Variations within Types

["?"]

I was reading a question and answer session with Thomas Condon, also author of the enneagram type descriptions on LIFEXPLORE. He seems to confirm what many posters at the enneagram institute convey, is that since the two systems are separate entities, it’s hard to make a perfect fit. Here are some of interview excerpts:

Enneagram Monthly: What's your opinion on possible correlations between the Enneagram and the Myers-Briggs system?

Tom Condon: The Enneagram describes nine species of ego-nine ways the human unconscious creates and organizes subjective experience, Your ego generates your map of reality, and your sense of identity along with your core motivations, values and defenses. It offers guiding assumptions, giving you a general sense of direction and immediate ways to proceed. To me, the MBTI and the Enneagram don't describe the same things at all. If the article described an Enneagram style as merely a defense I think that would be a little off. There are clearly healthy expressions of Enneagram styles; each offers abilities and gifts as well as defensive limitations. To me the Enneagram and Myers-Briggs typing system don't describe the same things at all.

EM: We think Pat Wyman (see "The Enneagram and MBTI in Affective Therapy" in the April 1999 issue) is right on target in regarding the two systems as different entities, tather than trying to find correlations.

TC: The Enneagram is describing a central orientation, a core strategy. Within that core strategy, the MBTI describes what amounts to subtypes. The sensory, mental orientations and emotional orientations that are possible within your core Enneagram style. If you try to evenly correlate the two systems, or to identify the one MBTI combination that always goes with each Enneagram style you would be attempting the impossible. There's a book by Renee Baron and Elizabeth Wagele [Are You My Type, Am I Yours?] with a section in the back on MBTI-I think that book has the combination just right.

Nevertheless, the EI forum sees the correlation as:

E1 - ISxJ
E2 - ExFx
E3 - ExxJ
E4 - INxP
E5 - INTx
E6 - xSxx
E7 - ENxP
E8 - ENTJ
E9 - IsxP

I would only agree with those in bold. The others, I have reservations about.

[SolitaryWalker]

In type, you'd be hard pressed to believe that someone can be both Concrete and Imaginative - but they are seperate traits that make up S, and while correlated, are not absolute.

Why? What about if someone developed both N and S?

[ptgatsby]

Why? What about if someone developed both N and S?

MBTI uses preferences (both exist) but strength exists in dichotomies. What you say doesn't apply to MBTI.

ie: Someone who is introverted and extroverted is considered either an ambivert (someone who shows no strong preference - "x" in MBTI, or weak preferences hence the gradient) or someone who tests widely different on the sub-traits (someone who is active but quiet, expressive but intimate, etc). In the second case, the E definition would be inaccurate since it uses a generalised approach to the major trait (which is what MBTI found when doing their factor analysis).

The advice given in MBTI is how to cope (ie: work on the opposite preference) with your preference. How to call up that which is not natural. (On the sample report, you can see examples from page 13+). That is what is mean by developping preferences (being able to identify when it's needed). It is forced, against the preference. It does not change the preference.

[rivercrow]

Sorry for the terseness, I haven't much time.

MBTI is based on a midline.

You prefer one thing or the other.

Slight preference says more about the sorter than about you, as the tool is devised. At this point, a qualified individual should work with you to help self-select.

A lack of differentiation--preferring BOTH S and N suggests:

• lack of type development
• lack of support for natural preferences
• different stages of type development
• some other influence

Type is not Trait.

• Type=pregnant or male/female. You are one or the other, but not a "little bit of one"
• Trait=height, weight. You can be more outgoing or more shy.

Feel free to flame me. I'll be making bean soup.

[SolitaryWalker]

1-Long term thinkers/Visionaries--Ni
2-Helpers/Caretakers/Fe
3-Image Seekers/Se
4-Fi--Melancholy artists...
5-Thinkers--Ti
6-Security Seekers--Si
7-Adventurers-Ne
8-Control Seekers--Te
9-Mediators/Peacemakers Ne(See big picture/both sides) Fi(please others on a personal level)

[nightning]

Let's see if I can get this to work...
...
Aha! Sadly, in searching for this, I found out they have it at wikipedia. :steam: Bah. That would of saved me a whole lot of time (oh well, here it is, from wikipedia anyway). They also have a good write up on Step II now, which is new. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbti#MBTI_step_II

This is a rather large argument going on right now. In general, the FFM was picked because it had the right amount of traits, sub traits and themes - not because it was the most complete. Stuff like the 16PF and 15FQ had far more depth (for their time), but ultimately suffered from pratical limits.

The tendency is for all systems to move towards some type of FFM - it seems to be the natural crossing point (MBTI has added the 5th measurement, 16PF has created general traits - 5 of them, etc).

However, these modesl are not type theories - type theories fit a more narrow purpose than the full psychological tools.

Thank you for posting all that... looks like I'll have to hunt out that McCrae & Costa paper. I know they did a lot of work on personality theories, but I haven't realized they also did a comparison of FFM with MBTI.

Rivercrow: Ah... I hate terminology I tell you. I'll refrain from using the word "type" when I want to describe continuity in the future.

[ptgatsby]

Thank you for posting all that... looks like I'll have to hunt out that McCrae & Costa paper. I know they did a lot of work on personality theories, but I haven't realized they also did a comparison of FFM with MBTI.

I've attached one that is similar to this (but it deals with key words, hence traits). The main difference is that this one isn't copyrighted (as far as I know, anyway. Let me know if I missed it.)

[nightning]

I'm a university student (well at least I still have access to journal databases)... so I have that McCrae paper sitting in front of me at the moment. It's quite an informative read in my opinion.

If anybody is interested in it... "Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality" They can PM me I suppose.

Although the paper's written in 1989... copyright laws should have long expired. Should I just attach it here?

[ptgatsby]

Although the paper's written in 1989... copyright laws should have long expired. Should I just attach it here?

Copyright should still be active, unfortunately

[rivercrow]

Darn.... And that is one paper I dearly want to read.

Guess I need to see if my student ID card still works....

Or I can contact CAPT and see if I can get a reprint thru them.