The Enneagram and the MBTI: In Search of Common Ground, Part 11
Abstract
Like many people involved with the Enneagram and the MBTI, we are primarily interested in using these systems - to deepen our understanding of human nature in its rich diversity and to improve relations among human beings. Personal relationships, organizational group dynamics, and public and social policy can benefit from the wise application of insights derived from an appreciation of psychological type.
In the long run, however, in order to apply these systems more effectively on a practical level we may occasionally need to drop back and ask what makes them tick. What principles underlie their practices? What are the specific theories associated with each system? Can we take these theories in hand and inspect them closely, tinker with them and imagine what impact even slight modifications might have on how they operate? It is, after all, embedded in the theory associated with a system that we will find hidden assumptions - and some of these assumptions may be questionable ones that ultimately limit the system's full or expanded use.
This is the spirit in which we undertake the following exploration into the Enneagram and MBTI. We hope to show, through analyzing the structures of their respective theories, the possibility of a deeper-level relationship between the two systems than has been previously suspected. But what do we mean when we speak of the 'structure' of a theory? We distinguish three levels of structure:
Section One: Surface Structure
When we first look at the MBTI or enneagram, what do we see? What is on the surface? Well, we notice that each system identifies personality categories or 'types' - the enneagram specifies nine basic types, the MBTI sixteen. Each system comes with its own now familiar diagram that summarizes it and has come to symbolize or represent it - the nine-point circle for the enneagram and the sixteen-square chart for the MBTI.
For each system, types are characterized and given names. In her pioneering first book, Helen Palmer, for instance, offered thorough chapter-long descriptions of each of the nine enneagram types. She was careful to enumerate as many characteristics of each type as possible, including information as to how each type feels and behaves in certain situations, what each is trying to optimize and avoid, and the 'intuitive styles' associated with each. There are also interesting speculations about how persons, in childhood, originally enter into their 'type'. MBTI materials offer descriptions of comparable length and complexity. Each system also offers brief (one paragraph) summaries of each type. And both systems have developed methodologies for identifying type using 'type indicators' of various sorts.
So at the 'surface' level we basically have a classification system, involving:
Now, at this level of theory, disputes can break out regarding any of the above features - and they have: should enneagram type 'One' be called 'the Perfectionist' or 'the Achiever'?; are the instruments used for typing accurate or not?; and so on.
We might also try to compare the enneagram and MBTI by attempting to discern a correspondence between the specific types delineated as part of the surface level structure in one system with the specific types delineated as part of the surface level of the other system. But almost immediately there occur stumbling blocks: there are sixteen types for the MBTI while there are only nine types for the enneagram. Hence a simple, one-to-one correspondence between types is not possible. The matter is further complicated by the fact that the number nine and the number sixteen have no common denominator - and so types cannot be sub-grouped and cross-matched in any simple or 'elegant' way.
The absence of a clear and compelling connection between enneagram and MBTI types at the surface level may cause us to wonder if, at present, we have enough information to make a comparison between systems. Has a large enough sample of individual been tested in both systems? But perhaps it is not a lack of statistical information that is the main obstacle. Without an adequate theoretical framework that would permit us to interpret complex cross-system information no sample (no matter how large or 'unbiased') could reveal satisfying surface level connections between the MBTI and enneagram types.
We must pave the way for such an interpretive framework, and for a comparison of the systems that such a framework would make possible, by looking at the assumptions built into the infrastructure of the two theories. Section Two: Theory Infrastructure
What do we mean by theory 'infrastructure'? Let us imagine that it is in theory possible to derive each classification system - the enneagram and MBTI - from a respective set of deeper level assumptions - by identifying (for each) a limited number of key variables and a limited and specifiable set of rules defining the interaction of these variables. Together these variables and rules would constitute the theory's 'infrastructure'. This may sound complex, but it is what Jung actually did do in developing his theory, as we shall see. MBTI InfrastructureJung identified two attitudes: extraversion and introversion (E and I), and four 'mental functions' : thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuiting (T, F, S and N). These are the variables with which he chose to work.
