Charts

Chart One: Assessing Theories Using the Enneagram Monthly (1996) Data

This chart is basically a reproduction of the one used by Flautt to compare and evaluate Enneagram/MBTI theories ("A Test of Myers-Briggs/Enneagram Theories, with Data from the Enneagram Montly's Survey), June 1996). The last column to the right (summarizing Larry Gabbard's theory) did not appear in the original chart.

Note that the chart does not reflect the fact that in the EM survery (see the data in 'Chart 3b', below), in zone 5 it was the ISTP that had the second highest I-value (2.7), and not the INTJ (with 2.6). His chart also does not reflect the fact that in the EM survey it was the ISFP that had the highest concentration of any MBTI type in enneazone 9 (with an 'I-value' of 2.5 - see chart 3b, below), and the ISFJ that had the second highest concentration in zone 6 (with an 'I-value' of 1.4). Thus, although in THIRTEEN out of 18 cases, our theory correctly predicted the MBTI type that has the highest concentration in each enneazone, we were credited with only TEN hits.

Ironically, in the more recent (1997) Richards/Flautt study (see 'Chart Two', below), the ISTP does rank amongst the top two in zone 5 (along with the INTP), and the ISFJ and ISFP DO lead the pack in zones 6 and the 9, respectively - and our theory again scores the same 13 out of 18 'hits', for a score of 72% accuracy in predicting which MBTI type will have the highest concentration in each enneazone.

Enneazone Associated MBTI Types
according to Flautt, based on his analysis of the EM survey		 Associated MBTI Types
according to Riso's theory		 MBTI Prototypes
identified by Fudjack/
Dinkelaker 		Associated MBTI Types
according to Geldart		 Gabbard's 'represent-
ative' types
1 ENFJ, ISTJ ESTJ, ENTJ J preferences** ESTJ, ENTJ ESTJ, ENTJ
2 ESFJ, ENFJ ESFJ*, ENFJ* ESFJ*, ENFJ* ESFJ*, ENFJ* ENTJ, ENFJ*
3 ESFJ, ENTP none significant ESTP, ESFP none significant ESFJ*, ISFJ
4 INFJ, INFP INFJ*, INTJ INFJ*, INTJ ENTP, ENFP INFJ*, INTJ
5 INTP, INTJ ISTP, INTP* INTP*, ISTP ISTP, INTP* INFP, INTP*
6 none significant ISFP, INFP ISTJ, ISFJ ISFP, INFP ESFP, ISFP
7 ESFP, ENFP ESTP, ESFP* ENTP, ENFP* ESTP, ESFP* ESTP, ENTP
8 ESTJ, ENTJ ENFP, ENTP ESTJ*, ENTJ* ISTJ, ISFJ ENFP, ENTP
9 INFP ISTJ, ISFJ INFP*, ISFP INTJ, INFJ ESFP, ESFJ
Total 'hits' 5 10 4 4

Chart Two: Assessing the Fudjack/Dinkelaker Theory Using the Richards/Flautt (1997) Study

In the following table, the Richards/Flautt/Baron (R/F/B)conclusions appear in the left hand column; for each enneazone, all of the MBTI types that show a significant correlation, according to R/F/B, are listed in descending order, with the 'most correlated' type on the extreme left. In the remaining column is the Jungian type (defined as an MBTI pair) that Pat and I assigned to each of the enneazones as 'prototypes'. An asterisk was placed after each one of the prototypes only if it matched one of the top two types identified by R/F/B. In this way, 13 out of 18 possible 'hits' are identified - a 72 % prediction rate. This is significant statistical data that demonstrates a tendency for MBTI types to cluster according to Jungian type in the manner that we have specified. Ironically, these are the same thirteen MBTI types which should have been acknowledged as 'hits' for us when our theory was tested against the EM survey (see 'Chart 1' above, and 'Chart3.b' below)

Also note that even though the ENFP and ENTP are not, in the new study, the two MBTI types with the highest concentration in zone 7, they nonetheless have a very strong presence in that enneazone. Thus, there continues to be a strong correlation for 15 out of 18 'prototypes' that we identified in our original MBTI-Enneagram theory.

Taking into consideration the 'S-N blindness' factor which we later identified, which accounts for the previously unexpected presence of the ESTP and ESFP in zone 7, and the high concentration of ENTP in zone 3, only questions about two MBTI types remain: why does the ISTJ not show up in zone 6, and why does the INTJ not concentrate more heavily in zone 4. It is worth noting that in the EM study, the ISTJ does concentrate within zone 6 (with an 'I-value' only slightly less than the ISFJ: 1.2, compared to 1.4).

