MBTI & Enneagram Type Correlations

[Not A Communist Shill]

@SisOfNight I would certainly say that many of the matches are not at all satisfactory.

I imagine that:
- the source data not likely to be especially reliable.
- attempting to create correlations via an indirect process is highly problematic.
- that my "method" assumes that each metric (e.g. "openness" and "intuition") has a 100% correlation, and that each correlation is of equal importance.
- tritypes are not especially meaningful to begin with.

In terms of 4w3 as the third part of an ILE's tritype (out of types 4,5,6): it essentially assumes that ((high "Extraversion" * high "Openness" * low "Conscientiousness" * 0.67)+(low "Extraversion" * low "Agreeableness" * low "Conscientiousness" * 0.33)) is best represented by 4w3.

speaking for myself, I don't think 5w4 seems like a first choice for EIIs (based on descriptions, but of course also knowing about "the Thinker" stereotypes). But on the otherhand, if I had not looked into this at another angle (through somewhat questionable means), I would not have picked up on how the E9, E1, E6 etc. types seem to be associated more with lower levels of intuition, and the extent to which there does not seem to be an especially strong type that represents EIIs well (Some enneagram types with wings seem to describe a particular Socionics type very well. Other enneagram types do not seem to represent anything especially distinct). I think 5w4, on paper, as an alternative to 4w5 for example, could be a satisfactory type for an intuitive EII (which would obviously mean someone who is IJ temperament, -ego...in contrast to an intuitive IEI). I think unfortunately, enneagram descriptions tend to describe the minds (thought processes) of individuals who are both "introverted" and "intuitive" in somewhat mystical terms, which makes it difficult for me to comprehend E4 and w4 descriptions.

[Olimpia]

@SisOfNight I would certainly say that many of the matches are not at all satisfactory.

I imagine that:
- the source data not likely to be especially reliable.
- attempting to create correlations via an indirect process is highly problematic.
- that my "method" assumes that each metric (e.g. "openness" and "intuition") has a 100% correlation, and that each correlation is of equal importance.
- tritypes are not especially meaningful to begin with.

In terms of 4w3 as the third part of an ILE's tritype (out of types 4,5,6): it essentially assumes that ((high "Extraversion" * high "Openness" * low "Conscientiousness" * 0.67)+(low "Extraversion" * low "Agreeableness" * low "Conscientiousness" * 0.33)) is best represented by 4w3.

speaking for myself, I don't think 5w4 seems like a first choice for EIIs (based on descriptions, but of course also knowing about "the Thinker" stereotypes). But on the otherhand, if I had not looked into this at another angle (through somewhat questionable means), I would not have picked up on how the E9, E1, E6 etc. types seem to be associated more with lower levels of intuition, and the extent to which there does not seem to be an especially strong type that represents EIIs well (Some enneagram types with wings seem to describe a particular Socionics type very well. Other enneagram types do not seem to represent anything especially distinct). I think 5w4, on paper, as an alternative to 4w5 for example, could be a satisfactory type for an intuitive EII (which would obviously mean someone who is IJ temperament, -ego...in contrast to an intuitive IEI). I think unfortunately, enneagram descriptions tend to describe the minds (thought processes) of individuals who are both "introverted" and "intuitive" in somewhat mystical terms, which makes it difficult for me to comprehend E4 and w4 descriptions.

I have never tried to correlate the Big 5 with Enneagram before. I'd find that highly problematic. Only the I vs E dichotomy could work sort of reliably.

I believe that Type 5 is correlated with 4D . I have never known an EII 5w4 before, and given they don't have 4D Ti, that makes sense to me.
Based on my experience and observations, the most common main types for EII are 4w5, 9w1 and 6w5.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I have never tried to correlate the Big 5 with Enneagram before. I'd find that highly problematic. Only the I vs E dichotomy could work sort of reliably.

I believe that Type 5 is correlated with 4D . I have never known an EII 5w4 before, and given they don't have 4D Ti, that makes sense to me.
Based on my experience and observations, the most common main types for EII are 4w5, 9w1 and 6w5.

I have my own impressions, but they are weak and perhaps I always see the enneagram of lesser significance and rather vague. So it is good to read the thoughts of others! Some rigorous research would be optimal, but I don't think there's much hope of that .

[Not A Communist Shill]

I have never tried to correlate the Big 5 with Enneagram before. I'd find that highly problematic. Only the I vs E dichotomy could work sort of reliably.

I believe that Type 5 is correlated with 4D . I have never known an EII 5w4 before, and given they don't have 4D Ti, that makes sense to me.
Based on my experience and observations, the most common main types for EII are 4w5, 9w1 and 6w5.

(We discussed this before, briefly).

My understanding is that the 5 could represent INTJ or INTP elements well, and that the 4 could represent INFP-ish elements well. Thus the 5 does not by itself represent -primary, and the 4 does not well represent a rational type, especially not a healthy one. It is just a limitation of the enneagram.

