Abstract
The purpose of this article is to give a summary of the published research
work of John Fudjack and Pat Dinkelaker on measured correlations between
Enneagram Personality Types, Jungian Types, and MBTI Types in surveys
reported by the Enneagram Monthly.
John and Pat demonstrated that MBTI types
distribute across the enneagram primarily due to their inferior function.
They assigned eight Jungian types as 'prototypical' of eight particular
enneazones, as follows: EF-2, ES-3, IN-4, IT-5, IS-6, EN-7, ES-8, IF-9.
All J-types are assigned to be prototypical of Enneazone-1. Their assignments
were based on traditional descriptions of each enneatype that contain
significant references to the specific inferior function of the assigned
prototype for an enneazone. These are not the only types expected to occur
in these zones. The nine prototypical assignments were, however, chosen to
predict which MBTI would be attracted to which enneazones.
It is remarkable that their prediction of superior-inferior function
relationships was able to predict the strange attraction of reported MBTI
Types via assigned protypical inferior functions so well. This is not an
accident. It shows their understanding of the underlying mechanisms that
define Enneagram Personality Types, and MBTI Types.
The EM survey data showed evidence for their assigned prototypical pairs
in 12 or 13 out of the 16 MBTI cases (or in 6 out of 8 cases, if the data
is analyzed with respect to Jungian type). The I-values for each MBTI
type in each enneazone were calculated and in 12 cases, the highest
I-value for the MBTI type was found in the assigned enneazone.
This surprising accuracy in prediction means that in these 12 cases the
MBTI type 1) has a greater tendency to gravitate toward the identified zone for which it is the prototype, and 2) has the highest concentration in that zone.
The four exceptions to this rule are: ESFP, ISTJ, ENTP, INTJ. These four 'anomalous' types were studied in more detail in a second article by the authors. This
second article reported the first experimental confirmation of a second
principle for understanding and predicting the distribution of MBTI types
across the enneazones, which the authors called 'S-N blindness'.
[2] Pat and John proved that these two principles, in combination,
predict and explain the EM survey data very well.
The two confirmed predictive principles are summarized: 1) there is a
clustering of MBTI types in each of the enneazones around issues related
to the inferior function associated with a particular Jungian type; 2)
there is a propensity, in the world of the enneagram, to treat the
Jungian functions 'S' and 'N' as if they were one function - or, put in
another way, there is a failure, in enneagram theory and testing, to
adequately distinguish between S and N (ie, there is 'S-N blindness').
Section One: A 'Data Lens' for Studying the
Distribution of JUNGIAN Types at Each Point
First, John and Pat created a 'Data-Lens' to analyze the EM survey
data in terms of JUNGIAN types, as opposed to MBTI types.
They thus found patterns of Integration for the Jungian functions of
Consciousness that would not be possible to find by other means.
The 'Data Lens' integrates the survey data by combining certain
MBTI types together to creat Jungian types [eg, EF plus IF = F]. By using
this 'widest' angle lense (which sees the data as defining four types - the
feeling type, thinking type, sensing type, and intuitive type), they
discovered that the EM study has data that can test the claims of various
enneagram theorists regarding the so-called three 'triads' and the three
functions for these three triads.
First, the Feeling Types were integrated together in the way to form a single undifferentiated Jungian feeling function [eg, EF and IF = F]. Next, the S and N Perception Types were integrated (combined) to form a single undifferentiated Jungian
perception function. Finally, the data cells for the Thinking Types were
integrated to form a single undifferentiated Jungian thinking function
[eg, ET and IT = T]. The calculated I-value for each new cell are shown
in the following table of I-values.
Using this table, Fudjack and Dinkelaker evaluated various
enneagram triad theories. An asterisk is shown beside the three highest
I-values in each column. The integrating First Data Lens for the EM
survey data showed that the 'thinking' types (as assessed by MBTI
standards) gravitate most strongly toward zones 8, 5, and 1 (in that
order); the 'feeling' types toward 9, 2, and 4 (in that order); and the
'perception/other' functions gravitate towards 7, 3 and 1(in that order).
