Multiple Enneagram Subtypes/Instincts Another look at the instincts

[VagrantFarce]

http://www.triunitytransformations.com/articles/Primary Instinct.pdf

This should hopefully help some of you determine your dominant instinct.

Also, how do people who already think they know their dominant instinct feel about these descriptions?

 

[Glycerine]

SP:I can be weird about losing/lending things... I can be particular about my "resources", finicky with my environment but could care less about preserving traditions, heirlooms, memories, family history. The past is the past, why be reminded of it?

 

[Silveresque]

I think all my instincts are weak. I guess Sp is the least weak though, and So and Sx seem practically nonexistent based on this pdf.

 

[brainheart]

According to this I'm sx/sp, although I don't relate to the leadership qualities at all, for any of them, really. I can see the sp coming up more as I get older. But creativity, having kids, bringing something out in to the world, all very important. I got married and had kids young and I've always had dreams of creating something important.

As far as the social goes, the only thing I'm good at is figuring out maps; I love going to a new city and figuring it out.

 

[Viridian]

I find it kinda weird that, according to the pdf, there are no such things as sp/sx, sx/so or so/sp stackings...

 

[Savage Idealist]

Interesting article to say the least; under this variation of the instincts I'd be sp/sx or sx/sp, although the notion that the primary instinct dictates the next two is nonsensical and only further limits it's ability to accurately type people.

Although, in realtion to the instincts in general, I always feel as though there's something missing, as though there either needs to be more instincts in total, or that the descriptions of them need to be broader as to ecompass more natural human behavior.

 

[Silveresque]

Although, in realtion to the instincts in general, I always feel as though there's something missing, as though there either needs to be more instincts in total, or that the descriptions of them need to be broader as to ecompass more natural human behavior.

I feel the same way. Sometimes I feel like I must have no instincts because none of them seem to fit me very well. I've wondered as well if there might be a fourth instinct that hasn't been thought of yet.

But I think if the instincts were made broader, it might make it harder to determine your variant because there would be so many more factors to consider, and that way no instinct would fit someone completely. It could end up where Sp = this, or this, or that, or some other thing, and you might only fit one or two of those but fit them really well, while you kinda sorta maybe fit all the parts of another instinct, so how do you tell which would be your dominant then? Well, it's actually already like that to some extent, but I think making them broader might make it worse, or at least it would for me. I feel like they're too broad already.

One thing that could maybe work is to split them up more, making more instincts that are narrower, or else have variations of the instincts. For example, there might be multiple variants of the social/navigation instinct: navigation (maps), social climber (status), social critic, follower, etc. That way, you could pick the variant of each instinct that fits you best to use in your stacking, and that could solve the issue mentioned in the previous paragraph. But then you might end up with another problem when more than one variant of the instinct fits you strongly, so I'm not sure how much this would help. I guess there are drawbacks either way, whether you expand or shrink the scope of the instincts.

 

[Viridian]

Interesting article to say the least; under this variation of the instincts I'd be sp/sx or sx/sp, although the notion that the primary instinct dictates the next two is nonsensical and only further limits it's ability to accurately type people.

Although, in realtion to the instincts in general, I always feel as though there's something missing, as though there either needs to be more instincts in total, or that the descriptions of them need to be broader as to ecompass more natural human behavior.

I agree with you here, SI. Especially since some descriptions kinda boil down to: Sp = cares about self, Sx = cares about a few and So = cares about others (not the PDF in question, though). It's the Fi/Fe spats all over again...

Also, I've yet to see an example of a Sx/Sp Type One that isn't unhealthy... Sx 1s in general are "pathologized" pretty often, I think.

 

[lunalum]

I find that if I just go by the three words denoted by sp, sx, and so, I'm obviously very self-presevationist. But the more information I read about each of these in depth, the more I'm like "but no I'm very much not like 'sp' here, and very 'sx' here, but this 'so' part makes so much sense too!" With this slightly different system I might be slightly preservation overall, but the leadership applications for preservation aren't me in the slightest.... I still have strong tendencies towards creating awesome stuff and getting recognized for it.

 

[Mal12345]

http://www.triunitytransformations.com/articles/Primary Instinct.pdf

This should hopefully help some of you determine your dominant instinct.

Also, how do people who already think they know their dominant instinct feel about these descriptions?

I just know that I don't agree with any of them for me. Preserve: somewhat more than I used to, which I attribute to health issues. But before that came up, no. Navigate: My wife is the navigator, that way she gets the blame when we get lost. Transmit: I don't feel like that description at all.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

Transmit: I don't feel like that description at all.