There are only 16 ways ('permutations') in which these variables can be combined, given certain rules (or assumptions) that Jung delineated regarding their relationship (we will specify these rules below). Each of the sixteen permutations defines one MBTI 'type'.
The MBTI types are generated from the 'variables' and the 'rules' in the following way. Each individual is either an extravert or introvert (E or I). Each individual will also characteristically have what might be called a 'preference order' in respect of the four mental functions (T,F,S,N ). One function will be his 'dominant' function, one his 'auxiliary', one his 'tertiary' and one his 'inferior' function . For instance, someone who has thinking as the primary function, sensing as the secondary function, intuition as the tertiary and feeling as the inferior function, will have a T-S-N-F 'preference order'. If that individual is also an introvert we can symbolize this by saying he is an I\T-S-N-F.
Each of the sixteen MBTI types can very simply be identified in this way by 1) specifying whether persons of that type are extraverted or introverted, and 2) specifying their 'preference order' for the functions. Nothing else really needs to be specified. For example, the MBTI type in our example above is called an 'INFJ'. 'INFJ' and 'introvert with N-F-T-S preference order' (which can be written as I\N-F-T-S) are absolutely synonymous terms. No two MBTI types are alike, each is unique - and only the INFJ can be defined as an I\N-F-T-S. [This alternative convention for labeling MBTI types will come in handy later in this article.]
The special rules governing the relationship between the functions may be stated as follows: (We label them as 'J1', etc., for later convenient reference)
Enneagram Infrastructure
Whereas for the MBTI the sixteen types were actually intentionally derived (following Jung) from the six variables and the specified rules, for the enneagram the nine classifications pre-existed any attempt to identify a corresponding 'infrastructure'. Indeed, consensus in the enneagram community has not yet been reached regarding this level of theory.
Various enneagram theorists have, however, courageously offered infrastructural models for consideration - believing to have discerned the 'variables' and 'rules' hidden beneath the play of patterns comprising the enneagram types. The task they set themselves has been a rather difficult one - much like trying to build the foundation of a house after the house had been constructed. Some have sought the theoretical infrastructure in the three 'triads' (comprised of three groups of three contingent points on the enneagram circle: the 891, 234, and 567 groups). Four of the theories regarding the triads, when taken together, can be seen as a progression of views that offers a hint about the direction in which further theoretical advances regarding enneagram infrastructure might be made.
'Triad Theory'The four triad theories that we shall briefly review here are Palmer's, Riso's, Wright's, and Hurley and Dobson's. Each offers a different description of the triads, and a different set of labels for them, as summarized in the following chart:
As one might suspect from a glance at this chart, contradictory claims have been made regarding the triads. But it is not just a matter of disagreeing about which qualities are the important ones ('doing' or 'perceiving', for instance), or which triad certain qualities are associated with (for example, is feeling associated with 234 or 891?). There is a deeper level movement afoot in this progression of views that we want to highlight.
In order to bring this aspect of the debate into relief we must focus our attention more on the theoretical 'move' that each theorist is making, rather than on where she/he ends up by making such a move (eg, the 'content' of his/her hypothesis). For Palmer the three triads group the types according to similarities amongst members of a triad (each triad member has an 'intuitive style' in common). Each triad is therefore directly and simply associated with a quality. For Riso the relationship between members of a triad is more complex. Members of each triad cluster around a dialectical issue characteristic of that triad - with one type in each triad manifesting the faculty associated with that triad in an over-developed form, a second type manifesting the same faculty in an under-developed form, and the third type totally 'blocking' manifestation of the faculty. Hence it is the differences between types in a triad that are emphasized. Wright (like Palmer) characterizes each triad by a 'best' quality shared by types in the group. He also (like Riso) employs a ranking system. He, however, chooses to rank each triad (instead of each member within a specific triad) with respect to all three qualities - this has the effect of emphasizing the nature of the relationship that all members of a triad have (as a group) with all others who stand outside of their triad.