Table 1 data was compared to Palmer's view that the 2,3,4 triad is the
'feeling' triad (comprised of 'feeling' enneatypes), the 5, 6,7 triad
contains 'intellectual' types, and the 8,9,1 triad contains the 'gut'
types that represent a third function. The integrating First Data Lens
identified a third function. This third function is a conglomeration of S
and N, according to the formal Jungian function and Jungian function pair
(MBTI Type) definitions.
Only four of Palmer's three enneagram function assignments agree
with the EM data filtered through the this Data Lens. It shows enneatypes
2 and 4 as 'feeling' types, 5 as a thinking type, and 1 as 'other'.
Wright identifies enneatype 9 as a feeling type, but he maintains the
(traditional) 891, 234, 567 triadic groupings. He identifies 8 and 1 as
'feeling' types. However, the integrating Data Lens shows that 8 and 1
are actually correlated with Jungian Thinking.
Hurley and Dobson 'correctly' (from the perspective of the integrating
Data Lens applied to the EM data) identify the same four types as Palmer.
They (like Palmer) miss the fact that type 9 is best characterized as a
feeling type (it indeed 'collects' the greatest concentration of MBTI
'feeling types', according to this data), and they miss that 8 is a thinking
type (with the highest 'I-value' amongst all of the thinking types). H&D call
7 and 3 the creative types, and these two types have the highest scores in the
'other' Jungian perception function that does not discern any difference
between S and N in either its extraverted or introverted attitudes.
Section Two: Measuring Which MBTI Types Have Similar Patterns of Distribution
The first 'data lens' that John and Pat used shed light on distribution patterns by INTEGRATING data in order to define a common Jungian function that is shared by different MBTI Types.
For an encore, John and Pat sought to describe a SECOND data lens, which would
differentiate instead of integrate. It would distinguish different sub-types of individuals WITHIN each MBTI type. The EM Survey did not contain this level of detail. The EM Survey was not designed to collect data at this level of specificity, and so did not render results at the level of detail that interested Pat and John. Indeed, when people report their Enneagram and MBTI they usually do not have information
of the sort John and Pat were looking for.
The EM Survey data cannot distinguish, for example, between INFPs for
whom the fourth 'inferior' function provides the 'issue' which attracts
the individual to his/her enneazone, and those INFPs for whom an
underdeveloped 3rd function provides the 'issue' which attracts her/him
to the enneazone in which he/she resides.
For instance, the INFJ has only two cells with I-values above 1: in zone
4 [I=2.3] and zone 1 [I=1.4]. An hypothesis that might explain this data
is that those INFJs who wind up inhabiting zone 1 will have comparatively
higher 'J' preferences than those who wind up inhabiting zone 4. The
'issue' that attracts them to 'J' will have more to do with the concerns
typical of the 'J' types prototypical of zone 1 and with a struggle to
develop and utilize their 'third' function ('thinking'), than with the
issues revolving around the fourth-function 'sensing' concerns that
attract other INFJs to zone 4.
Similarly, John and Pat hypothesized that while INFPs who gravitate toward zone
9 may be pulled there by their inferior fourth function (thinking), which they
share with ISFPs (who are also pulled to zone 9), INFPs who gravitate toward 4
may be pulled there by their underdeveloped third function (sensation), and they
will have issues that are more similar to the INFJ's inferior Sensing (money problems,
problems dealing with the body, and so forth.)
But hypotheses of this sort could not be tested using the raw data from the EM
survey, which lacked data at this level of specificity. It would only be possible to
test each hypothesis with a new data lens, using much more specific information
about each individuals types. Short of conducting a whole new study designed to
gather such information (which they strongly recommended doing) there were no
alternatives but for them to seek new methods for milking the existing data for
untapped insights.
It was this that led them to invent a methodolgy for measuring what they called
'spread' (Sp), with which they discovered important new information about how reported MBTI type distributes across the Enneagram.
