# What does the position of the instinct mean?



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Instinctual stacking implies the instincts (sp, sx, so) have a preferential order for each individual (1st, 2nd, 3rd or last). This is not the same as instinctual subtypes as taught by Naranjo, Chestnut, etc. where you only emphasize one instinct and it creates a subtype of a main type (e.g., sp1).

I find the stacking to not simply be about preferential ordering but that each position has a different meaning. Something like the following:

1st instinct - it's what the individual tends to seek out.
2nd instinct - it's where the individual lives much of the time, somewhat like a resource for their type.
3rd instinct - it's what the individual avoids or ignores, some call it a blind spot.

If you use instinctual stacking (I'm not interested in hearing arguments against it in this thread), what do you think each instinctual position means?


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

just my own interpretation based on what has been the most fitting and adaptable. i would describe the first instinct as an area dictating a compulsive nature, more than a place for enjoyment which seems more of a secondary instinctual attitude but where an element of stress enters the picture when this need is not fulfilled. the secondary instinct seems more ambiguous in it's strength or priority, e.g there are sp/sx's seeking different amounts of intensity and to add, id say this instinctual position is what the individual tends to seek out rather than constantly monitor it. it is an area of curiosity and enjoyment where the individual can take or leave it more than the dominant instinct. the third instinct in my personal opinion may remain an ignored aspect of survival or something that is akin to living under the bed, like a curiosity or feeling incompetent here or disinterested in it. it has also been viewed as the last instinct to develop which changes the nature of attitudes towards each instinctual area so that after the dominant instinct has been attended to and then the second, the weaker muscle related to the third instinct. some sources contradict this though in terms of our instinctual stackings interrupting us from experiencing a freer existence away from the confines of what our stacking places us in.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

There's something interesting regarding type and stacking that I've also noticed. I'll use my type sx/sp 5 as an example. 

2nd position (sp) - this is where my type 5 is comfortable, at home if you will, my type 5 operates naturally to produce its knowledge
1st position (sx) - this is where my type 5 looks to bring its knowledge to share, I package the knowledge for sx
3rd position (so) - this is where my type 5 doesn't seem to work very well, feels like no one is interested in the knowledge as I package it

It's almost like I tend to produce my type 5 product (knowledge) in my 2nd instinct (sp), desire to bring that to my 1st instinct (sx), give up on bringing it to my 3rd/last instinct (so).

A thought that comes to me while I'm writing this is that a simple way to move from 1st to last might have to do with how I package my knowledge (sx for what the other needs is my habit, social for what the group needs is something I could develop by taking more into account what type of knowledge the group needs).


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

For me, it's more like:

1st - Where I "live," what is always on my mind
2nd - Where I "vacation," what makes me feel at ease
3rd - What I ignore, what makes me feel inadequate

I can't turn the SP part of me off, it's so ingrained. It's always a consideration, always a concern. A lot of it seems obvious, like common sense, and sometimes I can be judgmental from an SP standpoint.

The SX, I find enjoyment in. I do have some reservations and cautiousness surrounding it, but those are from poor experiences, not innate. From this I connect to hobbies, to people, to experiences. I don't _need_ it as much as I do SP, but I won't be happy without it.

SOC can surprise me when it comes up, because I never think about it. On the one hand, I expect some SOC (having grown up in a SOC-heavy family), but it's usually more local and I always find it boring. The "wider" SOC is something I literally have to study -- I read about it, never notice it on my own. Sometimes (not often) I feel guilty over not caring about it; sometimes because it makes my family/friends happy, sometimes because it seems so obvious after I've read about it that I should've realized it on my own. A lot of times I wonder why anyone bothers putting energy into SOC, because sometimes it seems petty or superficial. (I do love SOC in people and even seek it out. It's just that there's multiple ways for it to manifest, and a couple manifestations are meh.)


----------



## Arya (Oct 17, 2012)

In my case I'd say my first instinct is what I have to have or I get really anxious. So I guess if you take it all under my main type, which is six, my first instinct is where I look for security and what I get most anxious about. My second instinct is what I'm most comfortable at, and also the instinct I use to gain what my first instinct wants. My last instinct is what I have trouble wanting to have anything to do with. It's not that I ignore it. Not at all. I am a six after all. My last instinct is SP, so for me it goes like this: I will wake up tomorrow and make sure I eat breakfast so that I don't go hungry for hours. I wake up and look in the fridge. There is nothing easy to make. Oh well, guess I'll just go hungry for hours. The other side of my brain goes that's stupid. Stop treating yourself this way. Other part of my brain goes I don't even want to try to come up with something to eat, so I just won't. Then I don't, and somehow survive the next several hours without eating. Or another example. I'm sick and I have to go to work. One side of my brain says you should stay at home and rest so you'll get better. Then other side of brain jumps in. Nah, you'll survive. It doesn't matter that you have a fever. Plus you don't want to upset your manager. So I go to work. I can spend an entire day worked up about how awful I treat myself etc. and I will still do nothing to change it. It's not ignored. I just can't muster up any desire to truly do anything about it. With my second instinct I don't think about it all hardly. For me getting along in a group or helping the group is like breathing. It doesn't require thought. I just do it. I don't even care about it. But I end up just "knowing" how to act etc. Then with SX I'm pretty obsessive and intense. I'm constantly on the lookout for the person who "completes" me. I need constant excitement and I get pretty intense about anything that I love. I will just go hours without eating or sleeping if I'm caught up obsessing about a topic of interest or if I'm with a person who excites me. And if I don't get it, I get depressed.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

