Ambiverts (MBTI ≠ Enneagram) | INFJ Forum

Ambiverts (MBTI ≠ Enneagram)

VH

Variable Hybrid
Feb 12, 2009
4,833
884
657
MBTI
NFJedi
I think I've unlocked the reason behind the phenomenon of Ambiverts, those of us who seem both introverted and extroverted - not simply well balanced.

Most people have an Enneagram type (motivations set) that is in alignment with their MBTI type (mental perspective). This is a natural occurance, which is why it is so common. As we develop as people, we will naturally create motivations that are based on our perceptions. Therefore, most INFJs are 9s because Ni and Fe will often either seek harmony and imagination. Those that had some influence make them feel different or defective because of their uniqueness early in life (a fairly common thing to happen in a world of perspectives that are not well suited to understand the INFJ child) often seek harmony and imagination while seeking to recover their identity in the form of becoming an Enneagram 4. This is why 9s and 4s are the most common Enneagram types for INFJs. A parent (or parents, or an admired authority figure such as a teacher) who expects excellence will often cause an INFJ child to develop a great deal of importance on perfectionism, and become Enneagram 1s as their Fe makes them want to please and their Ni makes them able to see how to excel. An INFJ child who was made to feel unsafe, insecure, or uncertain often enough will likely develop into an Enneagram 6 because Ni is so good at predicting, and develops a habit of it. Enneagram 1 and 6 are the next most common INFJ types. All four of these types align with INFJ's 'introverted' perspective.

It is only when people are subjected to some manner of unusual circumstances (often long term and frequent) that this process is disrupted and the natural way in which perspective reacts by developing base motivations is superceded. For example, a highly neglected INFJ child could develop into an Enneagram 2 if it becomes clear that their needs are only met when they are proactive in giving affection - or an Enneagram 3 if they were only given attention when they achieved. An INFJ child who suffered through enough child abuse could become an Enneagram 8 (or Counterphobic 6) as a reaction to not wanting to be a victim ever again. All of these motivation sets would cause an INFJ to focus on 'extroverted' mechanisms to get their needs met, despite their inherent introverted perspectives.

Therefore, it is possible for any MBTI type to develop an 'unnatural' motivation set. While these are rare, and obviously exceptions to the rule, they do happen. Often, these individuals lead 'troubled' lives because their minds are not well suited to achieving their deeper motivations' goals, causing them to often seem at odds with themselves.

However, these individuals explain the bulk of the 'Ambivert' population - those who seem like they are both introverted and extroverted, not just in the middle, and should not be confused with people who have well developed and therefore balanced functions, as these people are still fairly easy to spot their dominant functions because they've never had much need to use other functions to achieve their goals - and therefore develop function sets that solidly support one another, rather than compete with each other.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: grt$5vb
You may find this interesting;



QXfmH.jpg






http://www.benziger.org/articlesIng/?p=30
 
Why do they call the extraverts augmenters? As if introverts make things worse by "diminishing" them. Or maybe we diminish them in size? So we make less of a deal of things? Either way I don't like this chart.

You evidently haven't read the link.

Extraversion
Having a naturally low level of arousal which causes the individual to seek higher than normal levels of stimulation (hence "augmentation") in order to “feel alive.”
Typical ways in which the extravert seeks stimulation include: trying to influence or control his or her environment; confronting others; engaging in competition; attending crowded parties or events “where the action is.”
Introversion
Having a naturally high level of arousal which causes the individual to seek lower than normal levels of stimulation in order to not feel overwhelmed. (hence "diminishing")
Over a period of years, this need to not be overwhelmed by external stimulation develops into an internally focused thinking style which may seem withdrawn, meditative, quiet, or even reclusive to more extraverted person. Typical ways in which the introvert seeks to control the level of stimulation include: spending time reading, reflecting, or otherwise alone; avoiding or being accommodating to others; competing mostly with oneself or self image; going to small parties or out of the way places.
Petrie labels introverts “diminishers” because in many situations they need and seek to diminish the intensity of stimulation, to suit their naturally hyper alert arousal level and preclude their needing to shut down due to being overwhelmed. She labels extraverts “augmenters” because in the majority of situations they need to increase the level of activity or stimulation in order to achieve sufficient wakefulness.
Refer to the site for the rest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uuu
Sixes are true ambiverts and consume a high percentage among the population.
 
Sixes are true ambiverts and consume a high percentage among the population.

Yeah, I would assume that this is one of the biggest proofs for my theory. It doesn't matter what MBTI someone is. If they're an Enneagram 6, then they're going to seem ambiverted. Hence the weight of the Enneagram type on the I/E axis is going to be strong enough to throw off self assessment scores if the Enneagram type 'opposes' the MBTI's orientation.
 
It sounds like you're onto something.

Thanks.

I'm having trouble picturing what an ambivert would be exactly, though. How do you feel both introverted and extraverted? Does it change from day to day, or do you feel like both simultaneously all the time? I hope it's not the latter, because that sounds like it would be constant torment. D:

I go back and forth in my urges.
 