Section Three: The Spread Parameters for Pairs of MBTI Types Distributing Across Enneazones
Fudjack and Dinkelaker defined a parameter for the 'spread' that occurs between any
two MBTI Types as they distribute across the nine enneazones. They used the
spread-value to study the four anomalous MBTI types that seemed not to be
attracted to the enneazones that John and Pat, on the basis of the Jungian prototypes,
had predicted.
What they meant by 'spread' was that some MBTI types (in the March 1996 EM raw
data chart) mimic each other's distribution pattern by being concentrated heavily
together in similar zones - they 'go everywhere together', so speak, and have a low 'Sp' value. Other pairs of types do not mimic each other but instead seem to be avoiding each other, in all of the zones - they 'spread out' across the Enneagram in very different directions (and have a high 'Sp' value).
Consider the following two figures:
The distribution of the first two MBTI types (ISFP and INFP) in Figure 1
shows lower spread, more mimic, and hence has a lower spread value (6.75)
than the distribution of the second two MBTI types (ISFP and ENTJ) in Figure 2.
The second distribution of two MBTI types across nine enneazones in Figure 2
shows less mimic, more spread, and thus has a higher spread value (18.54)
than the pair in Figure 1.
Spread was calculated by measuring the distance (ie, the 'spread') between
the two lines at each of the nine points [Z1 through Z9] and then giving their
average over nine enneazones. The calculated number is defined as the 'average spread' or, more simply, 'Sp'. The number for Sp can range from zero upwards. If two MBTI
types have identical I-values in each enneazone, then they would appear, if graphed,
as one line. In this case of no spread the curve for one reported MBTI type and the
curve for the second reported MBTI type would be perfectly superimposed, so their
spread and the calculated numerical value for 'Sp' would be zero.
Spread values for all 16 types were calculated, quantifying all 128 possible comparisons (16x8).
This tool gives remarkable new insights because now a scientific qualitative comparison can be made with other MBTI pairs. This important research tool was used for exploring hypotheses about the impact of Jungian unconscious functions on the distribution patterns.
The MBTI types that are formed around a common Jungian function
usually have relatively low Sp-values. For example, ENTJ and ESTJ (the Jungian 'ET' or
'extraverted thinking' type), which have preference orders [T-N-S-F and T-S-N-F]
that share a common inferior function, have low spread. In the EM survey data,
the Sp-value for ENTJ/ESTJ was 5.25. This is very low. In comparison, one would expect 'shadow types' (eg, ENTJ/ESTJ) to have higher Sp-values, and in this data
sample they usually do. For instance:
The calculated Sp-values for all 128 MBTI pairs were analyzed. John and
Pat found that for each of 12 MBTI types, the corresponding 'Jungian'
pair was amongst the three lowest Sp-values for that type. For the ENTJ,
the lowest Sp-value is 5.25, for the ENTJ/ESTJ pair (the 'Jungian' pair).
In other words, the MBTI type with which the ENTJ had the most similar
pattern of distribution across the enneagram is the ESTJ, its 'Jungian'
partner. It turned out that the 12 MBTI types that had a low Sp-value for
their Jungian pairs were the same 12 MBTI types that had their highest
I-values in the zones that the authors originally assigned them as
prototypical!
Using this methodology, they also discovered some unexpected patterns
for six out of the sixteen MBTI types. In these cases, the MBTI pair with
the lowest Sp-value was one in which the dominant and inferior functions
were switched while the other two Jungian functions kept their function
order. For all of the MBTI types, ESFP prefered to be with ENFP, and vice
versa, and ESTP, ENTP, INTJ, and ISTJ had similar behavior with switched
first and fourth Jungian functions. These switched function are known as
unipolar S-N Jungian functions because they have opposite functions with
the same attitude for attention.