IF I genuinely am sp/sx/so, this is how it seem to work for me:

Sp: I can't seem to shut up the part of me that worries about this
Sx: but there's an ongoing conflict with my sx needs, not to mention that I come across as more stereotypical "sx". Easier for me to be seemingly confident in while underneath the confidence is an insecurity fueled by sp. 
So: whereas I consistently underestimate how much I actually need so. The need gets ignored/overlooked/downplayed in the drama of my intensity vs security battles (even though large circles of friends actually, ironically, can be the most effective balancing force to my sp/sx struggles)


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

i'm not sure what my exact stacking is, but a narration on the instincts as they apply to me, based on my current understanding of them, with a short follow up. maybe by just speaking freely on them, a structure can be determined by seeing how they mingle together, and this can light a way to where and how they push one another into alignment?


So: 

i sometimes feel guilt (for letting others down, which is "wrong") if i'm not fulfilling a role of mine that's set by my entering into a group; or for not reaching out when i know the opportunity is present--based on the makeup of the context--in order to eventually connect with another person within the group (guilt for letting myself down, i guess). 

the last bit may sound Sx, but the opportunity itself is born from social dynamics. and the reason i'm hesitant to join in such a situation is almost a stubbornness on my own part, in order to avoid group dynamics in general. there's just something to the makeup that seems to want to creep around you like a mist, and force itself upon you, or worm its way into you... i guess the fear is in it changing and eventually owning a portion _of_ you. 

almost like a fear of embracing "the group" and having it embrace you, as it's controlled by something that is fair-weather, and wholly nonsensical; this sounds almost like the combating between a dominant instinct and an inferior one(?). 



Sp: 

this is my "me time" instinct, when and where i can just lay down in my bed, turn the AC way down so that it forces me to cover up with a pile of blankets, and just read or think, or laugh to myself like a crazy person as i let my mind wander onto something lighter--a time when i can surf the internet all day as i ignore everyone and everything that would inquire, and require, my attention. 

it's in the way that i offhandedly pause and make a "to-do" list for the upkeep functions of my life--all the moving pieces that aid one another in continuing to allow me to move forward (car monitoring, providing ample time to study, to sleep--planning out my meals and getting a lunchbox [] so i don't have to eat out every day i'm working... which is almost every day, lol). 

it's in keeping to myself primarily. in not having the energy, or worrying about how an expenditure will cost me, and what price that 'cost' will lead to. it's in wanting to avoid anything that will strain or extend me to far, because that ever present debt will be called for, and i may not be able, or be willing to pay it when the time comes.

it's in realizing when it's best to keep my mouth shut and allow another to speak--whether they're digging themselves a hole, or me out of one. it's in being heavily reserved til the moment's right, til i've figured out my surroundings, til i've become sure of how and where i should move, and how i should do it (in the abstract). 


Sx: 

Sx is a mountain, a beast, a continent with two surrounding islands--a body that springs forth and erupts a pair of mangled arms to do its bidding. it's a drive that is selfish of its own energy--even apart from the person that it is contained within, sapping awareness for its own gain--taking it from its smaller brethren, and keeping its course within its own ends. 

it allows the others to spring off as broken manifestations of itself--to run out and bring it food or sacrifice--to fuel it, and then in turn to resorb them once again; it's enveloping, it's conquering, it's dominant, and it's destructful--but in a way that, again, serves its own interest--and in that vein, survival hardly matters because it was never the goal: feeling something was. 




explanation/synopsis/my view (or more likely, random thoughts as my tired brain shorts and fires erratically): 

i don't think there is a "set order", in that you have 1), 2), and then 3)--forever and always, be it so, and let it be heard (lol)... i think it's more likely that you have a dominant, and throughout differing periods of one's life, a different inferior, or a shifting inferior. i think this shift is based on what your dominant calls for, or what will allow your dominant to sustain itself over time, and is subject to change as one's environment changes, which in turn will work a change into the individual. 

