# Thread: enneagram/socionics correlation method

1. ## enneagram/socionics correlation method

hello, the following is something i came up with after seeing the decent enneagram test that Absurd posted (http://pstypes.blogspot.com/2009/11/...gram-test.html) from another thread (http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=36982). it would be cool to see other people take the test and use my methods to correlate a socionics type and see if this is all that accurate. as far as i can tell with the information people posted, it doesnt seem that bad. maybe you can help me make certain.

HOW IT WORKS
broken down into two categories using a table of functions.
number one has a higher precedence over number two in determining an ego.
types that have no demonstrative function are automatically removed in the types.
1. look for duality-pairs.
2. look for same function extratim/introtim pairs.
3. if number 1 and 2 are too ambiguous, then use the predominant enneagram functions to discern leading and demonstrative.

*subtypes that go outside of the two subtype system are used here to denote a person that uses their demonstrative and doesn't fit a subtype well
*and to denote a person that has a stronger hidden agenda than their creative function.

TABLE
Core Functions of Type
1: Ne, Se, Fi
2: Si, Fe, Fi
3: Se, Ne, Te
4: Ni, Fe, Fi
5: Ni, Si, Ti
6: Ni, Se, Ti
7: Ne, Se, Fe
8: Se, Te
9: Si, Fi, Fe

Me
5: Ni, Si, Ti
6: Ni, Se, Ti
result: (Ni<->Se, Si<->?, Ti<->?); (Si<->Se)
socionics types: ILI-Ti, SLI-Ti //by rule three; no Fi excludes IEI and SEI

EyeSeeCold
5: Ni, Si, Ti
9: Si, Fi, Fe
result: (Ni<->?, Si<->?, Ti<->Fe; ?<->Fi)
socionics types: LII-Ni, LSI-Ni //by rule three

Typhon
6: Ni, Se, Ti
8: Se, Te
result: (Ni<->Se, Se<->Ni, Ti<->?; ?<->Te); (Ti<->Te)
socionics types: SLE, ILI-Ti, LSI-Ni //Fixed

Sar
4: Ni, Fe, Fi
6: Ni, Se, Ti
result: (Ni<->Se, Fe<->Ti, Fi<->?); (Fe<->Fi, Fi<->Fe)
socionics types: IEI-Fe

Poli
9: Si, Fi, Fe
4: Ni, Fe, Fi
result: (Si<->?, Fi<->?, Fe<->?; ?<->Ni); (Fi<->Fe, Fe<->Fi)
socionics types: SEI-Fe, ESI-Fi //by rule three

Ashton
8: Se, Te
5: Ni, Si, Ti
result: (Se<->Ni, Te<->?; ?<->Si, ?<->Ti); (Te<->Ti)
socionics types: SLE-Te, LIE-Se (possible exception?)

woofwoofl
3: Se, Ne, Te
2: Si, Fe, Fi
result: (Se<->?, Ne<->Si, Te<->Fi; ?<->Fe); (Se<->Si)
socionics types: IEE-Te, SEE-Te

Parkster
5: Ni, Si, Ti
1: Ne, Se, Fi
result: (Ni<->Se, Si<->Ne, Ti<->?; ?<->Fi); (Ni<->Ne, Si<->Se)
socionics types: ILI-Ti or SLI-Ti

Absurd
8: Te, Se
7: Ne, Se, Fe
result: (Te<->?, Se<->?; ?<->Ne, ?<->Fe)
socionics types: LSE-Se or SLE-Te //by rule three

2. logical chunking

3. Yeah, logical chunky monkies. Your chart looks inaccurate, if you're missing all the other enneagrams per type. Both 9 and 4 are obvious EII types for instance, as well as type 6. I also fit into type 5.

There have already been legitimate enneagram/socionics correlations made on threads of this forum.

4. Originally Posted by aestrivex
logical chunking
Originally Posted by poli
Yeah, logical chunky monkies.
Hehe.

5. Originally Posted by poli
Yeah, logical chunky monkies. Your chart looks inaccurate, if you're missing all the other enneagrams per type. Both 9 and 4 are obvious EII types for instance, as well as type 6. I also fit into type 5.

There have already been legitimate enneagram/socionics correlations made on threads of this forum.
this was intended to be different. the table doesn't represent types or leading functions, but the essence of a function in itself. since the test tells you how you vary in enneagram, im attempting to use it to give a more overall picture of a person after correlating to socionics.

if you think the table is inaccurate, please suggest alternatives. but please keep in mind it describes functionally the essence of the enneagram type and not Jungian types or dual pairs.

