Abstract
In previous papers we identified two principles that govern how MBTI types distribute across the Enneagram:
In this paper we will -
The third principle of distribution is connected to the fact that the MBTI, as a test, is not capable of distinguishing what has been called 'pure' Jungian types. These are types whose dominant AND auxiliary functions have the SAME DIRECTION - eg, the individual who has introverted intuition and introverted thinking for dominant and auxiliary functions, respectively.
'Why concern yourselves with Riso's theory regarding how MBTI type distributes across the Enneagram?', the reader might ask. Hasn't Flautt's paper shown that the MBTI types that Riso assigns to the Enneazones are correct in only 5 out of 18 cases (28% of the time) in predicting which MBTI types will be most concentrated in each zone? Yes, but although Flautt's conclusions are basically accurate, they are misleading, as they do not even BEGIN to tell the whole story. As we show in the next section, there is still much important information to be gleaned from Riso's assignments, making it a very important Enneagram-MBTI theory (as Walter Geldart has pointed out) to reconcile with.
With the addition of this third principle we can summarize our theory, as it now stands, in the following way - distribution of MBTI types across the Enneagram occurs primarily according to Jungian type (IN, IS, IT, IF, EN, ES, ET, EF), with certain significant distortions caused by the 1) the presence of 'S-N blindness' in the Enneagram, and 2)the a priori exclusion of 'pure' types by the MBTI. Jungian type is the single most important key to predicting which MBTI types will score as the MOST concentrated in each zone. But the hidden 'strange attractor' in each zone may actually be a 'pure' type which accounts not only for which Jungian type is most concentrated (and 'prototypical'), but also for the presence of other MBTI types in the zone which have high concentrations, although not typically the HIGHEST. Section One: 'Don't Correlate'??
It continues to be fashionable in Enneagram and MBTI circles, although not quite so fashionable as it may have been six months ago, to declare that no correlation exists between an individual's Enneagram type and his or her Meyers-Briggs (MBTI) type. 'Any Enneagram type', it is claimed, 'can test as any MBTI type'. People have supposed that the two personality systems measure 'different things' and presumed them to be 'unrelated'. 'Don't correlate!' cries one editor of an Enneagram publication from his editorial podium, as if the very attempt to give order to the available statistical data regarding the relationship between MBTI and Enneagram type was somehow wrong-headed from the get-go. The myth that there is no correlation, so one ought not to be sought does a tremendous disservice to both communities, and to the endeavor of scholars to explore the interface between the two systems and the implications that this has for understanding human nature. The first step in perpetrated this myth was accomplished when the editor quoted above ran a piece in 1996 that presumably 'tested' some current theories about the relationship between the Enneagram and MBTI and concluded that the available statistical data supported none of the theories reviewed. Following is a chart similar to the one presented in that piece by its author, Tom Flautt. Slight adjustments have been made, to correct errors that appeared in the original. Also, a column has been added in order to incorporate an additional theory (Gabbard's).
On the basis of this way of comparing the theories to the data, all of the theories 'tested' were rejected, even though one correctly predicted 13 out of 18 of the MBTI types that would be 'most concentrated' in each enneazone (a 73 percent success rate). But, more importantly perhaps, is the fact that by treating the 'prototypes' or 'representative types' put forward by various theories as if they were intended to be PREDICTIONS
of the top two most concentrated types, the theories are made to appear ridiculous - as
if they were in blatant contradiction with each other and flew in the face of empirical evidence. One of the facts that was NOT pointed out in either the chart or the article that accompanied it, however - and it is a very important fact indeed - was that ALL of the theories evaluated (and some that weren't!) had over a 75% success rate in selecting MBTI types that had an 'I-value' of '1.0' or greater (a greater concentration than one would expect if distribution was random) in the enneazones to which they assigned them. The asterisks in the following chart show MBTI types with I-values greater than or equal to one.
The two charts, taken together, demonstrate that although Riso' assignments predicted the
top two 'most concentrated' type in each zone only 7 out of 18 times, in 15 out of 16 cases the MBTI type that he associated with each zone was more highly concentrated in that zone than would be expected if distribution was governed by chance. Although the
assignments of the other theorists were comparatively less successful in this regard, they were ALL generally successful in identifying MBTI types that had higher than
random concentrations in the assigned zones.
This tells us a couple of things. The theorists were not making off-the-wall assignments. They were seeing patterns that were, in fact, there. Although each may have been describing the whole 'elephant' in terms of some particular part of the beast that they had been successful in singling out, none was conjuring up a beast whose existence was simply fictitious.
