In Defense of Our Original Enneagram-MBTI Theory¹

What about zones 3 and 6? According to Myers-Briggs, in the population-at-large there are approximately 3.5 times as many 'ESs' than 'INs'. If the EM survey were to have polled a representative cross-section of the population we would expect to have heard from three hundred and fifty-seven ESs (corresponding to the one hundred and two INs that we did hear from). But, in actuality, there were only twelve respondents who identified themselves as 'ES'. They are thus radically under-represented in the sample- a fact that cannot be adequately compensated for, the SRTT methodology notwithstanding. We submit that when the other three hundred and forty-five are heard from that it will not be unlikely that they will distribute themselves throughout the enneazones in such a way as to confirm our theory that zone 3 tends toward being 'extraverted', as compared to zone 6, which is characterized as primarily composed of introverts. In addition, the descriptions of the 'issues' with which 3s are involved appear to pivot around inferior intuition, as we argued in Part 4 or our series.

Similarly, the 'IS' group is also significantly under-represented. If the survey were a representative cross-section we would expect that the number of ISs would be approximately the same as the number of ENs (according to Myers-Briggs demographics). But only half that expected number responded. In the EM sample, enneazone 6 was the third most favorite home for ISs. Doubling the number of respondents in the IS category could easily have the consequence of raising the number of individuals in the IS-6 subset to a large enough group so that its 'I-value' is not automatically discounted as an artifact.

We are still hopeful, therefore, that when more data is studied (regarded the under-represented Ss), all of our prototypes will prove to have statistically significant presences in the enneazones to which we have assigned them - with a possible 9 out of 9 'hit' score.

Some of the conclusions that Flautt attempts to draw from the data illustrates how easy it is to make incorrect inferences from the numbers. As a strikingly simple example of this, notice how he asserts (as one of his four main conclusions) that '[the EM survey] data suggests' that 'each enneagram type can have all MBTI types and vice versa'. But the EM survey data does not suggest that at all!!! Despite any predisposition that we may have to want to believe that statement to be true, there are a number of MBTI types in the survey that have NO members in particular enneazones. For instance, ther are NO INTJs who are 2s. Indeed, there are thirty-two completely empty cells in the chart in the March '95 issue of EM. Six of the sixteen cells in enneazone-4 are empty. This data hardly suggests that 'each enneagram type can have all MBTI types'.

It is more likely that 'the relationship between the two personality systems is complex' - another major conclusion that Flautt draws from the data. But if I remember correctly, this was precisely our observation in the first place, one which prompted us to off a more complex theory than had hitherto been suggested (involving the 'clustering, in enneazones, of MBTI types around issues characteristic of identified prototypes'). So, apparently Flautt agrees with us regarding the complexity of the relationship between the two systems. But now, using the definitions he provides, we also see that 7 out of 9 of our prototypes have a significant statistical presence in the enneazones to which they are assigned as prototypes. We have apparently been somewhat successful in discerning the specific nature of the 'complex relationship' between the two systems - a description of which we attempted to give in lieu of comparatively less satisfying generalizations such as the one offered by Flautt in his conclusions(i.e., 'each system can shed light on the other').

A more complete discussion of whu Flautt's methodology does not provide an adequate 'test' of our theory would require us to review, in greater detail than we have room for here, what we meant by the term 'prototype'. Let it suffice to say that what we don't mean to imply by the word is that the prototype in a zone must necessarily be the most populated MBTI type in that zone, or the one with the highest 'I-value', for that matter (although in 13 out of 16 cases, this is true).

Lastly, am I mistaken in counting 5 asterisks in the Riso column of Flautt's chart, making it 5 'hits' for him, and not 4?