if later in life you acquire a more comfortable alignment with what you would have at first taken to have been your inferior--to the extent that you acquire a "deficiency" in what was initially your secondary instinct, in the way that it doesn't receive a sizable portion of your attention or energy--were you ever really, for instance, Sx/Sp, just because a portion of your life was ruled by that stacking? (or, have you just failed to grow past it? could one just not be aware of an impending change within, that is necessitated by a differing method? could the other instincts just be a function for allowing for the growth of an individual, and because of this, are not set in stone as long as the person is changing in tune and growing up their ever present subjective latter--as if each rung in this latter is a series of alternating instincts, in varying number?)

does a quarter of one's life dictate an inborn stacking, when the other quarters are something else entirely, or could very well be so in the future? do we agree that a stacking is what someone is up til now, because we attribute a concrete, inborn method of dealing with the world as being set in stone at the beginning and never changing? does the beginning and present define the totality of something? 

it's almost like saying a chicken will always be an egg because that's what it began as--but we all know that's silly because we can see the end result in a matter of weeks (months?)--a period of time so short we have full advantage to take it in with objectivity and to not be fooled or get lost within the process. but with this, we don't know what we're going to hatch as--we're all still eggs in a way (lol). 

anyhow, if none of that was clear, i can reiterate when i've had some sleep... my new, giant bed is calling.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

sp/sx/so...

SP is like, the air I breathe. I am actually less conscious about seeking it out, because I so automatically orient myself towards it. It is a quiet constant. Only when the supply is cut short do I become aware of how badly I need it, and nothing matters until I find it again. It's like once you learn how to type, you don't even think about it anymore, your fingers just go where they need to go. But if someone switches out the keyboard to an unfamiliar one, a wrong one, you'll become immediately flustered.

SX is like the food I eat ... a very consistent, pressing need, but not AS dire, and it fluctuates. I will notice pretty quickly if I'm being deprived in this area, and it will bother me... I will feel out of balance, weak, agitated. But I can press on for awhile without it. I will actually invest MORE conscious effort in seeking it out; I'm not (immediately) dead without it, so I have more time to explore and experiment. More freedom to give and take. It will also bring more joy and pleasure and richness to my life....


SO is like the terribly inconvenient need for sleep, which I ignore because I want to stay up late doing "better" things with my time. I guess every now and then, I still need to cave in --- but at much longer intervals, and not without feeling like I'm making a lot compromises and sacrifices...

I love how this was all written using such SP-ish analogies, even to describe the other instincts. See, cannot avoid.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

@enneathusiast - Socionics - the16types.info - Instinct Stacking Compatibility


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

MrShatter said:


> @_enneathusiast_ - Socionics - the16types.info - Instinct Stacking Compatibility


Thanks for the link. Here's the gist of it for others (regarding _What does the position of the instinct mean?_).

A summary from Project Evolove's instinct theory:


> The Primary Instinct dominates our motivations.
> The Secondary Instinct is used to fulfill the needs of the Primary.
> The least dominant Instinct is only tended to out of necessity.


----------



## Bathilda (Nov 4, 2014)

> 1st instinct - it's what the individual tends to seek out.
> 2nd instinct - it's where the individual lives much of the time, somewhat like a resource for their type.
> 3rd instinct - it's what the individual avoids or ignores, some call it a blind spot.


The trouble with 1st instinct being something you "seek out" is that *all* of the instincts involve seeking out something. They are motivations toward a certain behavior, i.e., they motivate you to move in a particular direction, *toward* something. 

With the 2nd instinct, how do you determine where you live most of the time? As a withdrawn type, I spend most of my time alone, so SP is obviously going to occupy the most time because there are no other people around to fuel the other two instincts. What if someone wants social connection or intimacy, but they're in a life situation where they are constantly frustrated in that desire? Does being social-second imply that you spend more time worrying about social things or in social situations than a social-first would? That doesn't seem like a very intuitive or useful way to express the relationship.



> The Primary Instinct dominates our motivations.
> The Secondary Instinct is used to fulfill the needs of the Primary.
> The least dominant Instinct is only tended to out of necessity.


This says almost the same thing, but is a little more helpful. I don't think it does much to clear up the confusion between a dysfunctional first or second instinct (i.e. a cynical, rebellious soc-firster or a hyperagressive sx-firster) and the last instinct (a cyical, rebellious soc-laster, or an sx-laster who wants intimacy). But I tend to, in general, follow that way of stacking things and deal with the ambiguity.

What they mean for me:
Dominant=Social: I determined social-first because it most flavored my type. *Compared to most fives*, I'm extremely concerned about what others think of me. Social considerations drive almost everything I do (as difficult as it was for me to admit it); my self-prezing serves the needs of this instinct, but being a Five I am extremely averse to giving people access to my time to begin with so I look and feel very self-pres much of the time. 

Secondary=Self-pres. This instinct causes me the fewest problems. If I decide that, statistically, I'm far more likely to get a boyfriend or a job (social) if I fit a certain body type (self-pres), I can easily adjust what I eat and how I exercise and what I wear in order to be thin and reasonably attractive. When I learn things, I learn them *with the aim of using them for social purposes*. I do have days where my thoughts are "I'm hungry...now I'm sleepy...now I'm hungry...now I'm cold...now I'm comfy...now I'm sleepy." But the overall pattern is one of concern for interpersonal warmth and social security bolstered by SP-needs. A dinner party with great conversation and great food is the best.

