• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[Traditional Enneagram] Enneagram Type and MBTI function correlations...

HongDou

navigating
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
5,191
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
[MENTION=20531]yeghor[/MENTION] has consistently attempted to provide subjectively defined structure to explain things according to his/her mental framework rather than what is actually present in the environment.

Basically, not enough Se. :alttongue:
 
L

LadyLazarus

Guest
Calm down...

:laugh: See those 3 enneatypes in my signature? They're all in the reactive triad, I don't have them all because I'm calm/ good at being calm.:dry:

Seriously though, don't tell me what to do, I will be as calm as I please, this is the last time I will be able to say this in a civil fashion.

That being said, I will now take my leave before I say something that will get me banned. Good day.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
Basically, not enough Se. :alttongue:

Not enough Ni/Se axis. Essentially.

Socionics, for instance, provides the descriptions of the irrationals vs the rationals as such:

Irrational: What things are (Positivism), what things are not (Negativism)
Rational: What things should be (Positivism), What things should not be (Negativism)
 

yeghor

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
4,276
Ironically what we have here is the irrationality of rationality. [MENTION=20531]yeghor[/MENTION] has consistently attempted to provide subjectively defined structure to explain things according to his/her mental framework rather than what is actually present in the environment. Therefore, it is not surprising that, when kicked into overdrive such as right now, there is a desire to make things perfectly clear-cut and ruthlessly blocked, eliminating the individualized generalizations for collectivist specifications (oh, the oxymorons, let them flow).

Oh...that's where you were getting at... you are missing that those are self-reported typings... there's a high possibility of human error (or self-bias)... you need to be able to verify the veracity of data somehow...

Consider this as GPS positioning, if one or more of the satellites are sending faulty data and you don't have a verification system or a benchmark (a fixed reference point) for error correction, how will you know the reported position matches that of the actual position...? What if it is skewed by 100 m, what if 1000 m or more?

One way to verify MBTI typing could be to check whether the self-reported MBTI type description sounds feasible in terms of the self-reported enneagram or socionics typing (if any)...i.e. crosschecking...

If you have any other ideas to verify self-reported type data, I am open to suggestions... So building on what you said, the system has to be based on\depend upon not on available data but only the verified data...
 

yeghor

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
4,276
:laugh: See those 3 enneatypes in my signature? They're all in the reactive triad, I don't have them all because I'm calm/ good at being calm.:dry:

Seriously though, don't tell me what to do, I will be as calm as I please, this is the last time I will be able to say this in a civil fashion.

That being said, I will now take my leave before I say something that will get me banned. Good day.

Don't tell me what to do...
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
Oh...that's where you were getting at... you are missing that those are self-reported typings... there's a high possibility of human error (or self-bias)... you need to be able to verify the veracity of data somehow...

Consider this as GPS positioning, if one or more of the satellites are sending faulty data and you don't have a verification system or a benchmark (a fixed reference point) for error correction, how will you know the reported position matches that of the actual position...? What if it is skewed by 100 m, what if 1000 m or more?

One way to verify MBTI typing could be to check whether the self-reported MBTI type description sounds feasible in terms of the self-reported enneagram or socionics typing (if any)...i.e. crosschecking...

If you have any other ideas to verify self-reported type data, I am open to suggestions... So building on what you said, the system has to be based on\depend upon not on available data but only the verified data...

But then we fall prey to specifying without adequate, veritable data and thus tip our scales in the favor of the system. (in regards to the bolded)

The only way we can feasibly verify the data would be through the detailed brain-scans like Dario Nardi has attempted.