6. Originally Posted by aestrivex
logical chunking
yes, that was my intention. would you like to post your test results and see how it comes out for you (if you haven't done it already)?

7. Originally Posted by givemeaname
Me
socionics types: ILI-Ti, SLI-Ti //by rule three; no Fi excludes IEI and SEI
You sound almost like some member on here. It's like you took classes from Alexsei.

Originally Posted by givemeaname
Originally Posted by aestrivex
logical chunking
yes, that was my intention. would you like to post your test results and see how it comes out for you (if you haven't done it already)?
He is 1w9.

8. Originally Posted by Absurd
Originally Posted by givemeaname
Me
socionics types: ILI-Ti, SLI-Ti //by rule three; no Fi excludes IEI and SEI
You sound almost like some member on here. It's like you took classes from Alexsei.
yeah, sorry, you can pretty much ignore it anyway. i was trying to describe between discrepancies in the subtypes to show my reasoning. maybe i just shouldnt use them. for example, an IEE
Ne Fi
Ti Se
Te Si
Ni Fe

1. we can either say IEE-Ne is a strengthening of the whole first column
*but if Ne is strengthened, isnt Ni weakened?
*Ti-PoLR could get strengthened by Te indirectly, since the superego is not theoretically motivated by Fe-demonstrative though

2. or we could say an IEE-Ne has strengthening of the extroverted functions
*but since the Te-HA and Fe-demonstrative oppose one another, one will be stronger than the other?
*but since the Ne-leading and Se-role oppose one another, one will be stronger than the other?

*and then the same ideas follow for the introverted subtype.

so i guess i see standard subtypes as a strengthening of a whole column. but i generally prefer number 2 above so that i can specify the important differences without making assumptions. im not really sure Aleksei has ever explained his reasoning for his subtype systems, but maybe it's the same.

He is 1w9.
thanks

it's better if he takes that test though because he might be better recognized in another secondary type other than nine. but this is the result. im not sure if i should add Ti to enneagram 1 though. 1 is kind of weird, it seems to represent superego opposition in the elements. what would you say?

1: Ne, Se, Fi
9: Si, Fi, Fe
results: (Ne<->Si, Se<->?, Fi<->?; ?<->Fe); (Se<->Si, Fi<->Fe)
socionics results: IEE, EII

with Ti
1: Ne, Se, Fi, Ti
9: Si, Fi, Fe
results: (Ne<->Si, Se<->?, Fi<->?, Ti<->Fe; ?<->Fe); (Se<->Si, Fi<->Fe)
socionics results: LII or ILE, EII or IEE

9. Originally Posted by givemeaname
what would you say?

1: Ne, Se, Fi
9: Si, Fi, Fe
results: (Ne<->Si, Se<->?, Fi<->?; ?<->Fe); (Se<->Si, Fi<->Fe)
socionics results: IEE, EII

with Ti
1: Ne, Se, Fi, Ti
9: Si, Fi, Fe
results: (Ne<->Si, Se<->?, Fi<->?, Ti<->Fe; ?<->Fe); (Se<->Si, Fi<->Fe)
socionics results: LII or ILE, EII or IEE
Works like a charm, let's hear what he's got to say now. I'm sure he will appreciate your efforts.

10. The theory is fundamentally flawed.

By lumping functions together in Socionics-Enneagram correlation, you are skewing the temperaments and motivations involved therein. DS functions found in the Enneagram correlation results do not justify a Base-DS type link.

Using me as an example: I show up with 5(Ni, Si, Ti) & 9(Si, Fi, Fe). That Fe is in the second pair does not mean I exude, demonstrate or otherwise have Fe. All it means is that I have(by your theorization) motivational qualities that resemble Fe(+Si) egos. It has no logical attachment to Ti in the other group because they are mutually exclusive. I cannot be Ti and Fe at the same time. Thus, by your logic, LII cannot be concluded as a type.

Q.E.D.

11. Originally Posted by Shayley
Ok so what would a result where the second highest enneagram number ties with another mean under your system? Such as in the following test result where 5 leads followed by a tie between 1 & 8? Does it indicate ILI, SLI, LIE & LSE?

