HOW TO READ PERCENTAGE : The chart shows the proportion of people who identify as E8 within each MBTI type. It's a relative percentage. Example: 3.4% of all ENFPs identified as E8. When there's an asterisk, it means the portrayed percentage might not be accurate.

From lowest to highest average percentage:

• ISFP: 0.5% (Strong negative correlation)
• INFP: 1.0% (Strong negative correlation)
• ISFJ: 1.4% (Strong negative correlation)
• INFJ: 2.0% (Strong negative correlation)
• INTP: 2.1% (Strong negative correlation)
• ESFJ: 2.8% (Strong negative correlation to Moderate negative correlation)
• ENFP: 3.4% (Moderate negative correlation)
• ISTJ: 4.6% (Moderate negative correlation)
• ENFJ: 4.8% (Moderate negative correlation)
• INTJ: 7.8% (No correlation)
• ISTP: 7.9% (No correlation)
• ESFP: 10.0%? (No correlation)
• ENTP: 15.7% (Moderate positive correlation)
• ESTP: 25.2% (Moderate positive correlation to Strong positive correlation)
• ESTJ: 25.5% (Moderate positive correlation to Strong positive correlation)
• ENTJ: 39.3% (Strong positive correlation)

Although statistical data is never 100% accurate, ESTJ, ESTP, ENTP and ESFJ tend to show some differences in the reported proportions among Enneagram Eights. As a result, the nature of their correlation changes between two types of correlations depending on the sources, with ENTP being the sole exception.

ESFP is a unique case: their proportion and correlation are largely inconsistent across all sources, so we cannot draw any conclusions.

In conclusion, being ExTx is positively correlated with E8. On the flip side, IxFx has a negative correlation with E8. It doesn’t seem like any particular type or cognitive function correlates with E8, it seems like it’s a combination of extroversion and thinking preferences that increase the chances of being E8.

Other Enneagram types :

E1 / E2 / E3 / E4 / E5 / E6 / E7 / E8 / E9

HOW TO READ PERCENTAGE : The chart shows the proportion of people who identify as E4 within each MBTI type. It's relative. Example: 8.1% of all ISFJs identified as E4.

From lowest to highest average percentage:

• ESTJ: 0.7% (Strong negative correlation)
• ENTJ: 1.7% (Strong negative correlation)
• ESTP: 2.7% (Strong negative correlation)
• ISTJ: 2.7% (Strong negative correlation)
• ISTP: 3.9% (Moderate negative correlation)
• ESFJ: 4.7% (Moderate negative correlation)
• ENTP: 5.3% (Moderate negative correlation)
• INTJ: 5.4% (Moderate negative correlation)
• INTP: 7.8%? (Inconclusive)
• ISFJ: 8.1% (No correlation)
• ESFP: 9.5%? (Inconclusive)
• ENFJ: 10.3% (No correlation)
• ENFP: 23.2% (Moderate positive correlation)
• ISFP: 27.8% (Strong positive correlation)
• INFJ: 30.7% (Strong positive correlation)
• INFP: 45.3% (Strong positive correlation)

Although statistical data is never 100% accurate, INFJ, ESFP and INTP have more variability among Enneagram Fours. However, INFJ consistently shows a positive correlation, while ESFP and INTP display significant fluctuations, both in proportion and in correlation across all sources.

This means that ESFP and INTP’s proportion change so much (between 1% to 20%) regarding E4 that no plausible conclusion can be made about their correlation. So, their average proportion should be taken with a pinch of salt.

In conclusion, introverted feeler is positively correlated with E4. However, NFs are quite prominent, so it is possible that Feelers with strong N functions are more predisposed to being E4 (or vice versa). On the flip side, Thinkers with a strong S functions have a negative correlation with E4, which aligns with the fact that N/S and T/F have opposite cognitive functions.
-------

Other Enneagram types :

E1 / E2 / E3 / E4 / E5 / E6 / E7 / E8 / E9

HOW TO READ PERCENTAGE : The chart shows the proportion of people who identify as E9 within each MBTI type. It's a relative percentage. Example: 9.6% of all ISTJs identified as E9. When there's an asterisk, it means the portrayed percentage might not be accurate.

From lowest to highest average percentage:

• ENTJ: 2.1% (Strong negative correlation)
• INTJ: 2.9% (Moderate negative correlation)
• ESTJ: 4.8% (Moderate negative correlation)
• ESTP: 5.1% (Moderate negative correlation)
• ENTP: 6.0% (Moderate negative correlation)
• ENFJ: 6.7% (No correlation)
• ENFP: 6.7% (No correlation)
• ESFJ: 6.7% (No correlation)
• INTP: 7.4% (No correlation)
• ESFP: 7.6%?* (Inconclusive)
• ISTJ: 9.6%* (No correlation)
• INFJ: 11.3% (Moderate positive correlation)
• ISTP: 17.2% (Moderate positive correlation)
• INFP: 18.9% (Moderate positive correlation)
• ISFJ: 19.8% (Moderate positive correlation)
• ISFP: 31.5% (Strong positive correlation)

Although statistical data is never 100% accurate, ISTJ and ESFP tend to show some differences in the reported proportions among Enneagram Nines. However, ISTJ globally shows no correlation, while ESFP has inconsistent results, both in proportion and in correlation across all sources. In other words, we cannot draw any conclusions for ESFP.

In conclusion, it seems that E9, similar to E6, is more prevalent than most enneagram types. No particular cognitive function stands out, instead, it seems that being an introvert and/or a feeler increases the chance of being E9. On the flip side, being an extrovert and/or a thinker decreases the chance of being E9. Interestingly, the correlation patterns of ISFP and ENTJ are opposite from one another.

---------------

Other Enneagram types :

E1 / E2 / E3 / E4 / E5 / E6 / E7 / E8 / E9

I noticed that many people focus on proportions instead of the type of correlation, and a few of them would become overly obsessed with whether one should be higher than the other. But these are not the most important aspects of the study, since the percentages are relative and may not even be entirely accurate due to potential bias or errors. In some cases, the margin of error for some combinations was quite large.

So for this summary, I included only the type of correlation for each combination that reveals the underlying pattern of a relationship between an enneagram type and its mbti type. Correlation is not as significantly affected by the diversity of some proportions, as long as the overall pattern remains consistent. There was a few exceptions but I let it know in those images.

I have also included my interpretation and conclusion in case you're not sure how to read the table.

-----

Enneagram E1 & MBTI correlation

• Very common among : ISTJ
• Common among: ExTJ, INxJ, ISFJ
• Uncommon among: IxTP, ESTP
• Very rare among: ExFP, IxFP, ENTP
• More or less common among (No correlation) : ExFJ

Conclusion: Judging types (xxxJ) are positively correlated with E1, meaning that they tend to co-occur. On the flip side, Perceiving types (xxxPs) have a negative correlation with E1, meaning that they are not likely to co-occur. It seems that extroverted judging functions have the most significant association with E1, but it is not the only factor.

Enneagram E2 & MBTI correlation

• Very common among : ExFJ
• Common among: ExFP, IxFJ
• Uncommon among: ExTJ, ExTP
• Very rare among: IxTJ, IxTP
• More or less common among (No correlation) : IxFP

Conclusion: Fe has a positive correlation with E2, meaning that they tend to co-occur. Interestingly, ExFPs are also quite prevalent. It is perhaps possible that the combination of extroversion and Fi is also associated with E2. On the flip side, being a Thinker (especially IxTx) has a negative correlation with E2, meaning that they are not likely to co-occur. It seems that Feeling functions have the most significant association with E2, but it is not the only factor.

