Correlations between Socionics and Enneagram types (old discussions)

[MysticSonic]

I'm more likely than not a 9...so wtf am I? These correlations are bullshit and will always be bullshit. There's probability, but there are few certainties when it comes to a matter like this.

[Ezra]

Is there any reason why you put it in code, machintruc?

For readability. As a type, you'll easily understand.

I doubt it.

[Ezra]

Is there any reason why you put it in code, machintruc?

Why in hell would a LIE be more likely 7w6 than 7w8 if it is equally as likely that he's 8w7 than he is 7w6? Wouldn't it make more sense for the two to be adiacent types on the progression?

No. Because it is more likely that an LIE is a cp6 than an 8w7.

[Ezra]

I'm more likely than not a 9...so wtf am I? These correlations are bullshit and will always be bullshit. There's probability, but there are few certainties when it comes to a matter like this.

They're bullshit because you don't understand them.

[Ezra]

Actually, I think there's a possibility that a 9 can be an ESI, and possibly an EII.

[MysticSonic]

I understand them very, very well. I've been reading and studying(term here used loosely) the Enneagram since I was 14. Correlations often work, certainties rarely do. For instance, I agree that an LII could never possibly be a type 7, but I also do not believe an LII(which I am), could not possibly be a 9. There seems to be no direct contradiction between the two types as a whole.

[FDG]

Is there any reason why you put it in code, machintruc?

Why in hell would a LIE be more likely 7w6 than 7w8 if it is equally as likely that he's 8w7 than he is 7w6? Wouldn't it make more sense for the two to be adiacent types on the progression?

No. Because it is more likely that an LIE is a cp6 than an 8w7.

Still stating opinions without much backing...

[Ezra]

I understand them very, very well. I've been reading and studying(term here used loosely) the Enneagram since I was 14. Correlations often work, certainties rarely do. For instance, I agree that an LII could never possibly be a type 7, but I also do not believe an LII(which I am), could not possibly be a 9. There seems to be no direct contradiction between the two types as a whole.

Well, to be honest, 9s are by nature live and let live. No Rational type is like this. Nor do IJs wait until the last minute to complete something or only get off their arse to do so when someone pushes them - an IP thing. 9s are clearly IPs.

[Ezra]

Is there any reason why you put it in code, machintruc?

Why in hell would a LIE be more likely 7w6 than 7w8 if it is equally as likely that he's 8w7 than he is 7w6? Wouldn't it make more sense for the two to be adiacent types on the progression?

No. Because it is more likely that an LIE is a cp6 than an 8w7.

Still stating opinions without much backing...

Yeahhh well. What can I say? I just have faith in my capacity to come out with shit like this. I know what I mean, and I know where the logic comes from, but it just takes too long to explain and I can never really be arsed explaining it.

Put it this way:

LIE: cp6w5 > 8w7 > 7w6 > 7w8.

So, 6 is most likely. But 7s are not likely to be LIEs. So what's next? 8s, who are quite like LIEs. Then after that, 7w6 is more likely to be an LIE than a 7w8, because 6s are more likely to be LIEs than 7s. Do you understand?

[Ezra]

Haha - that sounds a bit like EP.

[Elro]

Nor do IJs wait until the last minute to complete something or only get off their arse to do so when someone pushes them - an IP thing.

Not quite: I leave stuff to the last minute, such as assignments, because I like the pressure :wink:.

I leave stuff until the last minute because I am easily distracted from them. For instance, right now I'm being distracted from studying to make this post. I'm also putting off writing a paper in order to study.

[eunice]

Nor do IJs wait until the last minute to complete something or only get off their arse to do so when someone pushes them - an IP thing.

Not quite: I leave stuff to the last minute, such as assignments, because I like the pressure :wink:.

I do that too, because I know that I will definitely finish them somehow, so why rush?

[Ezra]

Nor do IJs wait until the last minute to complete something or only get off their arse to do so when someone pushes them - an IP thing.

Not quite: I leave stuff to the last minute, such as assignments, because I like the pressure :wink:.

I leave stuff until the last minute because I am easily distracted from them. For instance, right now I'm being distracted from studying to make this post. I'm also putting off writing a paper in order to study.

I'm actually waiting for some work. Freshers Week is an utter joke; it's an unnecessary Americanism for shy people who need to fuel their bodies with so much shite that they can blurt out a few words to someone.

[machintruc]

I'm a 1w9 and it's very unlikely that I'm LSE, somewhat less but still unlikely that I'm LSI either.

