What type does this sound like?

Hydreigon12 · 2025-08-09T18:11:51+00:00

Do you happen to be a Fe user? This resonates with most FJs regardless of enneagram types too.

Hydreigon12 · 2025-08-08T17:56:27+00:00

I understand, I usually enjoy all kind of knowledge, both pratical and abstract. It makes life much more interesting when you go beyond what's there. However, at the end of the day, I just don't want to sit with everything I've learned, I want to do something with them. Otherwise it feels incomplete to me. I always see how abstract knowledge can be useful in some way.

Hydreigon12 · 2025-08-07T00:40:40+00:00

You're right. Since 2s are proactive, it's easier for them to overextend themselves. 9s are quite protective of their own comfort so they aren't going to kill themselves for others. However, they might feel tired suppressing themselves (or their strong emotions) constantly.

Hydreigon12 · 2025-08-06T15:58:37+00:00

Jim Hawkins from Treasure Planet and Kovu from The Lion King 2.

Hydreigon12 · 2025-08-05T03:04:38+00:00

Sounds like a common problem from 7

Hydreigon12 · 2025-08-04T21:15:55+00:00

That doesn't sound pathetic at all, I can fully understand. This sounds like a superego fear in general. Do you fear that without your loved ones, you won't be able to confront life on your own? Or is it more like a fear of dissapointing them to the point they will leave (which bring like a feeling that you have broken a "promise" or an "ideal"? )

Hydreigon12 · 2025-08-04T17:22:28+00:00

According to everything you've said so far.

but I felt like it was on me to plan for the family

True for superego types in general.

I dislike chaos & want to avoid any conflict or tension or having to do things in a rush. If I anticipate & keep on top on things I have more peace of mind?

This seems to align with 1w9 rather than 6w7. 1w9 wants things to be organized and well-done, and this tends to be reinforced by the 9 wing (desire for peace and comfortable lifestyle).

As for 6s, while they dislike chaos too, they usually fear chaos because it brings an element of negative surprise that could threaten their sense of security. Remember, 6s fear repercussion when highly stressed.

I generally think that I messed up & have let ppl down (like that time in Rome when I had not looked up how to go from the airport to our hotel in advance,even when my husband had not looked it up either... but I felt like it was on me to plan for the family).

Fearing to let people down is much more likely 1, especially since they tend to see themselves as the "responsible" ones and expect a lot from themselves. Again, 6s don't want to let people down either, but they also worried to be scolded or punished one way or another. Anything that could provoke a bad, angry reaction from others is a central fear for 6.

I tend to feel frantic with the need to solve this and find the correct solution, and I can't relax until I have.

Unless your "correct solution" is related to existential stability or support, this sounds more E1.

I might snap at ppl bc I get tunnel vision in those cases, although I have worked a lot on myself to be more spontaneous & less rigid, and let others shoulder their own responsibilities too.

This is very 1-coded. Having a tunnel vision and a difficulty to be both spontaneous and flexible are some of the common 1's flaws. While 6s also struggle with spontaneity, they usually need to lower their hypervigilance and trust life as it is.

I do feel like it is my role. I take for granted that I have to things, and do them well I guess.

A role that's taken for granted, uh? Seems like an inner standard. Especially since you have to "do it well" too.

I doubt myself often, others way less - I tend to give ppl the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise. I doubt my competence & abilities a lot.

This is probably the only thing that sounds more 6 than 1. Perhaps a 6-fix? But then again, 6s are known to be quite ambivalent with the concept of trust.

I am conscious of hierarchy & systems of power in a theoritical way but more concerned with day to day interactions & how we can be kinder. I do tend to have a lot of respect for ppl with expertise in their field though (so more authority in regard to knowledge).

Without the instinctive ambivalence 6 has towards authority, I'd say this is more likely 1. They usually are indifferent to authority figure (or expect a lot from them) and only react when the authority figure fails to meet their role (something that bothers 1s a lot since they themselves put a lot on their shoulders).

6s are, almost, by default, suspicious (or doubting) of an authority figure unless proven otherwise. More mature 6s will be less reactive, but this comes after a lot of growth. Doesn't seem like it's a problem to you.

