[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Functions vs. Dichotomies and Enneagram Correlations

[highlander]

I recently completed an analysis here of MBTI types and correlation with the enneagram. As part of that, I summarized a number of key correlations below. As to the argument on cognitive functions and whether or not they exist, one interesting thing is that the majority of the relationships were dichotomy aligned vs function aligned, though there are some fairly notable exceptions like the connection between Enneagram 2 and Extraverted Feeling or the connection between Introverted Sensing and Enneagram 1. Do you think these observations help to provide evidence for Cognitive Functions? Why or why not?

I copied in the bullet points from the study and highlighted the items that seem to correlate more with a function view vs. dichotomy based view.

• Enneagram 1 - There is a strong correlation between Enneagram 1 and those that prefer Introverted Sensing in the dominant or auxiliary position. There was also a correlation between Enneagram 1 and Introversion. 82% - 84% of Enneagram ones are of four types: ISTJ, ESTJ, ISFJ and ESFJ. Reflecting the the higher frequency of 1 among sensors and higher percentage of sensors in the population as a whole, it can be observed that 88% - 90% of Enneagram 1s are Sensors, with INTJs and ENTJs being the Intuitive types mostly likely to be a 1.
• Enneagram 2 - 93% - 98% of Enneagram 2s have a preference for Feeling over Thinking. There appears to be a specific additional correlation between Enneagram 2 and Extraverted Feeling. 63% - 79% of Enneagram 2s fall into four types: ISFJ, ESFJ, ENFJ and INFJ. Enneagram 2 is especially prevalent amongst those that have a dominant preference for Extraverted Feeling - specifically ENFJs and ESFJs, where it is by far the most common Enneagram type.
• Enneagram 3 - Between 82% and 91% of Enneagram 3s are Extraverts and this single dimension appears to be the most strongly correlated with the type, 62% -74% of 3s fell into four types: ESTJ, ESFJ, ESTP and ESFP. Intuitive types that were mostly likely to be an Enneagram 3 were ENTJ, ENTP and ENFJ.
• Enneagram 4 - Enneagram 4 is strongly correlated with a preference for intuition as well as feeling. It is also more likely to be associated with introversion than extraversion. The types most likely to be Enneagram 4 are in order of likelihood, INFP (42% - 57% of INFPs are 4), INFJ (29% - 44% of INFJs are 4), ISFP (27% - 35% of ISFPs are 4) and ENFP (23% - 25% of ENFPs are 4). Between 56% and 65% of Enneagram 4s are made up of these three types. An additional 19 - 31% of Enneagram 4s are ISFJs and ESFPs because it is not an uncommon type for them and their overall prevalence in the population as a whole.
• Enneagram 5 - Though almost any type could be a 5, Enneagram 5s are typically Introverted Thinkers with 59% to 75% falling into one of four types INTP, ISTJ, INTJ, and ISTP. It is by far the most common type for INTPs, INTJs and ISTPs.
• Enneagram 6 - Enneagram 6 is interesting in that it is present in significant numbers across all of the MBTI types. 13% - 17% of Sensing types and 6% - 10% of Intuitive types were Enneagram 6 making it more strongly correlated with Sensing than Intuition. Reflecting the the higher frequency of 6 among sensors and higher percentage of sensors in the population as a whole, it can be observed that 87% - 89% of Enneagram 6s are Sensors. There was an especially strong correlation specifically between Enneagram 6 and the SJ Temperament. ISTJs and ISFJs are the two types that are most likely to be Enneagram 6 and these two types alone constitute 46% - 57% of the Enneagram 6s in the overall population.
• Enneagram 7 - Enneagram 7 correlates strongly with EP - dominant Extraverted Intuition (ENFP, ENTP) and dominant Extraverted Sensing (ESFP, ESTP). 71% - 89% of Enneagram 7s were one of those four types.
• Enneagram 8 - 8 is by far the most common Enneagram type for ENTJs, representing 32% - 46% of the population. 58% - 71% of Enneagram 8s fell into one of three types: ESTJ, ESTP and ENTJ. Between 31% and 45% of 8s are ESTJs, largely due to how common the ESTJ type is.
• Enneagram 9 - Enneagram 9 appears to be be correlated with a preference for feeling and introversion. Between 79% and 83% of 9s have a preference for feeling over thinking. 68% - 70% of Enneagram 9s are Introverts. There also appears to be a slight correlation with sensing over intuition.

