Multiple Enneagram Subtypes/Instincts Instinct variant: dominant most damaged?

[Z Buck McFate]

From this site.

In theory, we are governed by all three instinctual drives, for they represent our most fundamental way of being, but one is generally more dominant and influential in our lives and defines the way in which we act out the passion of our Enneagram point.. If all three instinctual drives were in balance, we could function "perfectly" or "appropriately" to the needs of each situation. Nevertheless, such balance is rare, and usually one of these drives is "damaged" and commands an undue amount of our attention; and it is a person's most "damaged" instinctual drive that is overused and becomes dominant. The resulting imbalance distorts our perception of our essential needs, and we may find ourselves living large portions of our lives "in service" to this damaged drive.

So, question for those who have studied enneagram for a longer time than myself: is this the prevailing assumption or is it more specific to this site/this person (Katherine Chernick Fauvre)? I can’t say I’ve researched instinct variant extensively, but this is the first time I’ve seen this.

 

[wolfy]

I've read the second drive is the more balanced.

 

[JocktheMotie]

I've seen it mentioned by Helen Palmer as well. The thought is that your primary instinct doesn't necessarily equate to proficiency so much as it is more of a compulsion that dominates your energy. You are almost at the whim of its psychological demands on how you orient yourself to the world.

I'm not entirely sure how it's supposed to get "damaged" early on per se; I don't know how that happens or what that even means. Myself, for example, I can't really see how my sx instinct would become damaged while the other two remained unscathed.

 

[INTPness]

Interesting. It would seem that your last variant would be your damaged one (the one you "aren't as good at"), but this could make sense - that the damaged one is out of balance and, therefore, overused, out of balance, over-relied-upon type of thing.

 

[JocktheMotie]

Right. And by extension, your "last" instinct isn't necessarily something you're bad at, it's just rarely ever a focus. In isolation, you wouldn't even pay attention to it because it rarely demands any. It's only in juxtaposition with another individual where the lack of focus ever becomes apparent. When an So last interacts with an So first, the So last isn't really sure what to do because the other is emphasizing elements of the world around them that the So last is barely even aware of.

 

[Nomenclature]

I've seen it mentioned by Helen Palmer as well. The thought is that your primary instinct doesn't necessarily equate to proficiency so much as it is more of a compulsion that dominates your energy. You are almost at the whim of its psychological demands on how you orient yourself to the world.

I'm not entirely sure how it's supposed to get "damaged" early on per se; I don't know how that happens or what that even means. Myself, for example, I can't really see how my sx instinct would become damaged while the other two remained unscathed.

Perhaps getting hurt early on in your dating experiences, whether because you felt you weren't good enough to keep the object of your affections, or because you were initially scared of intimacy. I can totally relate to that. I know that it's true for 3 SXs in general, not sure about the other types though.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Okay yeah, I found this in Helen Palmer’s Enneagram book (and being only a couple paragraphs, figured I’d post it).

The operation of the belly center is largely unconscious, but can be recognized by the fact that we each have pressing concerns about issues that affect our physical survival (self-preservation), sexuality, and social life.

There is a teaching that relates to the subtypes. A cowherd sat on a three legged stool to milk. The milk may refer to the nourishment of teachings or the nourishment of life. One leg of the stool was damaged, and so as he milked, his field of perception was slanted towards the damaged leg of his base. What the story suggests is that we may have three primary areas of relationship and that one of these areas is more afflicted than the other two. As a result of one area of relationship being damaged, a mental preoccupation develops that lessens the anxiety that surrounds that area of our life. The three kinds of relationship are sexual (intimate and other one-to-one relationships), social (group), and self-preservation (our relationship to personal survival). As adults we are sensitive to all three psychological preoccupations that apply to our type, but one will predominate as a more deeply felt concern. For example all Threes will focus a lot of attention on security, prestige, and masculine/feminine image, but one of those words will be the focal point of more concern than the other two. If the three has been the most damaged in the area of self-preservation, then we could also hypothesize that the primary area of concern, which would be security, would also be affected by the chief feature of vanity and the passion of deceit.

It’s funny how finding this out fundamentally changes what I get out of instinct variant information. Instead of seeing ‘so’ as my weak spot- as if that’s what I should be focusing on, to strengthen it- I’m inclined now to want to focus on how a preoccupation with sp is the problem (as if the ‘so’ drive will naturally expand into my automatic thought process once I become more aware of how ‘sp’ was blotting it out). It’s like the difference between stars being lights in a dark sky or pinholes in the curtain of night.

I mean, I take all of this stuff with a grain of salt anyway because I don’t think it’s ever a good idea to take any typing construct too seriously, but this does make a significant difference.

