Personality Cafe banner

101 - 119 of 119 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,408 Posts
Discussion Starter #101
Hey y'all, these all personality theory thingies for me are merely WIP. Work In Progress.

Not a single theorist, young, old, older, out there had done it really right for human is too complicated. What we can observe are only patterns which are not absolute in any way, for sure. YET i found them useful because human is one of my favorite subject and I'm willing to accept like 70% level of accuracy with cheerful curious anticipation for more progress.

We need to stay in the open for the sun is shining and it feels warm. :perc3:


Have i acted So enough? :eek:h:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,142 Posts
As far as sexual instinct = intimacy, Katherine Fauvre is another author who has emphasized this, and I don't think it's wrong to do so: https://www.katherinefauvre.com/sexual
Heh, but then you also have David Fauvre who identifies as Sexual and will emphasize the "intimacy" aspect, yet he really strikes me as more Social.

Interestingly though, while I don't think Katherine Fauvre outright uses the word "peacocking" for the sexual instinct, the way she describes it still sounds peacock-y, so her take on it feels both in line with "Sx is about intimacy" as well as "Sx is about sexual display"

(Anyway, in the case of Russ Hudson I would suggest anyone who is curious to check out his workshop for themselves but then I remembered that it does cost money which not everyone will be interested in paying, so :laughing:)

But personally I don't see an issue with there being different interpretations out there of the instincts or Enneagram in general. It's part of the beauty of it, as it's meant to describe inner motivations of humans, and humans are rarely that black or white or straightforward.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
What I'm curious about atm, if anyone has any thoughts, is how can you tell a distortion of the dominant instinct from the blindspot? Even in the notes posted on the previous page, it's described the same way.
This is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about when I say the instincts might be bs. You can say you’re SP-dom because you think/feel/act a certain way, or you can say you’re SP-last because you think/feel/act exactly the same way. Anyone can have any instinctual stacking. Congratulations, your theory is unfalsifiable! (That’s aimed at the various Enneagram theorists, not at you, @mistakenforstranger, or anyone else posting here, in case that wasn’t clear).

To be fair, it probably is getting at something real within human psychology, just doing a bad job of it. Even if you look at just one of the many interpretations out there, you’ll find a load of confused and contradictory information. So I agree, it would be nice if the different theorists could get their story straight, but it might take quite a bit of reworking to get the instincts into a form where they’re accurately describing the things they’re trying to tap into.

This Jung quote, about introversion/extraversion, reminds me of the SP and SX instincts:

Jung said:
There are in nature two fundamentally different modes of adaptation which ensure the continued existence of the living organism. The one consists in a high rate of fertility, with low powers of defence and short duration of life for the single individual; the other consists in equipping the individual with numerous means of self-preservation plus a low fertility rate. This biological difference, it seems to me, is not merely analogous to, but the actual foundation of, our two psychological modes of adaptation. I must content myself with this broad hint. It is sufficient to note that the peculiar nature of the extravert constantly urges him to expend and propagate himself in every way, while the tendency of the introvert is to defend himself against all demands from outside, to conserve his energy by withdrawing it from objects, thereby consolidating his own position. Blake’s intuition did not err when he described the two classes of men as “prolific” and “devouring.”
So, inspired by that quote, I have a theory that there’s one dimension of personality with SP at one end and SX at the other end, perhaps corresponding roughly to introversion/extraversion, where a person could occupy any point on that continuum, and the SO instinct on a separate dimension, maybe something like individualism vs collectivism kind of? Not sure if that’s quite the right way to describe it.

So the instincts as currently taught by most Enneagram teachers might be too confused to be useful, but they could be the starting point for a better theory, and that’s why I still play with these ideas despite all the problems with them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,258 Posts
Who goes back and edits the body of their post the day after someone replied?! Lol. It's like trying to have an argument with someone who changes what they claim to have said in the first place. And then a passive aggressive backhanded comment in a new post. I see I've been quoted elsewhere in the meantime too. Busy, busy. So much for (said in the original version, and in such a charmingly child-mid-tantrum manner):

I am going back to not reading/responding to your posts now
Promises, promises. Of course that^ rested on the presupposition that you can actually control yourself. You really shouldn't overestimate your abilities -- it's unbecoming.