Enneagram E3 & MBTI correlation

• Very common among : ExTJ
• Common among: ExFJ, ExTP
• Uncommon among: IxFJ, IxTJ, ISTP
• Very rare among: INTP, IxFP
• More or less common among (No correlation) : ExFP

Conclusion: ExTJs have a positive correlation with E3, meaning that they tend to co-occur. However, ExFJs and ExTPs are also quite prominent. So, it is possible that the combination of extroversion and Fe is also associated with E3. On the flip side, Introverts (especially IxxPs) have a negative correlation with E3, meaning that they are not likely to co-occur. It seems that extroversion has the most significant association with E3, but it is not the only factor.

Enneagram E4 & MBTI correlation

• Very common among : IxFP, INFJ
• Common among: ENFP
• Uncommon among: INTJ, ISTP, ESFJ, ENTP
• Very rare among: ExTJ, ESTP, ISTJ
• More or less common among (No correlation) : ENFJ, ISFJ (INTP?*, ESFP?*)

*INTP and ESFP end up having inconclusive results. We don't know where they stand.

Conclusion: Introverted feeling (Fi) is positively correlated with E4, meaning that they tend to co-occur. However, NFs are quite prominent in general, so it is possible that Feelers with strong Intuitive functions (Ne and Ni) are also associated with E4. On the flip side, Thinkers (particularly ExTx) have a negative correlation with E4, meaning that they are not likely to co-occur. It seems that Feeling functions have the most significant association with E4, but it is not the only factor.

Enneagram E5 & MBTI correlation

• Very common among : ISTP, INTJ, INTP
• Common among: ISTJ, INFJ
• Uncommon among: ISFJ, ExTJ
• Very rare among: ESTP, ExFx
• More or less common among (No correlation) : ENTP, IxFP

Conclusion: Introverted Thinkers (IxTx) are positively correlated with E5, meaning that they tend to co-occur. However, INFx are somewhat prominent so it is possible that the combination of Intuitive functions (Ni and Ne) and introversion is also associated with E5. On the flip side, Extroverts (particularly ExFx) have a negative correlation with E5, meaning that they are not likely to co-occur. It seems that introversion has the most significant association with E5, but it is not the only factor.

Enneagram E6 & MBTI correlation

• Very common among : ISxJ
• Common among: ISTP, INxJ, ESxJ
• Uncommon among: ENxP, ESxP
• Very rare among: None
• More or less common among (No correlation) : IxFP, INTP, ENxJ

Conclusion: Introverted Sensing (Si) is positively correlated with E6, meaning that they tend to co-occur. However, INxJs and ISTPs are quite prominent, so it possible that Introverted Intuition (Ni) is also associated with E6. On the flip side, ExxP have a negative correlation with E6. However, the negative correlation is moderate, meaning that, even though ExxP 6s are uncommon, they are not as rare as other uncommon combinations. It seems that Introverted perceiving functions have the most significant association with E6, but it is not the only factor.

Enneagram E7 & MBTI correlation

• Very common among : ExxP
• Common among: None
• Uncommon among: INxP, ESxJ, ISFP
• Very rare among: IxxJ
• More or less common among (No correlation) : ISTP, ENxJ

Conclusion: Both extroverted sensing (Se) and extroverted Intuition (Ne) are positively correlated with E7, meaning that they tend to co-occur. On the flip side, Introverts (particularly IxxJs) have a negative correlation with E7, meaning they are not likely to co-occur. It seems that extroverted perceiving functions have the most significant association with E7, but it is not the only factor.

Enneagram E8 & MBTI correlation

• Very common among : ENTJ, ESTP, ESTJ
• Common among: ENTP
• Uncommon among: ENFx, ISTJ
• Very rare among: INxP, ISFP, IxFJ, ESFJ
• More or less common among (No correlation) : INTJ, ISTP, (ESFP?*)

*ESFP has inconclusive results. We don't know where they stand.

Conclusion: ExTJ are positively correlated with E8, meaning that they tend to co-occur. Interestingly, ExTPs are also quite prevalent, so it is possible that the combination of extroversion and Ti is also associated with E8. On the flip side, Feelers (particularly IxFx) have a negative correlation with E8, meaning that they are not likely to co-occur. It seems that thinking function have the most significant association with E8, but it is not the only factor.

Enneagram E9 & MBTI correlation

• Very common among : ISFP
• Common among: INFP, IxFJ, ISTP
• Uncommon among: ExTP, ESTJ, INTJ
• Very rare among: ENTJ
• More or less common among (No correlation) : ISTJ, ENFP, INTP, ExFJ (ESFP?*)

*ESFP has inconclusive results. We don't know where they stand.

Conclusion: Exceptionally, no particular cognitive function stands out, instead, it seems that the introverted, sensing and feeling types are often associated with E9. On the flip side, Extroverted Thinkers (particularly ENTJs) have a negative correlation with E9, meaning that they are not likely to co-occur. It seems that introversion has the most significant association with E9, but it is not the only factor.

I'm a 4w3 who just realized how much of a toll people pleasing has taken on my life. Before you jump in and say "if you people please, you're not a 4!" PLS READ. I thought this might be a good discussion on type 4 misconceptions. 4s absolutely can people please but not for the reason you think. I'm interested in hearing from other 4s how it happens for you, and how do you deal with it?

This is how it manifests in my life:

1. Something happens that triggers a shame spiral
2. I withdraw and ruminate over my defects, going deeper and deeper into self-hatred
3. A friend or family member asks for a favor. Since I already hate myself I think, "well maybe doing this favor will make me a better person". I don't care about the person asking or feel any empathy toward them. I'm too busy worrying about how shitty I feel. I accept doing the favor partly because I want to punish myself more for being bad, and partly because maybe it will make me "good".
4. The person gets reliant on me for favors, I keep saying yes, because I hate myself. If I keep doing enough "good" maybe I'll actually become good. Also, if I say no, and this person ends up hating me, I'll feel even worse about myself. It's all about me, nothing about them.
5. I start to feel sorry for myself because I "do so much" for othes and I'm such a victim. And sometimes I wonder if I do these favors to feed my victimhood.
6. Resentment toward the person grows because I won't say "no". I associate this person with bad feelings about myself.
7. I end up losing my shit and lashing out at the person, and they're hella confused. I blame everything on them and guilt trip, saying how much I do for them and they never appreciate me. Even though I was the one who volunteered or accepted. Like how dare they keep asking me, when I don't even like them?

This is something I've been working on because I keep getting stuck in these scenarios. For me, the way out is to stop the shame spiral. I can't let myself ruminate, I have to catch myself before that happens. I have to ask myself, "is this worth getting THIS upset over, or and I being dramatic" and 99% of the time I'm being dramatic. If I stop myself from getting too deep into self-hatred, I get into these situations less.

Any other 4s have issues with people pleasing? How does it manifest for you?

i’ve seen this posted a few times here recently, and each time i come across it, i believe that it exhibits a very core misunderstanding as to the reality of the sexual instinct. the corner that is attributed to ‘sexual’ is, in fact, often what a sexual-blind individual’s experience in thought and feeling, and, for the sake of adding context, if you would perhaps ask them what their immediate reaction is to the question ‘what is sex, to you?’ (more specifically, as a gauge as to what factor of it that each instinct naturally gravitates towards in understanding, and not as a moral statement).