My driving monitor is LSE, and 1w9

[Ezra]

I'm a 1w9 and it's very unlikely that I'm LSE, somewhat less but still unlikely that I'm LSI either.

The only reason I suggested the Logical types for 1w9 is that the 9 wing brings to the 1 a cold and detached way of looking at life, which is much more evident in Logical types. For the 1w2, it's a very different case - the 2 wing dominance lends a humanistic element to the 1.

I suppose one could be a 1w9 and an Ethical type though.

[Orest Reinn]

1 - XSXj
2 - XXFx
3 - ESXx
4 - XNFx
5 - IXTx
6 - XXXx
7 - EXXp
8 - EXXj
9 - IXXp

But En and So work in so different ways that there might happen for example extroverted 5 like me

[machintruc]

1 - XSXj
2 - XXFx
3 - ESXx
4 - XNFx
5 - IXTx
6 - XXXx
7 - EXXp
8 - EXXj
9 - IXXp

But En and So work in so different ways that there might happen for example extroverted 5 like me

ILE-5 are actually frequent I even have a case of a possible LIE-5. I know an ILE-5 guy which I once mistyped LII.

I think the E/I thing is related to the amount of neurotransmitters produced. http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/articles/NArtTina.asp

Let's add the S, N, and D things. Low = 0, Med = 1, High = 2.

One 2
Two 4
Three 4
Four 1
Five 3
Six 3
Seven 6
Eight 2
Nine 2

This could mean that a Type 5 is more likely to be an Extrotim than a Type 8...

I don't have any case of Introtim Type 7 yet. But Type 4 is possibly compatible with Extrotimness... Possibly ****** was E4, but could he be E2...

[Joy]

I think that rather than there being a direct correlation between socionics types and enneagram types, in reality sometimes one's enneagram type explains how they're different than what you'd typically see with people of their socionics type. I think that each socionics types can be most of the ennegram types.

Based on the idea that enneagram types are responses to upbringing and socionics types are inborn and not changed or formed by one's environment (though behavior obviously can be), this would make the most sense (imo atm).

[Ezra]

Yeah, true.

Also, the Oldham styles can fit different socionics types, and they certainly relate to more than one Enneagram type.

[Phaedrus]

Based on the idea that enneagram types are responses to upbringing and socionics types are inborn and not changed or formed by one's environment (though behavior obviously can be), this would make the most sense (imo atm).

Yes, if that were true. But it isn't. The Enneagram types are also inborn. And both the Enneagram types and the Socionic types are of course somewhat "formed" by the environment.

[Joy]

How can they be both inborn and formed by the environment? And why do enneagram type descriptions talk about what things were most likely like in that type's childhood?

[Phaedrus]

How can they be both inborn and formed by the environment?

What type you are is inborn. The exact manifestation of your type -- how it is "shaped" -- is influenced by external, environmental forces to some extent.

And why do enneagram type descriptions talk about what things were most likely like in that type's childhood?

Probably for similar reasons as those who analyze things from a psychoanalytical perspective. Psychoanalysts look at the same emprical phenomena as those that can be described in a neuro-biological perspective (or some other perspective), they describe the external behaviours correctly, but they incorrectly assume that the behaviours and attitudes are primarily caused by experiences in the childhood. The real causes of the behaviours of the types are primarily due to genetics -- traits that you are born with.

[Joy]

Why do you think enneagram types are inborn?

And what's the difference between enneagram types and socionics types?

[Joy]

Basically, I'd like to know why you think there are only 9 enneagram types as opposed to 16 socionics types if the systems match up that perfectly.

[Phaedrus]

Basically, I'd like to know why you think there are only 9 enneagram types as opposed to 16 socionics types if the systems match up that perfectly.

9 types are too few. There should be at least 16 of them. And the systems do not match up that perfectly -- that's the problem with the Enneagram. Some socionic types are much better represented in the Ennegram than others, for example the ISFj (type 6), the ISFp (type 9), etc.

Some socionic types can perhaps be more than one Ennegram type, like maybe the ESTp, and some Ennegram types will inevitably have to store more than one socionic types unless we want to exclude some socionic types from the Ennegram. The ISTp, for example, doesn't seem to have a natural home anywhere in the Ennegram, as pointed out also by Expat on at least one occasion.