I'm going to ignore the updates in your edited post, except for this new addition (projecting onto me that I'm the discussion blocker):

It's not really up to you to curate what info/avenues of discourse people do or don't have access to here and it's a disservice to discussion that you're so invested in trying.
People with authority issues are hilarious. "You can't tell me what to do!" (yet another mature display). Apparently we don't talk about reality distortion enough on this enneagram forum...

Unfortunately, I think hullabaloo like this can serve to intimidate people out of actually joining the discussion sometimes, lest they get caught in the crossfire. I posted the notes for potential disussion, not to trigger someone into another episode of never ending misreading/word twisting/goal post moving, so.....
You bring up this discussion idea again here^, so let's get this straight:

 
When I made a post saying I wouldn't trust 3rd party notes and offered an example to show why, who did I quote? No one. That was me participating in the discussion. People are free to consider what I wrote -- take it or leave it, as we all do with each other here all the time. It was you who decided to pick up my post, quoting me. Did you further the discussion with something like: "I checked different notes from that session and they do have contradictions which may suggest... but maybe... Overall I still think they're Z value for A & B"

No, instead you started with the personal level stuff (telling me my motives, telling me I'm not well read in enneagram and you started with derogatory stuff like I'm "not open" etc). It's like I join the conversation, in an impersonal way, and you open the kitchen drawer and throw the entire contents at me, knives & all.

You did the same thing to me twice before. Once at the beginning of this thread when I was talking to other people and you decided to jump in with a long-frothing-at-the-mouth-rant (which I just ignored -- it was so out of left field as you & I had never communicated before). Then you did it again in a 5 thread where, having seen how hyper-reactive you are, I went above & beyond to be friendly and make it clear I was just trying to correct your "5s are the smart ones" idea. What did you do in response to my "so sorry to have to point this out, perhaps you didn't mean it that way, feel free to ignore but I'll just note 5s aren't the intelligent ones of the enneagram"? You called me "toxic" and just generally completely lost your shit again.

I mean, it's funny and all, but then you start with the responsibility-shifting & reality-is-what-I-say-it-is (updated as you please apparently) and that's where I lose my sense of humor. You can be an unhealthy person trapped inside the delusions you create for yourself all you like, and be loyal to your beliefs despite evidence to the contrary, but starting with claims it's me who is preventing discussion, trying to make it some shared reality, nah, that's line crossing. YOU were the person to halt the natural flow of conversation here. You need to quit the projecting and take responsibility for your actual real-life behavior.

Also, when you imply I'm the one interrupting the conversation, with the way you word it, it seems what you're really saying is that I'm not welcome to join the conversation. And you're decision to publicly announce you're not going to read my posts anymore (*how I wish*) seems like it may be a secondary attempt at a sort-of exclusion practice (you had previously made a point to openly tell me I'm on your ignore list and that you don't read my posts -- but then later admitted that was actually not true, you do read them). All these 'revisions' you do...

I've bothered to point out this repeating mean-girl starting-stuff routine of yours bc enough is enough with the projecting & game playing. Leave me the hell alone for real this time (as you claim you will). If you say something in the future that, let's say, deserves an alternate view being posted (that doesn't quote you), allow me to have a voice without taking it so personally & getting triggered. I should be able to participate without getting 'punished' by your fixated beliefs & superego. You, like everyone else, are free to ignore my posts. As I've already told you before; there is never a need to start personal level stuff. You stopping discussion to deliberately argue/be petty/mean instead, as you chose to do, yet again, is what halts the discussion. Obviously.

Last point: What did I do when someone 'corrected' the information I presented in this thread? (Letting me know Riso/Hudson's book may be more Riso, less Hudson). I thanked them for it. I always appreciate input/help from others and trust they're just trying to help. I am not the reactive, easily triggered, fixed-belief, discussion-stopping, reality-distorting, mean one. You are. If you're going to do it, at least own it.


I've said my piece. I'm done with you now even if you can't control yourself enough to actually do what you said you'd do & stop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,258 Posts
What I'm curious about atm, if anyone has any thoughts, is how can you tell a distortion of the dominant instinct from the blindspot?
Hey :)

I believe the distinction is akin to how core typing is done. You look beyond the behavior into the motivations & fixation aspects.