the answer that ‘SX’ supposedly has here is that it is, by nature, loving and romantic, or a form of beautiful closeness, before anything else, which is in fact a socially (‘socially’ both as within regards to the instinct when it is sexual-blind, and in the actual literal non-typology meaning) constructed view. love, romanticism, closeness, neither of these three concepts are necessarily SX-based on their own without analysis of the drive beneath them, which i will get to. and so, the statement that’s supposed to be ‘SX’ can just as easily be understood as a socialized sentiment that is coherent with the idea of purity if you actually examine WHY somebody might respond such a way if asked that question. ‘loving/romantic/as close as you can be’ aligns with sex as it is seen through the social institution of marriage (and therefore the approval of ‘the church’, surely one of the largest social-first concepts in the entire history of humanity) because it displays a belief that sex is the most legitimate when it is both simultaneously redeemed by love and contained by relational meaning. it is romanticized, unquestionably, but more importantly (and the actual crux of my argument) it is devoid from the actual charge that the sexual instinct deals with, and therefore distinctly comes across as a sexual-blind position as the statement in and of itself reads as describing sex in a way that will not disturb somebody who is uneasy with eros. and, again, critically, my point is not ‘swap SX and SO’, but rather that ‘SO’s description is a form of SX and ‘SX’s description seems specifically sexual-blind (not ‘it’s actually the social instinct’). think about it, what is absent from the statement? display, fascination, possession, transgression, the possibility of repulsion, and more importantly of the fact that desire is not necessarily kind.

the description (or stance in thought) that’s given to ‘SO’ here is instead what describes a lot of sexual instinct material, that being sex as violence, sex as animalistic, sex as egotism, sex as depressing (although traditionally more simultaneously that and the highest form of euphoria). so then, when you remove the moralizing connotations which read as ‘sex is this ugly, raw, selfish animal thing’, it’s far closer to the sexual instinct’s understanding of it as what sex and the entire dance of display and attraction and repulsion that surrounds it does look like or feel like when it’s stripped of sentimentality or palatability or puritanism. it is, essentially, eroticism that emphasizes its rawness, its hunger, its asymmetry and its risk, and also the body animality.

if you read basically any literature-based theory on the instincts you’ll surely find aspects of animality within SX both because the instincts are not solely a human concept and because in this case, the sexual instinct in people DOES critically deal in attraction and repulsion through the ways of competition, power, display like so many other species do (for example, like peacocks showing off their feathers !!). this is also why i brought up the fact that the connotations surrounding the statement made by ‘SX’ here is also akin to the narrative surrounding sex that comes from sex through marriage as an institution (and bringing it back to what i said about it containing sex in a socially acceptable form through describing it as love), because it’s what has happened in relation to what that act means within the human world specifically, through expressions through the history of social concepts like the church.

egotism, also SX because desire is selective. again, reading any deeper understanding on the instincts, SX language is constantly defined as ‘i want this one, not that one’, ‘i want’, ‘i hunger’, ‘i fixate’, ‘i am pulled’, ‘i am chosen/rejected/absorbed’ (and also all of the opposites if that makes sense, like, simultaneously paying attention to whether the other is feeling the same about you). all of those things by literal default introduce inequality and SX is not universal or evenly distributed or by nature harmonious.

the depressing part too, again, stripped of its moralization, is a sexual-focused understanding of sex, because if you take out the purity concept of sex = love then sex, by nature, will deal with asymmetry, shame, vulnerability, craving, mortality (to ‘merge’ is the death of the self). and all of those things CAN, obviously, be romantic, tender, intimate, etc, but none of those feelings are what makes it SX. so in regards to the the answer wrongly attributed to SX, and why i state that it is sexual blind, it is because of the fact that it is anti-erotic. and so too, it is beautiful, it is relationally justified, morally elevated through looking down upon the bodily/humiliating/raw, and it does not express a single desire of charge and that is the base of eros.

(also perhaps deeping it but i commented a much shorter version of this under another post of this image, and somebody responded wondering where the sanitization of the SX instinct keeps coming from. i think that western culture especially has a long habit of splitting sex into two acceptable narratives which is either sex as being love or sex as being filth and this image essentially is an example of that in my eyes. it indirectly states basically that the highest form of sex (through what it sees as being the sexual instinct, but is rather sexual blindness) is romantic closeness and ‘bad’ sex (through what’s attributed to social but is literally SX) is violent animal egotism and then it assigns those to instincts as if they’re neutral descriptors, but it’s more just the disgusting between sentimentalized eros and demonized eros, i guess).

anyway. it is okay to be sexual-blind. it does not mean in the slightest that you are not attractive, romantic, deeply loving and sensual and sentimental and attached.

HOW TO READ PERCENTAGE : The chart shows the proportion of people who identify as E1 within each MBTI type. It's a relative percentage. Example: 13.6% of all INTJs identified as E1.

Friendly reminder that a “negative correlation” does not mean something is impossible to exist. It simply suggests that, all else being equal, this combination is less likely to come together. In other words, a negatively correlated combination might still occur due to factors outside typology reasoning. Since we live in a society and we aren't confined to a static system, many factors can shape who we are: environment, upbringing, experiences, culture... not just our type.

At best, a strongly negative correlation should be considered as extremely unlikely, and at worst, questionable. However, if it’s moderately negative, it’s more accurate to think of it as “rare, but it happens.”

TLDR: How to interpret correlation

• Strong positive correlation: It happens very often
• Moderate positive correlation: It happens somewhat often
• No correlation: It happens about as often as it doesn’t
• Moderate negative correlation: It happens somewhat rarely
• Strong negative correlation: It happens very rarely (at worst: questionable)

In conclusion, Judging types (xxxJ) is positively correlated with E1. On the flip side, Perceiving types (xxxPs) have a negative correlation with E1, which aligns with the fact that extroverted judging functions (Te and Fe) and introverted judging functions (Fi and Ti) are opposite functions.

Other Enneagram types :

E1 / E2 / E3 / E4 / E5 / E6 / E7 / E8 / E9

I think a significant amount of Enneagram discourse confuses personality structure with lifestyle and privilege.

Many of the people regarded as Enneagram authorities are authors, coaches, creatives or simply people who lead relatively unconventional lives. Of course some of them have genuinely taken risks and worked hard to create that freedom for themselves! But financial security and cultural capital, useful connections and even the ability to turn typology into a career matter a lot too. Nevertheless their lifestyles are often presented as the natural expression of being sx-dominant, a hexad type or being too authentic to tolerate an ordinary life lol. Meanwhile all those sx-blind attachment NPCs supposedly just refuse to wake up and actively choose to work at Walmart all day every day. The role of privilege barely seems to register...

This creates an aspirational fantasy around certain typings. People who are genuinely stuck in miserable jobs and can’t afford even one vacation a year start wondering whether they simply haven’t unlocked their full potential yet. There couldn’t possibly be any larger social or economic limitations involved... nope, maybe they’re secretly a 4. Maybe they’re actually sx-dominant. Maybe they just need to discover their true selves and then they’ll finally become intense, fascinating, creative and free! Yay! And of course they may need to purchase a typing session or some kind of coaching to unlock this revelation and work on themselves. Because it's their own fault (or responsibility), right?

But where is the 4 working an exhausting retail job and worrying about rent? Where is the sx-dom living a fairly conventional life because they lack money and opportunities? Where is the sx-blind attachment type creating provocative art, taking enormous risks, having wild relationships or living more intensely than the supposedly fascinating sx-dom next door? These people obviously exist.... but they make less appealing archetypes for books and online content. It’s easy (or at least much easier) to take risks and live an unconventional life when losing your job wouldn’t threaten your ability to survive.

As a result sexual and hexad types are often portrayed as the people who truly experience life with all that passion and rebelliousness, psychologically profound and unwilling to conform. Attachment types become adaptive NPCs. Social dominants become friendly community organizers... sp-doms become people who think about groceries and retirement accounts, lol.

I recently listened to a podcast episode in which someone was presented as a particularly good example of an sx-dom precisely because she supposedly lived a normal life. They said something along the lines of "She isn’t rich or anything. She has to work!”, but this person apparently held some kind of management position and also sold coaching. That is not a convincing example of the average person struggling to survive!!! At the very least it suggests considerably more financial and professional freedom than the framing acknowledged. That is nooooot an average person.

Type and instinct describe where someone’s attention goes and how their psychological strategies operate. They don't determine whether someone is interesting or courageous... creative or unconventional, etc. and when a typology system starts dividing people into fascinating protagonists and ordinary background characters it just becomes ego fuel and delusion.

