Possible Type Combos with Other Systems
This page is actively being updated. Some information may be incomplete, so please be patient.
All of the correlations are hypothetical and not definitive. Form your own opinion.
This is a very controversial topic in the typology community. Heated debates regarding it appear on an incredible number of profiles. This is perfectly normal given the fact that people have different interpretations of systems or theories as a whole. To keep things simple, I will explain how it relates to each theory. All of us might follow different theories, which is why it's difficult to follow up with different contradictions and possible combinations within different systems. But I will try to capture how all of them relate to the topic.
RHETI
RHETI is one of the most widespread Enneagram systems. It is also said to be one of the simplest. This system is focused on the core fears and motivations of each Enneatype. Many claim it to be a very bland approach to the Enneagram. Moreover, RHETI is known to be simple to make it more easily marketable. Its approach to the original theory is shallow as it only relates to the very basic aspects of each type.
For example, Type 7 in the RHETI system is mostly seen through its fear of missing out (FOMO). Because of this, Riso-Hudson descriptions of this type focus on its hedonistic tendencies, making Type 7 more of a party lover. In comparison, Type 7 according to Naranjo is described through its narcissism and gluttony. Both gluttony and FOMO can seem simple, but they vary in definition. FOMO can be something that touches anyone (in Naranjo's system), while gluttony is exclusive to Type 7. Based on this example, we can see how small changes between both systems can cause major misunderstandings.
RHETI is also oblivious to trait structures. It focuses on those basic traits and then describes types based on them. That causes each trait to not be exclusive to a type. It causes confusion when compared to other systems because of its simplicity. Because of this simplicity, it is difficult to set correlations because traits related to each type in RHETI can be related to any type in the Jungian system. Both Ne dominants and Si dominants can have FOMO because it's such a human and basic trait. There are only likely and less likely combinations between Riso-Hudson and Jungian types. Below are the most probable combinations of each RHETI type.
Descriptions of each Enneatype are from: www.enneagraminstitute.com
Jungian System
Correlations between cognitive functions and enneagram types is the most heated debate in the typology community. It also touches onto the RHETI sphere of enneagram. Below is a list of each RIso-Hudson type and their relation to cognitive functions.
Enneagram Type 1
As mentioned before, RH focuses on the core fears and motivations of each type. For Enneagram 1, it goes like this:
- Basic Fear: Of being corrupt/evil, defective
- Basic Desire: To be good, to have integrity, to be balanced
Ones are conscientious and ethical, with a strong sense of right and wrong. They are teachers, crusaders, and advocates for change: always striving to improve things, but afraid of making a mistake. Well-organized, orderly, and fastidious, they try to maintain high standards, but can slip into being critical and perfectionistic. They typically have problems with resentment and impatience.
As I mentioned previously, it is a superficial description and any Jungian type can relate to it. It is mostly related to Te.
Enneagram Type 2
- Basic Fear: Of being unwanted, unworthy of being loved
- Basic Desire: To feel loved
Twos are empathetic, sincere, and warm-hearted. They are friendly, generous, and self-sacrificing, but can also be sentimental, flattering, and people-pleasing. They are well-meaning and driven to be close to others, but can slip into doing things for others in order to be needed. They typically have problems with possessiveness and with acknowledging their own needs.
This is a trait commonly associated with Fe. ENFJs and ESFJs will relate the most to type 2 descriptions.
Enneagram Type 3
- Basic Fear: Of being worthless
- Basic Desire: To feel valuable and worthwhile
Threes are self-assured, attractive, and charming. Ambitious, competent, and energetic, they can also be status-conscious and highly driven for advancement. They are diplomatic and poised, but can also be overly concerned with their image and what others think of them. They typically have problems with workaholism and competitiveness.
Te doms will find themselves relate to this description the most. It's mostly a result of low Fi and lack of belief in inherent human value.
Enneagram Type 4
- Basic Fear: That they have no identity or personal significance
- Basic Desire: To find themselves and their significance (to create an
identity)
Fours are self-aware, sensitive, and reserved. They are emotionally honest, creative, and personal, but can also be moody and self-conscious. Withholding themselves from others due to feeling vulnerable and defective, they can also feel disdainful and exempt from ordinary ways of living. They typically have problems with melancholy, self-indulgence, and self-pity.
