[Traditional Enneagram] Can a 2 be a "2" Without The Desire To Give?

[Dreamer]

I definitely see some connection crossover between 2 and 8. They both can give out the eyeballs and in many ways not even know that they are doing it. In an effort to be free of all that controls them...many 8s will (even) unknowingly deny their own needs and either project or see legitimate forms of their needs in others and care for those people instead. While a good number of 2's on the other hand can feel they need too much (<-whether this is true or not...and it very well may not be). Whether it is entirely conscious or a somewhat hidden thought...they can even start to feel ashamed that they are being too "selfish" or "needy"...and it is in this state that they can miss how much they are actually giving to others...even if it is only of their heart, attention, consideration, time...etc. etc. in an effort to compensate for something no one else sees. Some Givers do have an awareness of how much they give and get pissed when no one gives back. But many don't have a clue for the reasons I just mentioned.


And quickly to clarify regarding ENFP 7...what you said above doesn't rule out 7 as a possibility. And 7 is definitely in your make-up one way or the other.

Wow! Hmm...this is a potential shakeup and I like it! I never considered or heck, even glossed over 8 before because I assumed it was very much Se territory or more of an aggressor's realm, not that I couldn't have a tinge of Enneagram 8 at least somewhere, but yes, control, or rather, feeling restricted is something I absolutely cannot stand. It makes me shudder just thinking about being in figurative chains, and is easily one reason it can be hard for me to make any sort of commitments. I like to maintain a level of flexibility and adaptability so that I can take off whenever my heart yearns for something else. I am very heavily motivated by my emotional desires so even though I often keep a to-do list or calendar going, when the date or time actually comes up, if I'm not feeling in the mood to do it, (if I have the choice) I just won't do it. In that regard, my feeling function definitely trumps my thinking function any day. So much so, that THAT decision starts to feel more "logical" than an actually objective decision to be made. Actually, mentioning that just now, perhaps it's less of a restriction I am worried about and more about maintaining that level of attention I give towards my emotions and catering to them? Well, that is at least for sure, how I am able to stay fairly level-headed with things and with people since I do give myself the freedom to roll with my emotions. I rarely go against them or push them down to serve whatever situation I am in. Sorry that I am all over the place right now. I tend to think as I type/talk so unless I sit here revising my words all the time, this is what appears on the screen.

Though, what you say about 2's feeling needy or selfish, and potentially miss how much they actually give to others, I feel, can easily apply to me too. Heck, I even mentioned that in a thread I started about trying to distinguish between function influence and life experience. Basically, there was a point in my teenage period where I made the conscious decision to be more open and helpful towards others, and just work on being a more giving person too, since I did often feel like a self-absorbed person and felt like it was absolutely wrong to be that way. So I took practical steps to working against this perceived self-absorption and over time, much of it became habit, and then ultimately, part of who I am today as something more natural to my character than a forced action.

And with 7, that's what I'm thinking too. I feel it's at least somewhere in my makeup, wherever that is. It's at least something I more certain of at this point.

Well another work week is ahead and may not have much time to think more deeply on this ugh. I will have to allow some time to reflect on things as I was socializing nonstop this weekend. Time for some me time

 

[HongDou]

Code for "bullshit", in the real world, that is.

 

[Kierva]

Incredible!

 

[Haven]

Also helpful to think of 2 as transactional, but please don't take offense to the word. Is transactional in the sense that the continual need to give comes attached with a sense of desiring receipt. If you're constantly outputting energy to others, you are doing that in order to get something back. If you don't get it, resentment and other negative emotions often build.

Is not necessarily selfish in that sense, but people do ascribe a less than altruistic judgment on this exchange of energy. 2 tends to overlap with Fe moreso than Fi, but there certainly are Fi users motivated by e2. Good luck on your explorations! I would suggest examining tritype as [MENTION=27952]sarcasmsunshine[/MENTION] points out above; could be very helpful to enable you to pin this down or exclude.

This is what the literature says, but it's kind of a red herring because this is something that non-2s say about 2s, while 2s would never say about themselves, so it's unlikely to be helpful for any real 2s. I know that this is everyone's favourite point to make, but it's a bit more complicated and it just isn't all that helpful IMO.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

While a good number of 2's on the other hand can feel they need too much (<-whether this is true or not...and it very well may not be). Whether it is entirely conscious or a somewhat hidden thought...they can even start to feel ashamed that they are being too "selfish" or "needy"...and it is in this state that they can miss how much they are actually giving to others...even if it is only of their heart, attention, consideration, time...etc. etc. in an effort to compensate for something no one else sees. Some Givers do have an awareness of how much they give and get pissed when no one gives back. But many don't have a clue for the reasons I just mentioned.

