines simplify; Fives complexify. Nines look to the past; Fives to the future. Nines are fantasists; Fives are theorists. Nines are disengaged; Fives are detached. Nines are utopians; Fives are nihilists. Nines are optimists; Fives are pessimists. Nines are open; Fives are resistant. Nines are non-threatening and nonjudgmental; Fives are defensive and contentious. Nines are at peace; Fives are in tension. Nines end in dissociation; Fives in paranoia.

Comparisons and contrasts such as these could be multiplied almost indefinitely because, while these two types are such opposites, they are also paradoxically similar. What they have in common is the tendency to ask "What if?" questions. The difference is in their response: Nines tend to ruminate on their fantasies, while Fives attempt to see if their ideas could come true. The Nine's ideas usually involve a single insight that, while true enough, is often impractical and goes nowhere. For instance, a Nine may think that the way to world peace is "for everyone to love one another." While this is doubtlessly true, the problem not addressed is how to get everyone to love one another. A Five wondering about the same problem would write a treatise on world peace after doing exhaustive historical research, eventually erecting a grand theory of peace. (The Five's ideas may also come to nothing, but at least they are pursued, and practical results may eventually come of them.) To give another example, a Nine might wonder what it is like to fly and make up a story about it. A Five might wonder how to fly and invent an airplane or do research on birds or design a rocket.

In short, Nines have an active fantasy life and think that they have deep thoughts. Sometimes they do, of course, although the thinking of intelligent, well-educated Nines tends to be in the direction of simplifying reality and cutting through abstruse thickets to get at the kernel of truth beneath. Nines tend to see things the way they want them to be; they reinterpret reality to make it more comforting and less threatening, simpler and less daunting. By contrast, the thinking of Fives is complex. By attempting to arrive at a grand unifying theory that encompasses and explains everything, average Fives end up involved in increasing complications and abstractions. Their thought is focused on specifics, often highly technical and concerned with foresight and the consequences of acting one way rather than another. But at an extreme, Fives risk seeing reality not as it is but as a projection of their preoccupations and fears. They distort their perceptions of reality so that reality seems more negative and threatening than it actually is.

Nines feel at ease in the world, and their style of thinking reflects their unconscious desire to merge with the world. Fives are afraid of being overwhelmed by the world, and their intellectual efforts are an unconscious defense against the world, an attempt to master it intellectually. There is a world of difference between these two types since they see the world so differently. Compare Charles Darwin (a Five) and Walt Disney (a Nine), Albert Einstein (a Five) and Jim Henson (a Nine) to understand the similarities and differences between these two types more clearly.


----------



## reletative (Dec 17, 2010)

Good reading, @Functianalyst. I had always identified as a 5 and never considered a 9, until someone on PerC suggested it. 

I suppose my leanings towards 5 has always been due to my complete detachment from other people and my strong anxiety and total lack of "inner peace" that are supposed to comprise 9s. I have obsessive compulsive disorder and in the past dealt with trying to withdraw completely from the world in order to pursue my interests in minute depth alone. I don't trust others at all and I have only one or two close friends. I generally don't get attached to people and tend to forget they exist in my pursuit of interests/knowledge. but again much of the motivation of the 9 will resonate with me until it gets to any thing regarding the 9s interactions and involvements with people. Also I am quite intelligent and I lack most typically "female" qualities. As I joked earlier about needing a psychiatrist to sort it out, Perhaps my neurosis and trust issues are what make the 9 seem so unlike me. I'm happiest and at my best when alone.


----------