The authors explored why this behavior might occur. Why would ISTJ, for example,
be distributed across the enneazones in a parallel way to its unipolar opposite,
INTJ? INTJ has 'intuition' as its dominant function and ISTJ has 'sensing' (the opposite
of intuition) as its dominant function! Theory did not expect the ISTJ and INTJ to 'pal up' in this unipolar way to frequent the same zones. Indeed, the opposite effect of bipolar attraction was expected. Then the attitudes of the attracting opposite functions
would be opposite (one introverted and one extraverted) instead of the
same.
The authors refer to this phenomenon as a 'dominant-function struggle'
after theorist Larry Gabbard who hypothesized that this (and not
the inferior function) was the issue around which MBTI types cluster in
certain enneazones such as zone 7. The phenomenon of the 'dominant-
function struggle' does seems to characterize certain enneazones. Gabbard
hypothesized that certain zones will actually attract certain individuals
who indeed are personally undergoing a 'dominant-function' struggle (for
instance, persons who might best be described as EXFPs). Although the
zones characterized by such pairs may attract individuals with
dominant-function struggles, they also expected that pure' types, such as
ESFPs and ENFPs would be attracted to the same zone. But why?
The authors saw this phenomenon as a failure to discriminate between
S and N in the enneagram testing process. Six of the eight MBTI types that have
S or N as their dominant function register their absolutely lowest 'Sp-value' with
their 'dominant- function opposite' (eg, ESFP/ENFP). The authors found that not
all dominant-function-struggle pairs had a low Sp-values for the EM
survey. It is remarkable that only those with a dominant-function S-N
struggle had a low Sp- values! There is no evidence of dominant-function
T-F struggle governing distribution.
The INFP/INTP pair, for instance does not have a low Sp-value. None of the eight MBTI types that have either T or F as their dominant function have their lowest 'sp-value' with their dominant-function opposite, and none come even close! This is consistent
with the hypothesis of a blindness with regard to S-N definitions for the
'irrational' Jungian functions, but clear vision with regard to T-F definitions for
the 'rational' Jungian functions.
Section Four: A Third 'Data Lens'
Based on their observation of consistently low Sp-values for S-N dominant-function
struggle pairs, the authors hypothesized that ennea-theory is 'blind' to
the S-N distinction. What this means is that ennea-theory in general does not
distinguish more than three functions or three centers. If this is true then this
explains why S and N are not being discriminated in the ennea-testing
processes. They cannot be discerned because the maps do not point to a
separate Jungian fourth function.
This is equivalent to collapsing all 16 MBTI types into 8 mutually exclusive 'combination' types, and failing to distinguish between the members of each pair.
Four of these pairs would be identical to four Jungian types, but the other four
are not. These eight types are shown below.
Combining the distribution data accordingly, the authors created the THIRD
Data Lens, and calculated I-values for each pair in each enneazone. The results are
shown below with an asterisk next to the highest I-value in each column. The Third
Data Lens is of special interest for the Geldart Enneagram of Consciousness and for the original Jungian assignments made by Don Richard Riso because this data lens
measures the actual distribution of Jungian Types across enneazones for
the EM Survey.
Fudjack and Dinkelaker say -
IXFJ-4, IXTJ-6, IXFP-9, IXTP-5, EXFP-7, EXTP-3, EXFJ-2, EXTJ-8.
Or, if the new pairs are assigned to the 8 enneazones in the following way, the
same 12 remain in the zones to which we originally assigned them as prototypes,
and zones 4 and 6 maintain their original 'Jungian' flavor (strongly suggested by
the narrative profiles traditionally associated with these zones in the enneagram
literature - see Part 3 of 'Searching for Common Ground'):
INXJ-4, ISXJ-6, IXFP-9, IXTP-5, EXFP-7, EXTP-3, EXFJ-2, EXTJ-8.
These 'hybrid' assignments were arrived at in January of 1997. With over 90% accuracy, these assignments predicted the results that the Richards/Flautt study were to come up with six months later -
John Fudjack and Patricia Dinkelaker have convincingly shown that available empirical studies support the distribution of MBTI types across the Enneagram in accord with
their two 'principles'.
b. the distribution will show S-N blindness, as manifest in the Jungian
dominant-function-struggle pairs.
