Multiple Enneagram Subtypes/Instincts The relationship between the two most dominant instincts

[Speed Gavroche]

No of course not, I'm just reacting against the temptation to cover every possible variation in behaviour and motivation, since it's needless and tells you nothing about anyone. The enneagram is a self-help tool, first and foremost, and should be treated as such - it is not meant to be an absolute catalogue of human behaviour. I think that the wings and instinctual stackings are arbitrary, and frankly do more harm than good since they obfuscate how perceptive the enneagram can be.

Enneagram is a map of the human condition from the very beginning. The instincts are an observable natural phenomenon, and the wing truly represent the two sides of each type. The type 5w4 exist, as well as the type 5w6, and it's the same forevery types. It's not arbitrary, it has'nt be decided by someone, but observed and discovered. The enneagram is just perceptive about your acquired personality, not about what you can be when you put that acquired personality away. So it makes sense to study what wings and instincts makles you act on autopilot, your bestial nature and your emotional coping strategy to deaal with it. Instintual typology help you also to type people with accuracy, and not confuse someone who is Sp with a 5, someone who is Sx with a 4 or a 7, someone who is So with a 3 etc.

If you neglect wing and insitnct, you miss the point of enenagram and you necessarly misuse it or in an imperfect way.

Your motivations are constantly churning away inside you, regardless of how you choose to deal with them - you don't need the enneagram to tell you that.

Of course since motivations have noting to do with the enneatype. Te enneatyp is a settle of propositions wich you perceive the world through. The instinctual variant is the big sector of life where we are instinctively specialised.

Have you seen my link? It proves you wrong.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Enneagram is a map of the human condition from the very beginning. The instincts are an observable natural phenomenon, and the wing truly represent the two sides of each type. The type 5w4 exist, as well as the type 5w6, and it's the same forevery types. It's not arbitrary, it has'nt be decided by someone, but observed and discovered. The enneagram is just perceptive about your acquired personality, not about what you can be when you put that acquired personality away. So it makes sense to study what wings and instincts makles you act on autopilot, your bestial nature and your emotional coping strategy to deaal with it. Instintual typology help you also to type people with accuracy, and not confuse someone who is Sp with a 5, someone who is Sx with a 4 or a 7, someone who is So with a 3 etc.

But it's only real use is as a self-help tool - you can only truly identify yourself on it. If you're trying to model all of human behaviour, it's not a very good one to follow. At best, it helps us to consider the following: What do you truly need out of life? How are you addressing it?

Ultimately, this is what I'm arguing: When you try to categorise too many variations in behaviour and motivation, the temptation is to simply keep going - and that obfuscates things when people come along and try to identify themselves on it, since it becomes out of touch with how people really are and why they're seeking out things like the enneagram in the first place. People are too complex to map out and model to the minutest detail in this manner - and so you have to leave as much room as possible for people to truly find and understand themselves. This is where the enneagram can be truly mesmerising.

And that link you posted is speculation at best - it doesn't really set out to prove anything. I can just as easily use it as an example of what the enneagram isn't really suited to.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

But it's only real use is as a self-help tool - you can only truly identify yourself on it. If you're trying to model all of human behaviour, it's not a very good one to follow. At best, it helps us to consider the following: What do you truly need out of life? How are you addressing it?

Ultimately, this is what I'm arguing: When you try to categorise too many variations in behaviour and motivation, the temptation is to simply keep going - and that obfuscates things when people come along and try to identify themselves on it, since it becomes out of touch with how people really are and why they're seeking out things like the enneagram in the first place. People are too complex to map out and model to the minutest detail in this manner - and so you have to leave as much room as possible for people to truly find and understand themselves. This is where the enneagram can be truly mesmerising.

And that link you posted is speculation at best - it doesn't really set out to prove anything. I can just as easily use it as an example of what the enneagram isn't really suited to.

I agree that it's not a good thing to be too much fixated and categorization but that does'nt mean that theses categories don't truly exist. Don't you see the difference? It's like a 12 years old kid who says "I don't understand math I don't care about it, i think it's useless, so I don't do my homework". Yes, but that does'nt mean that math are unacurates.