One way to verify someone's veracity is to have them thrown into the algorithm that narrows things down through categories that are, themselves generalized. "Irrationality vs Rationality" "Thinking vs Feeling" "Sensing vs iNtuition" "Cognitive extroversion vs Cognitive introversion". But then we fall prey to having to specify those categories in order to get the data we need to base the categories and the entire system; therefore, tipping the scales in favor of the system again; unless, of course, you can reduce each of those dichotomies into universal truths that are A. Consistent with reality, and B. Easily applicable and unambigious. Jung initially tried this, and even stated such interesting assertions such as only Intuitives can introspect, and Sensors cannot. Socionics did so with irrationality and rationality by specifying them while still keeping them relatively generalized "Do you act when you feel like it or act without the opinions of your mood?".
 

HongDou

navigating
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
5,191
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
One way to verify MBTI typing could be to check whether the self-reported MBTI type description sounds feasible in terms of the self-reported enneagram or socionics typing (if any)...i.e. crosschecking...

MBTI descriptions do not carry enough weight for this process. They're generalizations attempting to cover all tendencies that come with the 4 letters and functional order.

Oh...that's where you were getting at... you are missing that those are self-reported typings... there's a high possibility of human error (or self-bias)... you need to be able to verify the veracity of data somehow...

Listen bub, when you're questioning whether the majority of the population is wrong or you're wrong, chances are it's most likely you.

The question is, can an INFJ's basic fear be having no identity or personal significance? The obvious answer is yes. If you want to look at general tendencies, the question is can an INFJ be withdrawing, identity-focused, and melancholic? The obvious answer is still yes. And this can still go on if you swapped the 4 with 5 or 6.
 

yeghor

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
4,276
But then we fall prey to specifying without adequate, veritable data and thus tip our scales in the favor of the system. (in regards to the bolded)

The only way we can feasibly verify the data would be through the detailed brain-scans like Dario Nardi has attempted.

One way to verify someone's veracity is to have them thrown into the algorithm that narrows things down through categories that are, themselves generalized. "Irrationality vs Rationality" "Thinking vs Feeling" "Sensing vs iNtuition" "Cognitive extroversion vs Cognitive introversion". But then we fall prey to having to specify those categories in order to get the data we need to base the categories and the entire system; therefore, tipping the scales in favor of the system again; unless, of course, you can reduce each of those dichotomies into universal truths that are A. Consistent with reality, and B. Easily applicable and unambigious. Jung initially tried this, and even stated such interesting assertions such as only Intuitives can introspect, and Sensors cannot. Socionics did so with irrationality and rationality by specifying them while still keeping them relatively generalized "Do you act when you feel like it or act without the opinions of your mood?".

Do you doubt and want to check the veracity of MBTI, socionics and enneagram typing systems? But you would need an independently verified reference for each type to do that... and perhaps map the brain for cognitive functions and enneagram types to find an average and make correlations between different systems based on those brain maps...

In any case, you cannot verify the system using people that typed themselves with that system... So one has no option but to assume that any error in self-reported typing comes from the user, not the apparatus...

Or discard the apparatus altogether...
 

gromit

likes this
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
6,508
I understand that but as far as MBTI goes, which is what this forum is based upon, this is the definition of humankind...:

images


Problem arises when someone claims to be one color but radiates more like another... This is an inconsistency in the system... Thus, either the system itself is flawed or the color itself is wrong...

If colors are incorrectly labeled, how could one learn about the details of that specific color by interaction? You may think you are learning about green, which may in fact be yellow...distorting the perception about the entire system...

Do you see this as a problem...? If yes, how to alleviate it?

Yes, that diagram is exactly what MBTI is attempting to do. And it does so in very gross and imperfect terms. There are many more dimensions to humanity than just MBTI type.

People on the forum may mistype themselves, it is true. Or you could be seeing only one side of the person from your interactions with them in an online forum. Perhaps s/he isn't the classic example of that type, but has determined it to be most accurate compared to all the other types. I don't see why some people couldn't have characteristics of two distinct types and decide to go with the one that "fits" better overall.

I can imagine that it could be frustrating if people do not type themselves on here correctly. Or if people do not live up to your understanding of what you expect a type to be like.

Peoples personalities and interaction styles are not so cut and dry. And it can only give you so much of the picture, as others have said.