This can be tied to Jungian Fi and types like ISFPs or INFPs.
Enneagram Type 5
- Basic Fear: Being useless, helpless, or incapable
- Basic Desire: To be capable and competent
Fives are alert, insightful, and curious. They are able to concentrate and focus on developing complex ideas and skills. Independent, innovative, and inventive, they can also become preoccupied with their thoughts and imaginary constructs. They become detached, yet high-strung and intense. They typically have problems with eccentricity, nihilism, and isolation.
Although lots of stereotypes point towards types like INTJs and ENTJs, the basic fears and desires of this type align with Te dominants the most.
Enneagram Type 6
- Basic Fear: Of being without support and guidance
- Basic Desire: To have security and support
The committed, security-oriented type. Sixes are reliable, hard-working, responsible, and trustworthy. Excellent “troubleshooters,” they foresee problems and foster cooperation, but can also become defensive, evasive, and anxious—running on stress while complaining about it. They can be cautious and indecisive, but also reactive, defiant and rebellious. They typically have problems with self-doubt and suspicion.
This type can be easily traced back to Si in the Jungian system. Both seek comfort and support. They rely on something for their security.
Enneagram Type 7
- Basic Fear: Of being deprived and in pain
- Basic Desire: To be satisfied and content—to have their needs fulfilled
Sevens are extroverted, optimistic, versatile, and spontaneous. Playful, high-spirited, and practical, they can also misapply their many talents, becoming over-extended, scattered, and undisciplined. They constantly seek new and exciting experiences, but can become distracted and exhausted by staying on the go. They typically have problems with impatience and impulsiveness.
This is heavily associated with Ne and Se. Most extraverted perceivers will relate to this description. That would include ENTPs, ENFPs, ESFPs and ESTPs.
Enneagram Type 8
- Basic Fear: Of being harmed or controlled by others
- Basic Desire: To protect themselves (to be in control of their own life
and destiny)
Eights are self-confident, strong, and assertive. Protective, resourceful, straight-talking, and decisive, but can also be ego-centric and domineering. Eights feel they must control their environment, especially people, sometimes becoming confrontational and intimidating. Eights typically have problems with their tempers and with allowing themselves to be vulnerable.
Descriptions of type 8 differ very much based on each system. While 8s are commonly associated with Se, the RHETI description is mostly related to Jungian Te.
Enneagram Type 9
- Basic Fear: Of loss and separation
- Basic Desire: To have inner stability “peace of mind”
Enneagram Type Nines are accepting, trusting, and stable. They are usually creative, optimistic, and supportive, but can also be too willing to go along with others to keep the peace. They want everything to go smoothly and be without conflict, but they can also tend to be complacent, simplifying problems and minimizing anything upsetting. They typically have problems with inertia and stubbornness.
Type 9 descriptions are also very different in RHETI. Some of the traits are even switched up to the opposite. That makes RHETI 9 fit Si and Fi dominants the most.
Other Systems
While I did expand on the correlations between RHETI and Jung, my descriptions are very brief and not detailed. I also would love to describe the correlations between RHETI and other systems. However, I don't consider myself an authority when it comes to the Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator. If any fellow editor would like to expand on the previous section and add insights about other systems, it would be very much appreciated by me and other users.
Naranjo's Enneagram
Although Riso-Hudson descriptions can be described as shallow and not contradictory with most types in any system, this is not the case with the original Enneagram theory. There are numerous authors to choose from when it comes to detailed descriptions of each Enneatype. The one considered the biggest authority on the topic is Claudio Naranjo. Most typology enthusiasts have probably heard of him already, as he is described as the father of strict correlations. His descriptions are often extreme, focusing mostly on the negative aspects of Enneagram types (which is understandable given that Naranjo was a psychiatrist). Because of these far-fetched descriptions, very few Jungian types can relate to each Enneatype.
It is important to remember that Naranjo relates his books to the original theory. He was a student of Ichazo, who is referred to as the creator of the Enneagram. Because of this, most authors base their own books on Naranjo's insights. This means that no matter which author we choose, most of them will have very similar descriptions to his, and as a result, the correlations will be quite similar.
