Enneagram and Cognitive Functions

[VH]

I realized something about the correlation between Enneagram and Cognitive Functions. It really looks like Enenagram is a crude version of MBTI at its core. Compare the core motivations to the Cognitive Function dominant model, and you'll see a marked similarity.

5 = Ti dominant
6 = Si dominant
7 = Ne dominant
8 = Se dominant
9 = The true Catch All
1 = Catch all for J dominants
2 = Fe dominant
3 = Te dominant
4 = Fi dominant

But, because this system has had decades of unscientific opinion applied to it - to make it fit reality, as it was a flawed system - there have been amendments and additions which now make it look like this...

5 = Ti dominant (or any Introverted T)
6 = Si dominant (or another catch all)
7 = Ne dominant (or Se dominant)
8 = Se dominant (or Te dominant)
9 = The true Catch All (and Ni dominant)
1 = Catch all for J dominants
2 = Fe dominant (or any F type)
3 = Te dominant (or any S type)
4 = Fi dominant (or any F type)

View attachment 7829

In other words, I'm really starting to think Enneagram is nothing more than an attempt at the same things Cognitive Function theory explains, but since Enneagram has had for more self opinionated and non-scientific people shaping it over the years, it's gotten less accurate and morphed into something else... a hybrid of sorts.

What does this mean?

In theory, it means that we could probably discern core motivations from dominant cognitive functions more deeply if we attempted to merge the two systems as stemming from the same source, rather than assuming they are distinct.

 

[Nixie]

I dunno [MENTION=708]VH[/MENTION]

I would say my understanding--simple as it is--runs along the lines that MBTI speaks in terms of HOW you process which leads to actions and Enneagram speaks in terms of WHY (motivations) you act the way you do. One is explained in terms of an internally driven set of criteria (how I do things) about the individual to determine type (MBTI). The other is an externally driven set of criteria (why I do things) about the individual to determine type. (Enneagram) IMO, they can be considered compatable in some ways but not used interchangeably since what they measure is different. I would say your argument holds true for MBTI and Scionics though.

 

[VH]

I used to think this as well, but if you look at the descriptions of Enneagram and MBTI, you'll start to see a strong correlation. Factor in the potential for mistyping, and this approach could be very valid.

Also, if you're a 1, then you're in a catch all bracket that wasn't designed to focus on any particular function, but instead explain the J mentality.

 

[Nixie]

I used to think this as well, but if you look at the descriptions of Enneagram and MBTI, you'll start to see a strong correlation. Factor in the potential for mistyping, and this approach could be very valid.

Also, if you're a 1, then you're in a catch all bracket that wasn't designed to focus on any particular function, but instead explain the J mentality.

That is because there is a strong correlation between environment in determining personality. I think that the Enneagram as a method showing motivation is very strongly tied to environment and individual experience rather than something that can ever be considered inborn.

However, I think there is a component to cognitive functions outside of personal experience--a biological one. No one knows what causes an infant to gravitate toward introversion and extroversion and it can't be pinned entirely on environment. That being said, I also think there is an environmental factor involved in determining cognitive functions as well.

Enneagram = Environmentally / Experience Driven system of identification based on motivation
MBTI = Biological + Environmental system of identification based on processing and expression of internal/external stimuli

As such, I think it can seem similar but I don't believe there can be adequate crossover.

 

[This]

They seem on different axis's to me.

 

[Frugal Gourmet]

You forget the real power of the Enneagram lies not in the "numbers" specifically but in the dynamic integration and disintegration present in healthy, average, and unhealthy personality types. In other words, you don't go from type 9 "the true catch-all" to type 3 "Te dominant" when healthy, the same way you don't go from type 3 "Te dominant" to type 6 Si dominant when healthy.

I'd point you to the work done by Riso and Hudson on the Enneagram as they clearly have a deep knowledge of the Gurdjieff work, and that of his pupils. Understanding the way that our psychologies integrate and disintegrate the healthy/average/unhealthy traits of the types in our line is the key to unlocking the power of the Enneagram, finding your type, and ultimately transcending your personality to reach essence.