[Traditional Enneagram] BlackCat's MBTI and Enneatype correlation chart

[BlackCat]

Is that your evil 8 wing rearing its head?

Yes indeed.

Naranjo's descriptions are pretty extreme in a way, but in a way believable because he describes the NEUROSIS of the types, and you have to think in a more positive way if you want to see a more healthy type for every description. This I think applies to 8 pretty well, 8s aren't necessarily evil, they may just overcompensate when they're unhealthy to avoid being controlled, and numb out feelings, etc. You just have to think of them more positively if you want to imagine a more healthy type. A healthy 8 WOULDN'T feel controlled like an unhealthy 8 would in some circumstances. There are just things to consider. If I state how someone describes a type, that isn't my opinion, that's Naranjo's. What you do with that information is your own. I don't take it as god's word, I elaborate on them in my mind to imagine how they could be otherwise; it would be ridiculous to think of his descriptions in a 2D way because they are the NEUROSIS' of the types.

 

[violet_crown]

No ENTJ 9s? How about [MENTION=7254]Wind-Up Rex[/MENTION] (or is she 8w9)?

Thanks for a great summarization and for the color redo/observations!

As for the questions-

IFP 3s- I've been very confused by a few, select IFPs who have seemed 3 to me. The way that 3 would have manifested in them would be totally unconscious, since they are Fi dom they would legitimately think that they were how they were acting, AND get personally attached to it and defend who they are in that moment as if it were who they've been their entire lives. But yet, the way that they had reacted to situations and such told me 4, but they were also very strongly 3. I concluded for them that they were 4w3s. Some supposed IFP 4s could be social last EFPs, who would appear introverted to the less educated.

ESFP 4- As much as I want to believe that these exist, Se dom and 4 just simply cannot exist in the same person I think. Se doms would be far too... present in reality to really go down the 4 defense path I think. 4s get very skewed in their perceptions of reality. It doesn't seem like Se doms really give that much of a shit, and really aren't skewed that much in their perceptions (one of the key qualities about unhealthy to average 4s is that they are jaded, and becoming healthy and integrating to 1 causes them to lose some of this jadedness, and most Se doms that I meet seem to be anything but jaded, they are very exact and sure of their definitions of reality). They are totally there with reality, who they are within that reality, and fit right in with it. It doesn't make sense for them to think of the "other side" (the way 4s see it) and identify that strongly with it. The only ESFPs that I've known to do that have been 6s, and it's been specifically because of some reality oriented reason. The "other side" being related to "the man" or a certain group of individuals that they see as being untrustworthy. CP 6 ESPs also love being edgy in general to get reactions and feel some form of power for themselves, which ESFPs could get an identity in and be "different" in that way. But it would be for a 6 reason and not a 4 reason.

4s are also categorized as highly inwardly based and introspective... and Se dom. Yeah. A lot of ESFPs that I know really aren't that self aware at all, and have a hard time going inward with questions that really test them. ESFPs also don't seem to constantly be comparing themselves to other people, they just take information as it is typically in an Se dom fashion. A lot of ESFPs that I know don't discriminate that much with their friends and will hang out with pretty much anyone, and don't typically have that secretly snobby attitude that 4s do.

ENFJ 8/9- ENFJ 8 is another one of those typings I haven't really given much thought to, simply because of how ridiculous it seems. This is another one of those cases where I think that these people could be confusing themselves with counter-phobic 6s. If you read Naranjo he characterizes 8s as being a sadistic person who relishes seeing other's frustration and pain (and perhaps because of the fact that they themselves feel it and they want to make others feel as they do, in extremes and in a very angry way). They are also characterized and being conniving at heart, obsessed with dominance. They deny the effect that they have on others if it's negative and don't really care about how others feel. They are also characterized as being primarily "here and now" people, who aren't focused as much inwardly (you see a lot of TeSe ENTJs, who honestly have a hard time with their intuition). They desensitize themselves to the feelings of others and their own. An ENFJ "8" is probably just a counterphobic 6 who is unhealthy/just a dick.

As for ENFJ 9, that is indeed an oversight, and I need to change it to uncommon or rare. I know for certain that it's possible, as strange as it is. You make a good point with Reagan and MLK.

