Don't put too much stock into the descriptions particular to every enneatype, they're usually behavioral, vague, and not necessarily true. I don't take them too seriously, personally.Whoops, time to question my stacking again. The sp/sx general description fits me more than the general, but the sx/sp three description fits me better than the sp/sx three. Definitely don't relate to the masculinity/femininity thing said about sx-dom threes, though. Hm. Well, that's still two points for sp/sx and only one for sx/sp. Stackings are complicated.
Exactly. I have stated it in the OP clearly.Don't put too much stock into the descriptions particular to every enneatype, they're usually behavioral, vague, and not necessarily true. I don't take them too seriously, personally.
I advise you to put more importance into the general theory behind the stackings instead
Anyone wanna take a shot at this? :3 I wonder if this is true.Russ said that you act out the passion of the type in the dominant instinct.
You’re cynical in the domain of your blind spot.
Yes to the italicized!!! Now that is something about the social I firmly relate to.Topics SO types might bring up in conversation: cultural and political movements and developments, popularity, popular songs books movies memes, manners, social values, societal standards, rules, guidelines, social power structures (or subversion of the same; keep in mind that there can very well be a counter-culture or counter-group streak in Social firsts, and when the instinct is operating in health, this can be used to counter injustice or other forms of oppression etc. in ways that benefits society at large. A lot of social leaders that strongly and actively countered prevalent institutional discrimination and other oppressive norms were social firsts, Dr. King being a good example. It's about time that the social first=sheep stereotype be discarded), appropriateness/inappropriateness, friendship, family, inclusion/exclusion, fashion, glamor, fame, notoriety, organizations, clubs, group divisions pertaining to nationality religion race, etc., patriotism, civic engagement, influence.
I remember reading some theory where it said it was caused by your childhood environment. I thought it was on the enneagram institute website but I can't find it. Essentially it was along the lines ofDo you happen to know if the instincts are considered innate or not, according to theorists? Do they change over the course of our lives, depending on our experiences?
Just to clarify things; is it the dominant instinct that is thought to have been the most distorted in childhood? A response to early childhood trauma could lead to ignoring the related instinctual area (blind spot).It's recommended reading. Before I proceed, I will add that, in Enneagram theory, Variant/Subtype are said to develop as a response to early childhood trauma. RH state that Instinctual Variants indicate which of our three basic instincts have been most distorted in childhood.
I think the basic, instinctual nature of these drives is beautifully manifested by all the clashes people have because of divergent attitudes. Threats to the reasons for the dominant instinct to exist provoke people like the suggested importance of the instinct that seems rather useless for us (our blind spot).In course of our evolution as human beings, we developed a set of three core instincts referred to in the Enneagram as the basic survival instincts, instinctual energies, "drives" or "subtypes". These instincts are part of our body-based intelligence and key to our biological imperatives. They are built deep into our unconscious nature and aid in our survival as individuals and as a species. Instincts are thus more fundamental than enneagram type; they relate to our 'animal soul'.
Is that really true, is it really non-negotiable? I've understood that an unhealthy form of the dominant instinct is distorted and that one can even neglect it. I can see how a healthy form of it would be natural to fulfill its needs but based on the literature, the unhealthy form seems different. It does not always seem compulsive but ignored. One (and the only I can think of) way these might fit into the same picture is that due to stress, the dominant instinct first becomes more compulsive in fulfilling its needs. Then, if the stress continues further than the coping mechanisms can compensate, the dominant instinct becomes neglected. Perhaps part of its energy is directed elsewhere saving resources to fix the underlying problem.The dominant variant is the one given top priority, since this is the instinct that the person is most attuned to. There is certain rigidity to this instinct—it is non-negotiable; its needs must be satisfied. As one moves down the levels of health, the priorities of this instinct become more compulsive.
So-dom: You are so anti-social! You will never accomplish anything in your life! You should talk with others more, get to know people, have more friends and the right kind of friends! People will think you're weird, is that what you want?The third (last or bottom) variant in the stack is can be called one's “blind spot”—it's like an unused muscle that on occasion feels sore. One believes that this area is uninteresting and unimportant, that one can do without it. At the same time, there is shame associated with the 'blind spot' variant - a sense of deficiency. One constantly feels like one is lacking skills and refinement in the areas pertaining to your last instinct.
I don't know where they come from, but I remember reading a long time ago (don't know where) that instincts are considered more flexible than any other part of the theory. It's not really that they change, but life circumstances can cause you to "use" or not use certain instincts. An easy example is an sp-last having to suddenly care about bills and stuff in order not to get thrown out.Do you happen to know if the instincts are considered innate or not, according to theorists? Do they change over the course of our lives, depending on our experiences?
I'm pretty sure I'm soc last, and this is true for me. I can recognize that social drives and behavior is a good thing for the species, as long as other people are doing it and not me. I can be really cynical about it if I'm forced to be around groups of other teenagers chatting for too long without any other stimulation. My thoughts tend to cycle through things like, "It's all just a stupid, empty and pointless game, so IS THIS ALL THAT THESE PEOPLE EVER DO??? Kill me now before I have to spend another few days/week/three years/the rest of my life around this..." (the time is proportional to just how bored and pessimistic I am at that exact moment. xD)Anyone wanna take a shot at this? :3 I wonder if this is true.