It can be especially difficult to spot the difference between a 'negative' (or very distorted) dominant instinct and a blind spot without a longer look at overall behavior/knowing what's on their mind/where their chemical-emotional 'payoff' is.

So, example; two people haven't dated anyone in the past 5 years (despite having opportunities to do so). On the face of it they both look SX blind. Asked why, the true SX blind says something like "bc I haven't got around to it" (hasn't been on their mind). The 'distorted' SX dom, when asked, will likely say some weird stuff e.g., sex is too meaningful to have it, I need an ideal relationship etc (and SX stuff has never been far from their mind). [More examples could be made]

Similar idea with SP: I read once that a disproportionate number of voluntarily homeless people are SP doms for the reason they get to narrow focus down to exclusively 'preserving self' and in a constant/vigilant way. But then it's not hard to imagine someone who sleeps in his car on the coast to enjoy his free time/go surfing and is perhaps a little too chill about everything SP, calling on his parent$ if he gets himself into a tight spot (SP blind). [As one example of SP]

With SO, the classic surprise distorted dominant example is The Unibomber living alone out in the woods but utterly obsessed with society (writing SO manifestos etc etc). The cabin next door might have housed a similar loner but they're a SO blind who rarely gave SO stuff any time/thought.

When it comes to trying to type ourselves or others, even with a tricky dominant, it's usually not that hard since we all have a blind spot and a dominant -- typically at least one of those is obvious and then it's just a matter of narrowing down the final two.

I'll note that in enneagram language we're all meant to be 'distorted' in our dominant instinct ("weakness hiding as strength") -- it's developing the most undeveloped instinct that's meant to make us less distorted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,696 Posts
Heh, but then you also have David Fauvre who identifies as Sexual and will emphasize the "intimacy" aspect, yet he really strikes me as more Social.

Interestingly though, while I don't think Katherine Fauvre outright uses the word "peacocking" for the sexual instinct, the way she describes it still sounds peacock-y, so her take on it feels both in line with "Sx is about intimacy" as well as "Sx is about sexual display"
LOL, funny you should mention him, because I did have something written but decided to leave it out that went something like..."Well, if Katherine believes that, then where are her husband's feathers?" Though, I don't really think Katherine is all that peacocky either, yet I do get the sx-vibe from her (that is really absent from David), and I don't think Sx necessarily has to be that way in everyone. Some will be, like more extroverted sx/so types (3s and 7s, especially). One example that comes to mind would be Russell Brand. Pretty obvious Sx/so 7, while Colbert would be more so/sx (He's also introverted, but I think you could argue the so/sx makes him seem less introverted). I think it's interesting that Brand immediately refers to the "relationship" between him and Colbert, while Colbert switches to make a broader "social" (in this context) statement about how he doesn't like talk shows, which comes across more impersonal compared to Brand, less "intimate" in that sense. They're obviously not in an intimate relationship, but you see Brand has that focus, regardless.


(Anyway, in the case of Russ Hudson I would suggest anyone who is curious to check out his workshop for themselves but then I remembered that it does cost money which not everyone will be interested in paying, so :laughing:)
How much is it and was it worth it?

But personally I don't see an issue with there being different interpretations out there of the instincts or Enneagram in general. It's part of the beauty of it, as it's meant to describe inner motivations of humans, and humans are rarely that black or white or straightforward.
True. I suppose I'm more cynical. :Smilies1: So long as someone has "new" interpretations of the same material, there will be people willing to pay for it. Not to suggest that Russ is merely doing so for the money because I genuinely don't think he is.

This is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about when I say the instincts might be bs. You can say you’re SP-dom because you think/feel/act a certain way, or you can say you’re SP-last because you think/feel/act exactly the same way. Anyone can have any instinctual stacking. Congratulations, your theory is unfalsifiable! (That’s aimed at the various Enneagram theorists, not at you, @mistakenforstranger, or anyone else posting here, in case that wasn’t clear).
Yes, it could be easy to theoretically justify quite a few stackings based on this approach to the instincts. I couldn't post it last night since the website was down, but this is the only source I've seen where they discuss unhealthy manifestations of the instincts, which is taken from Riso-Hudson's "Wisdom of the Enneagram": https://www.typologycentral.com/forums/instinctual-subtypes/23158-descriptions-enneagram-instinctual-variants.html

When the personality becomes unhealthy, however, it distorts the instinct, causing these people to take poor care of themselves, possibly developing eating and sleeping disorders. They may stock up on too many things, overbuy, overeat, and overpurge themselves of unnecessary "baggage" of all sorts.