In Naranjo's system, Enneagram types are not described through basic fears and desires like in RHETI. Instead, they are based on the passions or vices of each type along with other characteristics. For example, the aforementioned Enneagram 7's vice is gluttony. It can be interpreted as similar to RHETI's fear of missing out, but the insight Naranjo gave into the passion of this type disqualifies it from being certain Jungian types (unlike the FOMO of Riso-Hudson's 7). As a result, correlations become more concrete, not just probable.
While many people disagree with correlations because they believe Enneagram and cognitive functions describe different processes, this is only true in the case of the RHETI system. Naranjo's Enneagram is far more complicated and relates to the human essence, making it tightly related to our cognitive processes. That's why there is little "wiggle room" when it comes to correlations. Most of them are definitive.
Jungian System
As I mentioned before, correlations between the Jungian system and the Enneagram are among the most discussed topics. When comparing cognitive functions to the RHETI system, not much insight is needed. This is not the case with Naranjo. In his system, every trait is related to our cognitive processes. Our passions drive our lives; they answer the "why" questions we ask ourselves.
For example:
"Why do I go to the gym?" — To gain approval from my peers.
"Why do I want approval?" — Because I feel worthless without it.
Because of the role vices play in our lives, they are connected to our cognitive processes. They are not just motivations; they are linked to our traits and behavior.
Enneagram Type 1
Naranjo described every ennea-type in his book "Character & Neurosis". The charpter dedicated to enneagram 1 is called "Anger and Perfectionism". This already gives us an insight into the passion of this type. Naranjo described it as "anger" or "wrath". E1s anger is largely unconscious and is a drive for their fixation of perfectionism. This type constantly seeks perfection either in themselves or their enviroment. It expresses anger differently depending on the subtype. The Self-Preservation 1 is focused on perfecting himself leading to constant worrying about reaching his own standards. The Social 1 instead of trying to reach perfection themselves present themselves as already perfect and as a role model. The Sexual 1 on the other hand is focused on perfecting others in their enviroment which leads to controling behavior.
As we can see, even if the types have the same vice, fixation, defence mechanisms and largely behavior, they still look very different and it is hard to mistake them for the other. Because of this, every subtype will also relate to different cognitive functions.
Self-Preservation 1
Naranjo described the SP1 like this:
Ichazo called anguish to the passion characteristic of the one conservation. However, he preferred to use the word worry. It could be said, in fact, that in this type of person concern is a real passion. And it's not just behavior that can be described as worrying too much — or even feeling a need to worry — but they worry about things that are okay, and sometimes spoil what they touch by trying to fix what doesn't need fixing. This need to worry can be understood as an exaggerated need for foresight and to have everything under control, in turn motivated by a fear that its survival or conservation will be threatened.
In reality, the image he has of himself is that of being too imperfect and that is why his activity becomes a constant and obsessive improvement of himself. His anger, on the other hand, hides behind a friendly benevolence and an attitude of service that does not allow his anger and resentment to show through. That is, it transforms his anger into goodwill.
The constant motivation for reaching perfection and the underlying anger of Self-Preservation Type 1 (SP1) can be related to the Jungian Extroverted Thinker. Extroverted Thinkers perceive things in "black and white." Jung described them as having a formula for their thoughts, where anything that contradicts it is wrong, and anything that agrees with it is right. They believe in universal morality, and everything that contradicts their idea of it is considered immoral or incorrect. Their moral code allows for no exceptions. This is closely related to Enneagram Type 1 itself. Type 1s have a clear idea of what is acceptable and what is not. They have standards they want to meet or expect others to meet. Anything that does not align with these standards is deemed inadequate. Failing to meet these standards causes resentment in Type 1s. SP1s are also described as very critical, with impossibly high standards for themselves and others.
It is also important to note that SP1 is a type exclusive to Extroverted Thinkers. To clarify, let’s consider how it contrasts with Perceiving types. Type 1 as a whole is focused almost exclusively on Judgment. Its essence is contradictory to any irrational Jungian type. Perceiving types find fulfillment in mere perception and lack a rational direction. In contrast, SP1s rely heavily on Judgment; it is central to this type.
At first glance, it might seem that ISTJs are also a fitting type for Self-Preservation 1s. However, this assumption stems more from stereotypes than from an actual understanding of Jungian or Naranjo's theories. Si dominants are still Perceiving dominants, and they are inherently irrational. This makes them the antithesis of Enneagram Type 1. SP1 is driven by standards while perceiving types are driven by perception.