 

[the state i am in]

i think this idea is just trying to presuppose solutions in a kind of halfway useful way.

whether damage, blockage, fixation, whatever, you specialize in that. i'm much better at sx, and hell, i also see no reason to assume that it isn't perhaps partly genetic too (my mom always talks about my tremendous focus as a child at 4, 5, 6 years old, voraciously reading and being read to, beating her in games of memory because i could just sit with rapt attention playing for hours. i'm still like this). although the basic theory of dysfunctional family structure seems to have a lot of so/sx types in the clown role, and hell, maybe a lot of serious firstborns are sx and sp, i don't know. but when i think about how so types are so great at recognizing and playing social games within social games, being able to think so broadly and be able to find general context as effectively as possible in so many situations with so many social game variables, i know that it's not just a kind of specific registry you have to pay attention to. it's not just a kind of awareness bandwidth that you have to attend, it's bigger than that, you have to practice, you have to build these kinds of insights, you have to compile tons of information about social norms, roles, games, interactive contexts, definitions of situations, expected behaviors, ways of performing, etc. attention primes learning. you have to be there in that kind of mindset in order to learn how to operate. with that said, if your first instinct isn't totally distorting you, i'd guess it is easier to learn from and integrate a wider range of contexts (probably more efficiently).

 

[rav3n]

we could function "perfectly" or "appropriately" to the needs of each situation.

Anything that defines what we should be is annoying. Isn't it enough that we know what we are so we can find our own way?

As far as our dom being the most damaged, uncertain of this. But it might be the defense mechanism we use the most to counter whatever shaped us so if that's what it means, I suppose I agree.

One thing about enneagram. It makes every single person sound beyond neurotic! Makes me wonder if it's a form of dependency tool.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I think I titled this poorly. The point is that it was damaged originally, and so the individual becomes preoccupied with it above the others to compensate for that damage. So it isn't necessarily the most damaged- in fact, since it's where focus unconsciously goes it's probably more adept than the other variant drives in a person- but it's more adept because a person is unconsciously primed to pay special attention to it.

And while I'm not saying I believe this is clearly the best way to look at it, I find it helpful/interesting that a whole new way to apply the information has opened up for me to consider here. I don't think it's possible to decide the best way to look at it before experimenting with which way ends up being most helpful in practice.

 

[Such Irony]

From this site.




So, question for those who have studied enneagram for a longer time than myself: is this the prevailing assumption or is it more specific to this site/this person (Katherine Chernick Fauvre)? I can’t say I’ve researched instinct variant extensively, but this is the first time I’ve seen this.

It's consistent with my own experience. Right now, I'm guessing so/sp/sx as my variant stacking and SO is definitely the most damaged of the three. I was wounded alot socially in my childhood.

I've read the second drive is the more balanced.

In my case, yes.

Right. And by extension, your "last" instinct isn't necessarily something you're bad at, it's just rarely ever a focus. In isolation, you wouldn't even pay attention to it because it rarely demands any. It's only in juxtaposition with another individual where the lack of focus ever becomes apparent. When an So last interacts with an So first, the So last isn't really sure what to do because the other is emphasizing elements of the world around them that the So last is barely even aware of.

Also true of my experience.

 

[King sns]

From this site.



So, question for those who have studied enneagram for a longer time than myself: is this the prevailing assumption or is it more specific to this site/this person (Katherine Chernick Fauvre)? I can’t say I’ve researched instinct variant extensively, but this is the first time I’ve seen this.

Hmm.. for me, personal relationships and security both seem damaged, though I think that more damage was done from the former, as I still greatly struggle with relationships, I only have a few very old and healthy ones. (Friendships.) Most are unhealthy and full of miscommunication. Security seems easier to fix.

 

[Southern Kross]

The link doesn't work for me

Okay yeah, I found this in Helen Palmer’s Enneagram book (and being only a couple paragraphs, figured I’d post it).

The operation of the belly center is largely unconscious, but can be recognized by the fact that we each have pressing concerns about issues that affect our physical survival (self-preservation), sexuality, and social life.