I think it is only a problem if you view MBTI as the be-all end-all... the solution is to try not to take it so seriously, just see it as one tool in understanding people, and an imprecise tool at that.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
Do you doubt and want to check the veracity of MBTI, socionics and enneagram typing systems? But you would need an independently verified reference for each type to do that... and perhaps map the brain for cognitive functions and enneagram types to find an average and make correlations between different systems based on those brain maps...

In any case, you cannot verify the system using people that typed themselves with that system... So one has no option but to assume that any error in self-reported typing comes from the user, not the apparatus...

Or discard the apparatus altogether...

Yeah, no, you didn't understand my argument. The point is to use universal truths that are clear cut yet seemingly generalized in order to build the system itself. The system is a building, the construction workers are the individuals, and the universal truths are the blueprints.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
It's like looking at a color spectrum and having to clearly mark off where "green" is. It's easy to point to the middle of the green area, but as you move towards other colors it becomes a little murkier. And yet, there is still value in the term green, even if there are bluish greens or greyish greens too.

Thumbs down on Kelly, but I dig Chartreuse. ;)
 

yeghor

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
4,276
Yeah, no, you didn't understand my argument. The point is to use universal truths that are clear cut yet seemingly generalized in order to build the system itself. The system is a building, the construction workers are the individuals, and the universal truths are the blueprints.

Yeah but How can one find such a universal truth in this forum and than relate it to the existing systems? What will serve as the bridge to convert that truth/fact into the nomenclature and terminology of an existing system? Or do you propose that we should avandon existing systems and construct an entirely new one?
 

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I have been thinking about to address @yehgor 's assertion that INFJs cannot be 4s or 5s because J's have a strong superego. I think there's a counter-argument to be made from the the MBTI side (drawing on Big Five studies showing that some facets of conscientiousness are mostly environmental), but I think there's at least as a strong a counter-argument to be made from the Enneagram side.

While it's true that e1s are the most obviously aligned with their superegos, it doesn't necessarily follow that other enneagram types superegos are less powerful or experienced as smaller. For example, I'd argue that 4s and especially 5s defense mechanisms arise from dealing with harsh superegos that continually threaten to overwhelm the ego with negative feedback. So while 4s and 5s tend to identify with their egos, it is an ego very much under siege and which must direct most of its energy toward self defense.

The 4s attempt to refute the internal negative feedback by attempting to see themselves as uniquely creative. This helps in multiple ways: it allows a sense of superiority toward those with lesser taste and creative ability, it allows external criticism to be written off as a lack of understanding by the mundanes, and it allows identification with a more beautiful image of who the 4 wishes they were. However, there remains a fear that the inner ugliness will eventually be seen and judged.

The 5s attempt to refute the internal negative feedback via preparatory thought, learning and understanding. They can defend against internal judgments of incompetence and worthlessness by understanding and preparing so thoroughly, that they hope their eventual external works and actions will be unassailable. The 5s tend to feel smaller than the demands of the outside world, so sometimes (subconsciously) feel like they are squeezed between internal and external demands. They fear that their inadequacy will be exposed in the real world, and so fear to act.

So, I'd say that 1s, 4s, 5s and all suffer from an overly harsh superego (sometimes called the "negative parent" in transactional analysis, or the "antilibinal impulse" in some other contexts) whose caustic criticisms exert undo influence. For the 1s, they've managed to more successfully identify with the superego, such that that sometimes can direct those judgments outward on the world around them, thereby identifying as the "good" crusader and feeling powerful and vindicated. However, 1s also suffer from the continual demands for perfection internally and their inability to meet them perfectly. (BTW, it's clear that types other than 1s, 4s, and 5s have superego issues, but I'm not addressing them here because I have less personal experience of those types.)