 

[Eric B]

I always liked this correlation Myers-Briggs, XYZ Leadership and Team Roles by David M. Boje, Ph.D. (David M. Boje "Leadership Out of the Box"), because it matches the correlation with the five temperaments that always made the most sense to me:

	MBTI types	Common thread	Expressiveness/Responsiveness
1	ISTJ, ENFJ, ENTJ, ISFJ	J	(ambiverted, low R)
2	ESFJ, ENFJ, ESFP, ENFP	EF	(extraverted, high R ("Sanguine" social image)
3	ESTP, ENTP, ENTJ, ESTJ	ET	extraverted, low R ("Choleric" social image)
4	INFJ, INFP, ENFJ, ISFP	IF, [en]F	mostly introverted, high R ("Supine" social image)
5	INTP, ISTP, INTJ, ISTJ	IT	introverted, low R ("Melancholy" social image)
6	ISFJ, ESFJ, INFP, ENFP	EF/IF	ambidextrous E/I; high R, Supine or Sanguine social image
7	ESTP, ESFP, ENTP, ENFP	EP	extraverted; high R ("Sanguine" sociability temperament)
8	ENTJ, ESTJ, ENTP, ESTP	ET	extraverted, low R ("Choleric" social image)
9	ISFP, INFP, ISFJ, ESTP	I[e]S[n]F[t]P[j]	introverted and extraverted; low and high R (all-around moderate)

 

[highlander]

I recently completed an analysis here of MBTI types and correlation with the enneagram. As part of that, I summarized a number of key correlations below. As to the argument on cognitive functions and whether or not they exist, one interesting thing is that the majority of the relationships were dichotomy aligned vs function aligned, though there are some fairly notable exceptions like the connection between Enneagram 2 and Extraverted Feeling or the connection between Introverted Sensing and Enneagram 1. Do you think these observations help to provide evidence for Cognitive Functions? Why or why not?

I copied in the bullet points from the study and highlighted the items that seem to correlate more with a function view vs. dichotomy based view.