ENTJ 9- I still think the idea of an ENTJ 9 is ridiculous... The apathy, the totally passive attitude, the fact that most 9s totally avoid introspection and aren't exactly the intellectual kind. The way 9s deal with issues is avoiding them until they're forced to deal with them. 9s a lot of the time tend to be irresponsible with issues pertaining to reality because of their laziness. 9s cut corners and tend to take the easy way out. Everything revolves around their own sense of comfort. Really not ENTJ. I could understand INTJ, as rare as that would be, but a Te dom 9 seems to be out of the question. As for rex herself, she self types as INTJ and 9w8.

I do think ENFJ 8 is for sure a possibility, but my statement still stands that a lot of people who think that they are 8s turn out being CP 6s. With the newest revision I was going to add ENFJ 8 to "rare" most likely.



Yeah some of his correlations are silly. Like INTJ 7.



I'll for sure have to give this some thought! Reread the type 2 descriptions and all that with Si in mind. 1w2s can be very typically 2ish in some instances though, [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION] comes in mind with that. Another thought is that maybe if said STJ is an sx 1w2 then the 2 wing could be brought out more as a result? Nevertheless I should be considering these offbeat types just in case I happen to run into one and am thrown a bit for a loop.

(No, I'm not totally convinced that some types are 100% incompatible, yes there will always be some strange type combinations that don't make sense. The reason why [MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION]'s updated color scheme made white "very rare" is for this exact reason. I do still think some type combinations are absolutely ridiculous, like ETJ 4 for example, but I will still include that in "Very Rare" just in case. I told you guys that this was going to get changed over time!)

Fwiw, Kitty, I'm thinking ENTJ again at this point. I do feel, however, fairly confident of the 9w8 typing. My best explanation for why the concept is not a total wash is two-fold. First, I think you somewhat misrepresent Te in your post. As a Te-dom, my impression of my dominant function is that of a creative force, rather than a merely directive one. Extraverted Thinking is really best exhibited when its user is building a structure, or marshalling resources towards an objective. Now, these things can be done gracelessly, but most of us find that we're only as effective as the relationships surrounding the project.

But then how can an individual who is supposed to be fundamentally goal-oriented be a 9? My take (or at least my theory about myself) is that it related to Inferior Fi. While I and other ENTJs are very good at defining what and how, we're not always so attuned to the why of our actions. At my core, Im fairly wuewei about life, and dont tend to get too emotional things. Taken together I can be like a blank slate sometimes until I come across a challenge worth building around. And even when Im working, it's less about me and more about the project at hand. In short, a less defined sense of self allows me to be whatever my work needs me to be.

I think that probably to a lesser degree any ENTJ you speak with is going to identify with this. ENTJs that are somethingw9 are not that uncommon afterall.

 

[Mia.]

- I would say INFP 4w5 should be green and INFP 4w3 should be blue.

Most of the INFPs I know are 4w5.

- for ISFP, INFP and ISFJ, 6w7 should be red

None of the INFPs I've known are 6w7.... but my ESTJ - the opposite type - is....

- 9 is MUCH more common than that, 9w1 is very common for ISFPs and 9w8 is probably blue for INFPs

I dunno man…

 

[garbage]

Yeah some of his correlations are silly. Like INTJ 7.

Off the top of my head, he also correlated 6 with Ti, but counterphobic 6 with ENTJ.


But also, surely the difference between a "5 with a strong 4 wing" and a "4 with a strong 5 wing," for example, shouldn't make such a drastic difference as "Very common" to "Never"?

 

[BlackCat]

Fwiw, Kitty, I'm thinking ENTJ again at this point. I do feel, however, fairly confident of the 9w8 typing. My best explanation for why the concept is not a total wash is two-fold. First, I think you somewhat misrepresent Te in your post. As a Te-dom, my impression of my dominant function is that of a creative force, rather than a merely directive one. Extraverted Thinking is really best exhibited when its user is building a structure, or marshalling resources towards an objective. Now, these things can be done gracelessly, but most of us find that we're only as effective as the relationships surrounding the project.