Tertiary=Sexual. I gauged this mainly because I have no idea WTF sx-firsts are saying most of the time. I'm pretty much devoid of aggression and I'm too risk-averse to seek intensity, though I enjoy warm, intimate conversations.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Bathilda said:


> The trouble with 1st instinct being something you "seek out" is that *all* of the instincts involve seeking out something. They are motivations toward a certain behavior, i.e., they motivate you to move in a particular direction, *toward* something.


This "seeking out" for me is a movement from the 2nd instinct to the 1st. One way to describe it is that the 1st instinct guides the process of type. For example, when in sx5, my type 5 is seeking to share it's knowledge with the intimate other. In addition, what I choose to research and how I shape that understanding is guided by what's needed by the other person I have in mind (who it's for or how it can be shared with that person). I imagine so5 would do something similar except seek to share it in and be guided by the social context. 



Bathilda said:


> What if someone wants social connection or intimacy, but they're in a life situation where they are constantly frustrated in that desire? Does being social-second imply that you spend more time worrying about social things or in social situations than a social-first would? That doesn't seem like a very intuitive or useful way to express the relationship.


This is what I would describe as the 1st instinct. There's often a frustrated quality to it. The type is seeking completion by finding validation in what it does (often looking for this validation in the domain of the 1st instinct). The 2nd instinct is more familiar and comfortable. The 3rd instinct is often given up on because type doesn't feel validated or complete there.

At least this is some of how I experience the instincts based on my interpretation of them. The instincts however, are even more varied in their interpretations than the Enneagram types.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

@enneathusiast 
I was most interested in the senses of self of each of the instincts . . . I think it's something missed. 

1st Overidentified as self
2nd Balanced
3rd Underidentified as self

*Secure instinct (sp)

DESCRIPTION: The Instinct of preservation. The self seeks to maintain its separation from the outside world while furthering its unification within. The result is a continuous enhancement of the boundary between self and non-self. Maintaining its existence is symbolic of life, and losing the self to the non-self is symbolic of death. The physical resources the self accumulates and the relationships that it builds all serve to further facilitate its preservation, self-sufficiency, and personal space. The good motivations associated with this Instinct are personal integrity, freedom, and security. The sinister motivations associated with this Instinct are greed, selfishness, and gluttony. For instance, a real estate investor with a Secure Instinct may scrupulously search an area for new investments, despite being already wealthy. Whether he is motivated by his desire to increase his sense of self-sufficiency or by greed is relative to the perceiver, as both motivations exist simultaneously. Likewise, when a person spends a large sum of money on a new item of clothing, it is unclear whether the primary motivation was a demonstration of self-respect and respect for permanent goods or a demonstration of gluttony, as the two are intertwined.

Sexual instinct (sx)

DESCRIPTION: The Instinct of creation. The self seeks to expand the self by merging another entity in the outside world. The result is a perpetual disintegration of the boundaries between self and non-self, as the self seeks to become one with the outside entity. Creating a new self is symbolic of life, and stagnancy is symbolic of death. The intimacy that this type develops with other individuals or pursuits is an expression of its desire to merge itself with another entity, thereby, allowing its own rebirth. The good motivations associated with this Instinct are creativity, passion, and progress. The sinister motivations associated with this Instinct are conquest, destruction of others, and lust. For instance, a scientist with a Sexual Instinct may spend all of her time learning about genetic engineering. Whether she is motivated by her desire to achieve progress for mankind or by her thirst for sense of power over nature is relative to the perceiver, as both motivations exist simultaneously. Likewise, when someone boldly flirts with another, it is unclear whether it is out of romantic passion or the desire to conquer, as the two are intertwined.

Social instinct (so)


DESCRIPTION: The Instinct of compassion. This type seeks to become a part of a greater entity. It integrates with the larger whole and becomes one with the outside. It does not break down its boundaries; rather, it reconfigures its insides so that it is relevant to the group. Belonging is symbolic of life, and isolation is symbolic of death. The social bonds that this type develops with others are an expression of its desire to have a role in the larger whole. To have a role is to be a part of life. The good motivations associated with this Instinct are compassion, harmony, and altruism. The sinister motivations associated with this Instinct are vanity, self-destruction, and shame. For instance, a charity spokesperson with a Social Instinct may lead a campaign to raise money for needy children. Whether she is motivated by her altruism or by her desire to be socially praised is relative to the perceiver, as both motivations simultaneously exist. Likewise, when a group leader establishes group social norms, it is unclear whether the primary outcome was the promotion of group harmony or the suppression of individualism, as both occur.