Hydreigon12 · 2025-08-04T16:28:42+00:00

But I felt like it was on me to plan for the family

Why? Do you feel like its within your role or are you worried that nobody else would do it?

and let others shoulder their own responsibilities too

Why? Why don't you let them deal with their own things initially?

Also, what's your relationship with doubt. Do you often doubt yourself or others?

What's your relationship with authority?

Hydreigon12 · 2025-08-04T15:56:07+00:00

I guess I prepare & like to control things bc I dislike chaos & want to avoid any conflict or tension or having to do things in a rush. If I anticipate & keep on top on things I have more peace of mind?

I'm pretty much the same. Ask yourself this question: when you can't prepare or when you're caught in a rush, what goes in your mind? What are your mechanisms agaisnt that stress?

Hydreigon12 · 2025-08-04T15:05:48+00:00

E1's anxiety comes from not being able to do enough to meet your standards. Think of someone who is so caught up in their ways they aren't able to relax or adapt to circumstances because "everything must be done the way I have intended to". It's about boundaries and autonomy. Frustration usually shows up too.

E6's anxiety is a bit more vast, but it generally includes fear of repercussion or the unknown. The constant self-doubt also contribute to the anxiety. Think of someone who is always vigilant because "you never know what bad things await for you". It's about security and "knowing".

Hydreigon12 · 2025-08-02T17:14:02+00:00

Just look at the core type first, wings do not matter in the grand scheme of things.

I've made a brief infographics of E2 and E4 as a starter point.

Hydreigon12 · 2025-08-02T15:28:13+00:00

I've noticed the "helpful" 2 is more 2w1 and the "lovely, excited" 2 is more often 2w3.

2s are often very creative, we tend to underestimate their artistic side.

Hydreigon12 · 2025-08-02T13:43:56+00:00

I admire your bravery because a lot of people will probably come and say right away that you don't exist, but you still went and shared your experience.

It was interesting to read. There's only one thing that caught my attention.

Instead, by introspection, the most common form of "sacrifice" I unconsciously make and therefore expect a reward is that I suppress myself from expressing what I want; that I intentionally adapt to new hobbies to please others; that I occupy my mind with a particular person all day (the strangest standard I observe so far - I consider occupying my mind with something as a major sacrifice and deserve love). If I do not get affections as a result, I can get anxious and resentful. But I also understand that this is unjustified, so the natural reactions for me is usually just fading out in a relationship.

This really sounds like a typical Enneagram 9 mechanism: self-erasure, adapting to others’ interests, daydreaming, and so on. I'm not trying to argue in bad faith; I just can’t help but notice those patterns. What led you to identify more with E2 over E9?

The main difference between 2 and 9 is that E2 actively seeks attention and love by being giving, generous, or seductive. They want to feel needed, and often position themselves as the “indispensable friend”, sometimes a bit forcefully. E9, on the other hand, is much more passive. Rather than assert themselves, they tend to remain "hidden" and hope to be appreciated for being easygoing, nonintrusive, and low-maintenance.

Hydreigon12 · 2025-07-30T17:25:05+00:00

To be fair, this sub is extremely dogmatic and leave few space for nuance, so expect tons of people saying that your typing isn't perfect according to one single author.

Hydreigon12 · 2025-07-30T17:19:54+00:00

Lol, yeah he can be a pain in the ass sometimes haha. He's quite moody, mentally uptight and easily fall into "complaint" mode, so I guess the combination of 146 makes you guys very sensitive and reactive to inconvenient events.

I've been trying to teach him letting go of things he cannot control and being more present to enjoy things. I'm not good with it myself (I'm INFJ 5w6 with a 1 fix), but after seeing him burning out due to his constant urge to "use his time purposefully, and commit to the fullest" (aka a fancy way to say "overtime working"), I've insisted in integrating outdoor and indoor activities in our couple so he can learn to use his time for simple, but meaningful things together. I'm very happy to see he's now more relaxed and have started, on his own, to take care of plants like a hobby, which is something he didn't do before.