Also, had the information been originally presented in the more thoughtful manner that we suggest above, the natural follow-up question would have been, 'what patterns are they seeing that enabled them to intuit that these would be the types with higher concentration?', and 'can the views of these theorists be reconciled?'. It was questions of this sort that eventually led us (Pat and John), after a close inspection of the patterns that Gabbard, Geldart, and Huber were seeing, to the phenomenon of 'S-N blindness'. And questions of this sort have also led us to present, in this paper,
a THIRD principle on the basis of which MBTI type distributes across the Enneagram.
As the assignments that Riso made appear to be particularly sensitive to the presence and impact of this third principle, the principle itself creates a bridge between our theory and Riso's, and also to some extent with Geldart's (insofar as Geldart's theory is, as he always been quick to point out, basically a variant of Riso's).
But, unfortunately, the information about the various theories was originally presented NOT in the spirit of an inquiry into the patterns that may have already been detected, but rather as a 'test' that was intended to summarily dismiss current theories and clear the field in preparation for a new survey - one which, in fact, was to be conducted by the same individual who was responsible for 'testing' the previous theories. This led to an unfortunate situation in which the new survey was not prepared to ask the relevant questions - the ones that still remained AFTER existing theories and studies had been meticulously milked for their deeper significance. It thus accomplished little more, ironically, than the replication of the data produced by the earlier (EM) survey.
In the MBTI, all types are purposely treated as if the first and second functions of individuals NECESSARILY have opposite directions. This is because those who have designed the instrument believe that pure types will lack a necessary balance between
introversion and extraversion, and this will be less healthy. 1
Speaking of the 'pure' type, the authors of 'Gifts Differing' say -
The enneagram, in its 'naivity' with respect to the taboo that the MBTI has put on recognizing 'pure' type, has in effect ignored the expectation that the dominant and auxiliary function alternate in orientation. Indeed, the descriptions of the enneagram 'points', as we hope to demonstrate at another time, are closer to being profiles of the 'pure' types than of the 'alternating' types!
If we think of the Enneazones as extending INVITATIONS to Jungian/MBTI types, who are they primarily inviting? The answer that we will explore here is - first and foremost, they are inviting a specific 'pure' type associated with each zone. Various related 'alternating' types will also be attracted to these 'invitations', as we shall see - and
this creates certain patterns that can clearly be distinguished in the
distribution of MBTI type across the Enneagram.
In order to clearly distinguish between the 'pure' and 'alternating' types we will
need a new nomenclature. For the purposes of this paper, we will use the following convention: the 'pure' type will be designated by three-letter combination. For example,
'INF' will designate the person who has as the dominant function
introverted intuition and as the auxiliary function introverted feeling - in contrast to the INFJ (or, INFJ), which is the conventional 'alternating' type with dominant introverted intuition and auxiliary extraverted feeling). Please note - when we use a three-letter name without a 'J' or 'P' on the end (eg, INF), it is NOT meant to stand for the two MBTI types that are named when one alternately attaches a 'J' to the combination or a 'P' (INFP and INFJ, in our example).
For each of the enneazones from 2 through 9, we will identify one 'pure type' that is the hidden 'strange attractor' in the zone. In the chart below, which shows the four introverted enneazones, the 'pure type' is displayed in the second column. From the identified 'pure' type we mechanically generate two Jungian types, each of which is in turn associated with a pair of MBTI types. We use the following formula to do that. Connected with each 'pure' type is a jungian type (column three), that has the same orientation as the pure type, and the same dominant function. It is comprised of two 'alternating' MBTI types (columns four and five). Also connected to the pure type is a second Jungian type (column six), with the same orientation as the pure type, combined with the pure type's auxiliary function. This second Jungian type is comprised of another pair of 'alternating' MBTI types (columns seven and eight). For each type, the 'I-value' in that enneazone is displayed.
For example, the 'pure type' that is uniquely associated with zone Five is the INT -which has dominant introverted thinking and auxiliary introverted intuition. Connected to it is the Jungian IT, comprised of the INTP and the ISTP and the Jungian IN,
comprised of the INTJ and the INFJ. In zone five, all four of the above-mentioned MBTI types (INTP, ISTP, INTJ, and INFP) have 'I-values' greater than or equal to one!
For all of the Enneagram points, this pattern, pivoting around a 'pure type', defines
a set of jungian and MBTI types that, in 37 out of 40 cases, have I-values of 1.0 or
greater! For the introverted points, shown below, in 19 out of 20 cases the I-value is 1.0 or greater!
The Jungian types listed in column three are the ones that Pat and I identified as 'prototypes' for the enneazones with which they are associated in the above diagram.
For zones 4 and 5, Riso made the same assignments. For zones 6 and 9 Riso associated the
second Jungian pair (column 6) with the enneazone in question. In other words, the
above diagram shows that in 15 out of the 16 assignments that we and Riso made for
the 'introverted' Enneazones, the I-values are 1.0 or greater.