Also this 
*http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/41782-Instinct-workshop-notes-sp-so-sx?p=923138


----------



## star tripper (Sep 1, 2013)

1st instinct = the endgame
2nd instinct = the means by which to achieve the endgame
3rd instinct = the monkey wrench

I'm sx/so. I am neurotic about my sx needs and will use so to get my fix. However, I don't take sp into account or I miscalculate its value. To translate, I need intensity. I can use my friends or social standing to acquire the intensity I need (if my pre-existing friends or social standing aren't adequate, I start making new ones for the sheer purpose of getting my fix). I'm so preoccupied with this that I either can't properly gauge how to take care of myself or I completely fail to pay any attention and it's frequently what bites me in the ass in the end.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

MrShatter said:


> @_enneathusiast_
> I was most interested in the senses of self of each of the instincts . . . I think it's something missed.
> 
> 1st Overidentified as self
> ...


What comes to mind for me in regard to that is more related to the fulfillment of self (where self is identified with Enneagram type).

Generally:
1st instinct is where I'll find fulfillment
2nd instinct is where I'm OK but there's something missing 
3rd instinct doesn't offer the possibility of fulfillment, so why bother


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

enneathusiast said:


> What comes to mind for me in regard to that is more related to the fulfillment of self (where self is identified with Enneagram type).
> 
> Generally:
> 1st instinct is where I'll find fulfillment
> ...


That's true, 
What is fulfillment but self-actualization? . . . 

I was amazed by this . . . I find these definitions very precise.

*SP*
The self seeks to maintain its separation from the outside world while furthering its unification within.The result is a continuous enhancement of the boundary between self and non-self. Maintaining its existence is symbolic of life, and losing the self to the non-self is symbolic of death. 

*Sx*
The self seeks to expand the self by merging another entity in the outside world. The result is a perpetual disintegration of the boundaries between self and non-self, as the self seeks to become one with the outside entity. Creating a new self is symbolic of life, and stagnancy is symbolic of death. 

*So*
This type seeks to become a part of a greater entity. It integrates with the larger whole and becomes one with the outside. It does not break down its boundaries; rather, it reconfigures its insides so that it is relevant to the group. Belonging is symbolic of life, and isolation is symbolic of death.
---

I think it allows a better understanding of all three instincts working together in a person, as the 'weaker' instincts invade the sense of self of the stronger instinct which is hero-ified, why the weakest becomes a point of shame because it comes as an after thought 'consequence of not considering' ('oh shit') rather than 'from a implicit value standpoint' ('second nature'). Helps me navigate issues like countersocials, idealized weakest instincts, and certain trait crossovers like e.g. noticing body language vs. social's state reading, Sx vs. 1 to 1, etc. Basically super helpful because it doesn't get lost in vague "I enjoy the atmosphere" or "Keeping track of power structure" or, "I make money and like good food." ALSO helps with certain types that confused me, e.g. Sp 7s 'extended family' social 4s 'aura of reserve.' etc. Whole bunch of complications: E/I cognitive functions vs. Enneagram E/I vs. Sp/social. (extraversion and introversion vs. 'People')

That is I would say an So last can get fulfillment from So activities, although these might be idealized and 'underdogged' "fall in love with soapbox" (e.g. BoJack Horseman's rants.) I can't think of other examples for Sp and Sx last...


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

MrShatter said:


> That's true,
> What is fulfillment but self-actualization? . . .


Yes, but it's not true self-actualization. It's actualization of our dominant Enneagram type (which is what most people mistake for their true self). That's the trap to wake up to in order to find some freedom from that narrow sense of self as identified by dominant Enneagram type.



MrShatter said:


> That is I would say an So last can get fulfillment from So activities...


An so-last can find fulfillment in the social but it comes as a surprise if or when it happens (and there would be an apprehension about seeing it as lasting or repeatable). Same with sx-last and sp-last regarding those instincts.


----------



## Bathilda (Nov 4, 2014)

> Sx
> The self seeks to expand the self by merging another entity in the outside world. The result is a perpetual disintegration of the boundaries between self and non-self, as the self seeks to become one with the outside entity. Creating a new self is symbolic of life, and stagnancy is symbolic of death.


I don't want to derail the thread, so skip to the next paragraph if ranting isn't appropriate: but what does this _mean_? Is this just a way of saying you get excited about things? I mean, you don't actually ever merge with anyone or anything; you're still you, in your own body, and all you can ever do is try to imagine what the other person is feeling, right? Merging is purely metaphorical. Is it necessary to use all this mystical language to describe this process?

Ok, ok, rant over. This thread has been really thought-provoking and helpful as I try to bang my head against the instinct-stacking wall (partly because I don't understand SX). I'm still puzzled by what happens when there's no clear 'blind spot'. Can anyone help clarify these?

a) What if there's no instinct a person ignores, but he or she finds certain instincts easier to act on than others? How do you distinguish a frustrated first instinct from a last instinct if a person pays attention to all three instincts and wants to find fulfillment in all three (or at least two)?
b) How do you distinguish order if a person is pretty incompetent (or competent) in two or more instincts?