Less healthy Self Preservation types let themselves go physically, or they become obsessive about health and food matters, or both. Further, their normal practicality and financial sense may become distorted, resulting in problems with money and organizing their affairs. If the Self Preservation instinct becomes completely overwhelmed by personality issues, individuals may engage in deliberately self-destructive behavior, in which the instinct has the effect of turning against itself.
As with all of the instincts, if the person becomes unhealthy, the instinct manifests as its opposite. Unhealthy Social types can become extremely antisocial, detesting people and resenting society, and as a result, they may have poorly developed social skills. They fear and distrust others and cannot get along with people, while at the same time they are unable to disengage from their social connections.
When they are unhealthy, Sexual types can experience a scattering of their attention and a profound lack of focus. They may act out in sexual promiscuity or become trapped in a fearful, dysfunctions attitude toward sex and intimacy. When the latter becomes their orientation, they will be equally intense about their avoidances.
Now the blindspots:

When the other two instincts dominate in an individual and the Self Preservation instinct is the least developed, attending to the basics of life does not come naturally. It will not always occur to such individuals that they need to eat or sleep properly. Environmental factors will be relatively insignificant, and they will tend to lack the drive to accumulate wealth or property, or to even care about such matters. Time and resource management will typically be neglected, often with seriously detrimental effects on their own careers, social life, and material well being.
When the other two instincts dominate in an individual and the Social instinct is least developed, attending to social endeavors and commitments does not come naturally. Such individuals have difficulty seeing the point of creating and sustaining social connections, often disregarding the impact of the opinions of others. Their sense of involvement with their community, at any scale, may be minimal. They often have little connection with people, feeling that they do not need others and that others do not need them. Thus, there may be frequent misunderstandings with allies and supporters as well as friends and family members.
When the other two instincts dominate in an individual and the Sexual instinct is least developed, attending to matters of intimacy and stimulation- mental or emotional- does not come naturally. They know what they like, but often find it difficult to get deeply excited or enthusiastic about anything. Such individuals also tend to have difficulty being intimate with others and may even avoid it altogether. They also tend to fall into routines, feeling uncomfortable if there is too much that is unfamiliar in their lives. They may feel social involved with people but strangely disconnected even from spouses, friends, and family members.
So, again, how do you tell the difference?

Ooo, what's this!? Not exactly, but there it is...:eek:h:

In general, social types enjoy interacting with people, although ironically, they tend to avoid intimacy.
This Jung quote, about introversion/extraversion, reminds me of the SP and SX instincts:

So, inspired by that quote, I have a theory that there’s one dimension of personality with SP at one end and SX at the other end, perhaps corresponding roughly to introversion/extraversion, where a person could occupy any point on that continuum, and the SO instinct on a separate dimension, maybe something like individualism vs collectivism kind of? Not sure if that’s quite the right way to describe it.

So the instincts as currently taught by most Enneagram teachers might be too confused to be useful, but they could be the starting point for a better theory, and that’s why I still play with these ideas despite all the problems with them.
I think that brings up an important point that is often overlooked with how one's Jungian type influences instincts too, which is why I thought this from the notes posted before (although, I'm trying to be over Socionics at this point) was quite helpful and is something I've observed before with those correlations.

Important!: It has been noted that the descriptions of enneagram's SP instinct closely resemble those of socionics Si information element - link to discussion. A clear distinction between the two has never been made. It is likely that in development of Socionics certain SP-characteristics have been borrowed to add to description of Si. For individuals who strongly express SP traits this often serves as a point of confusion in their socionics typings (e.g. a ILI sp/sx or sp/so may be typed as an SLI due to being sp-first).

