Personality Cafe banner

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,605 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I found this information to be interesting, and I could not find it posted anywhere yet, so I thought I'd share. The findings are based on some demographic studies on Enneagram types and marriages.

Some of the interesting conclusions include:

1. Marriage patterns are not random. For example, of all female 8s, 37% of them married male 9s, even though only 19% of all men were 9s. There are a lot of such pairings that happen at far above chance levels.

2. Same-type marriages are rare, occurring two times less often than expected by chance. "Birds of a feather" may flock together as friends, but apparently not in marriage. An interesting exception appears to be double-4 marriages, the only double-type pair to occur more often than chance (it is only 1/2 standard deviation above chance, so it is not colored in the above table).

3. Men and women choose very different personalities for their mates. Male 9s with female 4s are common (16 couples), while male 4s with female 9s are extremely rare (2 couples). Female 8s preferred male 9s, whereas Male 8s preferred 2s and 6s.

4. People marry along a line of integration 38% more often than chance. For example, 7-1 and 3-6 marriages were common, as were male 2s-female 4s, male 3s-female 9s, and several other such combinations.

5. "Gut" types (8, 9, and 1) neither preferred nor avoided other "gut" types, and the same was true for heart and thinking types.

6. Although people avoided marrying their own types, they did not show any avoidance of adjacent (wing) types. A preference for wing types was not seen either.

7. The 6 most common type pairings are:

18 pairs: male 8, female 2
16 pairs: male 9, female 4
15 pairs: male 6, female 2
15 pairs: male 9, female 1
14 pairs: male 5, female 1
14 pairs: male 6, female 9

It is notable that 9+4 marriages were among the most common, given the reputation of this combination for stormy volatility. It should be noticed that this list is ranked purely by numerical counts, not by its frequency relative to chance. Hence, it is skewed toward the more common types (9s and 6s).


More details on the statistics can be found at the original source:
Demographics
 

·
MOTM Jan 2010
Joined
·
2,988 Posts
I'm wary of the sample size, but thank you for sharing that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NaughyChimp
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top