And it's not because you don't want to look at subcateogories that theses subcategories are unacurates. Your argumentation is very wobbly on this. "There's tons of reasons why GWBS and Lady Gaga are differents", like if none of theses reasons were dues do the instinctual stacking. The truth is that the instinctual typology is not a subtypology but another typology wich give its own set of inforfmation about people and help a lot to undersand our mechanism, combined with enneagram, there is an emotional coping strategy called the subtype, soemthing that we can't neglect.

You can personally choose to not care about this, but that does'nt prevent theses mechanism to exist. It's not the typologist who choose to close people in box, it's peoples themselves who are in boxes, the typologist just tell what are theses box and then we can leave more room for action, when you are unleash from theses box. The wing also, exist and is not put arbitrary. Trifix is different, trifix is bullshit.

And that link you posted is speculation at best - it doesn't really set out to prove anything. I can just as easily use it as an example of what the enneagram isn't really suited to.

Sorry but no, it's not a speculation. It's not something imagined. Theses peoples truly exist and there type is phisically obsevables, there's not "speculation" here. You can type theses people, and then you can type other peoples, I do that everyday, it's a reproductible process, it works. Of course you can't put your head in the sand and neglect the reality to believe you are right, but that don't prevent this process to work.

 

[VagrantFarce]

I agree that it's not a good thing to be too much fixated and categorization but that does'nt mean that theses categories don't truly exist. Don't you see the difference? It's like a 12 years old kid who says "I don't understand math I don't care about it, i think it's useless, so I don't do my homework". Yes, but that does'nt mean that math are unacurates.

I don't care whether it seems "accurate" or not, I'm talking more about the effect it has. And we're not dealing with mathematics, we're dealing with actual people and their emotional choices. That makes a huge difference, and is ultimately what I'm talking about.

Sorry but no, it's not a speculation. It's not something imagined. Theses peoples truly exist and there type is phisically obsevables, there's not "speculation" here. You can type theses people, and then you can type other peoples, I do that everyday, it's a reproductible process, it works. Of course you can't put your head in the sand and neglect the reality to believe you are right, but that don't prevent this process to work.

But it IS speculation - they're guesses at best, because the enneagram is by its a nature subjective and vague - and I sincerely doubt that anyone who contributed to that list ever met or has known these celebrities intimately enough to really understand who they are. You're treating the enneagram like it's an objective system, and that it can easily quantify people from a distance, when it really can't - it's not built for it. It's a fundamentally subjective illustration of people.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

I don't care whether it seems "accurate" or not, I'm talking more about the effect it has. And we're not dealing with mathematics, we're dealing with actual people and their emotional choices. That makes a huge difference, and is ultimately what I'm talking about.

I've shown you in two pictures how strong the effect can be.

But it IS speculation

Prove it.

has known these celebrities intimately enough to really understand who they are.

You don't need to know a celebrity to understand her. You can read about them, study them and read people who truly know them. It works also on people you truly know. I type people I know all the time.

You're treating the enneagram like it's an objective system

and that it can easily quantify people from a distance, when it really can't -

It is an objective system. Everyone has a type. Prove the contrary.

it's not built for it.

The enneagram had not been built but discovered. Like the pythagore theorem or something. And the enneagram was initially adopted by pytaghoricians.

It's a fundamentally subjective illustration of people.

Prove it.


You're basically saying "I'm not good at typing, so the system does'nt work". That's not a consisten way to deal with things.

 

[Elfboy]

it seems to me that Sx doms have a tendency to want to "get to know you" and if it turns into sex, that's just part of life while Sx second types tend to seek sex a little more deliberately. this is just speculation though

 

[VagrantFarce]

I've shown you in two pictures how strong the effect can be.

What effect? I think you're miss-understanding me...

Prove it.

Oh honestly, let's not kid ourselves for the sake of argument. That list, at best, is an educated guess.

It is an objective system. Everyone has a type. Prove the contrary.

I'm sorry, but the enneagram hardly meets the criteria for empirical falsifiability.

You're basically saying "I'm not good at typing, so the system does'nt work". That's not a consisten way to deal with things.

I'm really not saying that at all...

This is what I'm saying:

The enneagram, at it's best, is a tool for self-improvement - to help understand oneself and others. It's one particular way of looking at people, and is not built as an objective catalogue of human behaviour or motivation. To treat it as such and to over-complicate things ultimately obfuscates what is so revealing about it in the first place.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

What effect?