Important!: The descriptions of enneagram's SX instinct in some ways overlap with socionics Fi information element. SX instinct is associated with feelings of personal attraction and repulsion, which can be interpreted as introverted feeling Fi - following one's internal feelong reference points. For individuals who strongly express SX traits this often serves as a point of confusion in their socionics typings (e.g. a SEI sx/sp may consider Fi-leading types due to being sx-first).
With Social, since it wasn't included, I'd imagine it can be confused with Fe.

Being inferior Se, I also can't tell if that's the reason I appear/act sp-last, even though I may not be, and am just a "distorted" sp-dom. I generally don't care about sp stuff, but you could make that argument. So that just adds another level of confusion to this mix. :fall:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
What I'm curious about atm, if anyone has any thoughts, is how can you tell a distortion of the dominant instinct from the blindspot? Even in the notes posted on the previous page, it's described the same way.
Honestly, even descriptions that don't try to separate the distorted vs undistorted instinct can make instinctual dominance and instinctual blindness sound similar occasionally. Even more generally than what you're looking for, I went over the way I try to tell dominant vs blind instincts apart here FWIW. That's just me, though. I factor conscious attention in heavily... which I think allows for the external manifestations to be similar, the way they are sometimes described as being.

I discussed differences with a self-identified SP 5 not long ago in a thread in the 5 forum and I think what came out of it was that we're both minimalists, but I (the presumably-SP-last 5) am a minimalist because I don't think to buy things, she is because she likes to have stuff but also sees it (consciously) as too much to manage so (consciously) takes steps to reduce the amount she keeps. Granted, I can't tell you that'll be true for all self-identified SP 5s or self-identified SO 5s.

It's very possible, even likely imo, that a similar dynamic is occurring for me as for her. But for me, it's very below the surface. I don't want to think about it, and I mostly don't.

So it presents superficially more as a kind of absent-mindedness about practical/material aspects of life including aimless lack of acquisition (where it doesn't impact SO- or SX-influenced goals, anyway).

To abstract it out to one type, as an example, then: I might expect the "avarice" theme to be more likely to present in a material rather than solely informational or social way in 5s with sp in the stack, especially sp first, vs sp last 5s. Whether the non-SP-blind 5s do or don't actually hoard being irrelevant... the point is, it's more likely to be there as a known impulse and handling it is a decision they're aware of making if they need to make it.

I skimmed the other argument going on, but I wonder if the reason Russ Hudson is taking this approach to instincts now is because he originally typed himself for years as sx-5, but now I think (correctly) types as so-5, so he's saying stuff like this...
Does he type himself as SO now? If so, this is insightful. Though rather than being a discrediting motivation for his evidently trying to distinguish more specifically between types of intimacy - SX intimacy (fusion, chemical) vs SO intimacy (affiliation, bonding... he might be taking it more in this direction than I would though, which is why I remarked on it initially) vs SP intimacy (domesticity) - I tend to see it as a crediting one. If he, to his own mind, mistyped as SX for years, he would be more familiar with why a person might misclassify as SX despite being better described with SO or SP than most would be. Things like "intimacy" and "1-to-1" language being so hugely featured in many descriptions of SX being part of the proposed problem.

If the wheel needs reinventing, as far as descriptors that allow for consistency and differentiation between prominently different attitudes or vectors of attention, I guess he lived through a demo WRT why it does.

I do tend to agree with him. But I try to pull close to ["related directly to personal wellbeing (even if sublimated)" = SP / "related to the functioning of the pack or inter-pack relations (even if sublimated)" = SO / "related to mating (even if sublimated)" = SX] schema if I'm going to define this stuff, because I think it's possible to conceptually-if-not-concretely-or-statistically group certain human drives that way, and every other method is more free-floating and leaves certain behaviors and attitudes either homeless or too-arbitrarily assigned. I described all of that back thread, to you I think, in fact.

If you're going for distinguishing characteristics and are using that schema "intimacy" is IMO simultaneously overly broad in some ways (most people do want some type of intimacy, and there are multiple kinds, some not at all to do with mating and surrounding behaviors/instincts), and too narrow in others (not all intense pair-bonding includes true "intimacy" in the sense of accurate mutual knowledge though clearly it doesn't exclude that... it can be more about an intense feeling of connectedness regardless who the other really is or even whether it's returned... which theoretically would be what enables it to be transferred onto stuff that can't reciprocate like interests and activities, etc. as so many profiles describe).

