Personality Cafe banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,223 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Instinctual Subtypes — London Enneagram Centre

I thought this article was quite good, and might clear up some confusion about the instincts/subtypes. One point I liked was that it described social types as socially minded, rather than necessarily being sociable party animals. I’ve been wondering whether I might be So/Sp, rather than Sp/So as I’d previously thought, but I’m very introverted and so it’s hard for me to believe I could be a “social” anything. But socially minded does fit, I think. But what do you think? Does the article reflect your understanding/experience?
 

·
MOTM January 2013
Joined
·
10,639 Posts
As for all the subtypes, the issue is one of balance. The danger for social types is their tendency to step into socially determined roles, which then form the parameters and limits of their lives. Group-determined thinking and behaviour can narrow our perspective and our options if our security rests entirely upon a need for inclusion and membership. Too much conformity can make individuals and societies overly rigid, or worse.
That's one kind of soc behavior. But there is also simply the social awareness, the awareness of the social pulse for example, the awareness of too much group think. There are multiple interpretations of crowds, groups, communities behaviours, agendas but how does it all fit together, alluded to in the same article, seems the essential focus of perception for soc stackings. Obviously we are all affected by the social sphere whether we like it or not but some choose to not place importance on learning about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
807 Posts
Does the article reflect your understanding/experience?
The problem is I think it should be broken down further. For example, the Sexual subtype should be Sx/Sp and Sx/So. Social subtype should be So/Sp and So/Sx, etc.

I don't relate to the SP descriptions in general. There was a recent discussion regarding it here. I agree with the idea that SP is more about boundaries.

I don't agree with the one-to-one subtype from the article. I'm not walking around unintentionally giving people 'green light' signals of sexual availability. That's just absurd. I would describe it as an intense or intimidating presence, but it doesn't have to be sexual.

From my experience, the social subtype from the article describes So/Sp.
 

·
🎀
Joined
·
11,795 Posts
I don't operate the real estate, farming is not my domain and I'm not anyone's mother yet :unsure:
So not a fan of sp description, not a huge fan of other ones either but it is good they explained So is socially minded rather than social, the fact that many descriptions don't even get that part right makes me wanna scream :frustrating:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,636 Posts
Yeah, I can only agree with the others on here. I feel like this article is okay, but it really is a "nutshell" explanation of the instincts. It doesn't explain anything about counter-types (eg the famous anti-social soc, etc). It's a good starting point, but most of us on here have moved well beyond this.

I'll add my own critique, just because I'm really bored.

As for all the subtypes, the issue is one of balance. The danger for the self-preservation types is that materialism can become their religion. For many centuries in most areas of the world, the human race has been living on the edge. Food, shelter, and survival issues had to take priority. But in developed countries, material affluence is more common than not. The challenge is to recognize when enough is enough, to refrain from over consuming, and to keep attention available for the other issues in life (including personal growth, social responsibility and spiritual development).

When self-preservation types are out of balance, when they try to resolve their insecurity or anxiety with eating, shopping, home making, etc.,
See, this can be one way that self-pres types disintegrate. Yet I have a self-pres mother, and she doesn't care about acquiring more money or consumption or whatever. She's not "materialistic" in that sense, and actually trained me against that sort of thing. What was challenging about living with her was an obsessive focus on "not spending too much money" (I grew up thinking we were on the verge of being out on the streets), and her sense of territory. Like an unhealthy sense--the integrity of her stuff and finances came before anyone else, and with old age, this is only becoming more prominent.

I just feel like this gives one possible interpretation of what self-pres is "like".

As for all the subtypes, the issue is one of balance. The danger for social types is their tendency to step into socially determined roles, which then form the parameters and limits of their lives. Group-determined thinking and behaviour can narrow our perspective and our options if our security rests entirely upon a need for inclusion and membership. Too much conformity can make individuals and societies overly rigid, or worse.
As fair as some of the social description was, statements like these are also part of the reason that people don't initially know they're social. I mean, I could easily see a social-first resisting this sort of rigid group-think and protesting it. Then there are types like 4, 5, and 8 who are notorious for not even considering the norms and utterly rejecting conformity.

Just...that hasn't been what I've noticed about people with the social instinct.

One-to-one types often have a certain glow about them. For example, their eyes may be very bright and shiny and they are usually direct and intense in making personal contact. Other subtypes can misinterpret this as being sexually seductive, even when it’s not intended to be, and one-to-one’s may have to watch that they are not unintentionally giving ‘green light’ signals of sexual availability.

Many one-to-one subtypes are drawn to activities or careers where there is lots of excitement, and are often the star performers of their world, whether it’s business, entertainment or psychology. Most actors and actresses, as well as gurus and tyrants of all persuasions, are probably one-to-one subtypes.
And I mean, I'm a sexual subtype as it turns out. And just this... I mean stuff like this is the reason I rejected it out of hand at first.
Like for real? And then you get people blathering on about how attractive they are and how that makes them sx-first and just...no.

Being sx-first doesn't make you "sexy" as most real authors are quick to emphasize. It means you have issues around this particular realm (broader than just "sex"). You *might* inadvertently give off those vibes, but more than likely to be aware of every nuance of those vibes and what trouble they can cause--so plenty of sx firsts are very reserved or calculated that way. Just because they're so aware of the issues involved.

And no, being sx-first doesn't make you a star performer. Maybe being a 3 could help you get there, but we're not magically gifted people just because of sx-first. I'd say "making to the top" like that is more social in focus, actually.

Incidentally, I wouldn't say I identify with any of these.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,856 Posts
Why is Sexual renamed to One to One?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
I'm an So first (type 5, so not a gregarious type) and here's how I experience social: I find meaning in being part of a group. I'm status-conscious and when I join an organization, I want to move up. I like being recognized for my accomplishments. I enjoy having a well-defined role (preferably "expert"). I am a 5 who collects people and contacts. I like having a wide circle of acquaintances. It is natural for me to regard people as a resource; I'm good at figuring out what people are good at and how they could fit into any project I am trying to accomplish.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top