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

Bathilda said:


> what does this _mean_?


For me (Sx 9) it's literally becoming conscious of myself as/in a reflection of the other.
It's in the next sentence... disintegration of boundaries. 

a/b
I think people have a fairly good use of all three instincts generally. The dominant instinct can grip you in a neurotic fashion ("I can't think about anything else" "This is my goal, etc." "I'm worthless without this.""This what all people want/how it should be") and the weakest instinct gets dropped or trivialized to escape errors made. I think the dark side of the weakest gets spit on but the high side of the weakest is longed for "If I could, it would be amazing, but I can't (deficiency) so who cares."

Also there are strength differences in the stackings (http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/264-The-Three-Ranges-of-Instinctual-Stackings) (This site isn't very descriptive ...) so it isn't categorical


* *







Also there's the whole stacking flow thing:http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/133-Instinctual-Stackings

When we invest our energy, most of it is devoted to fulfillment of our primary instinct. The remaining energy radiates or flows onto the secondary instinct and finally onto the last instinct, which receives the smallest share. There are two possible configurations or directions for this flow. In first configuration, energy is invested in the order of sx→sp→so→sx. This direction gives rise to three stackings: sx/sp, sp/so, so/sx. In the second configuration, energy is invested in the order of sx→so→sp→sx, which gives rise to the other three stackings: sx/so, so/sp and sp/sx. 

*Syn-flow:* sp → so → sx → sp
*Stackings involved: sp/so → so/sx → sx/sp → sp/so
Direction: Compelled toward people. Acting upon and with others as a born insider i.e.- deeply human.

Contra-flow: sp → sx → so → sp
Stackings involved: sp/sx → sx/so → so/sp → sp/sx
Direction: Compelled against people. Seething belligerent outsiders; 'antisocial', provoking, reverse-flow change catalysts. In some profound sense, rejecting the human condition, their own and/or that of others.

The two flows move in the opposite directions. This antithesis can be seen if the instinctual stackings are compared in pairs:

so/sx - including, associating, affiliating, networking, incorporating, interconnecting, introducing, unifying, linking, bonding, annexing, cooperating, receiving
sx/so - excluding, eliminating, dividing, separating, contradicting, subverting, confronting, rebuffing, ridiculing, challenging, interrupting, reforming, rupturing

sx/sp - intensifying, escalating, rising, surging, enlivening, invigorating, accelerating, stimulating, energizing, vitalizing, reviving, animating, inspiriting
sp/sx - dulling, calming, quieting, grounding, descending, lowering, dampening, numbing, desensitizing, exhausting, deadening, extinguishing, making still

sp/so - conserving, protecting, maintaining, preserving, supplying, repairing, sustaining, stewarding
so/sp - utilizing, employing, implementing, expending, exercising, spending, capitalizing, expropriating

*


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Bathilda said:


> I'm still puzzled by what happens when there's no clear 'blind spot'. Can anyone help clarify these?
> 
> a) What if there's no instinct a person ignores, but he or she finds certain instincts easier to act on than others? How do you distinguish a frustrated first instinct from a last instinct if a person pays attention to all three instincts and wants to find fulfillment in all three (or at least two)?
> b) How do you distinguish order if a person is pretty incompetent (or competent) in two or more instincts?


It sounds like your difficulty lies in better understanding the actual e_xperience _of each instinct.

I had studied the Enneagram for 15 years before I finally understood what SX really was. The actual experience of it was different than what most experts were describing. This was even more true for SP. What really helped me understand the three instincts was seeing the contrast between what each wants (there's a mutual exclusivity between what each wants at the core). I started some old threads exploring this that you might find useful.

Just know that much of what's written about the instincts is misleading and inaccurate in terms of the actual experience (i.e., What I found is that SP is not about security, SX is not about intensity in general, and SO is not simply about popularity or socializing - those things have more to do with certain types or subtypes than the instincts in general).


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

enneathusiast said:


> It sounds like your difficulty lies in better understanding the actual e_xperience _of each instinct.
> 
> I had studied the Enneagram for 15 years before I finally understood *what SX really was*. The actual experience of it was different than what most experts were describing. This was even more true for SP. What really helped me understand the three instincts was seeing the contrast between what each wants (there's a *mutual exclusivity* between what each wants at the core). I started some old threads exploring this that you might find useful.


Do go on roud:

http://personalitycafe.com/search.php?searchid=26223402


----------



## Bathilda (Nov 4, 2014)

enneathusiast said:


> It sounds like your difficulty lies in better understanding the actual e_xperience _of each instinct.
> 
> Just know that much of what's written about the instincts is misleading and inaccurate in terms of the actual experience (i.e., What I found is that SP is not about security, SX is not about intensity in general, and SO is not simply about popularity or socializing - those things have more to do with certain types or subtypes than the instincts in general).