Their assignments are the most elegant theoretical solution for understanding the EM Survey data to date. They point out that other MBTI Types may be present in these nine
enneazones, but the MBTI 'prototypes' in an enneazones are protoypical of
the underlying issues in a zone. The authors have demonstrated with clear
principles and scientific methods that the prototypes discerned by them
are not arbitrary assignments to fit a data sample. In fact the 'prototypes' shed
light on the 'deeper' level of organization of the Enneagram, its latent infrastructure.
The discoveries of John Fudjack and Patricia Dinkelaker also provide independent
support for the Geldart Enneagram of Consciousness. This model integrates Jungian
psychology with John Bennett's enneagram process. It assumes that eight
different superior Jungian function characterizes eight different
enneagram points. Habitual use of a superior Jungian function creates the
Jungian Type, and this calls forth a compensating inferior function. It
assumes that Point Three is not a Jungian Type but has the 'moving
function' for intentionality and the Jungian Persona for social role
adaption.
The eight Jungian functions were confirmed in 1996 with True MBTI definitions,
actual test reports from True MBTI Types, and actual reports from True Enneagram
Personality Types using the Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator (RHETI).
The superior Jungian functions on the Enneagram of Consciousness agrees
with the superior Jungian T-F functions assigned by Don Riso in 1987 for
Points One, Two, Five, and Six. John and Pat's Data Lens studies on survey
results confirm these same assignments. They found no
T-F blindness in the Survey data.
Don Riso's assignments for Enneagram Points Four, Eight, and Nine
correctly account for the characteristic traits of these three points, but
tests using MBTI and RHETI found that Riso's Jungian assignments were for
the unipolar or bipolar Jungian opposite function instead of the superior
function at these three points. For example, Point Nine is defined as being
most out of touch with instinct, and Point Seven is defined as over expressing instinct.
In addition, Points Eight, Three, and Seven in the Hornevian Aggressive
(Moving Against) Triad are also most in touch with Freudian "id" drives.
Riso correctly assigns the superior Jungian function of extraverted
sensation to Point Seven.
The mechanism of Jungian S-N Blindness found in EM Survey data is
actually present in the theoretical descriptions for these three Points.
Fortunately, triangulation with Hornevian and Freudian functions provide
the overall correct functionality for Riso. I attribute this S-N Blindness
to the fact that for most enneagram teachers the enneagram is understood to
have only three functions. Jungian superior intuition turns out to be the missing
function that is merged with sensation as the Data Lens analysis of the survey
results showed. Fortunately, True MBTI definitions and True MBTI measurements
account for all four Jungian functions. There is a foundation reason for S-N
Blindness. The basic Enneagram Law of Seven only has room for six functions.
The two Jungian functions for introverted spirituality (introverted feeling at
Point six, and introverted intuition at Point Nine) are omitted. This
gives a Freudian sensate and instinctual bias to the enneagram that
requires much skill to restore.
Finally, the Geldart Enneagram of Consciousness adds a fifth function
to meet the minimum requirements for a necessary and sufficient set of functions to account for the philosophical triad of real, subjective, and intentional object
types. This meets Einstein's dictum that things should be simple but not
too simple, and Occam's razor (which suggests that a simple hypothesis that
covers the essential facts is to be preferred over a more complicated model with more
parameters). This fifth function accounts for the Hornevian Triad's ability
to perform moving behavior. The fifth moving function is the transmitting
function for Point Eight's outward forceful moves with muscle and bones
that are monitored by their superior introverted sensation function. The
fifth moving function is also the receiving function that supplies the
actual physical stimulus from the object to the extraverted sensation
function at Point Seven. This is the reason that Points Seven (1.45) and
Three (1.28) have the highest I values in the analysis done using the
first Data Lens.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