Type One: 36
Type Two: 22
Type Three: 19
Type Four: 22
Type Five: 40
Type Six: 32
Type Seven: 17
Type Eight: 36
Type Nine: 28
I guess you'd have to do two and then lump the results together. This is actually raised some interesting problems regarding the mathematics of the functions, so I'm not going to support this idea anymore until I have time to carefully reason it all and see how it could map back to this.

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
The theory is fundamentally flawed.

By lumping functions together in Socionics-Enneagram correlation, you are skewing the temperaments and motivations involved therein. DS functions found in the Enneagram correlation results do not justify a Base-DS type link.
well, actually temperaments and motivations are intrinsic to both socionics and enneagram. i was actually trying to be broad in analyzing the resulting types that would come out of it to find a reasonable way to tie the two together and describe how someone can fit many types in different ways, instead of pigeonholing everything down to one type that probably loses the big picture. i don't think it is intrinsically flawed to do so because of this. you're free to rearrange it if you think it is horribly inaccurate though. i would love it if someone could come up with something fully reasoned. im glad i did this anyway though because it forced me to think about the functions of Model A some more.

i thought about doing a third type as well, but i think it might screw everything up too much. you could try it though. maybe it gives better results.

Using me as an example: I show up with 5(Ni, Si, Ti) & 9(Si, Fi, Fe). That Fe is in the second pair does not mean I exude, demonstrate or otherwise have Fe. All it means is that I have(by your theorization) motivational qualities that resemble Fe(+Si) egos. It has no logical attachment to Ti in the other group because they are mutually exclusive. I cannot be Ti and Fe at the same time. Thus, by your logic, LII cannot be concluded as a type.

Q.E.D.
the second enneagram type is supposed to represent your superid in a duality pair. if there is no duality pair, i reasoned through the positions and chose the types that don't end up contradictory in relation to model A. in your case i would have added ILI and SLI, except that it doesn't make much sense to have both a strong HA and demonstrative (this is part of the problem of the math of the functions i would like to discuss when i have time). i could see this as a limitation since Ni and Si are in the same enneagram type, but they both fit there. actually now that i think about it, LSI wouldn't fit either.

oh wait, my bad. your analysis came early when i was realizing the mathematical problems and trying to sort them. you would fit ILI and SLI i believe.

dang, i really want to talk about this now. but i need to get off the internet and do my homework.

12. 5: Ni, Si, Ti
9: Si, Fi, Fe

Si comes up twice
IP comes up twice

IJ comes up twice

IP-Si > IP > IJ.

13. SEI: 2, 3, 6, 7, 9
ILE: 3, 5, 6, 7
ESE: 2, 3, etc.
LII: 5, 6, etc.

IEI: 4, 5, 6, 7 (Fe-sub)
SLE: 3, 6, 7, 8
EIE: 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8
LSI: 1, 3, 5, 6, 8

ILI: 1, 5, 6, etc.
SEE: 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9
LIE: 1, 3, 6, 7, 8
ESI: 1, 2, 4, 6, 9

SLI: 3, 5, 6, 9
IEE: 2, 4, 6, 7, 9
LSE: 1, 3, 6, 8
EII: 1, 2, 4, 6, 9

I think.

14. Quoting from a post in the "History of the forum part II" thread, which will be flawed in that is based on a limit number of people, particular for certain types, and people may self-type wrong...

Originally Posted by Subteigh
I made a graph of correlations. I had the rule that the best fit for an enneagram type or a wing had to be qualified by at least 3 individuals of people of a Socionics type having it, with types in blue being instances where at least 50% of individuals indicated that typing. For the 'weak' column, I included the best fit type if no had been included in the first column, and also the most appropriate wing (whereby at least two individuals had to have it).

5w4 was a very good fit for LIIs on this forum, and 5w6 was very good for ILIs...such typings may be heavily influenced by the disproportionate number of people claiming to be and subtypes respectively.

15. ## here I come with the unicode again

Always wanted to do one of these, and this is gonna deal more in raw accentuation than strict and walled-off typist stuff. Here goes:

8 explicit objects
1 explicit fields

261 static field fxns
378 object fxns
459 dynamic field fxns

I could make this a hell of a lot more complete later on, need to go to the bathroom and shower now.

16. There are others ways to correlate Socionics and Enneagram other than jut taking into account Ego-blocks IMs. Also take into account fear (Super Ego), and desire (Super Id).

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•