The intimacy that is the direct product of mating instincts and mating instincts alone has a particular flavor that would need to be discussed. Mating/attraction/mating rituals can occur without intimacy of any realistic sort occurring, fueled by drives and giving rise to behaviors which don't fit neatly into SP or SO - and that ought to be factored in, too, if you're going to divvy things up this way. Just saying "drive for intimacy" is going to confuse everyone and their cousin, since that's about the range of people that seek intimacy in some individually understood form... and most of us self-type, so it matters.

I'm more of a nouveau-Hudsonian (allegedly-nouveau if you want to be picky) in that regard, as far as the semantics of this stuff go.

I don't think they're bs, as I can see them operating in people
I think there are instincts related to self-preservation, social organization and communication and mating/mate acquisition/attraction that operate in people, that are absolutely demonstrable. But in material terms they're more granular than the theory obviously allows for, yet also bleed into one another when it comes to external tells. Multiple instincts can inform any given behavior or thought or impulse a person has/does. That makes trying to classify behaviors/thoughts/impulses - let alone people - into one of three pre-set groups legitimately tricky if you're trying to come at things from an empirical/inductive perspective. If we were literal peacocks with less complex behavioral mechanisms it'd be different, maybe.

I agree with @Octavarium , in that if I was going to use a typology or measure for anything serious, Enneagram's instinctual stack wouldn't be a measure that would make the cut for me, at least at this point. Enneagram proper wouldn't either, even though I think it can be useful when used within the appropriate context. I think about the categorical boundaries anyway because they help me explore myself and other people in a personal/private way, and I do like to walk and chew gum at the same time.

(Above post is gum-chewing and I might reply to Octavarium's ideas later, possibly far later so brace yourself I guess lol... the walking of "how to make Enneagram-informed instinctual variants more commensurable in a way that isn't redundant" is a much more serious and complicated topic imo and requires more thought.)

ETA: I do want to say, if anyone has concerns or Qs about aspects of my participation in this thread (incl. stuff like post-editing habits, etc.) I will be happy to answer or explain, but I think they should be addressed via PM or visitor message rather than here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,142 Posts
LOL, funny you should mention him, because I did have something written but decided to leave it out that went something like..."Well, if Katherine believes that, then where are her husband's feathers?" Though, I don't really think Katherine is all that peacocky either, yet I do get the sx-vibe from her (that is really absent from David), and I don't think Sx necessarily has to be that way in everyone.
Well it's not always overt, it can also be more subtle. There are many ways of doing sexual display.

How much is it and was it worth it?
Don't remember the price, but to me it was worth it as I found it interesting. It's hard to assess how worth it it would be to someone else, but I think the video posted earlier would give an idea how interesting it would be.

(Also I didn't realize you had quoted me :thinking2: I probably have more I should say, but well...)

In the case of Fi vs Sx, Fi is a rational function so it's more about what you find agreeable or not based on reasoning, while Sx is an instinct thus it doesn't rely on reasoning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,711 Posts
It seems to me this thread isn't so much explicitly describing the Social instinct but instead offering an example of it at work through the interaction of the discussion itself. How unexpected. Anyone else seeing that?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
It seems to me this thread isn't so much explicitly describing the Social instinct but instead offering an example of it at work through the interaction of the discussion itself. How unexpected. Anyone else seeing that?
Interesting. What are you noticing about interactions in this thread that’s specific to the Social instinct?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,711 Posts
Interesting. What are you noticing about interactions in this thread that’s specific to the Social instinct?
One example seems to be a lot of reference to what experts in the Enneagram community say rather than one's own personal experience.

It's like a deferment to what the important others in the community are saying rather than one's own personal experience. I see much more reference to personal experience in the SP and SX threads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
It's like a deferment to what the important others in the community are saying rather than one's own personal experience. I see much more reference to personal experience in the SP and SX threads.
It does seem like we are seeing a lot of citations. Although most people making citations are describing selective disagreement as well as agreement with what various "experts" are saying, so I'd characterize it more as explicit use of community points of reference.