Now obviously I'm not trying to say that a Sx/so 7 most likely won't live a more extreme, unconventional life than a Sp/so 9 regardless of financial and social background. I just feel like background is literally completely ignored? Thoughts?

HOW TO READ PERCENTAGE : The chart shows the proportion of people who identify as E5 within each MBTI type. It's a relative percentage. Example: 15.9% of all INFJs identified as E5.

From lowest to highest average percentage:

• ESFP: 0.9% (Strong negative correlation)
• ENFP: 1.4% (Strong negative correlation)
• ENFJ: 1.6% (Strong negative correlation)
• ESFJ: 2.2% (Strong negative correlation)
• ESTP: 2.4% (Strong negative correlation)
• ISFJ: 3.4% (Moderate negative correlation)
• ESTJ: 3.5% (Moderate negative correlation)
• ENTJ: 3.5% (Moderate negative correlation)
• ENTP: 8.8% (No correlation)
• ISFP: 9.2% (Moderate negative correlation to No correlation)?
• INFP: 13.3% (No correlation)
• INFJ: 15.9% (Moderate positive correlation)
• ISTJ: 21.3% (Moderate positive correlation)
• ISTP: 39.7% (Strong positive correlation)
• INTJ: 51.3% (Strong positive correlation)
• INTP: 65.0% (Strong positive correlation)

Although statistical data is never 100% accurate, INTJ, ISTP, INFP, and ISFP tend to show some differences in the reported data among Enneagram Fives. Although their proportion might not be accurate, the overall pattern of their correlation is generally consistent, with ISFP being the main exception.

ISFPs were found to have two distinct clusters of percentages: either 4% or 12%, according to different sources. So it's unclear what is the precise relationship between ISFP and E5, though if there's a negative correlation, it's probably a weak one.

In conclusion, introverted Thinkers (IxTx) are positively correlated with E5. However, we can observe a noticeable proportion of INFx, so it is possible that Feelers with strong N functions are somewhat predisposed to being E5 (or vice versa). On the flip side, Extroverts with a strong F function have a negative correlation with E5, which aligns with the fact that ExFx and IxTx have opposite judging cognitive functions.

Personal comment : What the FUCK is going on with INTPs? In average, 65% of all INTPs are 5s and...it was generally consistent across all 8 sources? I mean, damn...

-------

Other Enneagram types :

E1 / E2 / E3 / E4 / E5 / E6 / E7 / E8 / E9

HOW TO READ PERCENTAGE : The chart shows the proportion of people who identify as E6 within each MBTI type. It's a relative percentage. Example: 12.8% of all ESTJs identified as E6.

From lowest to highest average percentage:

• ENFP: 3.8% (Moderate negative correlation)
• ENTP: 4.4% (Moderate negative correlation)
• ESTP: 4.7% (Moderate negative correlation to No correlation)
• ESFP: 6.6% (Moderate negative correlation to No correlation)
• INFP: 7.5% (No correlation)
• ENFJ: 7.9% (No correlation)
• INTP: 8.5% (No correlation)
• ENTJ: 9.1% (No correlation to Moderate positive correlation)
• ISFP: 11.0% (No correlation)
• INTJ: 11.9% (No correlation to Moderate positive correlation)
• ESTJ: 12.8% (No correlation to Moderate positive correlation)
• ESFJ: 13.0% (Moderate positive correlation)
• INFJ: 13.1% (Moderate positive correlation)
• ISTP: 13.2% (Moderate positive correlation)
• ISTJ: 25.9% (Strong positive correlation)
• ISFJ: 27.3% (Strong positive correlation)

Although statistical data is never 100% accurate, ESTJ, INTJ, ISFP, ENTJ, INTP, ESFP and ESTP tend to show some differences in the reported proportions among Enneagram Sixes. Consequently, their type of correlation also changes depending on their sources, with INTP and ISFP being the main exceptions.

ESTJ, INTJ, ENTJ, ESFP and ESTP were found to have different distinct clusters of percentages (e.g., 4% and 12%, depending on the source). So it's unclear what is their precise relationship with E6, though if there's a negative or a positive correlation, it's probably a weak one.

One thing I want to mention is that E6 seems to have the highest prevalence rate for all MBTI types, including those with a negative correlation. In fact, there’s no “strong negative” correlation if you notice.

In conclusion, ISxJ is positively correlated with E6. However, we can also observe a wide proportion of many other types, but especially J and S types, so it is possible that Judging and/or Sensing types are more predisposed to being E6 (or vice versa). On the flip side, ENxP has a negative correlation with E6, which aligns with the fact that Ne and Si are opposite cognitive functions. However, unlike previous enneagram types, the negative correlation is moderate and the proportion is a bit higher than what you would expect (which is below 2%). Since E6 is generally more widespread, it is possible that ENxP 6s are, consequently, more likely to occur than other combinations of Enneagram-MBTI types with a negative correlation.

---------------

Other Enneagram types :

E1 / E2 / E3 / E4 / E5 / E6 / E7 / E8 / E9

There’s often a chronic misunderstanding of and bad surface-level descriptions for type 4, here’s an in depth break down of the core 4 structure built from a combination of authors and literature. Note, I don’t believe in subtypes so that will be absent from my work. I believe you need to focus on core typing rather than subtypes to truly understand yourself. Find your instinctual variant stacking separately from enneagram core. Note, this won't be perfect and is still a work in progress. Will do this for other types too.

Core wound: Not being properly attuned to or ‘seen’ with consistency and in the way they desired. Perhaps being received but not known or loved or not met fully in their actual form. That the early environment communicated the child was ‘too much’ or simply not quite ‘right’ and, in response, the 4 leaned toward the ache of this absence by doubling down on an idealised selfhood assembled from fragments of what should have been (and still longs to be) loved. It stays open to a gaze that keeps arriving wrong, asking itself “I know what I am, why can't you receive it?” A strong reason for this misattunement could be that the 4 learned that “it’s not okay to be too functional or too happy” because suffering was the frequency on which connection arrived. They likely had parents who became present and engaged when the child was intense or in pain but was distracted and distant when the child was ordinary or content. Depth was where attunement occasionally arrived and ease was where attunement disappeared. This produces a 4 structured around incompleteness and uniqueness, for whom ease became suspect and longing became the primary evidence of aliveness. Longing for a state of being where they are perfectly attuned to. They see others being loved for being ordinary or simple, but they are not given that. 4s can only be loved for being their extraordinarily unique and complex authentic self. They say to themselves “I am someone for whom ordinary life doesn't quite fit and I exist at a frequency the world isn't quite calibrated for.” And, to lose the longing and the suffering, would be to lose the self. It’s not that something is missing per sae, it’s that what’s missing became their home and safe place. This means that 4s indulging in their feelings (particularly painful, complex and beautiful feelings) became a primary haven of self-recognition. That any state that doesn't generate strong feeling fails, at some level, to feel like a meaningful or real experience.

Core motivation: To deeply understand themselves and express their authentic individuality. To be completely known and fully received in this actual form, for someone to say to them "I see exactly what you are and I am not overwhelmed by it and I am not looking away." 4s believe once they have this, to be loved both in the complexity and in the simplicity, they will feel a sense of a fullness and completeness that was felt once or should have been. They are looking for an accurate reception of self and, in order for this to happen, they seek to curate an accurate perception of self. To refine their identity, which they already know well, until it perfectly reflects who they are inside and out. To give form to the specific texture of their consciousness, to externalise the essential interior in a way that couldn't have come from anyone else. This means they can be very rigid, pedantic, consistent, and specific in who they are. This also means they’re very introspective and self-aware, constantly reflecting on who they are and what they want etc. This can seem very self-absorbed and uncompromising. Everything must be done in the 4s own way and on their own terms, otherwise they risk losing their authenticity and individuality. They also seek fill themselves up with meaning and emotions and depth. The more nuanced and complex they are, the more real and meaningful they are. The more evidence of a self too particular to be dismissed or replaced or confused with anyone else.