But then how can an individual who is supposed to be fundamentally goal-oriented be a 9? My take (or at least my theory about myself) is that it related to Inferior Fi. While I and other ENTJs are very good at defining what and how, we're not always so attuned to the why of our actions. At my core, Im fairly wuewei about life, and dont tend to get too emotional things. Taken together I can be like a blank slate sometimes until I come across a challenge worth building around. And even when Im working, it's less about me and more about the project at hand. In short, a less defined sense of self allows me to be whatever my work needs me to be.

I think that probably to a lesser degree any ENTJ you speak with is going to identify with this. ENTJs that are somethingw9 are not that uncommon afterall.

/like. I hate being in the spotlight of "the expert" and then basically being schooled like this. I will admit to not understanding ENTJs as much as I'd like to, opposite types afterall. I'm just so used to very aggressive ones, but not ones who are more in tune with their Ni. I do see Te more as a driving force, and in theory it wouldn't clash very much at all.

So this explains your self typing of INTJ a bit! 9ness. Type 9 and ENJ... such a weird thought because ISPs are so commonly 9 as well. I still think type 9 ENJs are rare, but it's just a whole new realm of possibilities that are being unfolded for me with some of the realizations that I'm coming to with this thread and with doing work with you on your self typing.

I'll have to formulate in my mind how ENJ and 9 fit together, as well as other typings such as ENFJ and 8. I have a bit of work to do. But for now, I'm going to add 9w1 ENFJ to "rare" and 9w8 ENTJ to "rare" when I do the update.

Honestly ENTJ 9 makes about as much sense as ISFP 9, only in opposite ways. I feel like a blank slate, like you do, until something comes up, only it's in an emotional/worth/personal evaluation rather than that building force of Te. Hmm.

 

[EJCC]

Is Naranjo the gold standard? His Enneagram descriptions are among the best, but I'm not exactly a fan of most of his correlations with MBTI types (primarily because he cites Kiersey, whereas.. we, well, don't), and I'd hope that his correlations wouldn't factor into ours.

I only just discovered Naranjo... and my first impression was that his descriptions of type 1 + instinctual variants were a load of stereotypical crap. But maybe the rest of his stuff is good?

I'll for sure have to give this some thought! Reread the type 2 descriptions and all that with Si in mind. 1w2s can be very typically 2ish in some instances though, EJCC comes in mind with that. Another thought is that maybe if said STJ is an sx 1w2 then the 2 wing could be brought out more as a result? Nevertheless I should be considering these offbeat types just in case I happen to run into one and am thrown a bit for a loop.

This is one of those things that makes perfect sense to me in theory, but I wonder how it would work in practice. Because I have such a strong 2 wing, I can see how that tendency could potentially be even stronger with other ESTJs and how they could become 2s. I can also imagine it pretty well because, since I discovered that one of my best friends is an ENFP 2w3, I no longer associate type 2 with Fe.

But I think, in theory, if ESTJs were to be 2s, they would be a lot more likely to be 2w3 than 2w1. Maybe it's because the 2w1s in my life are mostly INFJs, contrasting with the ENFP 2w3 mentioned above, but I feel like the 2w1s I know have doormat tendencies that would be near impossible for a Te dom to have.

God, this is all so speculative, my Si is having a hard time with it. I wish we had better evidence than this!

 

[Mia.]

Is Naranjo the gold standard? His Enneagram descriptions are among the best, but I'm not exactly a fan of most of his correlations with MBTI types (primarily because he cites Kiersey, whereas.. we, well, don't), and I'd hope that his correlations wouldn't factor into ours.

This pretty much captures how I feel concerning Naranjo. Excellent descriptions, type correlations.

He just cites Keirsey... he doesn't say Keirsey agrees with him. I don't seem to have the same view of Keirsey that seems to be widespread on here.

 

[Glycerine]

Hmmm. Maybe there could be an explanation of the odd combinations based on fixations of relief and/or inferior functions? That's how make sense of all this.

 

[Noon]

I remember that Noon, who is an ISFP, was considering e3 for herself for a while. I don't know if she's still doing that or not.

I think I've decided on 4w3 after filling out some introspection questionnaire at that tritype card site and realizing that e4 and e1 themes are too prominent and consistent throughout my life for it not to be significant somehow.