• Enneagram 1 - There is a strong correlation between Enneagram 1 and those that prefer Introverted Sensing in the dominant or auxiliary position. There was also a correlation between Enneagram 1 and Introversion. 82% - 84% of Enneagram ones are of four types: ISTJ, ESTJ, ISFJ and ESFJ. Reflecting the the higher frequency of 1 among sensors and higher percentage of sensors in the population as a whole, it can be observed that 88% - 90% of Enneagram 1s are Sensors, with INTJs and ENTJs being the Intuitive types mostly likely to be a 1.
• Enneagram 2 - 93% - 98% of Enneagram 2s have a preference for Feeling over Thinking. There appears to be a specific additional correlation between Enneagram 2 and Extraverted Feeling. 63% - 79% of Enneagram 2s fall into four types: ISFJ, ESFJ, ENFJ and INFJ. Enneagram 2 is especially prevalent amongst those that have a dominant preference for Extraverted Feeling - specifically ENFJs and ESFJs, where it is by far the most common Enneagram type.
• Enneagram 3 - Between 82% and 91% of Enneagram 3s are Extraverts and this single dimension appears to be the most strongly correlated with the type, 62% -74% of 3s fell into four types: ESTJ, ESFJ, ESTP and ESFP. Intuitive types that were mostly likely to be an Enneagram 3 were ENTJ, ENTP and ENFJ.
• Enneagram 4 - Enneagram 4 is strongly correlated with a preference for intuition as well as feeling. It is also more likely to be associated with introversion than extraversion. The types most likely to be Enneagram 4 are in order of likelihood, INFP (42% - 57% of INFPs are 4), INFJ (29% - 44% of INFJs are 4), ISFP (27% - 35% of ISFPs are 4) and ENFP (23% - 25% of ENFPs are 4). Between 56% and 65% of Enneagram 4s are made up of these three types. An additional 19 - 31% of Enneagram 4s are ISFJs and ESFPs because it is not an uncommon type for them and their overall prevalence in the population as a whole.
• Enneagram 5 - Though almost any type could be a 5, Enneagram 5s are typically Introverted Thinkers with 59% to 75% falling into one of four types INTP, ISTJ, INTJ, and ISTP. It is by far the most common type for INTPs, INTJs and ISTPs.
• Enneagram 6 - Enneagram 6 is interesting in that it is present in significant numbers across all of the MBTI types. 13% - 17% of Sensing types and 6% - 10% of Intuitive types were Enneagram 6 making it more strongly correlated with Sensing than Intuition. Reflecting the the higher frequency of 6 among sensors and higher percentage of sensors in the population as a whole, it can be observed that 87% - 89% of Enneagram 6s are Sensors. There was an especially strong correlation specifically between Enneagram 6 and the SJ Temperament. ISTJs and ISFJs are the two types that are most likely to be Enneagram 6 and these two types alone constitute 46% - 57% of the Enneagram 6s in the overall population.
• Enneagram 7 - Enneagram 7 correlates strongly with EP - dominant Extraverted Intuition (ENFP, ENTP) and dominant Extraverted Sensing (ESFP, ESTP). 71% - 89% of Enneagram 7s were one of those four types.
• Enneagram 8 - 8 is by far the most common Enneagram type for ENTJs, representing 32% - 46% of the population. 58% - 71% of Enneagram 8s fell into one of three types: ESTJ, ESTP and ENTJ. Between 31% and 45% of 8s are ESTJs, largely due to how common the ESTJ type is.
• Enneagram 9 - Enneagram 9 appears to be be correlated with a preference for feeling and introversion. Between 79% and 83% of 9s have a preference for feeling over thinking. 68% - 70% of Enneagram 9s are Introverts. There also appears to be a slight correlation with sensing over intuition.

I'm surprised there weren't more comments on this thread/post.

 

[Red Memories]

I suppose I have a different view of combining enneagram and MBTI.

MBTI and enneagram first and foremost are DIFFERENT SYSTEMS - Therefore they come to their conclusions differently. Enneagram is mainly based upon interior fears which a person has while MBTI refers to function usage. I think Enneagram proves how we tend to strengthen or weaken functions based upon our core fears.

For instance I grew up in a very critical environment, which caused me to fear the possibility of being a not-so-great person. The E1 traits come out. But I am an xNFP even if some believe INFP. It is rare for xNFP to be E1 according to statistical correlations, but they are just that - correlation. It is not causation.

Now? For someone with inferior Si, I have a little more of it than the average ENFP, making some see INFP. I also have stronger Fi. I do not resonate with Fe in MBTI much at all but I am an E2, I have no doubts about the E2 anymore. I think it may show correlation but ultimately types can vary and this shouldn't be taken as "if I am SJ I am most likely an E1, if I am an E1 I am most likely an SJ". I think E1 is perceived as the sensor because of their perfectionistic tendencies: we want things to work out exactly as hoped therefore there is more attention to detail, usually related with strong sensory.

Just some 2 cents to add.

 

[Norexan]

Enneagram is highly correlate with needs of your anima.
It is not static system. It is internal dynamic system and instruction for your growing.



Mistyping is often as well. For example ADVANCED type 4 tend to become type 1 and when type 4 is under stress it becomes 2, type 5 can think that he is 4 , type 4 that he is 5 , 3 that he is 8 etc.