Yeah, I would assume that this is one of the biggest proofs for my theory. It doesn't matter what MBTI someone is. If they're an Enneagram 6, then they're going to seem ambiverted. Hence the weight of the Enneagram type on the I/E axis is going to be strong enough to throw off self assessment scores if the Enneagram type 'opposes' the MBTI's orientation.

Social last 6w5s especially those with a heavy 5 wing are probably the most introverted 6s.

You really cannot base this on one Enneagram type though...6 is the only Enneagram type that can correlate to almost any MBTI types due to their huge range of difference in behavior pattern...despite the same underlying drive.
 
Social last 6w5s especially those with a heavy 5 wing are probably the most introverted 6s.

You really cannot base this on one Enneagram type though...6 is the only Enneagram type that can correlate to almost any MBTI types due to their huge range of difference in behavior pattern...despite the same underlying drive.

I'm only using 6's lean toward ambiversion, regardless of MBTI type, as an anchorpoint for the theory. If an introverted MBTI type is also a 7, they're likely going to mistype as an Extrovert. The same is true of an extroverted MBTI type who is also an E5. They're likely going to mistype as an introvert. This is obviously not an ironclad rule, but it does explain a lot of mistype leanings.
 
It comes down to how you define 'introversion' and 'extroversion'. I believe there is an old thread on this topic. I guess other than the more obvious and extreme cases, most people fall somewhere in between.
 
Interestingly, this site doesn't list INFJs among the most common MBTIs for Type 9.

As for your claim that enneagram actually develops later in life as a response - this is interesting. Perhaps there can be given one interpretation of the enneagram which makes it environmentally dependent, and another in which is it environmentally independent?
 
Interestingly, this site doesn't list INFJs among the most common MBTIs for Type 9.

Depends on how they're interpreting the data. If 10% of all Enneagram 9's are either ISFP, INFP, ISFJ, ESTP, or ISTP... and only 8% of 9's are INFJs, it wouldn't matter if 75% of INFJs were 9s if the data is based on Enneagram 9 population rather than INFJ population.

From what I've seen 9 and 4 are the most common INFJ type, with 1 and 6 being the runner up. That site seems to think INFJs are primarily 4's with 1 and 5 being the runner up. I'd wager their sampling size was very small (probably less than a thousand people) and probably not well verified. Out of a sampling size that small, they probably had less than a dozen INFJs, some of which were likely mistypes. Look around any given forum with a larger INFJ population for Enneagram type (usually in the info section for each user) and you'll likely start to see the numbers I'm guesstimating.

As for your claim that enneagram actually develops later in life as a response - this is interesting. Perhaps there can be given one interpretation of the enneagram which makes it environmentally dependent, and another in which is it environmentally independent?

I think MBTI and Ennegram have a fair degree of nature and nurture to them. I think Enneagram is more influenced by nurture and MBTI is more influenced by nature.

I also think that as we develop as people, we begin to transcend our types. That's really the point to all this, isn't it?
 
Depends on how they're interpreting the data. If 10% of all Enneagram 9's are either ISFP, INFP, ISFJ, ESTP, or ISTP... and only 8% of 9's are INFJs, it wouldn't matter if 75% of INFJs were 9s if the data is based on Enneagram 9 population rather than INFJ population.

From what I've seen 9 and 4 are the most common INFJ type, with 1 and 6 being the runner up. That site seems to think INFJs are primarily 4's with 1 and 5 being the runner up. I'd wager their sampling size was very small (probably less than a thousand people) and probably not well verified. Out of a sampling size that small, they probably had less than a dozen INFJs, some of which were likely mistypes. Look around any given forum with a larger INFJ population for Enneagram type (usually in the info section for each user) and you'll likely start to see the numbers I'm guesstimating.

Yes, this is quite possible. Type 9 seems so very laid-back-INFJ, to me.

I wonder if INFJ type 9s tend to score as Ps? (conversely, I wonder if INFJs who tend to score as P tend to be type 9?)

I think MBTI and Ennegram have a fair degree of nature and nurture to them. I think Enneagram is more influenced by nurture and MBTI is more influenced by nature.

I also think that as we develop as people, we begin to transcend our types. That's really the point to all this, isn't it?
I think that you can have a 9-type and 16-type system set up basically the way enneagram and MBTI are designed to either be primarily one or the other. I would agree that, based on how enneagram seems to be explained, there is a large nurture component. I think it may be possible to re-design it so that it is mostly nature based.
 
Yes, this is quite possible. Type 9 seems so very laid-back-INFJ, to me.

I wonder if INFJ type 9s tend to score as Ps? (conversely, I wonder if INFJs who tend to score as P tend to be type 9?)

INFJ 9 is so common that I used to assume that if someone didn't have that dreamy distant quality of Ni dominance + Enneagram 9, then they weren't a true INFJ. Then I learned about Enneagram, and all of a sudden those INFJ 4's had real validity.

