Enneagram and MBTI type

[hjgbujhghg]

I've noticed, that most of the INFPs are typed as 4s, most of the INTPs 5s, most of ENFPs 7s and so on... I can see why it is. People have some triads correlated to some MBTI types and so they relate to enneagram types with similar characteristics. But I wonder if really so many INFPs are 4s, or so many ENFPs are 7s. I think people loose the real meaning of the enneagram here. The enneagram is about basic fear and that basic fear motivates you to have some desires, that you find liberating from it. So I think, that what really and truly matters in your ennegram are 2 things: fear and desire. Everything else is just a guess how the person might act, look, behave...So it's not importnat how much you relate to the characteristic of the type, but how much you relate to its basic fear and motivation. I find enneagram descriptions good to read, but not necessarily relevent when one tries to find his type. I think it's possible to be for example an ESFP and enneagram 1, because basic fear can be different from MBTI functions, still I can hardly imagine an ESFP who would type himself as 1. So how important enneagram characteristics of the type really are? How to know where the enneagram starts and MBTI ends?

 

[Avocado]

I've noticed, that most of the INFPs are typed as 4s, most of the INTPs 5s, most of ENFPs 7s and so on... I can see why it is. People have some triads correlated to some MBTI types and so they relate to enneagram types with similar characteristics. But I wonder if really so many INFPs are 4s, or so many ENFPs are 7s. I think people loose the real meaning of the enneagram here. The enneagram is about basic fear and that basic fear motivates you to have some desires, that you find liberating from it. So I think, that what really and truly matters in your ennegram are 2 things: fear and desire. Everything else is just a guess how the person might act, look, behave...So it's not importnat how much you relate to the characteristic of the type, but how much you relate to its basic fear and motivation. I find enneagram descriptions good to read, but not necessarily relevent when one tries to find his type. I think it's possible to be for example an ESFP and enneagram 1, because basic fear can be different from MBTI functions, still I can hardly imagine an ESFP who would type himself as 1. So how important enneagram characteristics of the type really are? How to know where the enneagram starts and MBTI ends?

E1 fears and desires plus E5 fears and desires for me...

 

[Chad of the OttomanEmpire]

There's an ongoing dispute about this.

There are some who argue that there are strict correlations and if you type as something weird (like ISTP 2w3) you're probably mistyped in some capacity. After all, these things both describe how your brain works and these don't each happen in their own respective vacuum.

There are others who argue that the two systems measure two entirely different things (your motivations versus your cognitive functions), and therefore any combination is possible.

All I can say is that I used to be very strongly in the first camp, until I definitively determined I was a 4w5 and that I was Ne-dom. It seems like only 4w3s are supposed to be Ne-dom, and moreover, my Ji is now unclear to me--I don't know if I'm ENTP or ENFP. Just bringing up these considerations has made me rethink everything I had previously taken as a given. I am currently a fence sitter on this topic.

And yeah, it seems like it's hard to imagine some combinations, but you have to keep in mind there are atypical versions of every type. I personally feel that drawing too many conclusions from our own limited experience (we're all amateurs here) is a pretty good way to confuse people, so I am happy to leave the question open.

 

[thoughtlost]

...I don't know.

Using short cuts, the correlations, is okay...ish. But not really. I think it just creates caricatures the more we rely on it. I just feel like we'd be ignoring the bigger picture for the sake of heuristics.

I think the reason why MBTI and enneagram doesn't really have a clear distinction is because of how Kathrine Myers said she created her system because she felt "different" (she's not a natural born cheerleader) and wanted to understand why and then labeled herself as INFP (...if I am remembering the video I watched years ago correctly). She basically correlated type 5-4/4-5 with the INFP label. So I think it started because of that... from what I can tell.

 

[skylights]

Here is my take:

Certain combinations are highly unlikely to the point that they should generally be assumed incorrect; however, no combinations are impossible. The Enneagram and the MBTI are just theoretical systems, after all, and they don't correspond perfectly to reality. There is little point hardlining on the possibility of the specifics of something that is impossibility by definition.

The way I understand it, each enneatype "runs" from something: 1 from imperfection; 2 from not being needed; 3 from not being validated; 4 from inauthenticity; 5 from incompetence; 6 from instability; 7 from scarcity; 8 from vulnerability; 9 from strife.

Given that, certain combinations are unlikely - in some cases highly unlikely due to near-contradiction of primary defining features. For example, for the ESFP to be a 1, they would have to run from imperfection. As ESFP leads with concrete experiential perception, and being a P would have a tendency to react instead of act. E1 would really restrain ESFP's ability to touch and go, dive in and respond, which tends to be an ESFP's forte. E7, on the other hand, would align much more fluidly with Se-dominant's native inclination towards maximizing richness of experience.

Then there are combinations that are not directly contradicting, but whose tendencies fail to overlap. For example, there is no clear reason an ESFJ wouldn't be an Enneagram 5, who avoids incompetence and helplessness. However, the hallmark of 5 is hyperfocused detachment, and ESFJ's preference is to be engaging, active, and practical. If an ESFJ is inclined towards competency, they are more likely to manifest that in e1's perfectionism or e3's polish, both of which are better oriented to an ESFJ's warm, present-oriented engagement.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I'm in the camp of correlation. If something is too far off, Its a signal that the person hasn't delved into one system deep enough to understand the nuances. At least, that was my experience with enneagram. I had to do a lot more research to understand I was a 6. Not an ISTP 8.

 

[Aurora James]

Most Common for Each Type (Based on observation + my intuition)

1: ISTJ and INTJ

2: ESFJ, ENFJ, and ISFJ.

3: ENTJ and ENFJ

4: INFP, INFJ, ISFP, and ENFP

5: INTP, INTJ, and INFJ.

6: ISTJ, ISTP, ISFJ, INFP, and ESTJ

7: ESFP, ESTP, ENFP, and ENTP

8: ENTJ, ESTJ, ESTP, and ISTP

9: ISFJ, ISFP, INFP, and INFJ.

 

[Kevin A.S.]

Nice post, I'm INFP, and my enneagram is 3. It's really rare right

 

[Little_Sticks]

Life is dynamic; it's always changing. Self-awareness isn't supposed to be fixed. I'd say it's something that comes about after experiencing yourself enough to become aware of what remains when everything else changes, a process that is always being amended and added to.

That said, some combinations are strange; and by strange I mean that some people don't know themselves enough to know what is relatively constant about themselves yet. They see opposite extremes in themselves and think that's who they are (for example an INTP 2 would just about represent an antithetical meaning to being INTP). But if this is the case for them, the greater truth is that they are probably in the process of finding out who they are.

Unless of course one wants to argue that there is no self, but then I'd wonder why they thought it was important enough to think about and I'd imagine that would say something strong about who they are to begin with.