The best representative for Enneagram type 5 is the INTp, in my opinion, but we probably have to include some INTjs there too, and maybe some other type(s) as well. Some INTjs seem to belong to type 1, but that type is more typically the home of ISTjs, and maybe some other rational types as well. And type 2 have to harbour more types than the ESFj. Type 4 is problematic because it is unclear whether it is the INFp or the INFj that is the host in that home.

And what about type 7? It is a typical EP type, but which socionic type is the best representative of it? Probably one of the ENP types, but the distinction between ethical and logical types is blurred in type 7. Not so in type 5 which is clearly a logical type, but maybe the difference between S/N is more unclear in that type. Type 4 is without doubt an intuitive type, so no sensing type can be a type 4. And no logical type can be a type 2.

The Enneagram is simply not a perfect system. It doesn't match up to reality if we scrutinize it, but it can still offer us some valuable insights if we take it for what it is.

[Gilly]

I hope you all realize that this is pointless speculation. Everything is affected by both your inborn tendencies towards some things and ALSO your environment; it couldn't possibly be any other way. Now, if you want to talk about dominance and such, well, good fucking luck trying to find evidence that ACTUALLY points to one or the other.

[Phaedrus]

Now, if you want to talk about dominance and such, well, good fucking luck trying to find evidence that ACTUALLY points to one or the other.

There is. We have the general, very clear observation, based on many, many empirical studies, that most of our personality traits are predominantly explained by genetic factors. The environment is necessary, but we can safely rule out explanations that focus mostly on environmental factors, such as the psychoanalytic theories, as groundless. Our inborn tendencies are clearly much more important than the environment when it comes to shape us as persons.

[marooned]

Just because there's a correlation between our personalities and our genes (as there should be considering we are biological entities), doesn't mean that our personalities are largely genetically predetermined. The human brain is a highly adaptable organ--our experiences play a significant part in shaping who we are. Of course this also depends on what you mean by "personality."

[Gilly]

I think that rather than there being a direct correlation between socionics types and enneagram types, in reality sometimes one's enneagram type explains how they're different than what you'd typically see with people of their socionics type. I think that each socionics types can be most of the ennegram types.

Based on the idea that enneagram types are responses to upbringing and socionics types are inborn and not changed or formed by one's environment (though behavior obviously can be), this would make the most sense (imo atm).

Wait a second Joy, you're using Ti again

Sure, that's nice, but it's purely hypothetical. You don't know anything about what makes either kind of type inborn or not.

[Phaedrus]

Just because there's a correlation between our personalities and our genes (as there should be considering we are biological entities), doesn't mean that our personalities are largely genetically predetermined.

Maybe not. But there is a strong consensus among neuroscientists that that is the case. There is no other reasonable conclusion to draw from the evidence than that our personalities are in fact largely genetically predetermined. To believe something else is to have an unscientific attitude.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Jarno]

From identical twin studies - where twins are raised in two different places (granted doesn't happen too often) it seems way more is genetically determined than you might at first think. Oftentimes the twins not only had very similar or identical careers, and all these little traits, quirks, likes and dislikes, personality, the personality and sometimes physical appearance of spouse - all kinds of weird similarities that you'd never guess. But of course environment has some effect - it gets pretty tough to distinguish which parts are environment and which are inborn in most cases - certainly easier in the twin studies. I lean towards the idea that more is genetic than environmental however.

great example.

[marooned]

Yes, I'm familiar with the identical-twins-separated-at-birth example. It alone isn't enough to make me jump on the nature >>> nurture bandwagon. My point is that I think it is important not to rule out nurture. As for whether it's nature > nurture, or nurture > nature, or nurture = nature... I don't have any firm belief... nor do I feel the need to form one either way at present.

[Phaedrus]

Yes, I'm familiar with the identical-twins-separated-at-birth example. It alone isn't enough to make me jump on the nature >>> nurture bandwagon. My point is that I think it is important not to rule out nurture. As for whether it's nature > nurture, or nurture > nature, or nurture = nature... I don't have any firm belief... nor do I feel the need to form one either way at present.

People act like this is still a controversial issue. It is not. All serious scientists know that nature is more important than nurture for the shaping of our personality. This is a non-issue, as Expat is prone to say. The only thing you have to do to realize that is to study this field of science. I can't understand why people are so inclined to form a subjective opinion of their own about something they know very little about while refusing to read the reference material. The information about this is everywhere. Scan the internet, or read some decent books at your local library.