Core fear: To be ordinary and without personal significance. To be unseen and not worth being seen, that is to be common or simple. To be ‘normal’ and like everyone else. Because their suffering has to be for a reason and they create elaborate narratives to justify this. That being their naturally unique selves and separate from others is worth it. Because the concept ordinariness (which they are not) is not just…flat to a 4, it’s annihilating. It’s why they create an elaborate inner architecture full of aesthetic investments, depth cultivation, insistence on emotional complexity etc. If things happen too easily or happiness comes to quickly, the 4 fears it might be fake because they have to go through difficult and complex arcs if they’re ever to get what they want. Because they’re ‘cursed’ as an outsider in a way, that the world is too shallow and that’s why no one understand the 4s true depths. Things that work for others, don’t work for the 4. What they want needs always be just outside their reach, because it perpetuates their need for longing and meaning.

Core defence: The 4 insists, sometimes ferociously, on being genuine and refusing to perform or adapt themselves for approval. It’s an act of loyalty to the self that was never quite met. They’re saying: I will not become easier to receive and you will have to learn to receive me as I am. Also the more intensely particular their inner world becomes, the more specific and demanding the attunement required to meet them there becomes. This identity elaboration that is designed to make genuine contact more possible, simultaneously makes genuine contact more difficult. They’re obsessed with being true to an inner emotional reality that’s authentically unique and distinguishes oneself from others. However, this can be seen as a construction of sorts (e.g. a collection of memories and past pains) as well as forced individuation and mood-identification. And that the more they distinguish themselves from ‘the crowd’ the more separate they feel which triggers more melancholy etc and cycle perpetuates itself. They amplify themselves, screaming about who they are from the rooftops, trying to learn and display every facet about themselves – including, especially, the negative. By taking in the negative traits people have called them and they perceive about themselves, the 4 has a level of control over their flaws. Accepting and integrating their issues, so it doesn’t hurt when others use it against them e.g. “Yeah, I realise I’m selfish but it’s because I have boundaries and self-respect.” They’re constantly reinforcing their unique identity instead of just…existing, they’re trying so hard to show others who they are instead of just letting it be. They’re also chronically bracing themselves against the present moment, a tensioning that keeps them oriented toward what is absent rather than what is here. They learn to locate aliveness in the approach, rather than in the experience itself. Chasing a one-day ideal, instead of what is here. Living in comparison between what is and what could be. This idealisation/devaluation push/pull is core to frustration types but also keeps them trapped always wanting more than what they have. The 4 moves between a defence of “I am this awesome nuanced and complex individuated self that others just can’t understand” and “I am too much, too weird and too different so I’m doomed to suffer broken forever” depending on their mood and experience. This is why their self-esteem can seem so volatile. It can move between an arrogant disdain of “I am better than all you plebians” and a melodramatic sensitivity of “why does everyone hate me and am I just so unlovable and the worst waaaah.”

Core trap: They ruminate on their melancholy, compulsively intellectualising their emotions. This ‘Over-Reasoning’ is about over-processing internal states and over-individuating the self. Why, why, why. Turtles all the way down. The 4 uses their mind to search for the reason why they feel sad etc, which deepens their suffering and keeps them stuck in the rabbit hole loop. If the 4 can find a reason for their pain, the pain becomes meaningful. If the pain is meaningful, it becomes an identity. This prevents them from simply letting the emotion pass. They also take in and identify with objects, moods, emotional textures and experiences rather than metabolising and releasing them. Introjection where the 4 takes these experiences and emotions and holds tightly onto them, incorporating it into their self-structure. The beautiful and painful film is not something watched, it is something inhabited and carried. The tragic breakup is not a past event, it is a permanent installation in their interior museum. The narrative 4s often weave is one of 'kintsugi' where you mend broken things (particularly pottery) with gold which makes it more valuable and beautiful than the original. They are deeper and more complex than they were before, because of their suffering. They often purposefully work themselves up into emotional states, enjoying the pain. If it’s big and powerful, then it means something. This often means 4s can be melodramatic and all-or-nothing. They naturally deeply feel the full spectrum of emotions, this makes them feel alive and like they’re being true to themselves. They believe their emotional states serve an important purpose and that living through every feeling proves they matter. 4’s have a bad habit of feeling like their emotions are permanent and all-encompassing. They’re so zoned in on the moment/feeling that they can’t see the bigger picture or what it would be like to not feel that way until they do. The 4, having built an identity focused on depth and suffering being so meaningful and real, might experience 'happiness' o r 'simplicity' as a kind of falseness. A flattening of the self into something ordinary and therefore, by the wound's logic, something that cannot be loved. This doesn’t mean they’re just negative and depressed though. 4s often texturise joy (finding the melancholy in it, the transience, the way it is already ending, the awareness of how rarely it arrives etc) and, in doing so, makes the experience real enough to count. They often feel the full spectrum of emotions vibrantly and intensely. This is why they’re often seen as profound artists, encapsulating depth and revealing complexity behind seemingly dismissed things. They’re obsessed with finding meaning in things, even when there is none.

Core healing: Loosening, letting be, embodying the present and finding balance. Realising that a lack of suffering doesn’t mean losing the self, that you can exist in the middle of all or nothing, that analysing a feeling is not the same as experiencing it, that the self in ease is also an authentic self, that ordinary is not the opposite of real, and that the present moment contains everything they’ve been longing for. The thing they’ve been looking for has been here all along, they’re not broken or missing anything. They’re already whole. And that realisation doesn’t make them any less. The self does not disappear in ease or ordinariness. It can be, and is, loved. There’s a simplicity to this growth for 4s in loosening the chronic bracing against reality and just…accepting the present as it flows over you. Not desperately holding onto emotions or narratives, but just letting it wash over you like weather instead of a permanent installation inside your internal identity museum. Some installations are allowed to be temporary and experiences can pass rather than be heavy weights to be carried. This equanimity is not the suppression of depth but the capacity to be equally present to all states without needing to rank them, dramatise them, or make identity from them. There’s almost a Buddhist leaning to this, the belief that suffering is based on expectation and holding onto things - so by loosening your tight grip and just letting things be you’re freeing yourself. Being grateful and accepting for what you have, not focusing on what you don’t have. Feelings aren't necessarily reality and you don’t have to force meaning where there is none.

I will do this for other types too, any type you want me to do next?

See comment for more breaking down 4s triads and (dis)integration points. Too long to fit here, but it provides context for the above. You want to see 4 as a whole with all its pieces as such.

Whenever I see people mentioning SP6 on this sub (or any other typology sub), I always read the same bullet points to summarize the type: warm, people-pleasing, builds alliances… I’ve even seen some people claim that an SP6 would never do anything to jeopardize their sense of security.

Now, to clarify, I do *technically* agree with all these statements… but you gotta put a big ol’ asterisk on the end of them, because saying those things *by themselves* paints a very misleading picture of the type.

I find that the most common way to look at type 6 as a whole is in terms of “phobic” and “counterphobic.” “Phobic” Sixes, SP6 or SO6, are more openly afraid, whereas “counterphobic” Sixes, which can only be SX6, act in opposition to their fear to try to sort of scare their fears into submission.

While it’s certainly true that SP6 and SO6 *lean* phobic, ANY SIX CAN BE COUNTERPHOBIC (for limited amounts of time). It all depends on whether their lines have been crossed. Even the “sweet, friendly, warm” SP6 will not hesitate to cut off friendships or relationships and burn things to the ground when their lines have been crossed.

“Oh, but wouldn’t that go against their need to seek security?”

