Do opposites attract?
Do we select mates which are just like ourselves, or do we are in need of distinctions to ignite the spark that is romantic? Which kinds fit best with which other kinds? This site shows a number of my research into this concern.
The dining table below programs the regularity of all of the 81 combinations of Enneagram-type marriages. You can find 457 partners in this research. Some combinations are strikingly more widespread than opportunity, consequently they are highlighted in red (a few standard deviations above possibility). Some combinations are much rarer than expected by opportunity, and they are shaded in grey.
Dining table of Enneagram Marriage Frequencies
2 deviations that are standard possibility (98per cent self-confidence)
1 standard deviation above possibility (85% self-confidence)
1 standard deviation below opportunity (85% self-confidence)
Note: as the color shows regularity in accordance with possibility, some red or pink cells may be numerically smaller compared to cells not highlighted.
Major findings:
1. Wedding habits aren’t random. As an example, of most feminine 8s, 37% of those married male 9s, despite the fact that just 19% of most males had been 9s. You can find a lot of these pairings that take place at far above opportunity amounts.
2. Same-type marriages are uncommon, occurring 2 times less frequently than anticipated by possibility. “Birds of a feather” may flock together as buddies, but evidently maybe not in wedding. A fascinating exclusion seems to be double-4 marriages, the only real double-type pair to take place more regularly than possibility (it’s just 1/2 standard deviation above possibility, therefore it is perhaps not colored within the above table).
3. Women and men choose extremely personalities that are different their mates. Male 9s with feminine 4s are typical coffee meets bagel (16 partners), while male 4s with female 9s are incredibly unusual (2 partners). Female 8s preferred male 9s, whereas Male 8s chosen 2s and 6s.
4. Individuals marry along a line of integration 38% more frequently than opportunity. As an example, 7-1 and 3-6 marriages were typical, as were male 2s-female 4s, male 3s-female 9s, and lots of other such combinations.
5. “Gut” types (8, 9, and 1) neither chosen nor prevented other “gut” kinds, therefore the exact same had been real for heart and reasoning types.
6. Although people avoided marrying their very own kinds, they would not show any avoidance of adjacent wing that is( kinds. A preference for wing types had not been seen either.
7. The 6 many typical kind pairings are:
18 pairs: male 8, feminine 2 16 pairs: male 9, feminine 4 15 pairs: male 6, female 2 15 pairs: male 9, feminine 1 14 pairs: male 5, feminine 1 14 pairs: male 6, feminine 9
It really is notable that 9+4 marriages had been one of the most typical, because of the standing of this combination for stormy volatility. It must be realized that this list is rated solely by numerical counts, perhaps not by its regularity in accordance with opportunity. Thus, it really is skewed toward the greater typical kinds (9s and 6s).
Future concerns:
1. How can the personality of wedding lovers affect their pleasure, individual development, and durability? These responses might be extremely highly relevant to marriage counselors.
2. The information about this web page are reported because of the partners on their own, or kids, and therefore are perhaps not verified by an objective test. Unfortuitously, perhaps the most useful enneagram that is available could have only limited precision (see my comparison of Enneagram tests). Growth of better tests is important for progress in Enneagram research.
general distribution of kinds:
If kinds had been written by opportunity, one could expect every type become about 1/9 = 11percent associated with the populace. This really is demonstrably maybe not the full situation, even as we see into the table below. 9s are significantly a lot more than 11percent regarding the population, while 3s are less, especially among females. These sex distinctions are extremely in keeping with exactly what happens to be reported formerly by Dora and Ted Levinson (Enneagram Monthly, Sept. 1998).