This is a discussion on Enneagram and MBTI within the Enneagram Personality Theory Forum forums, part of the Personality Type Forums category; Originally Posted by TABASCO ISXP can also be 6 though. This would make ISTP able to be something else than ...
Sixes testing as S makes perfect sense. Forget the labels of iNtuition and Sensing and whatnot. Typologies are based on asspull theories that don't necessarily reflect reality, or at the least the scales can be badly named.
Test-S->N is a measure of the Big 5 trait Openness/Intellect, which is grounded on one hand in nonproblematic levels of the kind of aesthetic, sensory openness that underlies psychosis and intellectual engagement on the other. As with Extraversion, it's a measure of explorativeness, just cognitive more than concrete action, an approaching tendency towards the environment. Extraversion and O/I covary and are both driven by dopamine activity.
Sixes are high on Neuroticism, ie. negative emotionality and threat sensitivity. These traits are aversive, built to keep us safe from harm. High negative emotionality and weird experiences are understandably not necessarily a good combo. Neuroticism is more serotonin than dopamine related and a separate trait overall.
This is why good, descriptive names for traits are important stuff, and renaming and scrapping concepts as we learn more is important. With good names and structure that reflects reality there's no confusion, with old names born from speculation and then never changed afterwards, confusion results.
Last edited by Brains; 08-02-2019 at 02:38 AM.
The best source of data on MBTI/Enneagram correlations I’m aware of is this Typology Wiki page. It’s not ideal, as it’s based on how people on PerC and Typology Central type themselves, so not a representative sample, but that’s been adjusted for using MBTI stats to get an idea of what the correlations might be in the general population.
Brains was talking about, which is the Big Five dimension which doesn’t have an MBTI equivalent, and different Enneagram authors fill in the details of which personality characteristics 6s tend to have, in terms of the four dimensions included in the MBTI, in different ways, which is probably why so many self-typed 6s find that they relate well to some 6 descriptions and not at all to others.
There are more ISTJ 1s then INTJ, INFJ and ENTJ
Type 4 should have INFJ in there as well. Most common is ISFP, INFJ and INFP
There are more ISTP 5s then ISTJs
I tend to question whether or not type 4 INFJs are actually INFJs considering how "Fi" type 4 sounds and how common it is for Fi doms to mistype as INFJs.Type 4 should have INFJ in there as well. Most common is ISFP, INFJ and INFP
Yep. Although oddly enough, supposedly ISTPs occasionally type as Type 4... If it's legit then I guess it would because the IXXPs in general are usually very individualistic, just in different way. I also struggle to understand it though, and can't relate at all to type 4... being an ISTP myself.Interesting, I've never been able to identify with Fi or type 4 and found them both extremely cringeworthy. That explains a lot. I'm willing to amend my first statement, I do think that some types are more closely related to MBTI types than others. Certainly not all though.
Interesting, I've never been able to identify with Fi or type 4 and found them both extremely cringeworthy. That explains a lot. I'm willing to amend my first statement, I do think that some types are more closely related to MBTI types than others. Certainly not all though.
I don't relate to Fi very much outside of "artsy" vibes. From what I understand of Fi there's too much emphasis on personal values, and I don't think that is how I perceive the world. I've been told that I rely more on personal logic than a moral compass. Despite feeling my emotions deeply, I am not aware of what they are most of the time, and I need additional time to process it compared to Fi-users I have known.
I do relate to 4 and its cringiness, despite not relating to Fi. A constant search for identity. Comparing myself to others and falling flat, causing me to fear that I am defective. Defining myself by shame. That kind of shit. I don't think it's out of place with my Ti, just two different parts of me.
I personally think that INFJ 4s make sense for these reasons. However, I think that a lot of people, especially these INFJs, who type as 4s may be confusing a 4 fix as their core (I might be one of them, honestly).
High/low Openness in Big 5 correlates with N/S in MBTI, check. And it's true to my reading that when trying to correlate Enneagram with Big 5, 6s have among the highest average Neuroticism score, or lowest average Emotional Stability score depending on how the trait's being looked at. (Which has fluctuated pretty significantly at times: this analysis takes an interesting look at how inconsistencies complicate use of "Neuroticism" measures.)
But while I understand your rationale for why "high negative emotionality" (Neuroticism?) and "weird experiences" (Openness?) seem like they wouldn't be a good combo, and get how that could make 6 --> S seem like a likelier pair... is that just rationalization/speculation, or have you seen studies that indicate that high Neuroticism is strongly associated with lower Openness? That would be a new one to me. There are other measures, like the Highly Sensitive Person Scale, that have seemed to show overall positive correlation with both Neuroticism and Openness. (2) (Not shocking to me: I am very high in Openness, usually >50% Neuroticism. I test high on HSPS type measures as well... for roughly the same underlying reasons that I believe I test higher than average in Neuroticism.)
This is mostly me talking to myself trying to follow you, but... the roundabout path between [Openness = S/N] and [6 = higher Neuroticism] to [6 = tests as S] seems kind of unnecessary when you could just point out that 6 is also associated with lower Openness (which is roughly equivalent to being Sensor in MBTI).
Anyway, I always find it funny when topics like this come up. You often end up with one camp posting studies to try and make empirical determinations about which things go together, at least when indicators are used, and then you have people outlining or proposing conceptual relationships based on descriptions of elements from the two different typologies in a totally disconnected, archetypal way. Not criticism, just observation.
ETA: Octavarium makes a good point about "whose version" though. The study that produced the table I linked to was probably using something like the Riso-Hudson 6. I believe Palmer learned from Naranjo, who emphasizes point 6's "theoretical orientation," even going so far as to call 6 the most logical and devoted to reason of the types IIRC.
Last edited by baitedcrow; 08-06-2019 at 10:04 AM.
I do think if tritypes were considered we'd see a really strong correlation to the theory in the OP. I imagine you'd be hard pressed to find an INTP without a connection 5 or ENxP without a connection to 7 and so on.