[Gilly]

From identical twin studies - where twins are raised in two different places (granted doesn't happen too often) it seems way more is genetically determined than you might at first think. Oftentimes the twins not only had very similar or identical careers, and all these little traits, quirks, likes and dislikes, personality, the personality and sometimes physical appearance of spouse - all kinds of weird similarities that you'd never guess. But of course environment has some effect - it gets pretty tough to distinguish which parts are environment and which are inborn in most cases - certainly easier in the twin studies. I lean towards the idea that more is genetic than environmental however.

Interesting. Unfortunately, the people who did the studies probably didn't observe anything about their preferred forms of information metabolism, which is kinda necessary if we're to confidently correlate genetic traits with Socionics types.

[Ezra]

How can they be both inborn and formed by the environment?

Exactly. It's ridiculous.

And why do enneagram type descriptions talk about what things were most likely like in that type's childhood?

R&H among a large percentage of the Enneagram community believe that type is inherent. I believe it is based solely on environmental factors. Therefore, the reason why R&H talk about a type's childhood is not because they believe it has impact on the person's type (even though I believe that is all that molds the type), but because they think the way in which someone acts in later life is conditioned by their childhood (which is essentially blagging without saying that type is produced according to environmental factors only).

[Joy]

[marq=left:8e3c234490]This post is under construction.[/marq:8e3c234490]

[spoil:8e3c234490]This may be a more effective way of looking at it... The idea here is that Enneagram types can be influenced by factors other than the factors that determine one's Socionics type (whether inborn or environment). There can be a lot of overlap... Just because a Socionic's type is most likely to be specific Ennegram types doesn't necessarily mean that all people of that Socionics type are one of those specific Enneagram types. However, some types conflict too much to occur in one person (without that person being crazy/unwell or becoming crazy/unwell).

A reasonably sane ___ in Socionics couldn't be an Enneagram ___:

ILE; 1, 2 (?), 6 (?), 8
SEI; 1, 5, 8
ESE; 4, 5
LII; 2 (?), 3 (?), 4 (?), 6 (?), 7, 8
SLE;
IEI;
EIE;
LSI;
LIE;
ESI;
SEE;
ILI;
LSE;
EII;
IEE;
SLI;[/spoil:8e3c234490]

[Suomea]

Took an Enneagram test on February 8th and got 2W3.
Took one on September 5th and got 2W3.
Took one on September 6th and got 3W2.
And took one on September 11th and got 7W6.

I don't know what that means but 2 of them were for 2. "I must be helpful and caring to be happy."

[Ezra]

These are the types I think the Enneagram types they're next to can only possibly be. I'd have a hard time thinking otherwise (but if you think you can convince me otherwise or put another argument up for another type (either MBTT or socionics), I'd genuinely be interested to hear it. For example, sometimes I might forget about a type and not include it by default).

Also, for curiosity's sake, I've also included the MBTT with most likely Enneagram correlations (not just what the type cannot be, otherwise the list would be too long). (I accept nothing on this matter from you, Phaedrus, but an open mind.)

1w9 LSE, LIE, LSI | ESTJ, ISTJ, ENTJ
1w2 ESI, EII | ESFJ, ENFJ
2w1 ESE, ESI, EII, EIE | ESFJ, ENFJ
2w3 ESI, ESE, SEE | ESFJ, ENFJ
3w2 ESE, SLE, SEE, LIE, LSE | ESTJ, ESFJ
3w4 EIE, LIE | ENTJ, ENFJ, ISTJ
4w3 EII, IEI, EIE | INFJ, INFP
4w5 EII, IEI | INFJ, INFP
5w4 ILI, IEI | INFP, INTP
5w6 ILI, IEI, SLI, SEI | INTJ, ISTJ
6w5 ESI, SLE, ILE, LIE, LSE | INTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ
6w7 ESI, ESE | ESFJ, ISFJ
7w6 ILE, IEE, SLI, perhaps ESE, but I'm unsure | ENTP, ENFP, ESFP
7w8 SLE, SEE, SLI | ESTP, ESFP, ISTP
8w7 SLE | ESTJ, ENTJ, ESTP, ENTP
8w9 SLE, LIE, LSE | INTJ, ENTJ, ESTJ
9w8 SEI, IEI | ISFP, INFP
9w1 SEI, IEI, EII | INFP, ISFP, ISFJ, INFJ

[Ezra]

Took an Enneagram test on February 8th and got 2W3.
Took one on September 5th and got 2W3.
Took one on September 6th and got 3W2.
And took one on September 11th and got 7W6.

