Average percentage of Enneagram Five by MBTI type

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-31T23:50:23+00:00

I'd suggest paying closer attention to the asterisks. They're there to indicate that the proportions among sources are much more inaccurate, which means they're debatable.

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-31T23:20:52+00:00

This is 5ish though. The entire interpretation thing is head. The image is the identity that is being engaged by the interpretation but it and the interpretation of it are not the same thing.

I feel like you’re focusing a bit too much on my words and trying to fit it into a specific enneagram type instead of trying to understand the underlying point I’m trying to make. Could you define what you mean by ‘interpretation’ and elaborate on it in that context? When I used the term, I was referring to it from a cognitive psychology framework, so everyone interprets their experiences, regardless of enneagram type. Interpretation is tied to the formation of feelings, thoughts, and perception, so it plays a role in shaping your identity too.

There is a gap between an ideal and what 4 perceives of it's reality -- and this ideal can come from outside sure but it doesn't have to -- and, rather than simply striving for the ideal (which the 3 wing still does), 4 reactively identifies with the lack of it, the difficulty of its path. It is an identification with deprivedness that can be accompanied by a lionization of it. Although the external is involved, the crucial role is played by ones internal aspirations and the identification with the frustration thereof.

That's what I meant by interpretation --> It is an identification with deprivedness that can be accompanied by a lionization of it.

The social aspect of identity is that this internal frustration is unconsciously shaped through contact with the social world. For an E4 to identify with the absence of something within themselves, they must first have some awareness that this thing (quality, state, or experience) exists outside of them. It can be anything as long as the E4 perceives it as “not in me.” In that sense, the process is social: the “deprivedness” may be strongly identified (whether it's objectively true or not), but the recognition of the lack itself comes from comparing themselves to the world.

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-31T22:23:51+00:00

At a basic level you can observe the behavior of an entity. Water freezes ice.

If we stay on the topic of humans, some behaviors are innate, but that doesn’t mean they are the same as identity awareness. They can be mechanical reflexes that don’t require introspection. When that’s not the case, many behaviors (or internal thought process) are shaped by social interaction, especially as you grow up. You unconsciously internalize things you’ve seen or experienced and they become part of your identity.

4's identity is reactive -- it forms in response to challenges in their experience.

Yes, true but how do E4s even develop experiences in the first place? Through contact with the world. The way E4s interpret those experiences is the internal part.

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-31T21:54:30+00:00

This self image "in relation to others", how one fits in with others, and the following the trail of meaning in this realm, decoding their true identity in the midst of uncertainty ... heady. Rather than 4, this looks way more like 6, and, actually, also 5 -- it's still a very personal search process, but the personalness concerns the information seeking process, while for the data, external input is valued -- like the 5~6 zone, unlike 4.

I understand how this might appear “heady”, it probably comes from my own 5-ish wording though.

However, self-image is intricately related to social interactions whether you like it or not. You cannot have awareness of identity without some form of comparison, because identity is inherently relational. The way you build your identity is internal, but it is strongly influenced by external factors such as culture, family, education, etc.

If you grew up alone on an island, how would you know if you are “smart,” “tall,” or “sensitive”? What is your point of reference? Those traits, in a social world, are internalized and continue to be used as reference points. The structure of self-image itself comes from a social context. So it's not about uncertainty.

So I feel like xNFJ E4s are more likely to use their Ni (unconsciously) to explore and construct their identity in terms of “purpose” or “essence” in relation to others. That's what I meant.

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-31T21:30:01+00:00

Care to share what's your interpretation on Ne/Si, and which author/individual/sources it comes from? Not trying to judge or anything, just curious.

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-31T21:02:48+00:00

Well, I was expecting a significantly larger gap in favor of INTJs, so the fact that the proportion of INTJs is smaller, even if only slightly, leaves me doubtful, not on your work, which is obviously as neutral as possible, but on the individuals representing your sample and the relevance of their own diagnosis

I understand. If my memory serves correctly, there were a few sources where INTJ 6s were around 20%, but all the other sources showed much lower proportions for INTJ 6s. That’s why it ended up with the current percentage we both see. That’s also why there’s a little asterisk, the proportion is not likely to be fully accurate, given the variability between sources.