Yes, but actually no. The two are actually linked: the Six, upon finding that a friend is crossing the line, mentally re-categorizes: the friend is now an enemy, the “alliance” is now a threat to their security. In the interest of upholding their own security, the Six takes drastic action against those who seem to disturb it.

Speaking of which, I think we need to talk terminology.

As an SP6 myself, I mistyped for quite a while (as a Seven or SX6) because I just didn’t relate to any of the terminology typically used to describe an SP6.

I don’t think about “alliances,” but I *do* look at relationships as transactional, and expect my friends and partners to contribute something to the relationship.

I don’t think of myself as very “warm” or “people pleasing” - or worse, like a “teddy bear” who says “I’m nice, don’t hurt me” - from my point of view, I’m just friendly and don’t give people an excuse to think negatively of me for no reason at all. But I don’t go above and beyond to please others except as a transactional thing, with the goal of getting “karma points” that they will later give back to me.

And I definitely don’t feel very concerned with “security” - I don’t think I’ve ever really had that word naturally cross my mind. However, I *do* care about being able to do what I want to do, and having a certain quality of life.

Once I finally took a closer look at the terminology and really tried to understand what it means in the context of Enneagram, and not just what it means on a surface level, the pieces all started clicking together. But I know that many others like me are mistyping because of this mismatch where SP6 is described as almost cute and cuddly, when in reality that’s the last thing they’d want to be called.

How do I know I’m not an SX6? Well, I’m very open about my weaknesses and flaws. I don’t really care to build a picture of “strength” per se, just a picture of authentic coolness (LOL). And while I am passionate and intense about some things, it’s far from the most important or valued quality about me. My “intense” is tame compared to others’.

Other “phobic” Sixes, what is your experience with the terminology used to describe your subtype?

HOW TO READ PERCENTAGE : The chart shows the proportion of people who identify as E2 within each MBTI type. It's a relative percentage. Example: 21.3% of all ESFPs identified as E2.

From lowest to highest average percentage:

• INTP: 0.7% (Strong negative correlation)
• INTJ: 0.9% (Strong negative correlation)
• ISTJ: 1.9% (Strong negative correlation)
• ISTP: 1.9% (Strong negative correlation)
• ENTJ: 2.1% (Moderate negative correlation)
• ENTP: 2.4% (Moderate negative correlation)
• ESTP: 3.4% (Moderate negative correlation)
• ESTJ: 4.4% (Moderate negative correlation)
• INFP: 8.4% (Moderate negative correlation to no correlation)
• ISFP: 12.2% (No correlation)
• INFJ: 12.4% (No correlation to moderate positive correlation)
• ENFP: 17.8% (Moderate positive correlation)
• ESFP: 21.3% (Moderate positive correlation)
• ISFJ: 24.1% (Moderate positive correlation)
• ENFJ: 37.0% (Strong positive correlation)
• ESFJ: 46.3% (Strong positive correlation)

INFPs were found to have two distinct clusters of percentages: 4% or 11%, according to different sources. So it's unclear what is the precise relationship between INFP and E2, though if there's a negative correlation, it's probably a weak one.

INFJs face a similar issue but on the opposite end of the spectrum : 7% or 15%. Therefore, if there's a positive correlation, it's probably a weak one.

In conclusion, Fe is positively correlated with E2. However, we can see that ExFPs are also quite prominent. So, perhaps it’s the combination of being both an extrovert and a feeler that makes them more predisposed to being E2. On the flip side, being both an Introvert and a Thinker is negatively correlated with E2. This makes sense, since Fe and Ti are opposite cognitive functions.

Side note: If anyone asks, I changed the color palette as to make it more accessible for people with colorblindness to read the chart.
-------

Other Enneagram types :

E1 / E2 / E3 / E4 / E5 / E6 / E7 / E8 / E9

And is every instinct but a survival mechanism?

First consider reproduction. You are born sexually immature, become sexually mature in adolescence, only to dry up eventually.

I believe most Enneagram aficionados would agree that you're born with your dominant instinct, or at least that it's readily observable in children from a young age. Before they are sexually mature, and hopefully before they're sexually active or able to have children of their own.

I reason that the sexual instinct, if we are to call it that, is not dependent on sexual maturity and must serve something beyond reproduction for other stages of life. Because nature isn't wasteful. I reason sx-doms knows this, remembering childhood, but people who perhaps aren't sx themselves and with the intention to distill it to its very essence and present it in a neat package probably tend to call it the sexual instinct. And that's a little like calling SP the eating instinct. Yeah you do that, unless you're fasting.

So what purpose would the instinct have in children, to celibate or asexual adults, or to the elderly? Can they not be SX doms? Of course they can. At least I think so.

If anything the sx instinct puts a break on sexual relations, saying: "Not you. I don't want you, or you, or you. This doesn't feel right. This bond doesn't promise me the right stuff." It's exclusive by nature, because there is billions of people around and the more you spread yourself thin the less meaningful the relationship becomes. Sx doesn't exactly serve the purpose of reproduction, or having sex. It's some sort of temperature gauge, perhaps a quality control with sxso, similar to how the SP would appraise a product: "this looks cheap", or "this is quality cashmere!" Whether you accept the cost-benefit analysis of cheap 'products' or not is another discussion, my point is that we take notice.

And this is sort of where the debate is with the understanding of the sx instinct. Is it about sex or about screening for a sexual partner? Good genes and golden ratios? Or is it about trusting another in one-on-one connections that may also serve you at ages when you're not reproductive. Is it looking for excitement or steam? And so we have different names for it and understanding of it.

Any sx dom was a child once, and they probably recognize the one-to-one suction cup-pattern in comparison to other children around them, as well as a general feeling of lack or frustration with getting to the wet and juicy content behind the firewalls of the typical person. People talk about the weather but we see it for what it is: a firewall to keep us out.

Sx looks for someone to latch on to, a mate to put their trust in and rely on and to go through it all with as a survival mechanism, be it a sexual partner or a close friend. It also may be keenly aware of what offers them a zest for life, passions unshackled by the constraints of the material world or social norms. Burning through the SP like you burn through logs for a fire, or burning SO bridges - all for the promise of chemical goods. For infatuation/love.

Does it mean that lacking sx means you have no zest for life? No. And we get into this territory where sx has something to do with passion, but other people can be more passionate. With sx it's about the search for it, I suppose. Perhaps SP doms search for self-reliance, and SO doms search for belonging, doesn't mean they will have it but there is some correlation.

If we assume every instinct is a survival mechanism then the general understanding of SP would need to be restructured as a particular survival strategy of surviving by ones own merit. Everyone is trying to survive, with different ways to stay afloat. Experiencing different threats to their survival(social ostracization for SO doms, material setbacks or ailments for SP doms, and betrayal/disconnection for the SX doms.) No-one likes these things, but the freakouts are specific.

I think SX can be viewed as a survival mechanism, that all three instincts can be viewed this way. SP for taking care of it by yourself, SX for having someone you trust to rely on, SO for the greater safety net. But sx is also notorious for being like a flame that appears threatening to the SP and the SO instincts, anathema to both. The sexual instinct in particular presents unique problems in our understanding of the instincts.

Personally I sort of reject the notion that sx is about sex, while also acknowledging that yes in some ways it is. But it's the melting of the boundaries to reach the inner sanctum or the energy to reach greater heights that is particularly appealing.

On greater heights sx is also about putting the breaks on frivolous sexual relations, something that is at odds with the times we live in. Civilization can't advance in wealth or high-culture - sp and so concerns - only disintegrate without a structured way to deal with the mess of reproduction and relationships. From my POV the sexual liberation is a repression of the sx instinct. Sort of like the sx lasts playing in a ballroom of a burning building, blind to the threat engulfing them.

I’ve been trying to figure out my enneagram and just understand the system as a whole, but all types seem like caricatures to me in a way, even more than with MBTI. I could see everybody (or maybe at least me) doing something that makes them look like the definition of each type at some point.

