# Meyers Briggs Tests and The Enneagram – A Strong Correlation

• 11-30-2015, 09:12 AM
uumlau
Highlander, I trust your data, but some of your conclusions indicate that you are either using words differently than I would or you are seriously misinterpreting certain statistics. Rather than go over each case (as I suspect the error(s) are the same in each one), let's look at the claim that the most common Enneagram type is 2. Our population as you've noticed before is primarily INxx types: INTJ, INFJ, INTP and INFP. Of these, only the INFJ has type 2 significant at all, and is much more likely to be type 4. We should have a majority type 4 and type 5 population, not type 2. It seems that you are weighing "percentages" together, not actually aggregating data to determine what the percentages are.

Could you post the count of each MBTI/Enneagram type, please?
• 11-30-2015, 09:43 AM
highlander
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hard
Wait, so the majority of the forum is comprized of SJ's, and the least common type is INFJ? I find this extremely hard to believe?

Regardless, this is great to look at.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uumlau
Highlander, I trust your data, but some of your conclusions indicate that you are either using words differently than I would or you are seriously misinterpreting certain statistics. Rather than go over each case (as I suspect the error(s) are the same in each one), let's look at the claim that the most common Enneagram type is 2. Our population as you've noticed before is primarily INxx types: INTJ, INFJ, INTP and INFP. Of these, only the INFJ has type 2 significant at all, and is much more likely to be type 4. We should have a majority type 4 and type 5 population, not type 2. It seems that you are weighing "percentages" together, not actually aggregating data to determine what the percentages are.

Could you post the count of each MBTI/Enneagram type, please?

Both of you are missing the normalization aspect here which @/DG/ mentioned. The first chart and tables with the colorful bars is based on actual data present for each type and what the percentages are for each enneatype. The second chart has been normalized to fit the "world" population so to speak by converting the numbers into what they would look if the forum had the CPP distributions. You really have to look at these two completely different sets of data - different angles so to speak to derive the conclusions that I did - like 1 and 6 being associated mostly with sensing types - or that there are a lot of 2s. For example, on the second chart, the ISFJ is going to count 9 times as much as INFJ in terms of numbers. The normalization pushed numbers down for some types and pushed them up for others. The reason there are a lot of 2s overall is because they have high numbers for certain types that are very common in the population. It doesn't mean they are the most common type on the forum. They're not. Enneagram 4 and 5 are the most common type on the forum because of the disproportionate number of INFs.

I'll have to post other tables a bit later.
• 11-30-2015, 09:51 AM
Z Buck McFate
Quote:

Originally Posted by highlander
There is one problem with all of the ones I’ve read. I have not seen anything based on actual data. Most of the things out there appear based on logic, supposition or subjective opinions. I think there is a lot of bad information.

While I do think this is useful and interesting to see, I'm not sure I'd agree that enough members here type themselves correctly for this to be especially reliable data.

Quote:

At the time I am writing this, Typology Central has a total of 22,877 members. 4703 of those members have entered both their MBTI type and their Enneagram type. I added Enneagram type to the user profile about four years ago so the data has been collecting since that time.
There aren't nearly this many active members here, not to mention that many of the members who are active don't have this information entered. My point being, it's difficult to have an opinion about how reliable this data is. A great deal of these numbers are likely people who sign up on a fleeting interest, enter their first guess at their type and leave the (however likely incorrect) information just sitting there to collect with the rest.

/raining on Te parade

Has anyone ever read the results of the Fauvre Enneatype/mbti study? They likely wouldn't want it posted here- I'm just wondering if anyone found it useful/insightful enough to seek out and read. I got the impression she was going to weed out the information from people who mistyped themselves- at least on the enneagram end. She made some comment about how she could tell, based on the questions she asked, when someone was wrong about their enneagram type.
• 11-30-2015, 10:29 AM
Bush Did 9/11
I absolutely love the normalization approach. If it's done right -- though I'm sure it is but I haven't looked at it in detail -- it actually puts the correlations into a perspective outside of our little forums-world. Just slap a sample size on for each type and you're good to go.

It'd also be helpful to gather up links to the other threads with correlations, theoretical and empirical. Meta-analyses are neat.

I guess you could give some un-normalized stats, too, as boring as they are?
• 11-30-2015, 11:00 AM
Kas
I like it a lot.
A big study group- big enough to make the error (as mistyped people) irrelevant. Also I like how you compared the results to the general MBTI population to get more useful stats.
• 11-30-2015, 11:01 AM
asynartetic
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kas
I like it a lot.
A big study group- big enough to make the error (as mistyped people) irrelevant. Also I like how you compared the results to the general MBTI population to get more useful stats.

Good point. Also, people mistyped in one system are likely to be mistyped in the other system anyway.
• 11-30-2015, 11:12 AM
uumlau
The main problem with determining MBTI vs Enneagram correlations is that it's one thing to have the personalities correlate, and quite another to have the actual types correlate. For example, I believe that a lot of E4s are mistyped as INFPs - and vice versa - because the personalities are so similar. Similarly, I think a lot of INTx types are wrongly typed as E5s - and vice versa - because the personalities match.

That's the main issue I had determining my E9 type. The E5 descriptions said all the "right things", but didn't really match: it describes a generic nerd. Similarly, the E9 type matched me in terms of motivations, but the personality descriptions have a ton of emo-fluff in them that didn't match me. I had to do the difficult work of figuring out what the Enneagram types "really meant" to get my type right. Once I arrived at INTJ E9, everything clicked: I think like an INTJ, I react like a E9.

While I'm only one data point, I currently believe that a lot of these correlations that we see in typical MBTI vs. Enneagram data aren't as significant as they might appear to be on the surface.
• 11-30-2015, 11:13 AM
Kas
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starcrash
Good point. Also, people mistyped in one system are likely to be mistyped in the other system anyway.

Yes, that's very likely.

It is possible though that mistypes are influencing statistics of some types (especially rare as INFJs) more than others.
• 11-30-2015, 11:19 AM
asynartetic
Quote:

Originally Posted by uumlau
The main problem with determining MBTI vs Enneagram correlations is that it's one thing to have the personalities correlate, and quite another to have the actual types correlate. For example, I believe that a lot of E4s are mistyped as INFPs - and vice versa - because the personalities are so similar. Similarly, I think a lot of INTx types are wrongly typed as E5s - and vice versa - because the personalities match.

That's the main issue I had determining my E9 type. The E5 descriptions said all the "right things", but didn't really match: it describes a generic nerd. Similarly, the E9 type matched me in terms of motivations, but the personality descriptions have a ton of emo-fluff in them that didn't match me. I had to do the difficult work of figuring out what the Enneagram types "really meant" to get my type right. Once I arrived at INTJ E9, everything clicked: I think like an INTJ, I react like a E9.

While I'm only one data point, I currently believe that a lot of these correlations that we see in typical MBTI vs. Enneagram data aren't as significant as they might appear to be on the surface.

I hate the 9 descriptions for similar reasons. I joined a 9 group on facebook and it seemed many of the posts were of the "emo-fluff" nature you're describing. I have a very hard time relating to those particular posts.

I should find out the frequency of MBTI types in that group. I suspect a high ratio of feelers to thinkers.
• 11-30-2015, 11:46 AM
AphroditeGoneAwry
Great work! Pretty graph.