I agree that's where the problem lies. I have my own interpretation of the instincts based on observations and personal experience (SO, in my observation, has more to do with warmth and intimacy and love than is generally appreciated, an SP in the grip of needs for food and sleep and comfort is the *least* conscientious type, and SX...is anything+adrenaline?). Everyone seems to agree most of what's out there is terrible, and most of it is written by sx-doms who present frankly unflattering portraits of non-sx stackings. I'm looking at you, 16types. 

This is a thread about stackings, so I don't want to go too far afield [SO subverting personal interests to the group!], but would you mind linking to some of your old threads, especially those that lay out the mutual exclusivity of each instinct's desires? I realized, reading this, I think of the instincts as overlapping--a truly mutually exclusive account might help anyone reading this who is confused about the actual order of instincts.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Bathilda said:


> would you mind linking to some of your old threads, especially those that lay out the mutual exclusivity of each instinct's desires? I realized, reading this, I think of the instincts as overlapping--a truly mutually exclusive account might help anyone reading this who is confused about the actual order of instincts.


sp-last rantsso-last rantssx-last rants
I haven't read these recently but I think these offered contrasts between the instincts of the poster and the instincts being addressed by the post. Note that you may have to determine for yourself what instincts are actually being contrasted and whether the poster has a good grasp of those instincts.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

Could you share _your _insights @enneathusiast?


----------



## star tripper (Sep 1, 2013)

Going through those threads @enneathusiast linked really illustrates how little people understand one another. I understand sp as a focus on the "self." It doesn't necessarily mean material comforts or fussing with the A/C or any of that, but that you take yourself into account in every situation. Sp-valuers strongly value independence and self-reliance, and they tend to have boundaries.

I personally don't value those things very highly if at all. I'd _like_ to be independent and self-reliant, but it's not something I seek out. When I'm around other sp-valuers, I sometimes pretend I have boundaries, but that pretense serves a social or sexual agenda. I don't seek out autonomy for autonomy's sake. I'm not a naturally independent person.

^^ Is my understanding of sp correct?


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

MrShatter said:


> Could you share _your _insights @_enneathusiast_?


Since you seem so insistent, I'll offer a quick attempt.:tongue:

It all starts from earlier descriptions of the instincts (after Naranjo's subtypes but before the current popularized version took hold - which I'm guessing came from Riso/Hudson and they in turn may have been strongly influenced by Ichazo's biological approach to things).

SP - the one - (I'd roughly describe as seeking autonomy, self-containment)
SX - the few - (I'd roughly describe as seeking intimacy, depth of connection)
SO - the many - (I'd roughly describe as seeking participation, breadth of connection)

Contrasts
SP often feels an intrusion upon personal boundaries from the other two
SX often feels a superficiality or distance from the other two
SO often feels a non-participation or selfishness from the other two

Ordering
The ideal is pursued in terms of the 1st instinct.
Often there is one profound difference between the 2nd and 3rd instincts - the 2nd is seen to support the pursuit of the 1st, the 3rd is seen to interfere with that pursuit.

That's a rough intro to the basics. The rest I'm saving for a second book.:wink:


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

star tripper said:


> Going through those threads @_enneathusiast_ linked really illustrates how little people understand one another. I understand sp as a focus on the "self." It doesn't necessarily mean material comforts or fussing with the A/C or any of that, but that you take yourself into account in every situation. Sp-valuers strongly value independence and self-reliance, and they tend to have boundaries.


I found that if you think of "self-preservation" as "preservation of the self" it makes more sense than emphasis on security and comfort (somehow people have taken self-preservation to mean self-survival - I guess because the instincts are sometimes referred to as the survival instincts). But, I find a big element of SP is a not wanting to lose yourself in relationship (SX) or community (SO) but keep those self-boundaries intact in certain ways.

It can be a bit tricky making the subtle distinction with types 1, 4, and 7 however because they self-reference for their centers (doing, feeling, and thinking). The instinct is more of a focus for where the energy of type gets directed than where the reference for the center comes from. For example, a type 7 has a self-reference for thinking (mental possibilities) but where does that get directed (SP, SX, or SO)?


----------



## Bathilda (Nov 4, 2014)

@enneathusiast

Since you're writing a book, I don't feel as bad asking lots of questions!



> SX often feels a superficiality or distance from the other two
> SO often feels a non-participation or selfishness from the other two


Could you clarify the difference between "distance" and "non-participation"? How might an SX and an SO be distinguished when they're talking to each other one-on-one, for example?

The stereotypical answer is that the SO prattles on about pop culture or rules, and the SX wants to talk about passions or emotions--but I feel like you can give a better answer.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

enneathusiast said:


> SP - the one - (I'd roughly describe as seeking autonomy, self-containment)
> SX - the few - (I'd roughly describe as seeking intimacy, depth of connection)
> SO - the many - (I'd roughly describe as seeking participation, breadth of connection)
> 
> ...