I don't know what that means but 2 of them were for 2. "I must be helpful and caring to be happy."

It's easy to get confused between 3 and 7. Many do.

Misidentifying Threes and Sevens

Both Threes and Sevens are aggressive or assertive types (PT, 433-36) and both are interested in enjoying different aspects of success. Both types may pursue the acquisition of wealth and status symbols, but with significant differences: Sevens because their sense of self is maintained by possessing things, Threes because status symbols reinforce their feeling of superiority and hence their sense of self.

Sevens love the material world and want to acquire a variety of exciting experiences because having a steady stream of sensations makes them feel alive. They are sensation seekers, whose sense of self is maintained and reinforced by heightening their experience of the world, irrespective of anyone else's knowledge of their acquisitions. For them what is important is the stimulation that the pursuit and acquisition of experiences and things gives them, whether or not anyone else is part of the picture. For example, taking a first-class cruise on an ocean liner is a source of pleasure for Sevens, whether or not anyone else knows that they are doing so. By contrast, unless everyone knows that they are going on an expensive trip and are made to feel envious about it, the experience has far less value for average Threes.

The similarity between Threes and Sevens can be most confusing in the average Levels when Sevens become faddish trendsetters who want to experience whatever is new and exciting right away. (Average Sevens want the excitement of being the first at the hottest place, whereas average Threes are trendy in that they create new status symbols of various kinds for the exclusivity of being one of the "in crowd.") Thus, both types become snobs, with Sevens looking down on others because of the expensive things they have that others do not, and Threes looking down on people because they are able to exclude others from associating with them while still tantalizing them to want to do so.

The differences, however, are very great. The underlying motive for average Sevens is to provide themselves with a continuous stream of stimulation from the environment, particularly from material things. By contrast, the principal underlying motive for average Threes is to rise above others competitively in whatever ways they can—socially, sexually, in status symbols and careers, or simply in their own minds. For Threes, expensive possessions advertise to others that they have arrived socially and that they are desirable–someone others must pay attention to. For example, money allows Threes to hire a governess for their children so they can pursue their careers and so that they can let everyone know that they are successful enough to afford a governess. By contrast, Sevens may engage a governess so that they can travel and not be tied down by having to raise their children themselves.

One of the fundamental reasons why Sevens and Threes are confused in the traditional Enneagram teaching is that unhealthy Sevens in a manic phase have grandiose delusions similar to the grandiose feelings of self-esteem we find in narcissistic Threes. The difference is that Sevens are grandiose about their ability to achieve things: they have great expectations about their activities and plans for the future. When they become manic, everything seems possible for them. By contrast, average Threes are grandiose about their self-worth: narcissistic, exhibitionistic, arrogant and contemptuous of others.

It is likely that these two very different types have been confused because both seem to be narcissistic–that is, inflated with self-love or self-regard. However, average Sevens are not really narcissistic; they may be selfish, self-centered, greedy, insensitive, and so forth, but they do not have an inflated sense of self-worth. Instead, Sevens inflate their desires, appetites, plans, and the glut of their possessions.

Furthermore, by the time that Sevens become grandiose, they are neurotic (at Level 8) and delusionally trying to escape from reality, whereas grandiose Threes are still within the average Levels of Development (at Level 6) and are overcompensating for their fear of failure. The crucial difference is that, beneath their grandiose plans, manic Sevens are intensely insecure and in a flight from anxiety, whereas narcissistically grandiose Threes are not insecure and are fleeing from failure or from being humiliated in any way.

Last, one of the simplest ways to distinguish these two types is by marking the difference in their overall emotional tone and style. Average Threes are cool, in control, projecting the impression that they are perfectly together, with no emotional or personal problems. So convinced of their superiority, they become shameless braggarts and show-offs, arrogantly looking down on others. By contrast, Sevens have many more rough edges, rarely seeming as perfect or as coolly self-contained as Threes. For better or worse, Sevens do not censor themselves and can be funny, outspoken, vulgar, ill mannered, and outrageous–allowing far less polished behavior and attitudes to be displayed for public view. Contrast Sevens such as Bette Midler and Howard Stern with Threes such as Shania Twain and Bryant Gumbel.

If you're getting stuck between 7 and 2, it's very easy to discriminate between the two. However, 2w3 and 3w2 can be harder. Nonetheless, if you'd like to know more, ask me, and I'll get one of these Misidentifications (2 and 3) for you.