In two of the four enneazones which, statistically speaking, draw the extraverted types,
our assignments are identical to Riso's (zones Eight and Two). In two of the three remaining zones there is general agreement between the two theories - Pat and I accurately see zone One as comprised of all J types, whereas Riso chooses only two of these - the ESTJ and ENTJ as representative types; and in zone 7, Riso picks the ES as representative, whereas we originally identified EN, but later conceded that ES was present, and attributed this to 'S-N blindness' in the Enneagram - which also has an observable effect on zone 3, in our opinion. But making a comparison with Riso's assignments regarding zone three is harder to do, as Riso does not assign MBTI types to it. So we shall have to remain content with having identified closely related types in 8 out of 9 zones.
But this is sufficient, for all we are really trying to show here is that even if
the two theories identified DIFFERENT prototypes in 5 out of 9 zones, they were very closely related, choices which to a great extent can be RECONCILED, as the formula and chart above demonstrate - insofar as we aknowledge the principle of 'pure' type as a factor governing distribution.
Walter Geldart, who conceives of his own assignments as but a VARIANT of Riso's,
has, for years now, made the bold assertion that the Enneagram may, ironically, be
more capable of discerning 'true' Jungian type than is that system which is the direct descendent of Jung's work - the MBTI. And our work here supports his assertion,
in very specific terms.
In a future paper we may outline how the description of each enneagram Point can be
seen as reflecting one particular 'pure' type, and how those descriptions pit the dominant function of the pure type associated with certain zones against the same- direction auxiliary. For example - in zone four, in which the 'INF' is the pure type that is the hidden 'strange attractor, and descriptions speak of the Four in terms that would suggest that introverted feeling is coming into conflict with introverted intuition.
Although MBTI theorists would draw our attention, in particular, to a gross 'imbalance'
(with respect to extraversion and introversion) that can occur in the 'pure' type,
more important - at least in the case of Jung himself - may be the manner in which the
first two functions of a 'pure' type, because they are pointed in the same direction,
can come into conflict or competition with each other. Jung's break with Freud marks a personal psychological shift that he underwent, as 'introverted intuition'
began to overtake 'introverted thinking' as his preferred function. His carefully constructed inner 'thought system' was crumbling under the deconstructive power of inner
intuition, and he feard going mad.
We must briefly make note of another consequences of shifting theoretical attention AWAY from 'jungian pairs'(eg, IN = INTJ and INFJ) to 'pure' type (INF and INT). Not ALL of the 'pure' types are represented by enneagram Points, in the way that all of the 'Jungian Pairs' seem to be associated with enneagram Points - the INT, for instance. And those that are most closely associated with Enneagram types (the INF and the INT) appear to be pulling certain MBTI types (the INTJ, in this case) in different directions (toward Five and Four, respectively), by virtue of their common appeal to the same function (in this example, introverted intuition). If this is so, it could account for why few INTJs show up in Four. They are all captured by the appeal of the hidden 'strange attractor' at Five (the 'pure' type, the INT). Not only because the INT shares a preference for introverted intuition (albeit 'auxiliary'), but also a preference for thinking.
We will end here, but not without first giving credit to three individuals without whom this paper would never have occured to us - a bright young man who wants to be known only as 'Karl', Andrew Dinkelaker, and Walter Geldart. Karl, a visitor to this site, pushed us for a better explanation for why there were so many INFPs in Four, and so few INTJs. Andrew, with whom we have collaborated closely on a number of research and organizational development projects of late, was aware of the fact that we had conceived of Jung as himself a 'pure' type. As the dialogue that we have posted on the this page illustrates, we had become fixated on an alternative explanation which may account in part for why some IFs show up in Four instead of Nine, and some INs gravitate toward Five - but we could not explain why, as Karl pointed out, some ITs DIDN'Temigrate, in a similar manner, from Five to Four. After witnessing the dialogue with Karl, Andrew made a brilliant suggestion - that the Jungian 'pure' type held the key to a solution which, he predicted, would not only hold for zone Four, but for all of the introverted zones (4, 6, 9, 5) and perhaps the extraverted ones as well. As far as we can tell, this turns out to have been the case. We now believe that 'pure type' may indeed be a key principle guiding distribution of MBTI type across the Enneagram.
Last but not least, if it had not been for Walter Geldart, who over the years has never failed to take advantage of an opportunity to argue in behalf of the important role that Jungian 'pure' types (and also 'unipolar' types) play, it never would have occured to us (more than a year ago), that the solution to the puzzle of Jung's type was to conceive of him as a pure type. And Andrew would have thus been deprived of the exemplar on which he turned our attention back to the principle of 'pure type' on this occasion. So in some sense, it seems, it was Karl, Andrew and Walter who wrote this paper - we just 'facilitated' the process!
|