So here is a progression of views in which, first, the similarity of types within a triad is emphasized (Palmer), then the differences between types in a triad are pointed out (Riso), and finally attention is given to how all types within a triad stand, as a group, in relation (via the specified 'qualities') to outsiders (Wright). Enter Hurley and Dobson. Although they also go through the motions of labeling each traditional triad (891, 234, 567) with one of three new terms ('creative', 'relational', 'intellectual') they do something quite revolutionary in addition. They move yet one step closer to divorcing the qualities that they identify with these terms from any specific 'triad' at all! The three qualities are distributed (in varying proportions) across all of the enneagram types. With this new strategy the traditional 'triads' can, in effect, be ignored! This is illustrated in 'figure 1' below - taken from a similar chart in Hurley and Dobson's book. It shows that in order for Hurley and Dobson to distribute their three qualities across the nine Enneagram points they are not required to refer back to a 'home' triad for each quality. This separation of the key 'qualities' (whatever they may end up being) from the traditional triads signals the final step in a gradual shift of interest away from the traditional triad (891, 234, 567) as an adequate infrastructural explanatory device.
This is an important point, so let us approach it from a different angle. Why is it that so many alternate proposals about the nature of each triad have been made and subsequently challenged by others? Why do individuals continue to feel dissatisfied with previous proposals and inspired to join the debate over the nature of the triads with new alternatives or combinations of old approaches (see the articles in the December issue of EM by the Chabreuils and by Elam)? The controversy that triad theory attracts seems to indicate that it is a trouble spot for theorists. Might the problem lie in the original definition of the 'triads' (as 891, 234, and 567)? It feels almost sacrilegious, at first, to suggest this possibility. But, in fact, this is precisely the possibility that Hurley and Dobson's strategy, as the culminating move in the progression of positions reviewed above, tacitly suggests.
Latent in Hurley and Dobson's strategy, although they may not realize it, is a 'fifth' approach to the triads - an approach which views them as basically irrelevant. Hurley and Dobson have opened the door for a more complex distribution of qualities across enneagram types (using a distribution method that is free to ignore the traditional 'triads'). It is this door through which we intend to walk with a slightly more MBTI-friendly infrastructure for the Enneagram.
Jung's Model and the Hurley-Dobson Model
With their new strategy for distributing the three qualities across all nine types Hurley and Dobson offer not only the most elaborate infrastructural enneagram theory to date, but also one with assumptions that so closely resemble Jung's in form that it invites a comparison and feeds the hope that it might be apples and apples, after all, that we would be comparing.
This is not to say that Hurley and Dobson have correctly identified the variables and rules, the 'actual' theoretical infrastructure of the enneagram. Indeed, there is room for debate on this issue. What we can say is that they wind up with an infrastructure that is very similar (in shape) to Jung's.
Hurley and Dobson's 'centers' (creative, relational, intellectual) are, in form, very much like Jung's 'functions' (thinking, feeling, sensing, intuiting). A dominant, support, and repressed 'center' is identified for each personality type (much like the dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions in the Jungian/MBTI system).
Furthermore, as in Jung's system, each type can be identified by specifying ordering-patterns characteristic of the type. The following illustrates the similarity:
Note that Hurley and Dobson's 'infrastructure' generates twelve Enneagram types, not nine. So, as we might suspect, their new assumptions (at the infrastructural level) create some changes at the surface level. They are well aware of this, and embrace this change. In their scheme, there are two 3s, two 6s, and two 9s!
Also note that for Hurley and Dobson's system there are six possible ordering patterns (each occurring twice), and for the MBTI there are eight ordering patterns (each occurring twice). Now, in the case of the MBTI, what distinguishes between duplicates? Well, the E\I variable. The I\F-N-S-T is distinguished from the E\F-N-S-T, although they both have F-N-S-T patterns, by the fact that one is an introvert and the other an extravert . In the Hurley-Dobson Enneagram system, what distinguishes between duplicates? There are two 'C-R-I' patterns associated with two different types (the '1' and the '6a' types), so there must be an additional variable (which operates in a similar way to the way the Extravert/Introvert distinction operates in the MBTI). We will call this variable 'X', because Hurley and Dobson have not explicitly identified it. (For all we know, the unidentified variable may be the extravert/introvert variable.)
