Enneagram, SLOAN, Functions: How do these inform my MBTI type?

[Mithrandir]

Here's some data I've collected about my type over the years:

MBTI: INTP

Enneagram: 5w4 sx/sp

Global 5/SLOAN: RCUEI

introverted Thinking (Ti) ** (42) - INTP Dominant
introverted Feeling (Fi) ** (40.1)
introverted Intuiting (Ni) ** (38)
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ** (37.1) - INTP Auxiliary
extraverted Thinking (Te) ** (32.3)
introverted Sensing (Si) ** (27) - INTP Tertiary
extraverted Sensing (Se) ** (14)
extraverted Feeling (Fe) ** (9.7) - INTP Inferior

I know much more about MBTI and the functions than I do Enneagram and SLOAN, so I'm handing those off to anyone who is more capable than I to proper insight.

The functions (and I don't know how accurate these really are, or what those values mean specifically other than their relation to each other) seem odd to me, almost like an INTP/INFP hybrid. The one that really throws me is the Ni (ranked even higher than Ne) because that's in neither type's functional stack. At that point I start thinking along the lines of an INTP/INFP/INTJ/INFJ hybrid, if such a thing is possible (sort of like an INXX, if you will). I always come up as INTP when I take the tests, readily identify with all the type and function descriptions for INTP I've read, and find INTPs to have the closest thought process to my own. I also see the typing dichotomies (I/E, N/S, T/F, P/J) as on a continuum rather than binary, which makes personalities and typing infinitely complex and variable.

I'm really curious about how the Enneagram and SLOAN might explain some of this, if at all. Any insights from your personal expertise on this topic is welcome.

 

[nanook]

Ni and Ne are not really different functions. there is only intuition, which is to a degree optimized for the general intrinsic needs of the subject (introversion) and to a lesser degree optimized for adaptation to external situational needs and opportunities (extroversion) - or the other way around. in socionics the Ni fraction of auxiliary Ne is called "demonstrative" function, it means that Ni is entertained with a certain curiosity, like a favorite fantasy, but eventually discarded as something that seems less than real, because the attitude of extroversion defines that the external and situational is more real, than general or internal or internalized qualities. whereas someone with preference for introverted intuition will "live" the dream/the fantasy (unless inhibited by his extroverted judgement).

same goes for all other functions, of course.

the cognitive function test is not accurate and your results are normal for this test (all over the place=normal), i don't see why we would look for explanations in other systems of analysis.

ennegram test are also unreliable. people tend to be in denial about their true enneagram strategy, to the point of effecting their test results. denial is really a core principle of the enneagram strategy. it's a subjective escape from experiencing the perceived (also subjective) reality.

i've thought about how the systems correlate, but it's all just speculations. it's not exactly easy to research what is happening in other peoples heads. since the enneagram strategy isn't expressed in all communicated perspectives like cognitive functions are.

 

[StevenM]

I don't have too much to say about SLOAN, Big 5, or Enneagram. But my thoughts on personality systems are this:

Going as practical as we can, we are all just people. Realistically, we all have a very unique configuration of networks in our brain, our genetics are individual. Of course, we are mostly the same, but with a good amount of chaotic randomness to set us apart in some way.

With all this variety of data that define our habits, tendencies, behaviour, attitude, and other attributes that we can observe and measure, we can come up with a variety of ways of categorizing and grouping these characteristics. We can just as easily assign people a letter from A-Z for a certain category of temperament, a number for another, a shape and a colour defining something else. Then your personality can be defined as "G, 23, Blue Triangle", and it would definitely draw some interesting conclusions when compared to other people in that specific group, and other groups.

Here is some other dichotomies that we can categorize and group people in:

Spoiler

Merry/Serious
Asking/Declaring
Democratic/Aristocratic
Obstinate/Yielding
Farsighted/Carefree
Judicious/Decisive
Negativist/Positivist
Result/Process

- See more at: http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/dichotomies/#sthash.6n6pkBMi.dpuf

When the psychologist, Carl Jung, seen and talked to many different people, he observed 'groups' of people, and theorized about categorizing people, and thus, we have these cognitive function dichotomies. I sometimes refer to this when thinking about these peculiarities that he found: Jung's Cognitive Types Later, the Meyers-Briggs system is implemented, and it is really nifty as it seemed to really explain a lot of things. In Socionics, there is another slightly different system.

My point that I'm trying to make though, is that it is just one of a variety of systems meant to organize personality and define it. As of yet, the structure does not have 100% concrete tangibility, it is still more of a concept; an abstract visualization. A basic framework, that I believe still needs some ironing out. It is also somewhat limited about what we can conclude about an individual person.

Not to say though that it doesn't have any merit. I bet if we can all observe people the way Jung did, and come together in agreement, there could be actual evidence that there is something real and tangible about this model, and maybe it just needs a little bit of restructuring.

I've did a tiny bit of restructuring in my thread here My theory of Cognitive Functions, though there is some things in there that I stated that I currently have different ideas about / I changed my mind about some things I stated. In my second part, I thought about how all the cognitive functions play a role to define a personality. Mostly, I wanted to drive home that all cognitive functions are used, similar to how the idea that we only use 10% of our brain is a myth. The way they are used, and how they interact with each other may be dependent on a persons type.

For INTP's as an example, I believe that there also may be an ISFP personality inside us that we are very conscious and aware of. Though, it is a vulnerability, our weakness and insecure part of us, it's primitive and has really low confidence and intelligence. We try to repress this part of us most of the time, or sometimes in private, we do our best to try and strengthen it. This could be why some INTP's are confused of Fi/Ti, because we may be very aware of the data Fi is meant to use.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Big Five and Enneagram tell more about one's deeper temperament/core motivations as opposed to the surface traits of MBTI.

Big Five seems to be more accurate to Jung's idea of the types as it seems the Organized/Unorganized dichotomy gauges Irrationality/Rational(original perceiving/judging). However it's really uncertain for several reasons, one that the Limbic/Calm dichotomy introduces a new un-mapped dimension, and that RCUEI seems to be over-represented.

Enneagram is less ambiguous imo, I use it to eliminate one's type possibilities because I see certain Enneagram and MBTI types being mutually exclusive.

 

[Teax]

yep that looks like one of those unreliable online test results. careful, any test that tells you that you have equally developed Ti+Fi or Ni+Ne (all tests I discovered do it actually ), only measures behaviour. It leaves for you to decide which of those behaviours is real and which you fake/emulate using the other one. which makes the tests pretty much useless if you're mining for insight....