 

[violet_crown]

Hmmm. Maybe there could be an explanation of the odd combinations based on fixations of relief and/or inferior functions? That's how make sense of all this.

That's what I leaned towards in my earlier explanation. I hesitate to tie e-type strictly to one function or another, though, and believe that enneagram is an emergent property of the functions interacting together. Having said that, there's a strong relationship between the inferior and the root enneagram fixation. I've read before that enneagram type is innate. If our enneagram type is set before our MBTI type, then it's plausible that our inferior develops before our dominant function does. As we interact with our environment, the dominant develops as a kind of counterphobic shell around the vulnerable center, and naturally there's an inverse relationship between the development of this "shell" and the repression of the inferior. Intratype variation in enneagram is about this dominant/inferior balance, and how we as individuals rationalize it.

 

[Zarathustra]

Ok, so I saw this data on PersonalityCafe a few weeks ago, regarding the MBTI/enneagram types of all their members (each member apparently has the ability to pull the data on all the members as a whole regarding their "About Me" sections in their profiles [i.e., MBTI type, enneagram type, etc.]), and thought that, while their charts were pretty good, I could probably make em better (please excuse the INTJ). So, in light of the effort in this thread, I decided to go and do it, so we could compare [MENTION=5627]BlackCat[/MENTION]'s opinions about MBTI-Enneagram correlations against the empirical data from PersonalityCafe. Now, I remind you, this data is based on what 14,000 members put in their profiles, with about 30% leaving their enneagram type blank and 10% leaving their MBTI type blank. Obviously, some people will be unintentionally mistyped, in one or even both systems, and some people may have intentionally mistyped. But with 14,000 members, and 90% including their MBTI, and 70% including their enneagram type, I think the data is at least worth looking at. It certainly isn't perfect, but almost no study ever is, and, if we make the assumption that the 30% of people who left their enneagram types blank would have their enneagram types be distributed in roughly the same manner as the 70% who included them (and this assumption isn't too heinous), then, aside from mistypes, and the fact that people of certain MBTI type-Enneagram type combinations might have a greater or lesser propensity for joining a personality forum, the data would be clean.

So, with all that being said, here's Blackcat's opinion on MBTI-Enneagram correlations:

And here's PersonalityCafe's data on MBTI-Enneagram correlations:

Obviously, their data doesn't take into account wings, but we can still gather meaningful observations by comparing the two.

[will be including my observations here]

The MBTI Types

In their data, ENFPs deviate interestingly from Blackcat's opinion. Similar to ENTPs, BlackCat believes ENFPs will most likely be 7s, then 3s, and then bleed out from there, to 6s, 8s, 4s, and 2s. PersonalityCafe's data, though, shows a different story. It agrees that 7s are the most likely type, but then shows that 4 (17%) is the next most likely, and 2 (15%) the next most likely after that, with 9s (6%) coming in next most likely, and then finally 3s (5%). Tbh, I'm not terribly surprised by PerC's data, but I do think there are some possible explanations for the high number of 4s and 2s. First of all, we have a good number of ENFP 4s here on TypeC, so I'm not surprised to see 4 as the second most likely type for ENFPs. But one explanation could be that perhaps this data is capturing ambivert NFPs, like our longtime member Amargith/Satine/[MENTION=5494]Vala Faye[/MENTION]. More interesting than the high prevalence of 4s, tho, are the 2s. And I think what might help explain their high number is something that has been noted before: that female test-takers often test as ENFP, even when they aren't, because the ENFP type is a highly attractive, sort of female ideal in our modern society (intelligent, outgoing, playful, etc.). Of course, perhaps there are just a lot of ENFP 2s. One of my ex girlfriends probably was one, so, hey, maybe they're relatively common. Another possible explanation for the high number of 2s, related to the first, could be that ENFJs (and even ESFJs [just add in the N]) are getting P results on their tests, and thus claiming to be ENFPs -- this would make a lot of sense, considering the high number of 2s among ENFJs and ESFJs. And I don't think you'd tend to see as many EFPs testing as EFJs as you would the other way around (young EFJs are more likely to want to seem open, accepting, and P-like, than are young EFPs to want to seem structured, orderly, and J-like).