It is obvious, from the above, that by describing the two systems at the infrastructural level we can discern interesting parallels and crucial differences. But have we really made any useful discoveries with regard to any hidden relationship existing between the two sets of personality types? Not yet; for this purpose we must look to 'deep structure'.
Section Three: Deep Structure
This is the level at which 'yet-to-be-discovered' structure resides. Like some trees joined underground in a common root might be understood to be part of the same tree, is it possible that the Enneagram and MBTI share a common deep-level structure?
If so, that deep level structure is currently hidden from view. How can we explore what is not yet clearly in focus? Here is where we must use indirect methods of exploration. Here is also where we get to play. We will tinker with each system at its infrastructural level, modifying assumptions embedded there, and watch to see what falls out - noticing in particular what hypotheses about deep structure might thereby be generated.
For example, might we consider suspending Jungian rules J3 and J4 above? These are the rules that disallow preference orders like 'N-S-T-F' (and so none of the MBTI types have an 'N-S-T-F' preference order). Suspending these rules is tantamount to challenging MBTI assumptions about which 'preference orders' are valid ones. By suspending these rules we thereby 'imagine' a possible world different from the one currently assumed by the MBTI - a world in which a total of thirty-two new types become available in addition to the traditional sixteen MBTI types. In this imaginary world there are a total of 48 types. Might we find in such a world that some (or perhaps ALL) of the enneagram types might BE these non-traditional types? If so we would have a situation in which we could specify the relationship between the original sixteen MBTI types and the nine Enneagram types despite the fact that none of the Enneagram types are identical to any of the MBTI types.
In other words, through imagining the suspension of rules J3 and J4 we have brought into relief a possible 'structure' that might be shared at a deeper level by the Enneagram and MBTI - a larger 48 member set of types, in which the nine enneagram types and the sixteen MBTI types might be non-overlapping subsets. With this deep structure a new strategy emerges for relating MBTI and Enneagram types - not through surface comparisons (by directly comparing the nine enneagram types to the sixteen traditional MBTI types) or at the infrastructural level (by comparing the variables and rules in the respective systems), but at the 'deep structure' level (by pointing out how the sixteen and nine types might be different members of a larger shared pool of types that are variants of each other).
Now the imaginary journey that we have taken in the above example is not the only one we could embark upon in search of possible deep-structure relationships between the two personality typing systems. We could suspend (or modify) any of the assumptions in either system (indeed, such modifications have already spawned personality inventories that are interesting variants of the MBTI). But we suggest that it might be most worthwhile to limit our explorations to modifications of certain assumptions in particular - those assumptions which, when modified, bring the infrastructures of the two systems into closer proximity.
By modifying one such assumption in particular (this time in the infrastructural theory associated with the enneagram) we will demonstrate that we can create a hypothetical bridge between the two systems that begins to suggest possibilities for further inquiry. The Crucial Move - Adding A Fourth 'Center'
According to the definitions supplied by Hurley and Dobson, the 'relational' center sounds an awful lot like the Jungian/MBTI description of the 'feeling' function. This may not be too surprising, since the enneagram triad that Hurley and Dobson call 'relational', was previously called the 'feeling' triad (by Riso) and the 'heart' triad (by Palmer). Similarly, the 'intellectual' center sounds an awful lot like the Jungian/MBTI description of the 'thinking' function. This may not be surprising, either, since the triad they call 'intellectual' was called the 'head' center by Palmer.