I have an INTJ 9w8 so/sp friend who's extremely cynical about anything related to relationships, sex, intimacy & women in general. He's very openly chauvinist, but it's obvious he doesn't really mean what he says but it's just a coping mechanism to deal with this discomfort. We always teased him about it ^.^
Interesting. But using that instinct because you *have* to doesn't mean that it becomes your secondary or even primary instinct right?I don't know where they come from, but I remember reading a long time ago (don't know where) that instincts are considered more flexible than any other part of the theory. It's not really that they change, but life circumstances can cause you to "use" or not use certain instincts. An easy example is an sp-last having to suddenly care about bills and stuff in order not to get thrown out.
This makes a lot of sense. Just like the counter phobic 6 who is counter fear because he is preoccupied with fear. I am a social anti-social 8 because I thought a lot about social situations growing up. I had a lot of sibblings who always banded together ( may be because I beat them up all the time, lol) my attitude was like f-them. But I just realized that caused me to pay attention to their dynamics. I became anti social because of this but forever aware of social dynamics.social- large family or enmeshed in social network must learn to navigate.
I'm the youngest by a number of years of a big family. I always felt separate, but I spent a lot of time watching what went on. I think that's why a lot of social fours are considered critics/become novelists. We tend to sit along the sidelines watching how people interact and thinking about it/ focusing on our feelings/tragedy of being separate.This makes a lot of sense. Just like the counter phobic 6 who is counter fear because he is preoccupied with fear. I am a social anti-social 8 because I thought a lot about social situations growing up. I had a lot of sibblings who always banded together ( may be because I beat them up all the time, lol) my attitude was like f-them. But I just realized that caused me to pay attention to their dynamics. I became anti social because of this but forever aware of social dynamics.
I've struggled with my variant stacking to a significant degree; enough to realize that descriptions tend to be subjective, but this doesn't mean there aren't three distinct energies, with a total of six possible configurations. If you commit yourself to accepting that one of these orientations will offer the best approximation from which you can begin to track your instinctual habits, the pieces should somehow assemble to give you a strong sense of one likely stacking. For the sake of simplicity, I would avoid the descriptions on oceanmoonshine, and only use single-variant profiles as basic guidelines. It sounds like you have the search narrowed to three, with the common factor in all three of not being SX-first. SP/SO is mysteriously missing from your list, so I'm curious why you could see yourself as so/sp or sp/sx but not as sp/so.
Keep in mind also that each energy can be given any value in any individual; you could have an so/sp with the Social variant strongly defined, and the other two nearly equal, but still fit into the so/sp category; you could have an sp/sx with self-preservation and sexual almost equal, but still of the sp/sx variety.
The pattern that emerges between all three is usually a strong sense of tension and reciprocity seen in the relationship between the first two; the second is often seen as feeding into the first, giving the subvariant an infusion of energy from the middle instinct. The first is insatiable, so tries to suck as much energy as possible from the second. The third is malnourished and undeveloped, and usually marks the area of greatest clumsiness and cynicism. The personality doesn't care about the most deficient because it is weak, and it is weak due to a lack of attention. What I have noticed is that the first and last are both easy to see as imbalanced, whereas the second often becomes assimilated into the first, and is more difficult to detect distinctly.
Confusing first and last is usually the result of mistaking blind spot for focal point,
Confusing first and second due to failing to see which variant is really feeding off the other,
Confusing second and third from confusing area of balance with blind spot (pretty easy to do in the case of thinking the blind spot is balanced, as the natural sense of indifference towards it can seem to easily fit into the middle slot; but this won't help its development).
I would try to disregard descriptions that are more superficial, instead distilling the instincts into three defined energies. Remember that both SO and SX are directly concerned with relating; with SO the energy is diffused over a wider range of people, with SX it is sharply channeled towards one other person. SP is about independence and survival. Whichever of those is dominant will be colored by the second, and the third will drain the personality of a certain color. Hope this helps somehow.
[HR][/HR]Edited by - awakening on 14 Aug 2009 11:05:11 AM
good stuff, same with me but I guess with my 8 passion, I focused on owning them, all of them: society, lol.I'm the youngest by a number of years of a big family. I always felt separate, but I spent a lot of time watching what went on. I think that's why a lot of social fours are considered critics/become novelists. We tend to sit along the sidelines watching how people interact and thinking about it/ focusing on our feelings/tragedy of being separate.
Yeah, exactly. It'd probably be really draining, too, if you had to rely on your last instinct for a while, but I'm sure some people would become proficient at it. I had a thought earlier today that perhaps instincts could be thought of as similar to cognitive functions: our first is our dominant, the second is auxiliary, and third is inferior. Mind you, I don't recommend this sort of thinking to most people since most people have issues separating theories, but... WellInteresting. But using that instinct because you *have* to doesn't mean that it becomes your secondary or even primary instinct right?