In his study on the distribution of MBTI types in a group of E6 alcohol and drug-dependent
clients, Michael Huber comments that ...
The Enneagram Monthly survey on Enneagram and MBTI Type DID, however, generate reponses from a group of the size that Michael is looking for (it had over 400 respondents). The EM sample included 52 persons who are E6, a group of comparable size to his own 40 person study. In this brief commentary on Michael's paper I want to
compare the MBTI distribution in Michael's group of E6s with the MBTI distribution in
the E6 group in the EM survey.
The following chart is the one presented by Michael in his paper, summarizing
the distribution of MBTI type within his group of AOADD individuals whom
he typed as Enneagram 6s. It shows how many individuals of each MBTI type were
present in that study. It tells us, for instance, that there were four ISTJs
in his group -
The following chart is similar to the one above. It details how many of each MBTI type were present in the group of fifty-two E6s who responded to the 1996 Enneagram Monthly survey.
The next chart compares the two studies -
This chart shows there were 13 fewer INFPs in Huber's group of E6s than in EM's E6 group. Since, in the EM survey, the INFP group had the highest I-value (= 1.5), this represents a significant contrast that must be explained. I will attempt to offer a hypothesis below. The chart also illustrates that ISTJs and ISFJs were present at similar levels in Huber's group and the EM group. [Pat and I took the ISTJ and ISFJ as 'prototypical' of E6, since they respectively have I-values of 1.4 and 1.2 and respresent the 'Jungian' pair (IS = introverted sensing type) that has the highest combined concentration in E6.] Furthermore, the chart demostrates that the introverted thinking types (IT) are greatly over-represented in the Huber group as compared to the EM survey. What conclusions might be drawn from this information? Huber's group represents a selective cross-section of E6s, as compared to those who voluntarily responded to the EM survey. Those who are NOT alcohol or drug dependent were by definition automatically filtered out of participation in Huber's group. We could infer from this that amongst E6s it is the introverted feeling types (IF) who are least likely to experience alcohol and drug dependency problems, and the introverted thinking types (IT) who are most likely to suffer such problems. This might suggest that a developed feeling function is key in helping individuals to avoid addiction, while an inferior feeling function might put one at risk of addiction. In addition, according to the chart, E6s who are introverted intuitives (IN) also seem to escape getting caught up in such dependencies. This is probably, as Michael reasons, because of 'good interior insight'. Extraverted iNtuitives (ENs) also avoid the AODD group, it should be noted, but to a somewhat lesser degree. Conversely, ESs appear to be comparatively overrepresented in Michaels group, suggesting that inferior iNtuition puts one at higher risk of alcohol and drug dependency. All of the above conclusions provide us with interesting hypotheses for further study. There is one more observation that I would like to make. Researchers sometimes bemoan the fact that Enneagram-MBTI surveys and studies seem to disproportionately draw Types who are in a statistical minority in the population at large. The EM survey, for instance, attracted the participation of IFs and INs, although demographic studies show that these MBTI types are amongst the least frequent in the population at large. In contrast, ESs (who are most frequent in the population at large) tended not to respond to the survey. Michael's group, with a much higher-level presence of STs, may in this sense have been more representative of the population at large. If that is the case, could we use Michael's findings to somehow 'adjust' the figures generated by the EM study regarding MBTI distribution in the E6 group? His figures seem to indicate that in a more representative sample less IFs would show up in E6, and more ITs. Given the originally high concentration of IFs in E6 in the EM survey, and the low concentration of ITs, this would further 'flatten' the already flat distribution curve for E6s (illustrated by the chart in Michael's article). Given the fact that the ISs, who appear in relatively high concentration in the EM sample of E6s (with I=1.4 and I=1.2), remain at approximately the same level of concentration in Michael's study, it would be this group that is brought more distinctly into relief as the most concentrated Jungian pair in E6.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||