4s and 5s, however, represent a failed attempt to identify with the superego. 4s and 5s attempt to align themselves with the negative criticisms of parents (or other authority figures) by accepting the superego's standards as valid, but end up as the target of those negative valuations, rather than the source. This leaves the ego relatively weak compared to the superego, since the ego has ceded most of the id's energy to fending off the attacks of the superego. The ego then becomes, in part, an energetically depleted bystander to the ongoing attacks of the superego on the id, as well as a victim of the attacks of the superego on the ego. Energy goes to fending off the attacks of the superego, and to keeping the emotional effects of the negative judgments out of consciousness.

So, I'd say:

1s: successfully identify with superego/critical parent, but negatively judge both the self and the outside world.

4s: attempt to identify with superego against the id, but end up identifying with an unlovable ego image also under judgment by the superego.

5s: attempt to identify with superego against the id, but end up identifying with an inadequate and incompetent ego image also under judgment by the superego.

In any case, there's no reason why a 4 or 5 might not be an MBTI J or P. It's perfectly possible for a J or P child to feel judged as unlovable and/or inadequate and believe that judgment is justified. This seems mildly more likely to me to happen in an environment where one's MBTI preferences are under-valued, but there are a million ways for a child to be criticized, found wanting and feel rejected... and most of those ways have nothing to do with MBTI type at all.
 

yeghor

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
4,276
While it's true that e1s are the most obviously aligned with their superegos, it doesn't necessarily follow that other enneagram types superegos are less powerful or experienced as smaller. For example, I'd argue that 4s and especially 5s defense mechanisms arise from dealing with harsh superegos that continually threaten to overwhelm the ego with negative feedback. So while 4s and 5s tend to identify with their egos, it is an ego very much under siege and which must direct most of its energy toward self defense.

So if 4s' and 5s' egos are under siege...what's the situation for 1s?

The 4s attempt to refute the internal negative feedback by attempting to see themselves as uniquely creative. This helps in multiple ways: it allows a sense of superiority toward those with lesser taste and creative ability, it allows external criticism to be written off as a lack of understanding by the mundanes, and it allows identification with a more beautiful image of who the 4 wishes they were. However, there remains a fear that the inner ugliness will eventually be seen and judged.

The mechanism you describe is Ne-Fi I guess...Ne conjures up alternate explanations for things that has a potential to affect the ego...it transforms external feedback into forms that the ego can stomach safely...however, I'd expect to find that more in 7s...reverse the mechanism and reverse the bolded arguments to find out how I used to feel...

Ne and Se is related to "id"..."id" lies to the self and reaffirms the self that it's in the "right"..."id" conjures up excuses...Ni and Si OTOH is related to superego...the mechanism is reversed...superego berates the self that it's in the "wrong"...

The 5s attempt to refute the internal negative feedback via preparatory thought, learning and understanding. They can defend against internal judgments of incompetence and worthlessness by understanding and preparing so thoroughly, that they hope their eventual external works and actions will be unassailable. The 5s tend to feel smaller than the demands of the outside world, so sometimes (subconsciously) feel like they are squeezed between internal and external demands. They fear that their inadequacy will be exposed in the real world, and so fear to act.

Don't know how this works...but:

Thus, for their own security and self-esteem, Fives need to have at least one area in which they have a degree of expertise that will allow them to feel capable and connected with the world. Fives think, “I am going to find something that I can do really well, and then I will be able to meet the challenges of life. But I can’t have other things distracting me or getting in the way.” They therefore develop an intense focus on whatever they can master and feel secure about. It may be the world of mathematics, or the world of rock and roll, or classical music, or car mechanics, or horror and science fiction, or a world entirely created in their imagination. Not all Fives are scholars or Ph.Ds. But, depending on their intelligence and the resources available to them, they focus intensely on mastering something that has captured their interest.

For better or worse, the areas that Fives explore do not depend on social validation; indeed, if others agree with their ideas too readily, Fives tend to fear that their ideas might be too conventional. History is full of famous Fives who overturned accepted ways of understanding or doing things (Darwin, Einstein, Nietzshce). Many more Fives, however, have become lost in the Byzantine complexities of their own thought processes, becoming merely eccentric and socially isolated.