There is a teaching that relates to the subtypes. A cowherd sat on a three legged stool to milk. The milk may refer to the nourishment of teachings or the nourishment of life. One leg of the stool was damaged, and so as he milked, his field of perception was slanted towards the damaged leg of his base. What the story suggests is that we may have three primary areas of relationship and that one of these areas is more afflicted than the other two. As a result of one area of relationship being damaged, a mental preoccupation develops that lessens the anxiety that surrounds that area of our life. The three kinds of relationship are sexual (intimate and other one-to-one relationships), social (group), and self-preservation (our relationship to personal survival). As adults we are sensitive to all three psychological preoccupations that apply to our type, but one will predominate as a more deeply felt concern. For example all Threes will focus a lot of attention on security, prestige, and masculine/feminine image, but one of those words will be the focal point of more concern than the other two. If the three has been the most damaged in the area of self-preservation, then we could also hypothesize that the primary area of concern, which would be security, would also be affected by the chief feature of vanity and the passion of deceit.

I was just thinking about this the other day and I came to a vaguely similar conclusion. Although I saw the dominant instinctive variant more as a coping mechanism to counteract the pressures of the environment that your type operates in.

For me, I think I developed the social instinct because of the sheer degree of isolation and cruelty I felt from others. Fours do tend to focus on their difference from others but mine was taken further by just how extreme that was. This is mostly due to the fact that as a child; a) I had no Intuitive or Fi-dom family and friends, and b) I was badly bullied for years on end. I needed to read social structures and heirarchy because I need to know who to be worried about; in other words, who the queen bees and tough guys are. I needed to be flexible to different social situations because I was never 'at home' with anyone around me. I discovered the best way to deal with my isolation was to make myself adaptable to each group and social situation. I hypothesised that perhaps a sp 4 wouldn't have experienced such direct confrontation of their sense of difference as a child. Perhaps they were able to use avoidance and withdrawal to cope with everything; they were able to escape and seek comfort.

 

[21%]

I'm not sure what "damaged" means, but I can be very certain that I was never, ever physically neglected as an infant (ISFJ mom never let me out of her sight )

We did relocate once, way before I could remember things. If my infant self viewed that as threatening to my well-being then it could be as you said. (But mostly I blame it on my inferior Se not knowing how to deal with my surroundings)

Actually I always thought my sp/sx-ness came from learning -- my mom's pretty safety-based and she is always very prepared for everything.

 

[Thalassa]

Damaged? How? I was never molested. I grew up in a house where I was told that sex was a normal natural thing and I got "the talk" at home when I was about 8 years old. Of course, when I was a teenager my grandfather tried to tie me down in a small cage, but I'm pretty sure I was a sx dom before that happened, and that's why I scared him so much.

Nope, I don't agree with your theory. If anything I think I have a healthier relationship with my sexual instinct than a lot of people.

 

[Thalassa]

I'm not sure what "damaged" means, but I can be very certain that I was never, ever physically neglected as an infant (ISFJ mom never let me out of her sight )

We did relocate once, way before I could remember things. If my infant self viewed that as threatening to my well-being then it could be as you said. (But mostly I blame it on my inferior Se not knowing how to deal with my surroundings)

Actually I always thought my sp/sx-ness came from learning -- my mom's pretty safety-based and she is always very prepared for everything.

Yeah I think I'm sx first by nature, and sp aux by upbringing, since I was raised by very careful old-fashioned SJs.

If anything is damaged it's my last instinct, my social instinct. But frankly I don't care.

 

[Thalassa]

Perhaps getting hurt early on in your dating experiences, whether because you felt you weren't good enough to keep the object of your affections, or because you were initially scared of intimacy. I can totally relate to that. I know that it's true for 3 SXs in general, not sure about the other types though.

This didn't happen to me. Didn't happen until I was older. In fact, until I was about 20 years old I thought I had magical powers to make any guy I had a crush on like me.

 

[Nomenclature]

This didn't happen to me. Didn't happen until I was older. In fact, until I was about 20 years old I thought I had magical powers to make any guy I had a crush on like me.

No, but you did mention that you started to notice how people treated you differently when you started gaining weight, yeah?

 

[Thalassa]

No, but you did mention that you started to notice how people treated you differently when you started gaining weight, yeah?

So you're saying my sexual instinct is damaged because I place too much emphasis on being sexually attractive?

I could see some people being of that opinion, but I'm not. I used to work as a topless dancer and I know women much more obsessed with their appearance, et al, than I am. I at least have other aspects of my self and personality and mind that I value.

So I disagree. I'm still young. I still want to attract men and have sex. I don't think that's crazy.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

1. It’s not my theory, it’s something I found at some woman’s site (I credited her in the op), I was asking if anyone had heard it before.

2. Again:

I think I titled this poorly. The point is that it was damaged originally, and so the individual becomes preoccupied with it above the others to compensate for that damage. So it isn't necessarily the most damaged- in fact, since it's where focus unconsciously goes it's probably more adept than the other variant drives in a person- but it's more adept because a person is unconsciously primed to pay special attention to it.