You mistyped yourself, so it's normal.

 

[Mal12345]

You mistyped yourself, so it's normal.

Troll. None of the instincts on the pdf have anything to do with our types. Try reading before opening your yap next time.

 

[Savage Idealist]

I feel the same way. Sometimes I feel like I must have no instincts because none of them seem to fit me very well. I've wondered as well if there might be a fourth instinct that hasn't been thought of yet.

But I think if the instincts were made broader, it might make it harder to determine your variant because there would be so many more factors to consider, and that way no instinct would fit someone completely. It could end up where Sp = this, or this, or that, or some other thing, and you might only fit one or two of those but fit them really well, while you kinda sorta maybe fit all the parts of another instinct, so how do you tell which would be your dominant then? Well, it's actually already like that to some extent, but I think making them broader might make it worse, or at least it would for me. I feel like they're too broad already.

One thing that could maybe work is to split them up more, making more instincts that are narrower, or else have variations of the instincts. For example, there might be multiple variants of the social/navigation instinct: navigation (maps), social climber (status), social critic, follower, etc. That way, you could pick the variant of each instinct that fits you best to use in your stacking, and that could solve the issue mentioned in the previous paragraph. But then you might end up with another problem when more than one variant of the instinct fits you strongly, so I'm not sure how much this would help. I guess there are drawbacks either way, whether you expand or shrink the scope of the instincts.

The only solution to general descriptions of the three instincts would be to, as you mentioned, creat more instincts, with much more specific descriptions, or have certain subtypes, although I favor the notion of the former to the latter. Either way, there needs to be broad but few indicators, or specific but many indicators, this is true of all possible typology categories. Now as with the problem of individuals fitting several specific descriptions, I imagine that would be a problem much in the same way that everyone fits broad descriptions, but I think it would be far more rare, since people are far more likely to relate easily to vague personality indicators as opposed to very narrow ones. But negative aspects aside, I do think it is worthy of consideration as replacement to the current instinct system (not to mention that even numerous descriptions can be aligned in degress like the current stacking method).

I agree with you here, SI. Especially since some descriptions kinda boil down to: Sp = cares about self, Sx = cares about a few and So = cares about others (not the PDF in question, though). It's the Fi/Fe spats all over again...

Also, I've yet to see an example of a Sx/Sp Type One that isn't unhealthy... Sx 1s in general are "pathologized" pretty often, I think.

What I worry more is the narrow stereotypes associated with each type as opposed to the simplistic descriptions; the whole sp=self care/sx=passione for other/so=societal groups isn't as bad as the innacurate descriptions of this:

sp: consumerist safety obsessed sheep whom only care about living for its own sake.
sx: worn out junkie rock stars who NEED sex, drugs, excitment, and are completely reckless.
so: phony political nobodies who obsessively care about every tiny thing society related.

These negatively exaggerated stereotypical descriptions that I have seen may explain why some people have trouble relating to any of these types; it's because of innaccurate and poor information regarding the realistic classification of people. Case in point; like the negative 1 sx/sp descriptions that you mentioned.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

Troll. None of the instincts on the pdf have anything to do with our types. Try reading before opening your yap next time.

Is it an habit for you to say that the one who disagrees with you is a troll when you have not any argument?

 

[Mal12345]

Is it a habit for you to say that the one who disagrees with you is a troll when you have not any argument?

Troll.

<PLONK>

 

[Speed Gavroche]

Troll.

<PLONK>

apparently, yes.

 

[Jaguar]

Is it an habit for you to say that the one who disagrees with you is a troll when you have not any argument?

Yes. Then he *plonks* you.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

Yes. Then he *plonks* you.

It's how I understood it.

 

[Thalassa]

Yes. Then he *plonks* you.

and after he *plonks* you he tells you repeatedly and responds to some of your posts anyway, including some that weren't even addressed to him in unrelated threads.

Or maybe he only does that to people who remind him of his wife.

 

[brainheart]

I agree with you here, SI. Especially since some descriptions kinda boil down to: Sp = cares about self, Sx = cares about a few and So = cares about others (not the PDF in question, though). It's the Fi/Fe spats all over again...

Also, I've yet to see an example of a Sx/Sp Type One that isn't unhealthy... Sx 1s in general are "pathologized" pretty often, I think.

I feel like this sx description is actually pretty good, not pathologized at all.
I agree with it. I've always thought I was sx but I'm actually in a healthy relationship (gasp) which threw me for a loop. The four sx tends to sound completely whack.