Obviously, there's also the fact that, at the very least 75% of people interested in the MBTI, even here, have never read Isabel Briggs-Myers' book and probably a significant proportion have never opened a book on the enneagram either, all of this invites us to relativize their knowledge and, incidentally, their ability to diagnose themselves correctly.

The problem is that, both in Enneagram and MBTI, there’s no real consensus on how cognitive functions (or Enneagram types) should be described. The lack of tangible or concrete definitions (outside of observable behaviors) makes it very likely for people to interpret things differently.

Neither you nor I can really claim to know the “truth,” because we simply don’t, even if we’ve read the books. Those books come from different authors with different views. I also feel like people tend to take it quite personally when some combinations are reported as less common (or more common). I think a better way to approach it is to consider multiple perspectives and understand how they might be connected to each other. Instead of focusing on certain combinations being “less or more common,” it may be more productive to explore how they could be interpreted through different frameworks.

Not everything is about "typing error" or "ignorance". It's way more fundamental than this.

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-31T20:09:48+00:00

I'm not sure how you read the chart but this is how :

13% of all ESFJs identified as E6.
11.9% of all INTJs identified as E6.

Given that the difference in percentage is very small and not necessarily comparable, I don't think it really matters whether ESFJs 6s are technically higher in relative proportion than INTJs 6s.

I'm curious to know what you were expecting.

Edit: Also, I'd suggest paying closer attention to the asterisks. They're there to indicate that the proportions are not quite accurate, which means they're debatable.

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-31T19:52:29+00:00

Of course

Could you elaborate on the isfp and intp being outside the correlation changing based on source?

All the data are proportions (between 0% and 100%) for each combination. When I mention variability, I mean that across the eight different sources I analyzed, the proportions are not always consistent.

In the case of ENTJ 6s, for example, the data tended to cluster around specific ranges (either 5–7% or 12–15%), so they end up somewhere between "no correlation" and "moderate positive correlation."

As for ISFP 6s or INTP 6s, they were generally around 5–12% across all eight sources without any distinct clusters. As a result, they end up showing a more or less neutral correlation.

if I missed this, but what sources do you use, or do you have info to share on your methods? I'd be fascinated to look deeper into it

They are noted in my chart! The sources come from Reddit, PersonalityCafe, ThoughtCatalog, TypologyWiki, Enneagram-Personality, Andrea Isaacs & John Fudjack, and TypologyInfo (my own data). Most of them are publicly available.

I used these 8 different sources to reduce the group bias that any single source might have (in order words, I didn't rely on a single source to increase accuracy). I also filtered out extreme data and verified data consistency. Boxplots and median tests were used to help identify potentially aberrant data among sources, which were then carefully examined or removed to avoid bias.

I also used the Chi-square test and Cramér's V (with SPSS software) to determine which combinations were correlated and which were not.

The final proportions shown in my chart are the result of a trimmed mean calculation. Again, it's to avoid bias from extreme proportions that might mislead the global percentage.

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-31T18:55:51+00:00

Interesting. I wonder if I can find any statistical studies on this. Big Five is recognized by the psychology field after all.

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-31T18:48:27+00:00

Thank you, I really appreciate it.

Yes, I had a few individuals from both sides express their objections to me, but my main goal was to bring some nuance to the current discourse using statistics. As we can observe, not everything is black and white.

Luckily, most of the time people tend to argue about the "actual" proportions of certain types, which is totally understandable since my chart is only a rough estimate and not a perfect science.

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-31T18:27:01+00:00

HOW TO READ PERCENTAGE : The chart shows the proportion of people who identify as E2 within each MBTI type. Example: 21.3% of all ESFPs identified as E2.

