moral instincts have a desire in their heart to be good people, even when they fail at it. (like me currently, i become socially indifferent in a nine like way, that i just couldnt care to of coming socially acceptable ways at all, of course i dont tend to admit it to myself cause the desire to be good is so strong in me that i go into nine like denial about the issue. however, the issue arises on me time after time when ive broken some social etiquette so people are just mad at me for it. much like in this thread.)
same way productive instincts treat productivity as the holy rule about existence. they idealize productivity. like american dream, is so sp idealization of productivity, and the pride in their country which is all about capitalism, which is productive but not in a good way..
much like that, sx so, (china) has idealized productivity to such an extense that even children work there. (UGH, my word repair thing is saying i write extense wrong, how the hell is it written? >=[
The problem with looking at countries or groups as exemplar of an enneagram stacking is multifold.
One, the country probably still contains people of every conceivable stacking and type. The apparent behavior of the group may be based on the few components that stand out and not what the majority actually thinks and does.
Two, even going with that idea, the country also has a stereotypical enneagram core. There are cores that may tend to be more concerned with morality (superego or superego-prone) and cores that may tend to be less concerned with it (id etc.) If you want to say, for instance, South Korea
as a nation appears to have an so/sp bent as a 3w4 core (that'd be my typing of what I've seen of its modern culture), then fine, but you can't use that to exemplify the actions and tendencies of an actual so/sp 3w4 core
person because individual people think and act vastly differently from one another dependent on other factors in their lives, and their personal growth even along the lines of type. People themselves are dynamic and diverse, more so than the stereotype of a nation or group. So to conclude something about a group
of individuals on this basis, or even just their tendencies, is incorrect.
Along these lines, even looking at individuals as exemplar isn't correct. You could say that one person in particular is archetypal of a type, but you can't say they are exemplar, because so many people exist out there who aren't archetypal - they grow, they haven't undergone trauma to evoke the depth of their type, they have opinions and ideas that shift, et cetera.
What you've done in this thread and the other isn't breaking social etiquette, so much as claiming something that is illogical. First, the association of "production" with evil, which doesn't make sense in its own right unless you managed to define "evil" in relation to it in a way that is sensible. Second, the association of instinctual stackings with production vs. morality, when production (and destruction) actually takes place or has bearing in every area of human life, including morality; so much of human life is fabricated in its own right. Third, the failure to even take into account enneagram core in considering how stackings manifest in different people. I could go on, but there's just too much diversity and possibility in type for me to list, that you don't seem to have considered.