 

[LucieCat]

Very interesting study. It's not surprising to see a high correlation of 6s among the SJ types. I feel a lot of the descriptions of 6 are more geared to that temperament. Also, I know ENFP type 6 is not the least common, but I was supposed to see how many there are. I feel like it's an odd combo. Then you add in my instinctual stacking and for some reason I don't think there are too many 6 so/sp's among ENFPs.

It's also not surprising to see a big correlation between Fe and type 2. I've known several ExFJs who are quite blatantly 2s. Almost Uber 2s in a way. The main one being one of my best friends. There is no doubt in my mind that she is a 2 (likely 2w1). Well I usually like to add some doubt so I'll say I'm 99% sure.

 

[Coriolis]

I'm surprised there weren't more comments on this thread/post.

How reliable do you consider the data on which these observations are based? Meaning how much do you trust the self-reported types of members of the two online communities surveyed? How many members were excluded because they do not report a type, and is this behavior itself type-dependent, leading to an underrepresentation of certain types in either system?

 

[rav3n]

Out of curiosity, did you use polls or trawl the database?

 

[highlander]

How reliable do you consider the data on which these observations are based? Meaning how much do you trust the self-reported types of members of the two online communities surveyed? How many members were excluded because they do not report a type, and is this behavior itself type-dependent, leading to an underrepresentation of certain types in either system?

I think it is directionally pretty accurate. Very large sample and from a bunch of people on personality forums. Who would know their type better? I looked at the entire forum population as well as that of personalitycafe

 

[highlander]

Out of curiosity, did you use polls or trawl the database?

Ran a query on the database for our forum

 

[Coriolis]

I think it is directionally pretty accurate. Very large sample and from a bunch of people on personality forums. Who would know their type better? I looked at the entire forum population as well as that of personalitycafe

I saw that. I just know from this forum that there are always folks unsure of their type (that's why they are here) and posting something tentative; trying on various types "for size"; or deliberately goofing around by pretending to be another type. Sure, asking random folks on the street who might not even have heard of MBTI would be far less accurate, but say the results of a survey administered to workgroups or a student population in relatively controlled circumstances would be better, assuming honest answers.

 

[rav3n]

Ran a query on the database for our forum

Excellent!

 

[á´…eparted]

Somewhat random thought, is there any way to measure or estimate the accuracy of self-typing with the database used? This might be an important metric to check. One way to do this would to track any type revisions made by members who frequent/speak here a lot. I'm not a statistician so I am not sure how this could be done, but I do believe we can at least partially measure it, and it could enhance the accuracy of the results.

 

[rav3n]

I've often wondered if NTJ 1s were mistyped STJs.

 

[á´…eparted]

I've often wondered if NTJ 1s were mistyped STJs.

As one of the resident E1's of typoc, honestly I find that self typed NTJ 1's more often mess up with their enneagram self typing, and less so with MBTI if there is a typing error. Not always though.

1's can display considerable variance in presentation and behavior, but due to the types presentation it's very easy for the typing to be seen as stereotypical.

 

[rav3n]

As one of the resident E1's of typoc, honestly I find that self typed NTJ 1's more often mess up with their enneagram self typing, and less so with MBTI if there is a typing error. Not always though.

1's can display considerable variance in presentation and behavior, but due to the types presentation it's very easy for the typing to be seen as stereotypical.

Fair enough. It's that ones and NTJs don't mesh as types, whichever typology they might have mistyped. Perhaps they're confusing internal values (Fi) with rules, in some way believing the universality of their internal values. INTJs are more prone to believing in the universality of their internal values.

 

[á´…eparted]

Fair enough. It's that ones and NTJs don't mesh as types, whichever typology they might have mistyped. Perhaps they're confusing internal values (Fi) with rules, in some way believing the universality of their internal values. INTJs are more prone to believing in the universality of their internal values.