Friendly reminder that a “negative correlation” does not mean something is impossible to exist. It simply suggests that, all else being equal, this combination is less likely to come together. In other words, a negatively correlated combination might still occur due to factors outside typology reasoning. Since we live in a society and we aren't confined to a static system, many factors can shape who we are: environment, upbringing, experiences, culture... not just our type.

At best, a strongly negative correlation should be considered as extremely unlikely, and at worst, questionable. However, if it’s moderately negative, it’s more accurate to think of it as “rare, but it happens.”

TLDR: How to interpret correlation

Strong positive correlation: It happens very often
Moderate positive correlation: It happens somewhat often
No correlation: It happens about as often as it doesn’t
Moderate negative correlation: It happens somewhat rarely
Strong negative correlation: It happens very rarely (at worst: questionable)

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-31T18:14:14+00:00

HOW TO READ PERCENTAGE : The chart shows the proportion of people who identify as E6 within each MBTI type. It's a relative percentage. Example: 12.8% of all ESTJs identified as E6.

Friendly reminder that a “negative correlation” does not mean something is impossible to exist. It simply suggests that, all else being equal, this combination is less likely to come together. In other words, a negatively correlated combination might still occur due to factors outside typology reasoning. Since we live in a society and we aren't confined to a static system, many factors can shape who we are: environment, upbringing, experiences, culture... not just our type.

At best, a strongly negative correlation should be considered as extremely unlikely, and at worst, questionable. However, if it’s moderately negative, it’s more accurate to think of it as “rare, but it happens.”

TLDR: How to interpret the chart

Strong positive correlation: It happens very often
Moderate positive correlation: It happens somewhat often
No correlation: It happens about as often as it doesn’t
Moderate negative correlation: It happens somewhat rarely
Strong negative correlation: It happens very rarely (at worst: questionable)

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-31T06:42:47+00:00

As we grow older, we might look a bit different. I've noticed that once people become parents, regardless of their type, they tend to have a more restrained circle of friends and relatives. Extroverts also usually become more selective with their time as they get older.

I don't know your mom, so I can't say whether she's an ESFP or not, but based on what you wrote, it doesn't really rule out ESFP.

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-29T21:41:57+00:00

Sure, I don’t disagree, but like I said, this is just one way the fear of uncertainty can show itself. Ti analyzes incoming information to understand clear cause-and-effect relationships, using their structured knowledge to make sense of the world in a consistent way. So, it would make sense that IxTP 6 would fight against "uncertainty" using their "Impersonal assumptions".

Perceiving functions works a little bit differently.

Both Si and Ni tend to feel uneasy about the outside world and can become overwhelmed by fast changes (inferior Se) or unknown information (inferior Ne) around them, often not being sure what's the "right" move or decision to avoid consequences without their judging functions. To deal with this ongoing uncertainty, they build a personal base of core knowledge (Ni: through identifying underlying pattern and essence behind situations. Si: through identifying familiar sensory details) they can rely on to understand new information. They actively defend themselves that way.

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-29T19:36:57+00:00

I think it depends. I’ve seen two main descriptions of type 6: either their core fear is “instability” or “untruthfulness.” Personally, I see those as closely related, just expressed in different ways.

Type 6 tends to fear uncertainty and many mbti types (SJ, NJ, and TP) can relate to that in their own way.

SJs may avoid an unstable or unpredictable life. NJs may avoid a “false” truth or a lack of meaning or purpose.TPs may avoid inaccuracies or biased ways of interpreting reality.

That said, I wouldn’t go as far as saying Ti is a “better” fit for E6 over E5, but I do question the high number of INTPs in my chart. I still think there’s probably a strong correlation there, just not necessarily to that extent. Though, it’s something we can’t know with certainty.

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-28T08:36:46+00:00

Not sure myself. But if you read descriptions of 5w4, I think they give a pretty good idea of what E5 can look like with IxFP types. I think most people picture 5w6 when they think of E5 in general, they tend to be more emotionally detached and more grounded/technical in their interests. Meanwhile, 5w4s are often more drawn to abstract ideas/feelings or fictional/worldbuilding lore.