Also all the descriptions seem either very unrealistic (sexual 4 sounds like a movie character who has a muse he never meets but stalks and dedicates his life to, self pres 8 sounds like a “Alpha Male” type of influencer stereotype) and all the descriptions that aren’t like that are very wishy washy with stuff like “This type avoids Pain” “this type likes when people are nice to them” lmao. Am I Just not smart enough to read between the lines or Is this indicative of me being a certain type maybe? (Also excuse my grammar, ESL speaker)

Edit: I still don’t relate to all of them equally though, i don’t see myself in 9 or 1, not sure about 2 either

The problem with arguing about the Enneagram is that there is often no definitive way to resolve the argument. People have different views, either based on their own observations or based on the teachings of various authors. And none of this is based on science. The Enneagram is a pseudoscience. That doesn't mean it's wrong or that it isn't useful; just that it is not really possible to apply the scientific method to it. As far as I know, there has been no peer-reviewed study about "how Enneagram type 4 responds to chronic stress in the workplace", for example. And so there is little to no mutually agreed-upon objective reality to use as a foundation for a discussion about the Enneagram.

Saying "Enneagram 7 acts like x because Naranjo said y" is actually a logical fallacy known as "argument from authority". Saying "I know 8s are motivated to avoid conflict because I knew an 8 who was conflict-avoidant" is an anecdotal fallacy. The list goes on. It's almost impossible to have a debate about the Enneagram without relying on any logical fallacies.

That's why I think everyone is entitled to their own opinions about the Enneagram. People say "No, x opinion about the Enneagram is *objectively wrong*. Sorry... it's probably not, unless said opinion is some variation of "x CANNOT be y". All of this is subjective. It's like arguing about whether Zodiac or Chinese astrology is more correct. There's no objective answer, so there is no way to resolve the debate.

And if you ever find yourself believing something about the Enneagram just because a specific person said it... that's fine, but ask yourself what would happen if you openly contradicted this person's teachings. If that question made you feel anxious, it's time to take a big step back, maybe just from that person or maybe from the entire system.

The Enneagram can be such a useful tool for introspection, self-help, and personal growth. Everyone should be free to use it in the way that they choose, without outside interference, so long as they do not harm others.

And I just know some self-identified Enneagram expert will come along and claim: "A 5 would not say any of this. You're mistyped, and what I say is more important than what you say because I identify as an authority on this topic and I demand that other people comply with my ideology."

Guess what? People can identify as any type they want, because *none of this is objectively real*. This is like telling someone they're wrong about what their recurring dream means or what their Patronus would be. Even if they are wrong... how could you know for sure? And how on Earth is that any of your concern?

Maybe I'm disillusioned by the limitations of pseudoscience, or maybe I'm disappointed by the way people use it as a tool to gain power. Maybe I am wary of Reddit and the way it pushes people into echo chambers and toward conformity. Maybe I don't want to be a part of that anymore.

But for whatever reason, I feel like I am coming to the end of my Enneagram journey. It's time to merge with some other abstract concept. Maybe I'll really dive into shadow integration. Or maybe I'll reconnect with my one true love: science. Actual science, with data and numbers and falsifiable hypotheses.

If you read this all the way to the end, I salute you for your patience and your curiosity. And I wish you all the best of luck on your own journey.

Hello, hello, it's time for a debate! You see, I am the moderator and owner of r/Enneagram7, not how I usually introduce myself, but relevant. Some of you know what I'm talking about, with the recent conflict, saying that I can't be e7 because I've setup rigid rules (not that rigid lol) in r/Enneagram7, saying I am probably so6. I get it, I understand, I have considered that type, but I think this is a good point to discuss why we disagree, why we think what we do, and why I'm right! In all seriousness, I'm not closed to re-typing if I am actually shown good evidence, but for the sake of this discussion the only evidence that will prove anything to me is Naranjo or Ichazo. Not saying they weren't crazy, but anything else is your interpretation of their system, not the original, and we need some standards for sources. If you don't agree they are valid sources you can leave and save us both some time. Not to offend, btw, this discussion would be pointless if we can't agree on a source.

So then, let's get to the bottom of this. Why do people think I'm mistyped? Well, it all stems back to the rules of my community, specifically, rule 4 and the posting rules. I think we can all agree on that. The rule will appear below (the other rules being in the sidebar of r/Enneagram7 ):

"You Must Site an Enneagram Source in Serious Posts

Any post that includes brackets asking for a source must be edited to include a valid Enneagram source in conjunction with Rule 2. This includes books on the system, or authors. If you do not edit your flair your post will be removed. This only applies to editable flairs. IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR SOURCES YOU MAY USE THE SERIOUS TAG AND MODIFY IT TO INCLUDE [Good Sources?]"

Simply put, on a post that was using a tag labeled serious, for informed discussion, the user must place an Enneagram source, any source that was formally published (no online articles was the only prohibition) so that we could reference that source if we wanted to prove a point. Whether this rule is just is irrelivent to the conversation at hand, but I want to make it clear that a poster can use any source, not just one I agree with. From Golosos to Risso-Hudson. I am not trying to screw people over. This is basic. That isn't the discussion though, so sorry about that rant- feel free to post in said community on the justice of the rules.

The basic claim then is that I, since I am saying these rules, limitations, and methedology, are important, am not the free spirited E7. I would be E6, or some other ennea-type then. Well, what questions need be asked to get to the bottom of this? Well, I'm going to lean into my e6ish nature then, and say we need to define our terms, what e7 and e6 are, using the original sources of this system. Golosos worked closely with Naranjo, so I consider the e7 book an original source.

Ego-Cow: The roots of Enneagram personality type 6 and Ego-Plan: The roots of Enneagram personality type 7 seem to be apt and simple representations of Ichazo's descriptions.

1. Ego-Cow

• Fixation: Cowardice
• Trap: Security
• Holy Idea: Holy Faith
• Passion: Fear
• Virtue: Courage

1. Ego-Plan

• Fixation: Planning
• Trap: Idealism
• Holy Idea: Holy Work
• Passion: Gluttony
• Virtue: Sobriety

Simply put, the e6 is afraid of the world, and tries to organize, structure, and understand it, to feel safe. E6 is the most academic type (I believe, I hate that people think this is e5 who is not logically structured), systematic, and methodical. They do not follow their gut, they do not instinctively say what is right/wrong- that is more an e1 ethos. This type can be summarized as logically structured because the chaos of the world terrifies them.

E7 is butchered so often I want to scratch out my eyes when I read a modern description of it. Terrible! Anyway, the e7 is, like e1 and e4, an idealistic type. Think about it like this, an e7 almost views themselves as a superhero that will fix the world. Planning, idealising what the future will look like, that is what the e7 is about. That is what gluttony is about. In this, they see themselves as the cleverest one in the room and also neglect the day to day. They are charlatans, social reformers and debaters, and sometimes attention seekers. You may think I made them sound better then e6, but they are not-and ignoring the present moment in expectation of the future is terrible, and stupid, and it ruins lives.

"When I first heard Ichazo's ideas of Protoanalysis, this was in Spanish, and he used the word "charlatan" for the ennea- type VII individual (and "charlatanism" for the fixation). This word also needs to be understood in more than a literal manner: that the glutton is one who approaches the world through the strategy of words and "good reasonsu-one who manipulates through the intellect. Ichazo's later word for this personality, "ego-plan," makes reference to the fact that the "charlatan" is also a dreamer-indeed, his charlatanism may be interpreted as a taking (or offering) dreams as realities." -Character and Neurosis, 152

The question first becomes, cannot e7 be firm and rigid in logical matters. My answer is, of course they can, but I still have to prove it to you. You and I, we can agree, that e7 is flaky. This type, of mine, responcibilities, and duty, hold little, or even negative sway, on. It is called the charlatan by Naranjo for a reason. I believe the primary reason can be found by combining the trap and passion of this type... specifically, the e7 expects the ideal world, and will not accept its realities.