In their data, ENTPs are correlated with 5=6<9<4<8<3<<7. Per usual, the ENTPs are all sorts of fucked up. Blackcat's opinion is basically that ENTPs are mostly 3s and 7s, and that they bleed out to the sides of 7 as well (with decreasing frequency), with a decent number of 6s, a fair number of 8s, and fewer 5s. PersonalityCafe's data, on the other hand, corroborates that 3s and 7s are the most likely kinds of ENTPs, but that 7s are far more common (~3.5x more), and that 3s (10%) aren't really all that much more common than 8s (7%), 4s (?!) (6%), 9s (5%), 6s (4%), and 5s (4%). Perhaps ENTPs are more likely to just fuck around and intentionally put an false enneagram type (wouldn't surprise me), or perhaps a decent number of ENFPs are misidentified as ENTPs (I mean, really, when it comes down to it, the only terribly surprising difference is that enneagram 4 came out as the fourth most likely enneagram type). Who knows. ENTPs are always causing problems.

A similar story to the ENFPs holds true for the ESFPs. BlackCat's opinion is that ESFPs are primarily 8<7<3. PersonalityCafe's data does not corroborate about 3s being so common, though. Rather, it shows 3=6<4=9<2<7, or that 7s are the most common (22%), followed by 2s (14%), 4s (9%) and 9s (9%), and then 6s (6%) and 3s (6%). Perhaps ESFP 3s and 8s just aren't joining personality forums. But, then again, I don't know why 7s would necessarily be more likely to join a forum than 3s and 8s. Another possible explanation for the high number of 2s could be that ESFJs are getting P results on their tests, and thus claiming to be ESFPs -- this would make sense, considering the high number of 2s among ESFJs, and the dearth of ESFJs on the forum.

BlackCat's opinion is that ESTPs are mainly made up of 3s, 7s, and 8s, (followed by the 6s we see for every MBTI type). This belief basically bears itself out in the data, but by no means are 3s and 8s anywhere nearly as prevalent as 7s among the ESTP population, according to the data. 34% of ESTPs claimed to be 7s, 12% claimed to be 3s, and 9% claimed to be 8s. Once again, maybe 3s and 8s just aren't joining personality forums. Alternatively, perhaps while 3s and 8s do show up among the EPs, 7 is just far more common.

In their data, ENFJs are correlated with 9<4=6<3=7<2. As Blackcat argued, ENFJ 8s are very rare (~1% in their data), but, as others argued, ENFJ 9s are more common than previously thought (~6%). Their data also predicts more ENFJ 7s than in Blackcat's opinion (BlackCat figured they'd be rare, but their data has them tied for the second most common), and fewer enneagram 1s.

In their data, ESFJs are correlated with 1<9<3=4<6<2. Their data have fewer ones, more 9s, fewer 3s, and more 4s than Blackcat's opinions would imply. These are interesting and rather significant deviations from Blackcat's opinion, moreso than for most of the other types. It should be noted that ESFJs, despite their significant makeup of the general population, are the least represented MBTI type on the forum (they only make up ~0.6% of the forum [vs __% in the general population]), so this data, which includes only ~90 ESTJs, may not be a large enough sample to create a representative distribution.

In their data, ENTJs are correlated with 1<6<3<8, which is roughly what Blackcat's opinions would imply.

In their data, ESTJs are correlated with enneagrams 8<1<6<3, which are the same four most common types as predicted by Blackcat, but there are fewer ESTJ 8s in their data than in Blackcat's opinion. Perhaps, once again, enneagram 8s (and particularly sensor 8s) just don't join personality forums as frequently? I somewhat doubt it has to do with ESTJ 8s being disproportionately in the "unknown" pile. Also, ftr, despite their significant makeup of the general population, ESTJs are one of the two least represented MBTI types on the forum (second only to ESFJs [each make up ~0.6% of the forum {vs __% and __%, respectively, in the general population}]), so this data, which includes ~90 ESTJs, may not be a large enough sample to create a representative distribution.

