Personality Cafe banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Claudio Naranjo’s Subtypes Program: Part 2 – Content - The Enneagram in Business
Do We Have Only One Subtype? Claudio would say yes and no. What he actually said is that one of the three subtypes is generally dormant throughout our life (that is, it is the instinctual area in which we hardly pay attention to our needs), and two of them are more activated (although the subtype behavior is a neurotic way of getting our needs met in these areas). With the two activated subtypes, one is dominant, although when we were younger, the other activated subtype may have been more dominant than the one we manifest as we get older.

What do y'all think? Is it true that e.g. I was more of sp1 when I was a child, then as I grow up I became more of sx1? If it's true then am I sp-dom or sx-dom?

DOMINANT INSTINCT The first instinct in our stacking is the dominant one, or the one that we are most focused on. This instinct is so powerful in us that we almost can’t see it. This is similar to the way we need oxygen desperately without being conscious of it or knowing how it works. People can sometimes think that their dominant instinct is their blind spot, because it can be difficult to observe our intrinsic behaviour as being separate from who we are. Also, it just seems so obvious that this stuff is the most important, that it is difficult to imagine NOT focusing on it. This instinct can either be SP, SX, or SO. The large majority of the population dominates with SP, as it is the most basic of survival needs. SECONDARY INSTINCT The second instinct in our stacking is one that we focus on, but the stakes feel lower when we react to those issues. In can work to either support or antagonize the dominant instinct, where most of our energy is spent. This area is a place we might feel comfortable dipping our feet in without plunging into the deep end, as the dominant instinct pulls focus. This is the instinct that causes us the least problems. The dominant and secondary instinct dually form the general focus of our lives. Nevertheless, this area can be reactive and problematic as well, as it is still an instinctual focus.

Do y'all think when we start finding out about instincts, the first instinct we think we are is actually our secondary instinct instead of our dom? Then afterwards when we find out more and read more then we know what is our dom instinct? Have y'all had this experience? ^
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Just a side note, I know enneagram is more of the motivation behind actions but sometimes I just forgot the motivations already when I was young, so I do use behavioural terms to help me differentiate. But I think it's pretty accurate, it's not stereotypical or anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
564 Posts
Actually in my case yes. I identified myself as SO first. I was a little blind to the fact that I'm SX because intimacy with females was such a problem area for me. I didn't quite grasp the concept that it being a problem area for me could actually indicate that I'm SX. I don't think I wanted to see it because that fact would be disturbing to me given my troubles in the love/romance arena.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
564 Posts
It can be a difficult thing to live with if you're SX and you simply don't have to offer what the vast majority of your preferred sex wants. I had to really do some soul searching and make sense of it in a way that wouldn't drive me insane or leave me hating my preferred sex. I've done an okay job considering...…..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glad

·
Registered
INFP 9w1
Joined
·
788 Posts
Yes, our dominant subtype is so intense and dominating in our life that we usually don't even see it. We also use our second instinct to get the needs of our first instinct met. That means a so/sp may want to eat healthy, have a nice job, exercise... but not necessarily for his own health (although that will probably be on his mind as a main reason, because it's socially accepted), but to appear well put-together and pretty and fit. Or a sp/so might have a lot of friends, go out a lot and all that, but more so to get this stable network of friends to rely on. Some teachers say that the dominant instinct can be so intense that it will be completely turned around - for example a social dominant might be extremely introverted and withdrawn. But in his head he will still be focusing on the social engine. "I'm such an outcast, I don't fit in, people suck so much, humanity is doomed!".

It can be pretty tricky. I also can't figure my instincts out yet. I think I will need a professional typing for that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Some teachers say that the dominant instinct can be so intense that it will be completely turned around - for example a social dominant might be extremely introverted and withdrawn.
I think it's not the intensity of the instinct but the healthy or unhealthy you. if you are healthy, you will be more balanced, if you r unhealthy, you will be more 'intense' like e.g. all the time you are socialising and think about related stuff that you didn't do your work or rejecting the society cos you cant fit in and hating on the world ect...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I wonder if this is based on actual research or if this is just them guessing.

Edit: "the most basic of survival needs" makes no sense when speaking of instincts. One instinct is more basic than the others? I don't think so.
I have no idea man, but I like to believe that sp instinct doesn't dominate our population bcos then it will make sx and so become the minority?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
564 Posts
I have no idea man, but I like to believe that sp instinct doesn't dominate our population bcos then it will make sx and so become the minority?
Then that would make sx people seem even more overly emotional, obsessed, intense to the point of being called "psycho", and desperate, if they're less common, and therefore less "normal".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glad

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,830 Posts
I wonder if this is based on actual research or if this is just them guessing.

Edit: "the most basic of survival needs" makes no sense when speaking of instincts. One instinct is more basic than the others? I don't think so.
Sure it makes sense. SP is related to the basic necessities of survival. People can survive without social groups and without intensity, but we can't survive without, for example, physical safety and food.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Then that would make sx people seem even more overly emotional, obsessed, intense to the point of being called "psycho", and desperate, if they're less common, and therefore less "normal".
Ya omgg! Which is why idw any instinct to be the majority but anyway theres no stats about this so I dun believe in that statement that the website states.
Sure it makes sense. SP is related to the basic necessities of survival. People can survive without social groups and without intensity, but we can't survive without, for example, physical safety and food.
But actl I think it is not very accurate. I believe in survival mode everybody would care more about sp and be inclined towards sp, but even in survival mode I think there are also differences like imagine in a world of zombies sp may be harder to trust ppl while so may be the one that is getting ppl tgt idk? But I think the instincts are inclinations towards a certain area and bcos we are in a relatively safe and peaceful era, we have to freedom to pursue what area we want to pursue, so I dun think this statement is all that accurate
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,200 Posts
Sure it makes sense. SP is related to the basic necessities of survival. People can survive without social groups and without intensity, but we can't survive without, for example, physical safety and food.
It's a nice little theory (though false), sure, but on what basis or research? It's nothing but conjecture that "Enneagrammer" claims as a truth, yet they don't provide any research for such a bold claim.

Still, this is easy to counter.
"People" cannot live without sex as the human race would die out - this is where the Sexual instinct comes in (you falsely represented the sexual instinct as merely being about "intensity," when clearly the biological root of the instinct is about sex and reproduction). So many mammalian species (and others, such as insect colonies) involve a social component to their existence, indicating that it is likely extremely vital (and thus "basic") to their survival. Social isolation has also been consistently proven to be extremely detrimental to one's health, including physical health.

There is zero basis for the claim that Sp is more "basic" than the other two instincts, and there is no evidence for its supposed prevalence either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,732 Posts
This statement is simply a reflection of how the author defines SP.

In the 1990's, the instincts were called SURVIVAL INSTINCTS.
SP - survival by going it alone
SX - survival through bonding with another
SO - survival through community

Somewhere some have taken Self-Preservation to mean Self-Survival. All three instincts are about self-survival. They just do it through different means.

I find it more useful to think of Self-Preservation as preserving a separate sense of self in that I don't want to lose who I am to a relationship (SX) or community (SO). This can result in a boundaried sense of autonomy when compared to the other two instincts.

Also, some take the labels literally which I think is also a mistake. IMO, they work better as metaphors to help understand the distinctions. Take them too literally and who knows what you get (e.g., SX is not about sex).
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top