They can. In NTJ 1's, they tend to display a rigorous, constant, and readily displayed affinity for ethics. All 1's tend to in some way, but NTJ 1's seem to be mentally and almost philosophically emmersed in it. It's almost as if it's one of their favorite topics to debate and discuss. To 1's morality matters quite a bit, and to NTJ's it can be seen as one of their most favorite puzzles to try and crack, often because it seems to be the most important one. The addition of Ni to the set tends to make for a more "contemplative" association with "rightness" and thus can often lack that sharp undebatable aspect that 1's can have that is most often seen with STJ 1's.

 

[Galena]

Somewhat random thought, is there any way to measure or estimate the accuracy of self-typing with the database used? This might be an important metric to check. One way to do this would to track any type revisions made by members who frequent/speak here a lot. I'm not a statistician so I am not sure how this could be done, but I do believe we can at least partially measure it, and it could enhance the accuracy of the results.

A factor for the temporal endurance (not a real business term, lol!) of the type listings one puts up was exactly what I thought after I read your first sentence here, and while I'm not specifically a statistician, I do investigate metrics every day. For example, whatever scale we would set for maximum vs minimum endurance would be close to steady state for my core enneagram type (if it was a number from 0-1, it might be .97), show a little less when wing is taken into account, and be closer to the minimum end for my instinct. This would totally be something that could change for a person over time, like if they get through a more uncertain period and then settle on one type for several years after that. With MBTI, it would be interesting to look at one's endurance for both whole types and individual letters or incomplete combinations of letters, such as someone who has gone through every NT type but has never wavered from the NT combination, or just someone who is unsure about everything but that they are absolutely an F. Could also translate types and letter combinations into the functions they represent.

A good metric to look at next to this - quite possibly even necessary to look at next to it - is how long the person has actually been registered on the forum. A potential confounding influence to consider, and that would be hard to track accurately, would be people who change up their type fields for reasons other than the service of accuracy, such as deleting one's type to avoid negative judgement or changing it around often out of discomfort with the system rather than an actual lack of surety about it. Maybe a way to try detecting more casual or reserved users would be to see who comes up if we search for everyone who has ever put a non-type word in their type field. Also, the popularity of putting tritype in the enneagram field would be an issue...yeah. Just a starting point, but clearly something to nerd out about, haha.

 

[highlander]

I saw that. I just know from this forum that there are always folks unsure of their type (that's why they are here) and posting something tentative; trying on various types "for size"; or deliberately goofing around by pretending to be another type. Sure, asking random folks on the street who might not even have heard of MBTI would be far less accurate, but say the results of a survey administered to workgroups or a student population in relatively controlled circumstances would be better, assuming honest answers.

Why would that be more accurate? Also, it would likely cost $500 a person to get reasonably accurate type determination. I would argue that people who have put in the effort to join this kind of forum and attempted to figure out both of these types, which assumes some level of interest and focus, and there are thousands of them, is a decent data set to base some conclusions on.

 

[Coriolis]

Why would that be more accurate? Also, it would likely cost $500 a person to get reasonably accurate type determination. I would argue that people who have put in the effort to join this kind of forum and attempted to figure out both of these types, which assumes some level of interest and focus, and there are thousands of them, is a decent data set to base some conclusions on.

Because people don't usually joke around on those as they do on a forum like ours, or try on different types just to see how they "feel", perhaps due to cost if they are paying for the real MBTI, perhaps because they might be taking it in a group or work setting where everyone is being more serious and focused. A quick look around our type related threads shows no shortage of people, especially younger people, who truly are unsure of their type, and come here in part to help figure it out. Until they do, there is a large margin for error in what they declare. Of course it isn't feasible for everyone to take the "real" MBTI, or even some standardized grouping of online tests. I have observed enough of the referenced behavior here, though, to suspect that at least 20% of stated types are not accurate, either due to genuine uncertainty, experimentation, or just plain joking around. Doesn't necessarily make your conclusions invalid, just reduces the confidence level.