This sounds like pumping up one's self-esteem i.e. ego thru knowledge... And is clearly an introverted thinking function...It's not about superego... The defense here is pumping up ego...not suppressing and inhibiting it, which is what happens in 1s...

So, I'd say that 1s, 4s, 5s and all suffer from an overly harsh superego (sometimes called the "negative parent" in transactional analysis, or the "antilibinal impulse" in some other contexts) whose caustic criticisms exert undo influence. For the 1s, they've managed to more successfully identify with the superego, such that that sometimes can direct those judgments outward on the world around them, thereby identifying as the "good" crusader and feeling powerful and vindicated. However, 1s also suffer from the continual demands for perfection internally and their inability to meet them perfectly. (BTW, it's clear that types other than 1s, 4s, and 5s have superego issues, but I'm not addressing them here because I have less personal experience of those types.)

What does it mean for 1s to identify with superego and 4s and 5s not identifying with it? It means 1s' ego yielded to the superego...In 1s superego>ego... in 4 and 5, ego>superego... actually if we assume that 4=Fi and 5=Ti and Fi and Ti as internally defined ego values...and Se and Ne as "id" mechanism in service of ego...IxxPs seem to have a big ego and a medium size id...where the latter is in service to the ego...the servant "id" seeks out opportunities for ego satisfaction...

In 7s, Ne, i.e, "id" is stronger than ego, so ego is in service to the "id"..."id" wants to feel pleasure and gratification so it compels the ego to seek these out and not feel bad in the process..."id" has problems with respecting rules and boundaries...it's like a "beast"...


OTOH, assuming 1s are IxxJs...1s have a strong superego, and a medium sized ego which is dependent on external feedback to feel good...and a weak "id", representing primal impulses suppressed by the super ego...hence the conscientousness and inhibition...

4s and 5s, however, represent a failed attempt to identify with the superego. 4s and 5s attempt to align themselves with the negative criticisms of parents (or other authority figures) by accepting the superego's standards as valid, but end up as the target of those negative valuations, rather than the source. This leaves the ego relatively weak compared to the superego, since the ego has ceded most of the id's energy to fending off the attacks of the superego. The ego then becomes, in part, an energetically depleted bystander to the ongoing attacks of the superego on the id, as well as a victim of the attacks of the superego on the ego. Energy goes to fending off the attacks of the superego, and to keeping the emotional effects of the negative judgments out of consciousness.

That's not a failure but rather evidence that they have not yielded to the parental authority (i.e. superego)...1s OTOH have yielded to and internalized the parental authority (i.e. internal critic = superego)... So in 4s and 5s, ego>superego...


So, I'd say:

1s: successfully identify with superego/critical parent, but negatively judge both the self and the outside world.

4s: attempt to identify with superego against the id, but end up identifying with an unlovable ego image also under judgment by the superego.

5s: attempt to identify with superego against the id, but end up identifying with an inadequate and incompetent ego image also under judgment by the superego.

Actually, based on my speculations, 4s and 5s have an "id" that is stronger than their "superego"...furthermore their strong ego is not dependent on external feedback and is therefore isolated...which implies that they don't care for others but just for a few significant close ones...

In any case, there's no reason why a 4 or 5 might not be an MBTI J or P. It's perfectly possible for a J or P child to feel judged as unlovable and/or inadequate and believe that judgment is justified. This seems mildly more likely to me to happen in an environment where one's MBTI preferences are under-valued, but there are a million ways for a child to be criticized, found wanting and feel rejected... and most of those ways have nothing to do with MBTI type at all.

IxxJs are the superego dominant types so it's not possible for 4s and 5s to be IxxJs...
 
Last edited:

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
IxxJs are the superego dominant types so it's not possible for 4s and 5s to be IxxJs...