Enneazone Richards/Flautt/Baron Fudjack/Dinkelaker
2 ESFJ, ENFJ, ESFP, ENFP, ISFP ESFJ*/ENFJ*
3 ESTP, ENTP, ENTJ, ESTJ ESTP*/ESFP
4 INFP, INFJ INFJ*/INTJ
5 INTP, ISTP, INTJ, ISTJ INTP*/ISTP*
6 ISFJ, ESFJ ISFJ*, ISTJ
7 ESTP, ESFP, ENTP, ENFP ENTP, ENFP
8 ENTJ, ESTJ, ENTP ENTJ*/ESTJ*
9 ISFP, INFP ISFP*/INFP*
1 ISTJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ENTJ, INFJ All Js **
number of 'hits' = 13 out of 18 (72%)

In the interest of 'open' science, the raw data from the R/F/B study should be made publicly available; the raw data from the EM study was published in 1996 (see Charts 3a below), enabling Flautt and others to subject that material to the scrutiny of whatever type of analysis they determined to be necessary, and the same should be done with the R/F/B data. It would also help to know why the data from the Richards/Flautt study was 'combined' with Baron's data, and, indeed, what 'combined' in this case means, precisely. Was the same protocol followed in obtaining the two data sets? How was duplication of subjects avoided? and so forth. Also, what enneatype and MBTI identification instruments were used, and why?


Chart Three-A: A Summary of the original EM Survey Data (first presented in an article by Andrea Isaacs and John Fudjack in the 'Enneagram Monthly', March, 1996)

Enneagram
Type		 Number of Individual Respondents
INFJ INTJ ENFP ENTP INFP ISFP ENFJ ESFJ INTP ISTP ENTJ ESTJ ISTJ ISFJ ESTP ESFP
Two 3 0 9 1 4 2 6 5 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1
Three 2 2 6 4 1 0 4 4 0 0 2 2 1 2 1 0
Four 19 5 9 0 28 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
Five 8 18 0 1 9 1 0 0 15 3 3 1 7 0 0 0
Six 4 5 7 1 15 1 3 2 3 0 2 2 4 3 0 0
Seven 1 2 16 1 1 0 3 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 3
Eight 0 4 8 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 12 5 3 1 1 2
Nine 4 3 3 2 23 3 4 2 2 2 1 2 4 4 1 0
One 12 10 4 3 7 0 11 1 2 1 8 3 10 5 1 0

Chart Three-B:A Summary of the Original EM Survey Data (using 'I-Values')

The two highest I-values in each row are underlined. Asterisks are placed next to I-values which, despite being high enough to be underlined, are NOT acknowledged by Flautt as good candidates for 'prototypes' of their respective enneazones. In contention are three MBTI types that Pat and I did identify as prototypes in the zones in which they are most highly concentrated in the EM study - the ISFJ in Enneazone 6, and the ISFP in Enneazone 9, and the ISTP in zone 5. Had these been included in the list against which Flautt 'tested' our theory (in Chart One, column one, above), we would have scored two more 'hits', for a total of 13 out of 18 instances in which the MBTI 'prototype' we assigned to an enneazone happened also to fall amongst the two MBTI types with the highest 'I-value' (density) in that enneazone. This is 72% of the cases. Ironically, in the recent (1997) study by Richards and Flauut, the ISFJ surfaces as the leading MBTI type in zone 6, the ISFP leads the pack in zone 9, and the ISTP is acknowledged as having the second highest concentration in zone 5! (see 'Chart Two' above).

Enneagram
Type		 Calculated 'I-values'
INFJ INTJ ENFP ENTP INFP ISFP ENFJ ESFJ INTP ISTP ENTJ ESTJ ISTJ ISFJ ESTP ESFP
Two 0.8 0.0 2.0 0.9 0.6 3.0 2.3 4.6 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 2.0
Three 0.6 0.6 1.5 3.8 0.2 0.0 1.7 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.5 1.6 3.0 0.0
Four 2.4 0.7 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 1.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 1.0
Five 1.1 2.6 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 4.3 2.7* 0.7 0.5 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Six 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.6 1.5 1.0 0.8 1.2 1.1 0.0 0.6 1.2 1.2 1.4* 0.0 0.0
Seven 0.3 0.6 3.7 0.9 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.1 1.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.8 6.0
Eight 0.0 0.9 1.4 2.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 4.6 3.7 1.1 0.6 2.2 3.2
Nine 0.6 0.5 0.4 1.0 2.0 2.6* 0.9 1.0 0.6 2.0 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.6 0.0
One 1.4 1.2 0.4 1.1 0.5 0.0 1.8 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.7 1.2 2.0 1.6 1.2 0.0

Chart Four: The Enneagram Monthly data analysed in terms of 'Jungian' type. [See 'In Defense of Our Original Theory' for an explanation of the validity of using 'data lenses' such as this]. In 6 out of 8 cases (75%), the 'Jungian' type that we have identified as 'prototypical' of an enneazone are the MOST concentrated in that zone.

Zone Prototype I-value I > 1.0 AND (p < = .05)
2 EF 3.0 yes
3 ES 1.4
4 IN 2.5 yes
5 IT 3.8 yes
6 IS 1.3
7 EN 3.0 yes
8 ET 4.5 yes
9 IF 2.0 yes

Footnotes/References

'A Test of Myers-Briggs/Enneagram Theories, with Data from the Enneagram Monthly's Survey', by Tom Flautt, June 1996.
back to text

Beginning of This Paper

Back to Main Page