Let me preface this by saying I don't know if I'm right about this- but I'm wondering if you're conflating something like codependency with e2, though it's possible they're more alike than I realize. I seem to remember everything I've read about e2 though emphasizing that they have a keen awareness of (however unconscious- when unconscious, it's more like a preoccupation with) what they are getting back. Healthy 2s are able to give with the spirit of actual giving- they're aware of their needs and they can make sure their needs are being taken care of themselves, without unconsciously putting that burden on others- and they strengthen their connection to others through giving without unconsciously expecting something back. But unhealthy 2s- meaning, when their needs aren't being met and they can't figure out how to get their needs met- are pretty always preoccupied with what they aren't getting back (or just, the fact that they aren't getting something back)?

I think understand what you're describing above. There are people who give too much of their time, energy, inner or outer resources- that it's systematically disproportionate with what they get back, and they aren't aware of that imbalance. When they feel depleted, they aren't aware it's because they've been giving too much without expecting enough back in return. This happens in childhood when a parent/caregiver (however inadvertently) sends a message that a child isn't lovable when they need love or compassion and/or when they don't provide the parent with love/admiration that the parent is actually supposed to be providing- it can take a lifetime for a person to learn why they feel depleted/depressed so easily by other people. It doesn't occur to them they're giving too much without expecting the same compassion/concern/care in return- it takes a lot of inner work to learn to expect these things and to see where there's an imbalance, to inflate a negative sense of entitlement to a healthy level, because there is a very deep fear of becoming the person with an overinflated sense of entitlement in the process. They'd rather systematically err on the side of giving than be 'that person'. Such people don't go on and on about how they accomodate others without getting much back in return- because they don't realize they're doing it. Even when they're depressed/depleted to the point of suicide ideation, they won't go on about how they give and give and don't get back. (This is why, if someone goes on and on about how they accomodate- I personally think that, right there, belies any claim they "don't expect anything in return"- people who actually truly don't expect anything in return, who actually have a negative sense of entitlement, would never complain like that.)

Does that sound like what you're describing? For some reason, it would surprise me if that were really e2. I don't know how to explain why except to say people in the paragraph above will get off that hamster wheel when they realize they are on it* and not look back (they don't want credit for having been trapped in that cycle, they just want out, they want the depression/depletion to stop). Whereas e2 wants to be on it *but* they (and everyone around them) ultimately feel best when they're more fully aware of their expectations? I think e2s thrive on the connection of people helping people and they don't want off that hamster wheel altogether? (eta: [MENTION=13646]Haven[/MENTION], I notice you're listed as e2- what do you think? /eta)

/might be totally wrong


*I don't mean to make this sound like it happens with a single epiphany- it takes A LOT of micro-epiphanies for a person to finally get this out of their system, and I'm not sure it leaves completely. My only point is, once the hamster wheel has been identified, they want off.

 

[PeaceBaby]

This is what the literature says, but it's kind of a red herring because this is something that non-2s say about 2s, while 2s would never say about themselves, so it's unlikely to be helpful for any real 2s. I know that this is everyone's favourite point to make, but it's a bit more complicated and it just isn't all that helpful IMO.

My son is e2, and his strong visceral reaction against the idea of transaction was what helped him identify that he is, indeed, an e2.

How would you phrase this need for reciprocation in a recognizable way? Or are you saying 2s lack a self-awareness that makes it impossible for them to identify this particular trait? I would say, if it evokes a strong negative reaction, it's worth looking into that. Which is what the enneagram is all about, actually, emotional reaction. You're not looking only for head-nodding agreement when you read enneagram descriptions so much as noting how it hits you in the gut too and how much you want to reject or push back against the truth of what you read. For e2s, it's the "No, I am NOT like that, not at all!!!" reaction that should give pause.

 

[Starry]

Let me preface this by saying I don't know if I'm right about this- but I'm wondering if you're conflating something like codependency with e2, though it's possible they're more alike than I realize. I seem to remember everything I've read about e2 though emphasizing that they have a keen awareness of (however unconscious- when unconscious, it's more like a preoccupation with) what they are getting back. Healthy 2s are able to give with the spirit of actual giving- they're aware of their needs and they can make sure their needs are being taken care of themselves, without unconsciously putting that burden on others- and they strengthen their connection to others through giving without unconsciously expecting something back. But unhealthy 2s- meaning, when their needs aren't being met and they can't figure out how to get their needs met- are pretty always preoccupied with what they aren't getting back (or just, the fact that they aren't getting something back)?