There is also a debate about whether ENTJs could be a possible type for the Self-Preservation Type 1, as they are Extroverted Thinkers. I have not found much information on this topic, so if anyone has credible evidence either supporting or refuting this possibility, please feel free to update this page.
Social 1
The character one social is very different from the other subtypes of E1. This is the result of a characteristic designated by Oscar Ichazo — from whom I learned — as inadaptability. For a long time I preferred to simply use the word rigidity in describing this character, referring to something akin to a kind of schoolteacher mentality, and also to what Wilhelm Reich saw when he spoke of an "aristocratic character"; it's just that the word rigidity describes a behavioral style or a specific personality trait rather than a need or passion. Therefore, it remained pending for me to formulate a neurotic need from which the rigid character would become understandable.
For the same reasons that Self-Preservation 1s cannot be Perceiving dominants, Social 1s cannot be either. There is also an ongoing debate about whether Social 1s can be Intuitive types.
Sexual 1
Oscar Ichazo used the Spanish noun cello (zeal) in reference to the characteristic passion of the sexual, and this is a word that has a double meaning. When speaking of an animal in heat (that is, in the estrus phase), the word denotes great sexual excitement; In reference to personality, when we talk about doing things with zeal, we mean something similar to care, care, dedication or fervor. Thus, it is understood that heat, in its broadest sense, is something analogous to the intensity with which the animal in heat seeks the object of its instinct.
The Sexual 1 is the most aggressive of the Type 1 subtypes. It is characterized by its intensity and anger, making it the countertype. Similar to the other Type 1 subtypes, the Sexual 1 is best correlated with Jungian Te dominant types. It relates to Jungian functions in the same way as the previous subtypes. Like them, it cannot be a Perceiving type, and there is ongoing debate about whether it can be an Intuitive type.
Enneagram Type 2
Naranjo described Enneagram Type 2 in Character & Neurosis in the chapter titled "Pride and Histrionic Personality." This description highlights the central passion of Type 2: pride. Type 2s seek to be the center of attention, with an inflated sense of their own attractiveness. They demand privileges and often boast about themselves. They feel the need to give love to others to feel valued, making them a flattering and seductive type.
Self-Preservation 2s have a strong desire to be cared for by others and seek to be "the most important thing". Social 2s are among the most ambitious subtypes, often described as "social climbers." They tend to be the most cold and intellectual of the 2 subtypes. Sexual 2s are highly sensitive about their desirability, making them the most seductive and aggressive subtype.
Self-Preservation 2
Conservation Two appears to be entitled. It can act as if it were he is superior to others and expect preferential treatment, becoming blatant in his expectation of being pampered and having a tantrum if he doesn't get what he wants. His logic is: "I give and do a lot for others; therefore I deserve special treatment." As if, unconsciously, she counts by the hour how much he has sacrificed for the other. He may appear to be a “diva”.
The Conservation E2 feels that to exist is enough to be entitled to receive affection; that he does not have to do anything to receive affection, that he does not have to do anything to receive care and love. Underlying this belief is the belief that he cannot be alone, that he needs another on whom he will project his pride and worth.
The Self-Preservation Type 2 (SP2) is considered the countertype of Type 2s. It is the most dependent and seeks to be cared for, often adopting a "childlike" image to elicit affection. Although some traits of the Self-Preservation 2 may seem at odds with the typical behavior of an Fe dominant type, it still aligns with the archetype of Fe dominance. SP2s have a strong need to connect with others, and while they can be the most withdrawn and shy, their focus remains on their social standing and relationships. Unlike Te dominants, who prioritize objective efficiency, Fe dominants are primarily concerned with their relationships and interpersonal harmony—a trait prevalent in Type 2s, albeit achieved through different methods. For SP2s, this involves projecting a childlike image.
There is ongoing debate about whether SP2s can be ENFPs. While the Self-Preservation 2 description might fit certain ENFP stereotypes, there is no strong connection between the types. The relationship is mostly superficial, with as many contradictions as parallels, making it more improbable than impossible, largely due to the ENFP's Fi preference.
