No correspondence between enneatype and sociotype

I'm on lunch now. This time I'm writing in the notes program. I wish it could figure out that if a word ends with "-ig," that means I was trying to write "-ing."

Well, this morning they were looking for the "motion" function and the "persona" function. Those were some of the things someone wrote as a way to correspond the enneagram with the jungian functions, and they used the "motion center" concept.

That whole idea is a mess. I was trying to explain it but didn't have the right words. There is NOT a one to one correspondence between the jungian types and the enneatypes; someone wonders if we need 7 new enneatypes to fit with the 16 Jung types (no, they are two different systems and there is no correspondence). There is only a partial, moderate correlation between each enneagram type and the clusters of types which can appear in it. Each enneatype can have several Jung types, and each Jung type can go into more than one enneatype, but not all of them. You also cannot multiply 9 x 16 and get 144 combinations of enneatype-jung type, because some Jung types can't be certain enneatypes, or it would be so strange and unlikely that it might almost never happen, but could conceivably happen. For instance, type 2 has ethical types in it, and it would be very unusual for any other type to be there. But type nine can have a wide variety of Jung types, and some of those Jung types can appear in more than one enneatype. I would call it a "some-to-some correlation" instead of a correspondence.

My belief in this came from a tiny little yellow book about the enneagram, a book recommended by Judith swack when I tried to do phone therapy with her. It's in the storage unit - I'd have to look it up.

When you look at it that way, you might ask if there are any Jung types that don't have an enneatype at all, or any enneatypes that don't have a Jung type. The systems are so different that they cannot be matched up or translated one to the other.

I believe that, unfortunately, something has been left out and not adequately explained, and needs more work. The two systems should be merged, but it won't happen by making a one to one correspondence. New functions might be added, but it will take work to decide what those functions should be, and how they will interact with the existing model. I don't know how to expand the Model A by adding more functions, for instance. Imagine what it would do to the socionics models if you added several more functions.

I do still like the "motion center" or "instinctive center" in the American modern enneagram (and I want to look at gurdjieff again and ichazo, to see the original modern enneagram). I like the idea of "do something" instead of "sit there," and I think the functions are too cerebral and they don't account for movement.

This morning "they" mentioned a similarity to something. They said I had strength in the "persona function" (hypothetical) because no one can tell me how I should look, and because I instinctively recognized long hair as desirable (a species recognition trait) when I was only five years old, without being taught.

I will write the species recognition blog after work. But what other animal has hair longer than a human's?