Is there a correspondence between the remaining ('creative') center and either of the two remaining Jungian 'functions' ('S' or 'N')? Well, although one might at first think that since creativity and intuition have been closely associated in the research literature on creativity, that perhaps the 'creative' center is connected to Jung's 'intuitive function' (N). But on closer inspection the 'creative' center appears to have more to do with the 'body' and with instinctive action, and is thereby more closely related to Jungian 'sensation' (S). In the creative center aspects of both intuition and sensation seem to be included, in much the same way that Palmer includes both as attributes of the 'gut').
It is tempting, in this situation, to suggest a 'thought experiment' in which Hurley and Dobson's infrastructural assumptions would be modified so that the two remaining Jungian functions (sensing and intuition) are separated out and added , as independent third and fourth 'centers', to their first two centers, which already resemble Jung's 'thinking' and 'feeling' functions respectively. For the enneagram there would then be four centers corresponding to the four Jungian functions. And each system would be working with the same four main infrastructural variables.
What would be the impact of making such a change? Obviously, we would have to revise figure 1 (Hurley and Dobson's chart) in such a way as to accommodate four-variable combinations. The revised table would show how each permissible combination distributes across the enneagram points. Let's assume (for a moment) that we have successfully done all that. So what? Where would that get us? Well, such a chart would be nothing less than a key to the hidden relationships between MBTI and Enneagram types, a translation table showing us how to map MBTI types across the Enneagram points! Why? Because, as we pointed out earlier, each MBTI type can be alternately written as a preference-order (for the four functions) in combination with 'E' or 'I' (eg, 'ENTP' = 'E\N-T-F-S'). Once these preference orders are successfully connected to specific enneagram points, MBTI types are connected to Enneagram types! We would have described, in other words, a shared 'deep structure' between the systems.
But the difficult step in our little thought experiment is, of course, re-writing Hurley and Dobson's chart so as to accommodate a fourth variable. How would one interpret their word 'creative' (as 'S' or 'N'?), and where would one put the remaining letter in each combination? . For example, is the R-I-C associated with point 4 an F-T-N or F-T-S? If it is an F-T-N, where would one put the missing 'S'? If it is an F-T-S, where would one put the missing 'N'? And once we do settle on answers to these questions, will the choices we make be consistent with empirical evidence - the observation, for instance, that many 4s test as MBTI 'INFJs' (who have a 'N-F-T-S' preference order)?
And, of course, a decision to adopt Hurley and Dobson's charting-strategy does not commit us to any of their specific conclusions (for instance, about 1s repressing 'the intellectual center' - eg, 'thinking'). But if we are to depart from Hurley and Dobson's suggestions, how would we determine the 'rules of distribution' of the four-letter combinations?
We have already ruled out the possibility of distributing the four-letter combinations across enneagram points according to a simple one-to-one correspondence. Nor is it likely that it will be the traditional triads (891, 234, 567) that will provide a useful reference frame in mapping such a distribution.
Since we can recognize the four-letter combinations with which we are working as preference-orders belonging to MBTI types, might statistics regarding the distribution of MBTI types across the enneagram help us to discern the 'rules of distribution' we are looking for? In Part II we will share some interesting discoveries we made when we looked at such statistics with the corresponding preference-order pattern of each MBTI Type in mind.
Footnotes/References1. This series first appeared in the Enneagram Monthly, in the months of January, February, March, and April of 1996 back to text
Pat and John work with organizations and individuals as consultants specializing in non-standard forms of organization. They assist others to use non-hierarchical structures, operate according to the principles of participatory democracy and consensus decision-making, and organize in ways that promote individual empowerment and 'collaborative actualization'. They believe that these forms of organization are especially effective because they encourage individuals to utilize ALL of their mental capacities, including those that are currently undervalued, undeveloped, and underutilized in standard organizations - feeling and intuition. They are writing a book on this subject. Pat is also a financial manager, an adjunct faculty member with Antioch New England's Graduate School of Organization and Management, and a member of the Association for Psychological Type. John's background is in philosophy of mind, psychology and meditation practice. He has co-founded, developed and administered various social, educational, and advocacy programs and is currently focusing most of his attention on writing.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