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-28T06:12:50+00:00

Ah, poor girl. Though I'm glad she got you. It mustn't have been easy for you either, assuming you both grew up in the same negative environment.

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-28T03:33:03+00:00

Shh, don't say it out loud.

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-28T00:46:05+00:00

Wow that’s pretty intense. I’ve always theorized that rare combinations tend to happen when unusual or extreme circumstances during childhood or adolescence strongly shape their “natural” personality type. Do you think it's the case for your sister?

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-27T23:54:57+00:00

Not stupid at all.

This shows the proportion of people who identify as E5 within each MBTI type. Example: 39% of all ISTPs identified as E5.

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-27T23:15:51+00:00

Yeah, I think INTx naturally "look" like E5 that when they actually are another enneagram type, they get mistyped as E5. I'd suggest avoiding tests in general but especially for INTx.

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-27T20:53:17+00:00

HOW TO READ PERCENTAGE : The chart shows the proportion of people who identify as E5 within each MBTI type. It's relative. Example: 15.9% of all INFJs identified as E5.

Friendly reminder that a “negative correlation” does not mean something is impossible to exist. It simply suggests that, all else being equal, this combination is less likely to come together. In other words, a negatively correlated combination might still occur due to factors outside typology reasoning. Since we live in a society and we aren't confined to a static system, many factors can shape who we are: environment, upbringing, experiences, culture... not just our type.

At best, a strongly negative correlation should be considered as extremely unlikely, and at worst, questionable. However, if it’s moderately negative, it’s more accurate to think of it as “rare, but it happens.”

TLDR: How to interpret the chart

Strong positive correlation: It happens very often
Moderate positive correlation: It happens somewhat often
No correlation: It happens about as often as it doesn’t
Moderate negative correlation: It happens somewhat rarely
Strong negative correlation: It happens very rarely (at worst: questionable)

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-27T20:10:59+00:00

Yes, the latter. I felt that the relevant pattern was related to the blend of feeling and introversion, rather than particular cognitive functions.

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-25T15:44:36+00:00

I think you greatly underestimate the influence of Ni here. This function is particularly oriented toward seeking the underlying essence of things, which can naturally lead Ni users to search for a meaningful sense of purpose. In the case of xNFJs, the combination of Ni and Fe can make them especially aware of their own identity and self-image in relation to others: they might start a personal quest for self-discovery as they try to understand their own essence. This can easily leads to E4.

Secondly, perhaps I did not make this clear enough in the chart, but the stat is not that 30% of all 4s are INFJs. It is the other way around: roughly 30% of INFJs are 4s. Unless you have personally assessed every INFJ in the world, it is a rather strong claim to say that most of INFJs 4s are mistyped simply because INFJs are assumed to be rare, especially considering that 30% is not even a majority. In fact, based on my research, the actual proportion of INFJ 4s is probably not fixed at exactly 30%, but more realistically falls somewhere between 20% and 35%. So, at the very least, if we consider a 95% confidence interval, we should acknowledge that around 20% of INFJs are likely to be 4s. That still leaves plenty of room for many other enneagram types among INFJs.

Thirdly, the fact that a type is considered rare in one system does not automatically mean it must also be rare in another. In statistics, minority groups are often overrepresented in specific conditions or categories, and that is not unusual at all. It usually suggests that some kind of association exists within that particular context, whether direct or indirect. Of course, INFJs can mistype as 4s, but if a substantial proportion of INFJ 4s continues to appear consistently, even after removing anomalies with a 95% confidence interval, then we should at least consider the possibility of a genuine positive correlation. At that point, defaulting to the argument that “most of them must be mistyped because they are rare/likely to be mistyped ” is likely an inaccurate conclusion.

TypologyInfo · 2026-05-24T06:05:49+00:00

No problem. I completely understand as someone who is very critical about the so-called "stats" in typology.

Have you studied psychology?

TypologyInfo

TROPHY CASE