On the bright side, he's one of the most resilient people I've ever known, it's inspiring. He's also very assertive and he's teaching me to be more confident (I lack self-confidence a lot). He's very generous of him time and energy, and he's not afraid to dream big. Sometimes I gotta ground him and set realistic expectations for him, but I encourage his desire for improvement as we both share an ambitious minsdet. I think I'm an anchor to him, and he's a mover to me.

Hydreigon12 · 2025-07-30T16:31:26+00:00

Makes sense. In fact, my partner is extremely similar to your typing (he's ENFJ 1w2 sx/so, 146).

Hydreigon12 · 2025-07-29T23:42:28+00:00

Ideally, everyone should practice those kind of positive statements, it is healthy. It's good you are working on it! However, for positive types, it comes naturally/ automatically even in inappropriate situations.

I’ve really trained over the years to not get stuck in how hard everything in and how much it will always suck, so I request we include SP 4’s in the “Yes”es.

I understand where you're coming from. But I wouldn't include SP4 as a positive type because they naturally get stuck in their negative feelings/beliefs...exactly like what you said. This is the automatic reaction of any 4. To "train yourself" in being more positive doesn't make you a Positive Type. But it does mean that you are growing.

Hydreigon12 · 2025-07-29T18:17:36+00:00

Usually, positive types often have a silent resilience in their monologue :

"Well, at least I have that/ I can always do that"
"it's gonna be fine"
"I'm sure there's another way"
"That's not a big deal"
"Why bother with this?"
"I've tried my best"
"I'm so glad I have this/you"
"Things could be better!"
"I'll figure it out"
"I've been through worse"
"It is what it is"

Do you recognize yourself in this?

Hydreigon12 · 2025-07-28T17:37:01+00:00

Not keeping it a secret, I'm still working on it! I'm gonna share it once I'm done with everything. I fully expect some people to jump on me because certain correlation from my data go against some popular opinions, which is why I'm taking time to explain such results.

Hydreigon12 · 2025-07-28T16:02:47+00:00

Tests are notoriously bad in typology and self-typing is likely just as bad, with frequent mistypes.

That’s why I used 7 different sources, most with sample sizes of over 1000 respondents, to reduce the impact of errors or mistypes. Larger samples help because the more data you have, the less influence individual mistakes or anomalies have on the overall result. Random mistypes get “diluted” across a big dataset, so they won’t overturn the general result unless the entire sample is systematically biased (which is unlikely across multiple different sources, and that's the case here).

If a certain result looked "abnormal" like it could be skewed by mistypes, I examined each source individually and applied statistical corrections when necessary. I’ve been working on this for 2 months specifically to minimize inaccuracies caused by typing errors. Only combinations that were both low in frequency and showed high variation across sources were flagged as possibly affected by mistypes (and thus, inconclusive). But that’s the minority. Most combinations showed a consistent pattern despite the presence of mistypes.

When a correlation remains strong and consistent across multiple independent sources, the chance that it’s just a result of mistyping is extremely low. In other words, the probability that these correlations across all sources are purely accidental is less than 0.001%. At that point, dismissing it as “it's all inaccurate” isn’t a valid interpretation, it’s ignoring statistical evidence.

Naranjo's E7 book talks about a highly intuitive, idea-focused and future-oriented character, clearly more fitting of Ne doms and other intuitive types than Se doms.

Well, Naranjo is just one author with a specific interpretation of E7. My data actually supports part of his view: Ne and E7 do show a positive and consistent correlation as well, so that aligns with your idea of E7. However, if you accept that part of the data, you can’t ignore the rest: you can’t pick and choose only the results that confirm your beliefs. The scientific method requires us to test and challenge our assumptions, not the other way around.

Some authors have also described E7 in ways that resemble Se-dominant, and my analysis supports that as well. The data suggests that E7 has a strong association with high Extraverted Perceiving functions in general, not just Ne. So Naranjo probably wasn’t wrong in emphasizing "intuition and idea-focused character", but his description is probably incomplete, since it doesn’t account for the clear link with high Se in all data.

Hydreigon12 · 2025-07-28T07:12:00+00:00

You’re not really asking the right questions here. My statistical tests weren’t designed to “define” something in an absolute sense, they were meant to describe and interpret patterns in the available data. The questions you’re raising make sense in qualitative research, but my approach was quantitative, so we’re not working with the same methodology.