Yeah. That's why Riso & Hudson tied Ni to type 4 and Si to type 9, and there is a huge population of INFJ 4s and a swelling population of INTJ 5s, not to mention the ISTJ 5s as well. Clearly.

Oh yeah, for the sensible people still in this thread,

1, 2, 6 = Super-Ego ruled
4, 5, 9 = Ego ruled
3, 7, 8 = Id ruled
 

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Okay, most of that bounced right off. Let's try from another direction: let's look at the Freudian model of the psyche and make predictions about what we'd expect, then compare it to the mappings to enneagram types.


The Id

So, first up is the id. Let's start from wikipedia:

The id (German: Es) is the unorganized part of the personality structure that contains a human's basic, instinctual drives. Id is the only component of personality that is present from birth. It is the source of our bodily needs, wants, desires, and impulses, particularly our sexual and aggressive drives. The id contains the libido, which is the primary source of instinctual force that is unresponsive to the demands of reality. The id acts according to the "pleasure principle"—the psychic force that motivates the tendency to seek immediate gratification of any impulse—defined as, seeking to avoid pain or unpleasure (not 'displeasure') aroused by increases in instinctual tension. If the mind was solely guided by the id, individuals would find it difficult to wait patiently at a restaurant, while feeling hungry, and would most likely grab food from neighbouring tables

Okay, so let's make some predictions about someone dominated by the id:

Energy Level: high (nothing restricting the flow of energy from the id)
Adaptation to reality: low
Ability to balance competing demands: low


Okay, now let's do a check on the enneagram id types (3, 7, 8).

Id Enneagram types

Energy level: high; good fit
Adaptation to reality: low; good fit for 7 & 8. Not a great fit for a 3s. 3s tend to be all too adaptive to their external reality, and cut off from what they really want and need.
Ability to balance competing demands: low; a reasonably good fit.

Okay... that wasn't perfect, but not bad. Next up, the ego.


The Ego

The ego (German: Ich)[18] acts according to the reality principle; i.e. it seeks to please the id's drive in realistic ways that will benefit in the long term rather than bring grief. At the same time, Freud concedes that as the ego "attempts to mediate between id and reality, it is often obliged to cloak the Ucs. [Unconscious] commands of the id with its own Pcs. [ Preconscious ] rationalizations, to conceal the id's conflicts with reality, to profess ... to be taking notice of reality even when the id has remained rigid and unyielding." The reality principle that operates the ego is a regulating mechanism that enables the individual to delay gratifying immediate needs and function effectively in the real world. An example would be to resist the urge to grab other people's belongings and buy them instead.

[...]

"it serves three severe masters ... the external world, the super-ego and the id."[20] Its task is to find a balance between primitive drives and reality while satisfying the id and super-ego. Its main concern is with the individual's safety and allows some of the id's desires to be expressed, but only when consequences of these actions are marginal. "Thus the ego, driven by the id, confined by the super-ego, repulsed by reality, struggles ... [in] bringing about harmony among the forces and influences working in and upon it,"

Umm... huh. Seems like in the Freudian system, having a dominate ego = health and balance. That either doesn't really fit any enneagram type (at unhealthy levels) or fits every enneagram type (at high health levels). Plus, the ego has to deal with three masters, one of which isn't represented in our ennegram to Freudian psychic structures mapping at all. And it's the ego that does the coping and deploys defense mechanisms for every type. It's almost like these are two entirely different systems and finding corresponses is fun and intriguing, but not much more.

Oh, well... I'm sure it'll all work out. So, what predictions would we make about the ego types:


Energy Level: medium (manages to meet some of the needs of id, but constrains it as need)
Adaptation to reality: extremely high
Ability to balance competing demands: extremely high

So now let's look at our enneagram ego types (4, 5, 9):

Energy Level: low; not the medium predicted
Adaptation to reality: low to high (rather than high as predicted); 4s and 5s tend to make minimal concessions to outside reality, and 9s tend to over-adapt to the needs of those around them, losing touch with their own needs. None of those sound ego-like at all.
Ability to balance competing demands: low; not the high predicted. Like every ennegram type, balance only comes with health.