(At that, I'm not sure whether this is purely SO at work, or whether early events of the thread - which IIRC involved people being poked at if they didn't give explicit citations - are influencing the conventions that have since developed in-thread.)

I don't really think I experience any of the instincts as such, anyway; all I can really do is classify my behavior, etc. as best makes sense, and describe that. There is no "this is how SO feels" for me. The way I think of instinctual variants is not intuitive at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,142 Posts
One example seems to be a lot of reference to what experts in the Enneagram community say rather than one's own personal experience.

It's like a deferment to what the important others in the community are saying rather than one's own personal experience. I see much more reference to personal experience in the SP and SX threads.
Definitions were brought up in the Sx thread as well, so this is not much different from that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,142 Posts
Now the blindspots:

So, again, how do you tell the difference?
Oh yeah :laughing: doesn't help that I find myself conflicted/concerned with all three instincts in some way and none of them feel completely blind. But I can at least tell I'm not Sx because I don't sexually display much :fall: so I think that's a useful distinction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,711 Posts
Definitions were brought up in the Sx thread as well, so this is not much different from that.
I'm not just referring to the latest two threads but the many threads about each instinct that I've seen over the years here. Though I do see nuanced differences even in the latest threads, but if you don't see it then you don't see it.

Thinking about it, maybe part of it is that I'm looking at it in the context of each poster's preferred instinct (when possible) and not simply the thread overall.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
One example seems to be a lot of reference to what experts in the Enneagram community say rather than one's own personal experience.

It's like a deferment to what the important others in the community are saying rather than one's own personal experience. I see much more reference to personal experience in the SP and SX threads.
Yeah, I was vaguely thinking it might be something like that, but I haven’t spent enough time looking at different instinct threads to form definite impressions, so it was helpful to have it made explicit.

I’m not really seeing deference, though, as @baitedcrow said. I’m thinking this might be a common misunderstanding of SO instinct traits. One of the subtypes I’ve considered for myself is the Social 6. As Chestnut describes the type, in some ways I relate quite a lot to that mindset, but then it comes with all this falling in line with authority stuff that I don’t relate to. Chestnut says of SO 6s:
Chestnut said:
The name given to this type by Ichazo is "Duty," which doesn't mean they "do their duty" (though they often do) as much as it means that they focus on "what their duty is."
which I relate to, in that I want to know what’s expected of me, whether I end up going along with that or not. So I could imagine Chestnut, or Naranjo, having written that description after having observed a certain type of person who wants to know what the rules and reference points are, what the experts say, and assuming they want to know that because they want to treat them as authorities, when, at least for me, it’s more about understanding the system so I can predict the consequences of my choices, or knowing what’s already been said about a theory so I can have an informed opinion about it, whether my opinion lines up with established experts or not. Or, on the other hand, maybe there is a certain type of person who does fit that description, and I don’t fully relate to it because it’s not my type. I’ve no idea at this point.

I’ve sometimes got the impression that some people on here have perceived me as someone who thinks that just because it’s written in a book by an established author, that automatically makes it right, and maybe people think that because I sometimes respond to points with quotes from books and websites. But I do that because I think the quote is an interesting addition to the discussion, whether I agree with it or not, or because I want to show that people who disagree with the poster I’m responding to aren’t necessarily ignorant of the theory (some of the books give an interpretation contrary to what the person is promoting as the one true version of typology), or because I want to get clear on whether the person has misunderstood the existing literature or whether they’re consciously inventing their own theory. So it’s about establishing what the reference points are, but not necessarily deference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,142 Posts
One example seems to be a lot of reference to what experts in the Enneagram community say rather than one's own personal experience.

It's like a deferment to what the important others in the community are saying rather than one's own personal experience. I see much more reference to personal experience in the SP and SX threads.
Looking at this again I'm like really. I didn't see "deferment to important others" as the point at all.

But of course, someone's going to interpret things in whichever way based on their own bias. Projection is always fun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,711 Posts
Looking at this again I'm like really. I didn't see "deferment to important others" as the point at all.
For me, quoting of the "experts" or reference to books or consensus stands in stark contrast to people's first-hand experience of living the type. It seems like my social-last attitude that holds little value for the former and much greater value for the latter.
 
101 - 119 of 119 Posts
Top