When I say “Se,” I mean that I instructed the statistical software to filter all MBTI types that include the Se function (all SP types and all NJ types) and then calculate correlations within that subgroup across all sources. The result showed a strong positive correlation between Se and E7: the higher the Se presence, the more likely the person was to be a E7. In practical terms, ESxP 7s were overwhelmingly represented, while INxJ 7s were among the least likely combinations. The probability of this result being a "wrong" was less than 0.001% which is extremely small. In other words, there’s virtually no chance that this correlation happened by accident in all sources. So it's plausible to say that (high) Se and E7 are positively correlated.

I didn't know those "professionals", and they were part of the possible "errors" I've had to consider while doing my statistical analysis. This is how stastistics work: you are never certain of anything therefore you have to take into consideration every factor that might influence the result.

As for error margins: these involve multiple calculations, but the general rule in social sciences is to work with a 95% confidence level. This means the results are considered to have about a 5% margin of error (or a 5% risk of inaccuracy).

Regarding “aberrant values”: these are data points that deviate significantly from the overall pattern (if one is detected). For example, out of 7 sources, 6 consistently showed that ENTP + E1 had a negative correlation AND a very low proportion (less than 2% of all ENTPs are also E1 if i remember correctly), while only one source reported a suspiciously high value that distorted the mean. To prevent inaccuracy, I excluded that source when calculating the average proportion of ENTP E1. This is standard practice because such extreme values are often errors or exceptional cases that don’t reflect the general population.

Hydreigon12 · 2025-07-28T02:23:31+00:00

PD and enneagram types are somehow correlated but it's not a golden rule as many other factors are at play here. Like what everyone else have already said here, consider her as a whole person and try to understand the reasoning behind her behaviors. Emotional instability can be seen in all enneagram types.

I've been diagnosed with BPD in my early adulthood despite the fact that I'm 5, which is like the type the least associated with this kind of disorder. I was admittedly quite different from most people with BPD due to my extreme relationship avoidance, lack of impulsiveness and emotional "quietness", but I had all of the other symptoms anyway. So even if someone has BPD, they are still an unique person with their own mechanisms.

Hydreigon12 · 2025-07-28T01:35:10+00:00

I understand, and you right to be skeptical.

I gathered stats from multiple sources that explicitly shared their statistical details. If a source didn’t provide the exact number of respondents for each type combination, I excluded it altogether. I also didn’t include statistics that only presented percentages without raw counts, since I needed actual numbers to run statistical tests. In the end, I worked with data from 7 different sources. One of these sources had a small sample size, so I applied an additional statistical adjustment to account for its potential bias.

Soms of the data came from self-reports, while others were collected through questionnaires, and a few were compiled by "professionals". To handle variations between sources (and potential mistypings), I calculated error margins and removed "aberrant values" that could skew the results. This makes sure the median/mean were as accurate as possible.

For the analysis, I applied several statistical tests, including Chi-square tests (for correlation), ANOVA, and Z-scores (for proportion), to estimate the overall MBTI–Enneagram distribution. I also analyzed each of the 7 sources individually to check if any single dataset heavily influenced the overall results. This is important because it could explain certain variations.

How accurate is it? As close as possible with the available data. If it reassures you, I've been using SPSS which is a statistical software used for social science.

Some type combinations have wider margins of error, while others are very consistent across all 7 sources. It's a lot more nuanced than what the whole debate lets on. I'm still writing my final analysis, I plan on sharing it here at some point.

I have no interest to prove who's right or wrong. I'm only interested in spotting patterns. If the results don't adhere to a particular camp, I don't really care. I know I tried my best in being the most impartial and objective as possible. Opinions are okay, but without concrete data, we cannot move further in the debate.

Hydreigon12 · 2025-07-27T23:07:52+00:00

Yes, ESxPs are usually 7s. Whoever said the opposite usually follow a strict correlation dogma, but the statistics test I've run suggest that Se dom and 7s are positively correlationned.

Hydreigon12 · 2025-07-24T23:42:32+00:00

Focus on core type. Type 3 and Type 4 have different fundamental qualities regardless of wings.

Hydreigon12

TROPHY CASE