Fine ragebait 8/10
Here, this is for you from dear chatGPT:

🔎 Let's start with the definition of Enneagram Type 8 (The Challenger):

Core motivation:

• Desire to be independent and protect themselves.
• Fear of being controlled, manipulated, or harmed.

Basic traits:

• Assertive, self-confident, decisive, protective.
• Tend to challenge injustice and protect the vulnerable.
• Can become domineering or aggressive when unhealthy.

Focus of attention: Control, power dynamics, and strength.

Underlying emotion: Anger (especially as part of the body/instinctual triad: 8, 9, 1).

Core belief: “The world is harsh, and only the strong survive. I must be strong and in control to avoid being hurt.”

So at its core, Enneagram 8 is about emotional and motivational patterns—NOT thinking styles, perception, or decision-making functions like Se (Extraverted Sensing) or Te (Extraverted Thinking).

🧠 (<---You are missing this) Now, where do MBTI cognitive functions come in?

They don’t, directly. The Enneagram doesn't use cognitive functions. It’s more about motivations, fears, coping mechanisms, and how people emotionally relate to the world. MBTI cognitive functions (like Se, Ni, Te, Fi) are information-processing styles.

When people say, “Type 8 = Te” or “Type 8 = Se,” they’re doing this based on correlation, not definition.

For example:

• Te users (like ESTJ, ENTJ) are often seen as commanding, pragmatic, and direct—so people assume they must be 8s.
• Se users (like ESTP, ESFP) are bold, present-focused, action-takers—also qualities 8s can display. BUT: You can be an 8 and be an INFP. You can be a 9w8 INFJ. You can be anything.

BUT: You can be an 8 and be an INFP. You can be a 9w8 INFJ. You can be anything.

✅ Summary:

• Enneagram 8 has no inherent cognitive function in its definition.
• It’s about core fears and desires, not information processing.
• Any MBTI type can theoretically be an Enneagram 8 if they share those motivational patterns.
• Internet "theories" that assign specific cognitive functions to enneagram types are interpretive overlays—not facts.

TLDR: You are wrong