SUBSCRIBE TO NEWSLETTER
SEND US YOUR LIFESTORIES

MBTI and the Enneagram
© Belinda Gore, 2007

Rather than compare the MBTI with the Enneagram as a similar tool or map, it is more accurate to describe the MBTI as identifying a slice of the Enneagram.  The MBTI is an excellent resource for identifying preferences in mental functioning and operating style according to several personality structures.  However, the MBTI does not explore the deeper issue of motivation or address the question of WHY we are the way we are.  Neither does the MBTI have a detailed and formalized description of the stages of development within each type.  The process of personality development and spiritual maturation are elegantly identified in the Enneagram system and are not addressed by the MBTI.  Therefore, we can say that the MBTI is a valuable tool, but that it has limits and is not really comparable to the Enneagram.

Consider the teaching in the Enneagram system regarding the stress point or point of disintegration.  While we know that under stress we tend to express our inferior function in the MBTI, the Enneagram also provides for the expression of behavior under stress as being at the same level of development as that of the primary type at any point in time.  In addition, the Enneagram also identifies the heart point, or point of integration, that identifies the characteristic behavior displayed when we are beginning to get free of the personality limitations.  Aligned with the heart point is the soul child, the essence of that which was repressed and must be reclaimed for the personality to become whole.

The question of why we are the way we are is well described in the teachings based on object relations theory and the characteristic affect on which the personality is built.  In our primal effort to find a way to survive our early experience of separation (or as Don and Russ call it, “the primal catastrophe”) each personality type seems to be “wired” for a style of connection or relationship with one of three key individuals:  the nurturing figure that provides support and mirroring (usually the mother, but not always) , the protective figure who offers safety, security, and guidance (usually the father, but not always), and a combination of the two that provide for a sense of belonging.  The type of relationship with a key individual can be categorized as attachment, or connection; frustration, or ambivalence;  and rejection, or disconnection.  The combination of three key figures and three types of relationship possible results in a 3 x 3 model identifying each of the nine Enneagram personality types.
 

Primary Object Relations:	Nurturing Figure	Protective Figure	Nurturing & Protective Figures
Attachment	THREE	SIX	NINE
Frustration	SEVEN	ONE	FOUR
Rejection	EIGHT	TWO	FIVE

It is interesting to note that the three Enneagram types with a key relationship with the mother are the sub-group known as the Assertive Group;  the three types with a key relationship with the father are the sub-group known as the Co-operative Group, sometimes called Dutiful or Compliant in earlier writings; and the three types with a key relationship to the mother-father dyad are the sub-group known as the Withdrawn Group.  These sub-groups align with Karen Horney’s early exploration of type.  She called the group characteristics “Moving Against,” “Moving With,” and “Moving Away.”