I think understand what you're describing above. There are people who give too much of their time, energy, inner or outer resources- that it's systematically disproportionate with what they get back, and they aren't aware of that imbalance. When they feel depleted, they aren't aware it's because they've been giving too much without expecting enough back in return. This happens in childhood when a parent/caregiver (however inadvertently) sends a message that a child isn't lovable when they need love or compassion and/or when they don't provide the parent with love/admiration that the parent is actually supposed to be providing- it can take a lifetime for a person to learn why they feel depleted/depressed so easily by other people. It doesn't occur to them they're giving too much without expecting the same compassion/concern/care in return- it takes a lot of inner work to learn to expect these things and to see where there's an imbalance, to inflate a negative sense of entitlement to a healthy level, because there is a very deep fear of becoming the person with an overinflated sense of entitlement in the process. They'd rather systematically err on the side of giving than be 'that person'. Such people don't go on and on about how they accomodate others without getting much back in return- because they don't realize they're doing it. Even when they're depressed/depleted to the point of suicide ideation, they won't go on about how they give and give and don't get back. (This is why, if someone goes on and on about how they accomodate- I personally think that, right there, belies any claim they "don't expect anything in return"- people who actually truly don't expect anything in return, who actually have a negative sense of entitlement, would never complain like that.)

Does that sound like what you're describing? For some reason, it would surprise me if that were really e2. I don't know how to explain why except to say people in the paragraph above will get off that hamster wheel when they realize they are on it* and not look back (they don't want credit for having been trapped in that cycle, they just want out, they want the depression/depletion to stop). Whereas e2 wants to be on it *but* they (and everyone around them) ultimately feel best when they're more fully aware of their expectations? I think e2s thrive on the connection of people helping people and they don't want off that hamster wheel altogether? (eta: [MENTION=13646]Haven[/MENTION], I notice you're listed as e2- what do you think? /eta)

/might be totally wrong


*I don't mean to make this sound like it happens with a single epiphany- it takes A LOT of micro-epiphanies for a person to finally get this out of their system, and I'm not sure it leaves completely. My only point is, once the hamster wheel has been identified, they want off.

Possibly...but I don't think so. Should I have mentioned that that was a very condensed description of one possible expression for an entranced e2? It was only meant to describe how an unaware 2 could be a giver and yet not recognize that in themselves.


edit: I should add here that co-dependency is one of those words that has lost meaning...most likely from being overused inappropriately. As I sit here now I couldn't tell you with any form of confidence its clinical definition and it wasn't something that ever came to my mind...but what I can say is that I have seen "co-dependency" associated with entranced 2s more than once (quite a few times now that I'm thinking about it.) In the same way "narcissism" is associated with 7s.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Yes... because the fixation is not about a desire to give. It is PRIDE of their own worth.

The person feels that they are so awesome and wonderful that their mere existence is a gift to others. Giving can be a big show and/or reminder of just how great they are! There are often hidden (or not so hidden) strings attached to this.

A lot of low level to average level 2s will SEE themselves as "giving", but they can greatly overestimate themselves. Their problem is rarely over-giving (that shows up way more with phobic 6s & 9s). This giving image can cover (sometimes thinly) an insecurity about not being loved or wanted. However, the giving image is not the one all 2s choose.

Many sx 2s see themselves as & may act more seductive than giving. The pride is in the ability to win affections, which may or may not include giving or helping.

They may vacillate between wanting to embody that which is generally "lovable" and being "special" so as to be uniquely loved (line to 4). They also want to hide their neediness (from themselves as well), so giving can ease the sense of their own need (they project need onto others).

 

[ThaumaturgicTheorist]

My son is e2, and his strong visceral reaction against the idea of transaction was what helped him identify that he is, indeed, an e2. How would you phrase this need for reciprocation in a recognizable way? Or are you saying 2s lack a self-awareness that makes it impossible for them to identify this particular trait? I would say, if it evokes a strong negative reaction, it's worth looking into that. Which is what the enneagram is all about, actually, emotional reaction. You're not looking only for head-nodding agreement when you read enneagram descriptions so much as noting how it hits you in the gut too and how much you want to reject or push back against the truth of what you read. For e2s, it's the "No, I am NOT like that, not at all!!!" reaction that should give pause.