GWBS and Lady Gaga are completely different despite they have the same enneatype. You're trying to say that that has nothing to do with wing and instincts, you're wrong.

Oh honestly, let's not kid ourselves for the sake of argument. That list, at best, is an educated guess.

Prove it.

I'm sorry, but the enneagram hardly meets the criteria for empirical falsifiability.

It's grounded in the narrative tradition. When you are in workshops with people of the same type, they seem differents at first, but suddenly realize how similars they are. You get the impression that it is just theorical because you approach it at a theorical level only, but the accuracy of enneagram is observable in facts, something that you see when you leave the house and the computer and look around.

I'm really not saying that at all...

You did'nt say it openly but that's what your behavior means.

is not built as an objective catalogue of human behaviour or motivation.

Wrong.

To treat it as such and to over-complicate things ultimately obfuscates what is so revealing about it in the first place.

As I ever shown to you, the wongs and instinctual variants are blatant and don't obfuscate anything. Instinctual typology is a separate typology and the instinctual variant is often easyer to find than the enneatype.

 

[VagrantFarce]

GWBS and Lady Gaga are completely different despite they have the same enneatype. You're trying to say that that has nothing to do with wing and instincts, you're wrong.

No, that isn't what I said - I said that there are hundreds of thousands of different reasons why they're different.

Listen, I'm not trying to say that the stackings & wings & tri-types & everything else can't be applied to people, because they can - people do it all the time. I'm questioning whether they should be, whether they are fit enough to be.

It's grounded in the narrative tradition. When you are in workshops with people of the same type, they seem differents at first, but suddenly realize how similars they are. You get the impression that it is just theorical because you approach it at a theorical level only, but the accuracy of enneagram is observable in facts, something that you see when you leave the house and the computer and look around.

I'm not arguing that it's "only" theoretical, or that it isn't applicable - what I'm arguing is that it's subjective and that it paints best with broad strokes, and shouldn't be treated as an objective and extensible catalogue.

You did'nt say it openly but that's what your behavior means.

Listen, I'm not interested in playing silly games with you, so I'm going to let you know that everything I am saying is up-front and honest and what I actually think. There's no hidden agenda to uncover here, so I'd like it if you treated me with a bit of respect.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

No, that isn't what I said - I said that there are hundreds of thousands of different reasons why they're different.

Listen, I'm not trying to say that the stackings & wings & tri-types & everything else can't be applied to people, because they can - people do it all the time. I'm questioning whether they should be, whether they are fit enough to be.

There's nothing wich say that we "should" use it either, there's no "should" it's facultative, but you eventually have to use it, even before you know the enneatype of someone.

I'm not arguing that it's "only" theoretical, or that it isn't applicable - what I'm arguing is that it's subjective and that it paints best with broad strokes, and shouldn't be treated as an objective and extensible catalogue.

I think that people are objectibely in a place in the enneagram, always. Now some people have subjective impression about what type someone can be. Someone can think a person is of one type, and another one think he is of another type, one of them is wrong. Maybe we can paint best with broad strokes, but as I ever said, the instinctual variant is often more visible than the enneatype itself. If people of the same enneatyp are similars despite their differents wing and stackings, people of a same stacking are similars despite they are of a different enneatype. So the enneatype can be seen as a broad stroke, but the instinctual variant too.

Listen, I'm not interested in playing silly games with you, so I'm going to let you know that everything I am saying is up-front and honest and what I actually think. There's no hidden agenda to uncover here, so I'd like it if you treated me with a bit of respect.

Sorry.

 

[Rail Tracer]

SX/SO

SX is what comes naturally to me.

SO is something I have trouble with. Nonetheless, it is something still used.

 

[hhp]

I'm not arguing that it's "only" theoretical, or that it isn't applicable - what I'm arguing is that it's subjective and that it paints best with broad strokes, and shouldn't be treated as an objective and extensible catalogue.

Agree. I also think that these instinctual subtypes, although sometimes easy to identificate, serve little to no purpose. I mean, saying that a sx 8 is similar to a sx 4 because both are moved by the need of intimacy over social or self-preservation needs, is pretty much like saying that both are similar because they were born in the same country, in a similar family and have similar tastes. The fact is that they're probably very different.
We could also divide each type in many subtypes according to our favorite colours, instead of our instincts; everybody would fit comfortably into a subtype, but that wouldn't be very descriptive or useful either.