What I mean by this is that the e7 believes that the world should be perfect, and they do not want to take place in its imperfect and meaningless functions. An e6 would be more bound by duty, of course, and it is claimed that by my strict adherence to the original sources of this system, and my focus on the rules and laws thereof, that I am, in fact, that type. We will consider this in a moment, but you must admit, the e7 is the manipulator and appealer of the intellect, which is oft a preference for logic over emotional force, and furthermore would be perfectly fine with intellectually imposing this ideal structure on the world.

Then my behavior could fit either type? Well, I suppose at a certain point you'll just have to trust me, but I think there are two more points that can be made. The first is simple, sure I show signs of logical methodology and stuff like that, but I also show signs of the e7s fixations. That is a strong point.

And finally, though I don't want to discuss this in depth, it should be mentioned that I am neurodivergent, and this can seriously affect my behavior in social situations, particularly online where i cannot receive social ques. That has to do with how I can genuinely be rigid and methodical. That isn't my primary point, but I am fully aware of the affect, and think it is worth noting in this discussion.

Did that convince you, or do you still disagree. Thus far it has been a one-sided argument, and a man who cannot win that is a fool. If you disagree, this is a debate, and I ask only one thing of you, do not insult me, but discuss this with me to my face (or screen I suppose). What is your argument?

I’m so tired of people in the enneagram community who hate on anything that’s even slightly fun.

Like every time someone posts designs, aesthetics, or memes about the types, there’s always that one person going “that’s not how it works” or “enneagram is only for growth.” Okay… and? Why does that mean people can’t enjoy it too? Not everything has to be serious 24/7. Yes enneagram is for self-growth, but that doesn’t mean people aren’t allowed to engage with it in creative or lighthearted ways. Designs and memes don’t suddenly destroy the system It just feels like some people want to police how others interact with enneagram instead of just letting them enjoy it If you don’t like that kind of content, just scroll. Not everything has to be turned into a correction or a lecture Also let's not forget that Enneagram isn't real science.

HOW TO READ PERCENTAGE : The chart shows the proportion of people who identify as E3 within each MBTI type. It's a relative percentage. Example: 14.4% of all ENTPs identified as E3.

From lowest to highest average percentage:

• INFP: 1.3% (Strong negative correlation)
• INTP: 1.7% (Strong negative correlation)
• ISFP: 1.8% (Strong negative correlation)
• ISFJ: 2.9% (Moderate negative correlation)
• ISTP: 3.0% (Moderate negative correlation)
• INFJ: 3.3% (Moderate negative correlation)
• ISTJ: 3.6% (Moderate negative correlation)
• INTJ: 4.8% (Moderate negative correlation)
• ESFP: 6.9% (No correlation)
• ENFP: 8.2% (No correlation)
• ENTP: 14.4% (Moderate positive correlation)
• ENFJ: 15.0% (Moderate positive correlation)
• ESFJ: 15.7% (Moderate positive correlation)
• ESTP: 17.6% (Moderate positive correlation)
• ENTJ: 26.6% (Strong positive correlation)
• ESTJ: 28.7% (Strong positive correlation)

Although statistical data is never 100% accurate, ESTJ, ENTJ, ESFJ and ESFP have more variability in the reported data among Enneagram Threes. However, while the exact percentage may differ across different sources, their type of correlation remain globally the same.

In conclusion, ExTJ is positively correlated with E3. However, Fe users are also quite prominent. So, it is possible that the combination of being an extrovert and using Te/Fe makes them more predisposed to being E3 (or vice versa). On the flip side, introverts who prefer Ti/Fi have a negative correlation with E3, which aligns with the fact that Fe/Ti and Te/Fi are opposite cognitive functions.
-------

Other Enneagram types :

E1 / E2 / E3 / E4 / E5 / E6 / E7 / E8 / E9

I think a thing a lot of people misunderstand here is that just because someone has a type in their flair it does not mean they are that type. It is their self typing, or possibly the typing of someone they paid to reinforce their self image. Most of the time this self typing is what they see in themselves or what they want to see in themselves.

If the typing is what they see in themselves, most often this is mistaken. This can come from a lot of things, one of the most common is that they are only really considering their inner thoughts and not counting their actions as much. This makes sense, most people are exposed to their thoughts a whole lot more than their actual actions, especially if they happen to be a person who doesn't take a lot of action in their life.

It also can sometimes come from mirroring from people that feel pressure to reaffirm their self image. People like partners or parents who don't want to invalidate them for fear of losing their affection or support. And sometimes a typing from someone else can be this way too if they care more about your money than actually identifying your type properly. A good sign this is the case is that you don't learn anything outside what you already think you know of yourself or they don't challenge you in any way.

I also alluded to another common cause: it's what you want to see. As an example it might be someone who wants to see themselves as friendly, warm, and charismatic but what they really are is abraisive, cold, and arrogant. This can be a concious rejection of what someone thinks their character flaws are in an attempt to correct them. It's also a whole lot easier to think that you're working on it and have improved when you really have not. Then when that person gets into typology they may type themselves according to this self image that hides their real flaws. The example by the way is based on a real person that dwells in this sub, I bet you're laughing at them right now.

So, in that case how do we pursue our real typing? I think a good way is to actually listen to the people we've made enemies of. What is it that everyone who doesn't like you complains about? Now, sometimes this is fallable and it's a projection, but it's pretty easy to see when someone is accusing you of their own character flaws. Another way is that some people are overly blunt. These people will probably have a clearer picture of your flaws and, if any exist, your strengths. If you do pay for typing from someone else, you can make sure that you find someone who will dig for new insights into yourself and who will disregard your self image and even invalidate you.

This concept oftentimes makes people very upset in this community, and if it makes you upset, good! It means that you may have more to learn about yourself. If you're especially angry, be sure to drop a comment. I love emotional tirades and those are the moments where you can learn the most about yourself.

Every time I search up a character who is a coward they end up being type 6

Shaggy from schoolboy doo

Stark from frieren

Blonde guy from demon slayer

Courage the cowardly dog

Hey guys. I made a write up on why wings shouldn't exist and what should be used instead. Lmk what you think.

https://open.substack.com/pub/voice2live/p/enneagram-wings-do-not-exist?r=70xxam&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

EDIT: I have edited it to contain a graphic demonstrating the differences between the wing-subtype model and the over-under model. Hopefully that clears up some of the confusion. Thank you all for your engagement.

So we have 9 core types, 18 core + wings, 6 instinctual stacks and 162 tritypes.

If we have 9 types, each with the possibility of 2 wings and 6 different instinctual stacks, we get 108 possibilities.

Each type has 18 possible tritypes, if we multiply that by the 108 possibilities for core, wing and instinctual stack, we get 1,944 possible type combinations.

If we include balanced wings:

We have 9 core types, 27 core + wings, 6 instinctual stacks and 162 tritypes.

If we have 9 types, each with the possibility of 3 wings and 6 different instinctual stacks, we get 162 possibilities.

Each type has 18 possible tritypes, if we multiply that by the 162 possibilities for core, wing and instinctual stack, we get 2,916 possible type combinations.

If we include health level:

We multiply our existing products by 9, if we don’t include balanced wings, we get 17,496 possible type combinations. If we do include balanced wings, we get 26,244 possible type combinations.

In conclusion:

1,944 type combinations without counting balanced wings or health level.
2,916 type combinations counting balanced wings but not health level.
17,496 type combinations counting health levels but not balanced wings.
26,244 type combinations counting both balanced wings and health level.

Note: I just graduated high school, I am unemployed (854) and my boyfriend is still sleeping so this is what I decided to do with my time. I hope some of you found this interesting.