I think people over-emphasize the whole "you should hate your type" thing. That a strong "NOPE" reaction to a type indicates that it is your type. I know I passed over my real type a few times before realizing how much it actually did describe me. Most of my revelations ad discomfort came from realizing traits associated with other types in myself. Oversights are totally possible.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I think people over-emphasize the whole "you should hate your type" thing. That a strong "NOPE" reaction to a type indicates that it is your type. I know I passed over my real type a few times before realizing how much it actually did describe me. Most of my revelations ad discomfort came from realizing traits associated with other types in myself. Oversights are totally possible.

Clearly there's nothing in what I wrote that says, "You should hate your type" or that having a "NOPE" reaction indicates what your type is. Why are you posting this as a reply?

 

[ThaumaturgicTheorist]

Clearly there's nothing in what I wrote that says, "You should hate your type" or that having a "NOPE" reaction indicates what your type is. Why are you posting this as a reply?

...it was implied, and I've read it more explicitly elsewhere. That your type is the one that you are innately repulsed by, something of which I'm skeptical.

 

[Starry]

...it was implied, and I've read it more explicitly elsewhere. That your type is the one that you are innately repulsed by, something of which I'm skeptical.

I've never read anyone stating that you should "hate your type" or be repulsed by it which causes me to question whether we are even referring to the same phenomenon...But many enneagram professionals say that if you feel the urge to dismiss a type fairly immediately...or a description causes you a sense of discomfort to read...there very well may be something to that. And sometimes that something is you are coming up against your core fears.

People on forums often mention this phenomenon...as I did above...because it reflects perfectly their personal experience with it.

There can't be just one path to being accurately typed right? Or what do you know that so many theorists and laymen don't?

 

[Haven]

My son is e2, and his strong visceral reaction against the idea of transaction was what helped him identify that he is, indeed, an e2.

How would you phrase this need for reciprocation in a recognizable way? Or are you saying 2s lack a self-awareness that makes it impossible for them to identify this particular trait? I would say, if it evokes a strong negative reaction, it's worth looking into that. Which is what the enneagram is all about, actually, emotional reaction. You're not looking only for head-nodding agreement when you read enneagram descriptions so much as noting how it hits you in the gut too and how much you want to reject or push back against the truth of what you read. For e2s, it's the "No, I am NOT like that, not at all!!!" reaction that should give pause.

Maybe it's just a fucked up thing to say to someone, you could be telling someone that their main source of joy in life is a lie--a transaction. I can't imagine anyone being happy about that. It doesn't have the benefit of being true either, it's your own Te projections. Just keep chasing those negative reactions. I'm surprised you haven't made a type shaming thread yet, we haven't done the Enneagram yet.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Maybe it's just a fucked up thing to say to someone, you could be telling someone that their main source of joy in life is a lie--a transaction. I can't imagine anyone being happy about that. It doesn't have the benefit of being true either, it's your own Te projections. Just keep chasing those negative reactions. I'm surprised you haven't made a type shaming thread yet, we haven't done the Enneagram yet.

My main joy in life is (to use your phrasing) helping foster peace. That doesn't mean that it doesn't also cause me many issues when that need is out of balance in my life. Because when you drill into it, it IS a need, a need that's emotionally rewarded by my wiring. I'm not fond of the phrases that are used to describe e9's primary drive or when 9's are out of balance either, but that doesn't make those observations incorrect just because I don't like them.

And why assume a transaction is a bad thing? You're taking one word and assigning it negative valuation. Many transactions in our lives are wonderful. So are the reciprocal energies exchanged for e2 -- unless in unhealthy states, true for every type -- and that's one of the beauties of the enneagram, it gives us a spectrum of well-being to look at ourselves through.

Human beings generally prefer to look on the positive side of the equation. But that's what it is -- an equation. Equations need to BALANCE.

So no, it's not my projections ... gotta love how that phrase is so frequently tossed around here as soon as someone says something that evokes dislike. Your negative reactions are messengers about your own inner self and life, they have nothing to do with me aside from being a handy target to blame them on.

So check your attitude at the door and take a closer look inside instead of lashing out in this hostile way.

 

[uumlau]

A word about transactions.

Humans are transactional. Period. It's a built-in psychological building block.

Don't believe me? When someone hurts you, you instinctively want to hurt them back. When someone is nice to you, you instinctively want to be nice to them back. When you're nice to someone else, you expect them to be nice back, or at least not to punch you back or something. When you hurt someone, you don't expect them to be nice to you and you prepare for them to try to hurt you back.