(Well, sorry for getting in the middle of the arguing).

 

[Speed Gavroche]

Agree. I also think that these instinctual subtypes, although sometimes easy to identificate, serve little to no purpose.

Yes, that's why it serve so little purpose that Lady Gaga and GWBS are so similars.

I mean, saying that a sx 8 is similar to a sx 4 because both are moved by the need of intimacy over social or self-preservation needs, is pretty much like saying that both are similar because they were born in the same country, in a similar family and have similar tastes.

No, because nothing of this is supposed to gove information about the personality.

We could also divide each type in many subtypes according to our favorite colours, instead of our instincts;

No because it does'nt give clues about the personality either.

Pathetic attempt of trolling.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Pathetic attempt of trolling.

If you want people to engage you on an even level, you need to learn some etiquette. This is a pattern I've noticed - you so easily raise the level of hostility in any discussion you get into, for no good reason. Stop taking attacks on the enneagram so personally, because we're not attacking you.

 

[Vizzy]

Yes, I missed the point in my previous post - completely.

It is an objective system. Everyone has a type. Prove the contrary.

The enneagram had not been built but discovered. Like the pythagore theorem or something. And the enneagram was initially adopted by pytaghoricians.

The Enneagram of Personality is just a theory – one theory. It was developed, not discovered. And, uh, there's nothing proven about the Enneagram except for the geometrical figure that the theory was based on.

Sorry but no, it's not a speculation. It's not something imagined. Theses peoples truly exist and there type is phisically obsevables, there's not "speculation" here. You can type theses people, and then you can type other peoples, I do that everyday, it's a reproductible process, it works. Of course you can't put your head in the sand and neglect the reality to believe you are right, but that don't prevent this process to work.

I disagree with your claim that people are already in boxes. Perhaps this is more a matter of philosophy than anything else. From where I stand, typology develops the boxes and puts people in them. When someone is difficult to type, he or she is pulled here and prodded there so that they fit into a type “well enough”.

The Enneagram (or any typology theory out there) is not an objective system in the sense that it is ultimately true and correct.
Regarding your above quote, yes, these people do exist. And their personalities can be observed - to an extent, of course. As for their types being observable, what's observed is only what you know to observe. You can only see the boxes people are in depending on what boxes you know to base your observations on. Another typologist who uses XYZ-theory may have 35 boxes in his arsenel (and, hence, notices many nuances that you overlook). You do realise that this is all subjective, don't you?
It’s like claiming that people are born royal. They’re not. They’re born into a society that accepts the idea of royalty and a royal family. Somewhere else in the world, this person will be of a different class.

For some, even "5w4 INTP 5w4w3-3w2w1-9w1w2 So/Sx/sp SLOAN ILI Phlegmatic-Choleric, Concrete-Random thinker, etc., etc." is not enough. Once you start playing the game, it's sometimes difficult to know where to stop. People get a thrill out of painting a character (their own or someone else’s), giving each little part a colour in order to flesh someone out which, ironically, ends up being redundant as we see people as ‘fact-sheets’ more than humans. That’s one of the dangers of typology going too far, I guess.

I, for one, admit to not doing any of this for self-help, but for fun.

 

[Vizzy]

SX/SO

SX is what comes naturally to me.

SO is something I have trouble with. Nonetheless, it is something still used.

Welcome to the thread.
There seem to be opposing opinions about which one comes first - the instinct that's more natural or the one that causes more anxiousness...although one wonders if those are mutually exclusive.

 

[hhp]

Pathetic attempt of trolling.

Pathetic attempt at explaining anything.

First of all, I don't know if GWBS and Lady Gaga are similar or not; I don't know them personally and you don't know them either. So you're just judging them by their public image, or what other people think they know about them.

Second, knowing if somebody is more concerned by sex, or social relationships or self-preservation don't say more about their personality than knowing the social environment in which they were born, how they were educated or the kind of films they like. They're just personal needs or characteristics among many others.
Once you've found the general groups, you can go on forever making subgroups: you can type people by instincts, by the level of aggression they show, by their spiritual interests as opposed to their material interests, by their reaction to traumas, and so on....
But no matter how many groups you try to make; the final conclusion is that you can't tipify every little characteristic of every person, because all are different.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

The Enneagram of Personality is just a theory – one theory.