Huh... that was a total mess. Healthiness really only resides in the ego in the Freudian model, and our predictions were way off. Well, let's struggle on to the last. The superego:


The Superego

The superego (German: Über-Ich) reflects the internalization of cultural rules, mainly taught by parents applying their guidance and influence. Freud developed his concept of the super-ego from an earlier combination of the ego ideal and the "special psychical agency which performs the task of seeing that narcissistic satisfaction from the ego ideal is ensured ... what we call our 'conscience'." For him "the installation of the super-ego can be described as a successful instance of identification with the parental agency," while as development proceeds "the super-ego also takes on the influence of those who have stepped into the place of parents — educators, teachers, people chosen as ideal models."

Hmm... so in healthier people (whose development proceeds) the superego's demands are somewhat malleable, but it isn't itself governed by the reality principle (that's the ego).

So, we'd predict someone dominated by the super ego to show:

Energy Level: very low (since the superego stymies the id's energy flow at every turn)
Adaptation to reality: low (for the unhealthy) to medium low (at higher health levels)
Ability to balance competing demands: low, since the superego doesn't care about reality or the id.


Now let's look at our superego types: (1, 2, 6)

Energy level: medium to medium high; not as predicted. 1, 2 & 6s all are generally "doers" who generally don't struggle with low energy as a primary issue.
Adaptation to reality: low (1s, if you squint) to medium (2, 6). 6s tend to look to external sources for certainty (or attack them, when couter-phobic). 1s can be overly rigid, so we could count that as a "low."
Ability to balance competing demands: umm... 1s tend to be overly rigid, 2s tend to try to meet the needs of those around them at the expense of other things, 6s tend to fall in line with or against authority. So... low, or varies according to health level.



So... that turned out to be a big muddle. Energy levels don't really work out. Adaption to reality really doesn't work out. In the Freudian system the only way out is for the ego to be in charge, and defense mechanisms are (often unhealthy) ways the ego copes with the competing demands. The enneagram is all about unhealthy defense mechanisms, all of which try to meet the conflicting demands between id, superego, and external reality in different ways. Some of them do, in fact, cede too much authority to the superego, id or to aspects of external reality. But rigidly mapping enneagram type to Freudian psychics structures (especially the ego) does a disservice both the Enneagram and the Freudian psychic model.
 

yeghor

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
4,276
Yeah. That's why Riso & Hudson tied Ni to type 4 and Si to type 9, and there is a huge population of INFJ 4s and a swelling population of INTJ 5s, not to mention the ISTJ 5s as well. Clearly.

Oh yeah, for the sensible people still in this thread,

1, 2, 6 = Super-Ego ruled
4, 5, 9 = Ego ruled
3, 7, 8 = Id ruled

Based on the abovegiven, which "partially" fits with my speculation, IxxJs, who are superego dominant types, cannot have an ego type (i.e. 4, 5 and 9 in your quoted post) as their main type... They have to have a superego type as their main type...to represent a superego stronger than ego...

And I still think 4=Fi and 5=Ti so can't see how a Fe-dom aux or Te-dom aux could be a 4 or 5... perhaps their secondary and tertiary enneagram types may be giving them a different flavor but doubt it...

How did Riso-Hudson do that mapping?
 

yeghor

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
4,276
Yeah. That's why Riso & Hudson tied Ni to type 4 and Si to type 9, and there is a huge population of INFJ 4s and a swelling population of INTJ 5s, not to mention the ISTJ 5s as well. Clearly.

Oh yeah, for the sensible people still in this thread,

1, 2, 6 = Super-Ego ruled
4, 5, 9 = Ego ruled
3, 7, 8 = Id ruled

Oh by the way... Another speculation:

sx requires a strong "id"
so requires a strong "ego"
sp requires a strong "superego"
 
Top