We're all transactional. In the course of normal human interactions, it helps to stay aware of this, because it explains about 80% of why people get upset with you in just about any context.

Now on Enneagram types, the distinguishing feature of any type is what sets them off, their weakness, their Achilles' Heel, AND of course if you tell them that that is their weakness, only the most self-aware individuals of that type will believe you. As such, 2s are "transactional" in that when others fail to respond favorably in terms of whatever transaction the 2 believes is in play, that is what sets the 2 off. Moreover, they'll unconsciously put themselves in this position of trying to set up transactions that other people don't always recognize, or that other people recognize but believe are being forced on them.

Everyone is transactional. 2s get upset when they set themselves up for failure in these terms. They don't see themselves in terms of being transactional, generally, they see themselves in terms of other people being so rude to them, but that's OK, because they'll go on being "nice" anyway, because that is their particular self-important virtue.

This isn't to denigrate 2s: Enneagrams are about weaknesses, not strengths. If these are not your weaknesses, you are probably not a 2.

Overall Enneagram pattern, weakness vs perceived strength:

1s don't believe that they're angry, they're just trying to get things right.
2s don't believe that they're trying to manipulate people, they're just trying to help out.
3s don't believe that they're showing off, they're just trying to excel.
4s don't believe that they're masking their true self, they're just trying to be authentic.
5s don't believe that they're afraid of being useless, they just enjoy being competent.
6s don't believe that they're untrusting, they just looking for someone who is loyal.
7s don't believe that they're avoiding problems, they're just exploring something new.
8s don't believe that they're bullies, they're just fighting for what is right.
9s don't believe that they're suppressing their anger, they just don't think a fight is worth the trouble.

(These are just roughly paraphrased. The truth is more nuanced.)

 

[Haven]

A word about transactions.

Humans are transactional. Period. It's a built-in psychological building block.

Don't believe me? When someone hurts you, you instinctively want to hurt them back. When someone is nice to you, you instinctively want to be nice to them back. When you're nice to someone else, you expect them to be nice back, or at least not to punch you back or something. When you hurt someone, you don't expect them to be nice to you and you prepare for them to try to hurt you back.

oh yea, except this doesn't explain all human behaviour, like why we don't accept help from certain people, this video illustrates that happening. It isn't just "transactions"

 

[uumlau]

oh yea, except this doesn't explain all human behaviour, like why we don't accept help from certain people, this video illustrates that happening. It isn't just "transactions"

Your response is barely worth an acknowledgment, but I shall give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't just trolling.

Where do you get the idea that I or anyone in this thread was trying to explain all human behavior? Hmm? I said transactions are a basic building block of human nature. Not "the", but "a". I further said that it explains about 80% of why people can get upset with you, not 100%. A partial explanation can still be a true explanation even if incomplete.

If I were intent on being really mean to you, I'd bring up things like Godel's Incompleteness theorem, but that would be like killing a fly with a hand grenade.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

[MENTION=13646]Haven[/MENTION], I'd be interested in hearing about how your experience of being e2 does not seem fairly depicted by descriptions being posted.

(I think I understand what's annoying here- and I can forget, myself, to explain clearly why something is grating or seems unfair while I'm in the throes of feeling annoyed. But there aren't many e2s in the forum and this could be viewed as a chance to make a dent in the stigma- instead of just getting annoyed at people for perpetuating it- if you're up to it. )

 

[Mvika]

One of the worst things with being a compulsive giver is that people begin to assume you want something in return. I give because it is a true joy for me to give and am honestly grateful to those who allow me this joy by receiving from me in good faith. It makes me want to give them more and more because it feels so good. But one skeptic immediately makes everything inside shrivel up and the walls come back up! The giving stops and the fear sets in.

 

[Haven]

[MENTION=7842]Z Buck McFate[/MENTION]

I'm not sure if it's the descriptions or the people's interpretations of them, but they seem to emphasize the "other" like a 2 only wants things from others. To me this falls in the 3-6-9 attachment triad, it isn't 2. 2s have pride in not needing things from others, or not having needs at all. Things I get from other people tend to not make me happy, in fact, the opposite happens, the more I get from others the worse I feel about myself. It's hard to think of it in terms of transactions because my self image depends on my own denial that I'm getting anything in return. So there's that.

So I guess what's most annoying is that there is potentially a hidden neediness in 2s that gets misrepresented as the outward neediness that other types have, completely missing the point of what 2s are.