It's not because it's a theory that it's wrong.

It was developed, not discovered.

The pattern has been dixcovered, the figure has just been developed to fit with this pattern. It was originally an esoteric knowloedge -like the pytaghore theorem, wich is universally recognised as scientific. Enneagram is more on the side of "soft science", but still objective.

And, uh, there's nothing proven about te Enneagram except for the geometrical figure that the theory was based on.

It's proven from millenials that it works.

I disagree with your claim that people are already in boxes.

I never said that theses boxes were innates, but they are acquired.

typology develops the boxes and puts people in them.

No, people develop their boxes themselves, then the typologist study it and say what is his box.

When someone is difficult to type, he or she is pulled here and prodded there so that they fit into a type “well enough”.

No.

The Enneagram (or any typology theory out there) is not an objective system in the sense that it is ultimately true and correct.

Prove it.

Another typologist who uses XYZ-theory may have 35 boxes in his arsenel (and, hence, notices many nuances that you overlook).[/SIZE] You do realise that this is all subjective, don't you?

The thing is that there's not typology model with 35 categories, and there's objective reasons for that.

It’s like claiming that people are born royal. They’re not. They’re born into a society that accepts the idea of royalty and a royal family.

The royal power is dictate by a human authority, the type is acquired in an autopilot process. Completely different. You are next to the plate.

For some, even "5w4 INTP 5w4w3-3w2w1-9w1w2 So/Sx/sp SLOAN ILI Phlegmatic-Choleric, Concrete-Random thinker, etc., etc." is not enough. Once you start playing the game, it's sometimes difficult to know where to stop.

Not for me. I choosed to stop with MBTI, Enneagram and Instinctual typology. Some have choosed a more restrictive typology, it's their choice, but that does'nt prevent theses typologies to be accurate. Some others system are bullshit, I know trifix is bullshit, the others system, I don't know, but they don't interest me.

People get a thrill out of painting a character (their own or someone else’s), giving each little part a colour in order to flesh someone out which, ironically, ends up being redundant as we see people as ‘fact-sheets’ more than humans. That’s one of the dangers of typology going too far, I guess.

Yes, i agree, Aleksei is a good example of this. Plus he use so much system that id does'nt achieve to master them correctly.

I, for one, admit to not doing any of this for self-help, but for fun.

Yes, it seems obvious that you did'nt put too much thought into this.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

First of all, I don't know if GWBS and Lady Gaga are similar or not; I don't know them personally and you don't know them either. So you're just judging them by their public image, or what other people think they know about them.

Oh yes, of course, you have to know them, date them, marry them, FUCK them to understand that they are different. Of course. Do you realize how stupid it is?

Second, knowing if somebody is more concerned by sex, or social relationships or self-preservation don't say more about their personality than knowing the social environment in which they were born, how they were educated or the kind of films they like. They're just personal needs or characteristics among many others.

Once again, it's stupid, the social environment and the place you were born are not part of your personalityt like spontaneous personals behaviors. Are you too much idiot to understand that? Or just hypocrit?

Once you've found the general groups, you can go on forever making subgroups: you can type people by instincts, by the level of aggression they show, by their spiritual interests as opposed to their material interests, by their reaction to traumas, and so on....

Bolded are clues wich allow directly to find enneatype and instinctual variant. It's part of it. I don't know what you were trying to prove, but what you say is worthless.

But no matter how many groups you try to make; the final conclusion is that you can't tipify every little characteristic of every person, because all are different.

It was never supposed to type every little characteristics but to take in account objectives differences and emotional coping strategies.

It was never supposed to

 

[Rail Tracer]

Welcome to the thread.
There seem to be opposing opinions about which one comes first - the instinct that's more natural or the one that causes more anxiousness...although one wonders if those are mutually exclusive.

Yeah, I am with [MENTION=10500]Thunderbringer[/MENTION] on this one.

SX is natural, I don't have to think about it before I am using it. Leave me to my own devices, and it'll go on its own.

SO is natural in the sense that I "have" to use it, but that same tendency is also why it isn't as natural as SX. It is the subtype that I am the most "aware" of (that is mostly in my conscious.) My surrounding, how I am perceived by others, how I should act accordingly, etc.

I think of the first as a naive child and the second as an adult telling the child what to do.