## 5 Results
### Feature Analysis
#### 5.1.5 Effect of Enneagram Predictions on the Big Five Predictions  
While MBTI and Big Five personality models have been previously compared in the works of several authors [13; 18; 66; 86], the relationship between the Enneagram and Big Five traits has not been thoroughly explored. This can be largely attributed to Enneagram often being underutilized in both academia and consulting--the two areas where the Big Five model and MBTI have enjoyed success, respectively. However, taking a closer look into the possible relationship between these models can help to better answer the question as to how Enneagram predictions can help the process of predicting Big Five personality traits. The results reported in Table 14 indicate that, for certain Big Five traits, the results change drastically when the Enneagram predictions are removed from the feature set. This is visible when comparing them to the results reported in Table 13 as well as the results reported for the baseline approach. With this in mind, we make the following observations:  
1. The model's performance when predicting the _Neuroticism_ trait without Enneagram predictions in the feature set decreases in comparison to all the feature sets that previously included Enneagram predictions. 2. The model's performance when predicting both _Conscientiousness_ and _Agreeableness_ increases in almost every case when Enneagram predictions are removed from the feature set. The only exception to this is when the following LIWC dimensions appear in the feature set: shehe, incl, number, present, posemo and pronoun. 3. Predictions of the _Openness_ trait either stay the same or only slightly fluctuate when Enneagram predictions are removed from the feature set, indicating that predicting this trait benefits only slightly from the Enneagram predictions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Features** & **Openness** & **Consistent.** & **Extroversion** & **Agreeableness** & **Neuroticism** \\ \hline \(n\)-grams + MBTI/Eme. Preds. +... & & & & & \\ \hline shehe, incl, number, present, posemo, pronoun & **0.256** & 0.270 & **0.407** & 0.263 & **0.296** \\ WPS, past, social, ipron, Colon & **0.265** & **0.275** & **0.392** & **0.273** & **0.290** \\ you, article, sad & 0.250 & 0.272 & 0.381 & **0.289** & 0.283 \\ Exclam, \(i\), hear, tentat & 0.246 & **0.283** & 0.384 & 0.269 & 0.272 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 13: Pearson correlation coefficient between the gold-standard Big Five labels and predictions achieved through using combinations of \(n\)-grams, MBTI/Enneagram predictions and selected LIWC dimensions for each of the MBTI traits (from top to bottom: (1) _E-I_, (2) _S-N_, (3) _T-F_ and (4) _J-P_). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Features** & **Openness** & **Consistent.** & **Extroversion** & **Agreeableness** & **Neuroticism** \\ \hline \(n\)-grams +... & & & & & \\ Baseline without Enne. Preds. & 0.250 & **0.281** & 0.374 & **0.276** & 0.258 \\ \hline \(n\)-grams + MBTI Preds. +... & & & & & \\ \hline shehe, incl, number, present, posemo, pronoun & 0.242 & **0.277** & 0.380 & 0.266 & 0.268 \\ WPS, past, social, ipron, Colon & 0.253 & **0.285** & 0.378 & **0.278** & 0.267 \\ you, article, sad & 0.250 & **0.281** & 0.370 & **0.299** & 0.256 \\ Exclam, \(i\), hear, tentat & 0.248 & **0.293** & 0.371 & **0.274** & 0.248 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 14: The Pearson correlation coefficient between the gold-standard Big Five labels and predictions achieved through using \(n\)-grams, MBTI predictions and selected LIWC dimensions in the feature set with the Enneagram predictions omitted. LIWC dimensions selected for each MBTI type follow the same order described in Table 13 (e.g., from top to bottom: (1) _E-I_, (2) _S-N_, (3) _T-F_ and (4) _J-P_). The first of these three observations points towards the possible relationship existing between the Enneagram types and Big Five's _Neuroticism_ trait.