The archetype for Self-Preservation 2s is more accurately ESFJ. Most traits of SP2s align with the ESFJ's function dynamics, though there is less connection to Ni. For instance, SP2s are described as self-indulgent, a trait often associated with comfort-seeking Si users. This contrasts with Ni, as this subtype tends to be less focused on intuitive insights.
Social 2
The social E2s are noted for their ambition to be in everyone's hearts and to be publicly recognized as people of reference. They seek attention directly and confuse being taken into consideration with being loved. They may act in a provocative or unfriendly manner so as not to be ignored. Or marry influential people and focus their energies on the couple's goals, raising their children to succeed in this world. Mother models and competent wives are common in this character close to E3 and E1.
The social instinct of the E2 is expressed in the motto “I am a friend of everyone.” There is a powerful desire to be valued by all the people in their social sphere. They enjoy introducing people and organizing meetings at home. They are very efficient at making themselves necessary and experts at creating networks; today they could be called influencers. The others are surprised at how they treat almost everyone, from the cleaning staff to the manager they don't know at all, with a close familiarity that makes them trustworthy. Another motto applicable to this subtype is “information is power,” and they make it their own from childhood.
As mentioned before, the Social 2 is the most ambitious and intellectual of the Type 2 subtypes. The Jungian ENFJ is a perfect fit for Social 2s. They have a strong desire to be valued and recognized in the social sphere. Social 2s prioritize relationships and, being a Type 2, they seek to be loved. To achieve this, they climb the social ladder, aiming to be seen as a person of reference. This aligns well with the Fe-Ni dynamic. Unlike Self-Preservation 2s, who seek to be cared for, Social 2s want to be the one who is needed. They tend to be more direct and less emotionally expressive than the typical Type 2.
The trait structure of the Social 2 aligns closely with that of ENFJs, which is why it is less clear whether a person with Social 2 traits could be an ESFJ.
Sexual 2
The sexual E2 moves between seduction and aggressiveness, and combines fascination and sensuality. It is the most explicit, spontaneous, and wild of the three subtypes. Just as the social E2 seduces from the intellectual, and the conservation, from tenderness, the sexual does so from the carnal. It's invasive and if they want something, they take it, just like sexual E4 or E8.
They clearly put their empathy at the service of seduction more than out of true interest in the other. They know how to weave webs from which it is difficult to escape because they become passionate when they are in conquest. They are a person who knows they are special and wants to be unforgettable; their only desire is to be adored again.
While the previous subtypes were clearly related to Jungian Fe, this is not the case for the Sexual 2. An ESFP would be a better fit for the Sexual 2 subtype. This subtype is the most likely to be 8-fixed, displaying high levels of aggression and seductiveness. The intensity of the Sexual 2's traits makes it unlikely for them to be an Fe dominant type. Instead, the Se-Fe or Se-Fi dynamics align more closely with the Sexual 2. They do not have a genuine need for connection but are driven by their seductive tendencies. The Sexual 2 is very present-oriented and grounded, lacking intuitive insight. They value their social standing primarily because they want to be adored.
Full Correlations List
| Self-Preservation One | Extroverted Thinkers |
| Social One | Extroverted Thinkers |
| Sexual One | Extroverted Thinkers |
| Self-Preservation Two | Extroverted Feelers |
| Social Two | Extroverted Feelers |
| Sexual Two | ESFP |
| Self-Preservation Three | Extroverted Thinkers |
| Social Three | Extroverted Thinkers |
| Sexual Three | Extroverted Feelers |
| Self-Preservation Four | Introverted Feelers |
| Social Four | Introverted Feelers, INFJ |
| Sexual Four | ISFP, ESFP |
| Self-Preservation Five | Introverted Thinkers, Introverted Perceivers |
| Social Five | INTJ, INTP |
| Sexual Five | INFJ, INTJ |
| Self-Preservation Six | INFP, INFJ? |
| Social Six | INTP, ISTJ |
| Sexual Six | ISTP |
| Self-Preservation Seven | ENTP |
| Social Seven | Extroverted Intuitives |
| Sexual Seven | ENFP |
| Self-Preservation Eight | ESTP |
| Social Eight | ESTP, ESFP |
| Sexual Eight | ESFP |
| Self-Preservation Nine | ISTJ, ISTP |
| Social Nine | ESFJ, ISFJ |
| Sexual Nine | ISFJ |
No Comments