However, I always assume about a 33% mistype ratio in any self assessment system. In my experience about one out of 3 people mistype themselves initially. This is usually not off by much, and generally the fault of the wording in the assessment tool. For example, an INFJ might mistype as an INTJ with a low T score, or an INFP with a low P score, or an ENFJ with a low E score. In most cases, a little digging and self study will land the person in the right type. But, the problem with the kinds of 'studies' like the ones referenced in the MBTI/Enneagram figures is that they are generally designed around getting a bunch of people to take one self assessment test then another self assessment test, and considering those scores accurate. That's really bad science, considering the inherent problems with self assessment, and therefore can only ever be at best ballpark accurate.

I think that you can have a 9-type and 16-type system set up basically the way enneagram and MBTI are designed to either be primarily one or the other. I would agree that, based on how enneagram seems to be explained, there is a large nurture component. I think it may be possible to re-design it so that it is mostly nature based.

I'd have a lot of trouble seeing how that would be possible. Enneagram is based on the inherent motivations of individuals, which must be developed as a reaction to the environment. It would be like assuming that one person could be born speaking Japanese but his brother speaking German. Enneagram has to be nurture, even though there are natural ways for a person to develop.

Meanwhile, MBTI is more and more showing itself to be genetic, as it is the basic structure of how the brain is wired to produce cognition. There are logical reasons for MBTI populations to exist in the proportions that they do, and MBTI types within families often follow a shockingly similar progression to heridity models.

Therefore, I believe that the nature of a person (MBTI type) will often be nurtured into a similar state (Enneagram type) if no significant external pressures are applied to it. For example, an ENFJ's cognitive functions inherently predispose them to develop the motivations of an Enneagram 2. This would make the Enneagram type seem like nature, but it is cause and effect of nature and no pressure from nurture. The ENFJ could develop any other Ennegram motivation set through the filter of their cognitive functions, but at this point it would be a clear case of nurture - and yet nurture has no discernable effect on MBTI type other than to cause functions to develop a little more or less than they would otherwise, without changing the preference order. In time the Enneagram motivation set could affect the development of the functions, but it still doesn't change the basic wiring of the mind, just the way they are applied.
 
I'd have a lot of trouble seeing how that would be possible. Enneagram is based on the inherent motivations of individuals, which must be developed as a reaction to the environment.

The specifics of how it manifests, sure, and of course any can display traits primarily associated with any ennea-type. I think though, that naturally a person will occupy a particular point in the system, so that they may just be Type X displaying traits commonly associated with Type Y.

I think that it may well be the case that both MBTI and enneagram are different "shadows" of the true personality spectrum, which is, for the most part, persistent with respect to the given individual. Since points which were close together originally will also be close together no matter what direction the shadow is projected, you will tend to get a high correlation between MBTI and enneagram, though there will of course be a fair bit of variability.

I wonder if true MBTI score + true enneagram score is enough to infer the basic position of someone in the true personality spectrum? (the spectrum which each system is a shadow of)
 
I wonder if true MBTI score + true enneagram score is enough to infer the basic position of someone in the true personality spectrum? (the spectrum which each system is a shadow of)

I've been pondering that very thing the past few days.

MBTI seems to have covered all of the bases with opposing functions, but it could be missing an important factor, though unlikely. Enneagram however has no counterbalances or any real reason to validate that 9 personality types are the extent of base motivations. I'm inclined to think there is a lot more to Enneagram that has yet to be discovered (though that will change the name since Ennea means 9). The more I look at Ennagram 6, the more it seems like the catch all for everything that doesn't fit into the other 8 types.

Lately, I've been thinking that all of this stuff is missing the mark to varying degrees. I'd give Jungian Cognitive Function theory about a 50% and Enneagram about a 25% accuracy to the overall picture.

What I would REALLY like to see is an extensive study of at least 10,000 people to see if there is any correlation between cognitive functions and specific areas of the brain. From what I understand there is a study like this going on, but so far it's in the conjecture stage.

http://www.keys2cognition.com/index.htm

If there is any validity to this, I'd like to see a similar study done with Enneagram type. Perhaps there is also a correlation between motivation sets and the mechanisms we develop to support them and certain areas of the brain.

Edit: However, I would like to add that at current MBTI (Perspective) and Enneagram (Motivations) seems like a fairly good 3D model of a personality.
 
I know very little about enneagrams, but I find your theories intriguing.

For example, an INFJ might mistype as an INTJ with a low T score, or an INFP with a low P score...

This is exactly what happened with me. Although I test most frequently as INFJ, I have tested as INTJ with 1% in T and INFP with a low P score.

I have usually tested as enneagram 5 with either a 4 or 6 wing (they're always close and very high) with a high 1 as well.

Also, interesting article [MENTION=751]Peppermint[/MENTION]. I tend to say I'm on the high end of the continuum, as social interactions often leave me overwhelmed and shaking, especially when there is any form of discord, and I limit them whenever possible. Certain movies that involve realistic war experiences, for example, often have the same effect. My husband, who is an E, is always turning on the radio or the TV and augmenting stimulation, while I simply want peace and quiet, lol.