The Enneagram Types

As BlackCat predicted, there is a high correlation between enneagram 3 and extroversion. That the data bears out this relationship kind of hurts the thesis that perhaps enneagram 3s just don't join personality forums, but, at the same time, perhaps they just don't join at as great a rate, and, as such, there is actually 2x-3x the representation of enneagram 3s in the real world as on personality forums.

As BlackCat predicted, there is a high correlation between enneagram 9 and introversion. predicted greater number seem to be ENFPs, ESFPs, and

 

[Savage Idealist]

(real response will be later today)

Thank you. I'm tired from work and really didn't feel like writing out an entire rebuttal in response to your next counter argument. The cheap picture will suffice.

EDIT: Oh damn, I must be color blind, didn't notice the white lettering there. Very well, I will patiently await your next response.

 

[Glycerine]

That's what I leaned towards in my earlier explanation. I hesitate to tie e-type strictly to one function or another, though, and believe that enneagram is an emergent property of the functions interacting together. Having said that, there's a strong relationship between the inferior and the root enneagram fixation. I've read before that enneagram type is innate. If our enneagram type is set before our MBTI type, then it's plausible that our inferior develops before our dominant function does. As we interact with our environment, the dominant develops as a kind of counterphobic shell around the vulnerable center, and naturally there's an inverse relationship between the development of this "shell" and the repression of the inferior. Intratype variation in enneagram is about this dominant/inferior balance, and how we as individuals rationalize it.

Yeah, I agree with you and it makes a lot of sense. For me, I think I aspire to my baby Ti and it shows up through the emergence of enneagram 5 but I don't think it contradicts Fe necessarily and actually in a strange manner is complementary to it. In the simplest terms, Fe is about cultural values, social pragmatism, and the interpersonal. I attempt to intellectualize that information to gain more information in the realm of people. So yeah, you pretty much said all that in a very concise manner. Thank you.

 

[Zarathustra]

Yeah, I agree with you and it makes a lot of sense. For me, I think I aspire to my baby Ti and it shows up through the emergence of enneagram 5 but I don't think it contradicts Fe necessarily and actually in a strange manner is complementary to it. In the simplest terms, Fe is about cultural values, social pragmatism, and the interpersonal. I attempt to intellectualize that information to gain more information in the realm of people. So yeah, you pretty much said all that in a very concise manner. Thank you.

Yeah, but I don't know about the enneagram type being set before MBTI type, nor inferior before dominant stuff.

The rest of it was plausible, though, and I've been having similar thoughts as of late.

There are some proclaimed enneagram 4 ENTJs on PersonalityCafe.

I thought to myself: 1) ; 2) aspirational (inferior) Fi?

 

[RaptorWizard]

I never thought people could take this typing correlation with MBTI and Enneagram that seriously, cuz i just do it 4 da lolz

 

[Glycerine]

[MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION]: I am still skeptical about the innateness of enneagram because I honestly think that if I had a different life experience I would probably be a 2 or 3 ENFJ now but they seem kinda foreign to me. lol

 

[Zarathustra]

[MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION]: I am still skeptical about the innateness of enneagram because I honestly think that if I had a different life experience I would probably be a 2 or 3 ENFJ now but they seem kinda foreign to me. lol

Yeah, I agree.

There definitely doesn't seem to be any consensus theory as to why people have the enneagram type they do, but the child's relationship to its parents seems to be one of the more prominent and sensible ones out there.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

You seem to be getting this down to a pseudo-science.

no wai

 

[garbage]

I only just discovered Naranjo... and my first impression was that his descriptions of type 1 + instinctual variants were a load of stereotypical crap. But maybe the rest of his stuff is good?

I think they're stereotypical because they describe the very core neuroses, not taking into account how much one may have actually overcome their core.

As such, his descriptions are chock full of correlations to personality disorders--most of his value is in his attempt to organize them properly. Figs 5 and 6 are essentially all one needs to know to get a rough-cut look at the fundamentals of the Enneagram. His introductory chapters are the best part of the book and are even more insightful than his type descriptions, and they lay down the foundation for the theory.

God, this is all so speculative, my Si is having a hard time with it. I wish we had better evidence than this!

Welcome to typology!

 

[Betty Blue]

no wai

Ok lege, you have my attention, what can i do for you?