While it may be true that the E5 may generally be considered a "factual, non-people person" sort of type, I don't think that means that the 5w4 could not well suit an introspective-ish INFJ type well (although as I said earlier in the thread, I don't quite understand what is meant by thinking in "geometric shapes" in one 5w4 description), especially compared to any other enneagram type, which do not well represent the EII. The 9 is too sensory and worldly, albeit withdrawn, the 6 is too reactionary and worldly. I don't think that 5s=4D can be argued as a good rule of thumb, considering the frequency of INTPs who score as 5s, and with the 1 being a good match (maybe even the best match) for both LSIs and ESIs, and with 6w5 also being a good match for both but also other types. With such a hodge-podge of behaviour perceived amongst the enneagram types that self-typed INFJs etc. deduce for themselves, I cannot think that 5w4 is not such a bad match for at least some EIIs.

[Jarno]

Enneagram has been overtaken by socionics. Socionics is a huge improvement and has an underlining structure and tested relationships. This is all not present in the enneagram model. There is Enneagram, Belbin, Archetypes, and some more stuff that are just lists of possible roles a human takes on. Nothing more.

Stackings however do seem to have a certain stability in the personality. It's also more elegant and visible.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The Enneagram, Belbin...MBTI may be considered as garbage by serious psychologists, but while we may believe that Socionics theory has tangible descriptive power (in terms of describing the inclinations of individuals and predicting relationship success), it has little or no empirical evidence backing it up at least in terms of it being a primary model (if for example it was defined or understood in the terms of other methodologies such as the Big Five, then it can only be of secondary importance at best).

Past research into relationships using the Big Five has shown variously that the relationships that do best are where both individuals have low Neuroticism, high Extraversion, and high Agreeableness which on the surface would rather torpedo Socionics theory. However of course such studies have not specifically looked at the matter of testing Socionics and it is perfectly possible that the statistical meaningful conclusions of such studies are not necessarily contradictory with various personality traits as ascribed by Socionics.

[maniac]

1=Te
2=Fe
3=nothing
4=Ni
5=Ti
6=Fi
7=Se
8=Ne
9=Si

(Jungs descriptions)

[ANG86]

ILE being/having 4w3 makes little sense, because of Fi PoLR and Ni Ignoring.
LII being/having 8w7 makes little sense, because of Se PoLR and Te Ignoring.
SLE being/having 9w8 makes little sense, because of Fi PoLR and Si Ignoring.
IEI being/having 8w7 makes little sense, because of Te PoLR and 1D Se.

^ Those are my explanations for why it is highly unlikely for those types to have certain Enneagram types in their tritype (and their main type for that matter).
Whatever it may be worth, but I have also never known any of those types having any of those respected Enneagram types as part of their tritype.
I don't count self-mistyping, btw.

And yes, I associate the Enneagram types with certain IE, based on their descriptions and also what Enneagram (tri)types certain Socionics types have had in my experience.
As in, Type 4 is connected with Fi and/or Ni, Type 8 is connected with Te and/or Se, Type 9 is connected with Si and/or Fi.

The ILE being 4w3 is something that doesn't make sense to me especially being a ILE myself I can relate to most types of enneagram but 4 is the one I least understand but I have seen ILE who seem pretty 4ish, but most of them were probaly 6w7.

I actually know an SLE who has a 9 (His tritype is 279) but he's a 7 mainly and probably 7w6 He's actually quite fiery but likes peace especially people close to him, his Fe seems to affect him more than it affects me.

[Allegra]

Is it possible for ENTP in an MBTI to be an EIE in Socionics and 8w9 7w8 4w5 so/sx in Enneagram? Know someone who types themselves this way but to me it makes little sense.

[Olimpia]

Here's my take on it.

[malignantwench]

MBTI & Enneagram Type Correlations:

1w9 ISTJ, INTJ
1w2 ESTJ
2w1 ESFJ, ENFJ
2w3 ESFJ, ENFJ, ESFP
3w2 ESTJ, ENTJ, ENFJ
3w4 ESTJ, ENTJ
4w3 ENFP, ISFP
4w5 INFP
5w4 INTP, INTJ
5w6 INTP, INTJ, ISTP
6w5 ISFJ, ISTJ, ISTP
6w7 ESTJ, ESFJ, ESFP
7w6 ESFP, ENFP, ENTP
7w8 ESTP, ESFP, ENTP
8w7 ESTJ, ENTJ
8w9 ESTJ, ENTJ
9w8 ISTP, ISFP
9w1 ISFP, INFP, ISFJ, INFJ

[malignantwench]

Most Common Enneagram Type and Instinct Type for Each MBTI Type

ESFJ - 2w3 so/sp
ESTJ - 6w7 or 3w2 so/sp
ISTJ - 6w5 sp/so
ISFJ - 6w5 sp/so


ESTP - 7w8 so/sx
ESFP - 7w6 so/sx
ISFP - 9w1 sp/sx
ISTP - 6w5 sp/sx

ENFJ - 2w3 so/sx
ENFP - 7w6 so/sx
INFP - 9w1 sp/sx
INFJ - 9w1 sp/sx

ENTP - 7w8 so/sx
ENTJ - 8w7 so/sp
INTJ - 5w6 sp/so
INTP - 5w6 sp/so

[Breather]

ENF 8s aren't rare at all I have a feeling theres more than predicted