When you say breadth is it how many connections can this connection connect to?

I like those contrasts a lot! That would be especially helpful in typing scenarios. 

I think it would be interesting to go into instinctual mis-identification, especially in the context of the Enneagram self ... for example you say Sp feels intrusion, how would you make a distinction between the type 5s sense of retentiveness/fear of engulfment?


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

This thread might help, except its more just traits instead of a conceptual framework--
http://personalitycafe.com/enneagra...um/568186-instinctual-stacking-breakdown.html


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Bathilda said:


> Could you clarify the difference between "distance" and "non-participation"? How might an SX and an SO be distinguished when they're talking to each other one-on-one, for example?


What I meant in terms of distance: SX is looking for a deep connection. SP is self-contained and doesn't want that level of intrusion. SO often seems superficial to SX and hard to reach at a deeper one-to-one connection (I give an example at the bottom of this post).

What I meant in terms of non-participation: SO looks for everyone to participate in the team or group interest. SP is more autonomous. SX is not looking to connect with the group as a whole but one-to-one with an individual.

These contrasts are more obvious between the 1st and last instincts. The contrasts between the 1st and 2nd instincts isn't so obvious except to say that the 2nd instinct is often used as a background for the 1st. For example, SP/SO at work may gravitate toward their own self-contained space separate from others (e.g., desk/office environment, working style, etc.) yet still be quite attuned to office politics and team activities or goals.



Bathilda said:


> How might an SX and an SO be distinguished when they're talking to each other one-on-one, for example?


As an SX, it feels like I have to break through the veneer when someone is in SO mode. I know the real person is underneath the social facade so I look for what's really important to the person and try to connect that way. It isn't pretending to be interested though. It's a genuine interest to know what's meaningful for that person. A dead giveaway that the other person is in social mode is when they act toward everyone the same way, which indicates there's nothing genuine about their interaction with me (I'm just another person in the crowd and not seen as an individual).

My stacking is SX/SP so what I'm describing could be more relevant to SX/SP than SX/SO. It also could have more to do with my connection to 2 as well.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

MrShatter said:


> When you say breadth is it how many connections can this connection connect to?


Not really. The social is being part of a larger whole. It's a matter of touching base with all those individuals to maintain that connection to the larger whole - whatever that means for that person.



MrShatter said:


> I think it would be interesting to go into instinctual mis-identification, especially in the context of the Enneagram self ... for example you say Sp feels intrusion, how would you make a distinction between the type 5s sense of retentiveness/fear of engulfment?


I think a lot of what is stereotypically assigned to type 5 is better understood as SP. For example, when a type 7 says something like "I go to my type 5 when I need privacy or alone time", they're not really describing type 5. It can better be understood as the SP instinct.

Type 5 takes a lot of information in, holds it in the mind, and tries to find patterns and make sense of it all (kind of like putting together a puzzle by holding all the pieces in your mind and trying to fit them together mentally). That takes up a lot of mental resources to work that way. It doesn't leave much room for other things when that's happening. So there's this tendency to pull back from all the other input and demands that can overwhelm that process until that process can complete. That's also why there's often a delay in integrating the experiences of life - this integration often goes through this same process.

Sometimes people from the outside might see this as fear of engulfment but I think it's more about being overwhelmed by too much stimulus or the expectations of others. It's like if a computer were running a resource intensive application and then you began opening 20 web sites then began printing then started watching a video, etc. All that would quickly overwhelm the resources of the computer until it comes to a crawl or simply freezes. You have to wait until the processes can finish before it becomes usable again. The other types work differently from type 5 so they don't understand this overwhelm so type 5 has to do things to compensate for others' lack of understanding so they don't get overwhelmed by the world. The simplest way to do this is to pull back so the processing can finish but this pulling back may also become a more permanent position as a preemptive attempt to avoid the overwhelm from happening in the first place.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

Nice. Damn. _I'm impressed with your competency_ @enneathusiast  

How is the 5s draw to what's frightening relative to the 5? For example, one of the differences between 9/5 is that nines like to stay within their comfort zone of introspection. What does that mean, and the reverse for fives.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

MrShatter said:


> How is the 5s draw to what's frightening relative to the 5? For example, one of the differences between 9/5 is that nines like to stay within their comfort zone of introspection. What does that mean, and the reverse for fives.


I don't understand what you're asking.


----------



## Bathilda (Nov 4, 2014)

> Ordering
> The ideal is pursued in terms of the 1st instinct.
> Often there is one profound difference between the 2nd and 3rd instincts - the 2nd is seen to support the pursuit of the 1st, the 3rd is seen to interfere with that pursuit.


I'm curious to let the discussion on 5/sp continue, but I'm also wondering what you all think about "blocked" instincts. There are some descriptions, especially of sp/sx or sp/so, that describe a "blocked" sexual instinct, for example. The assumption behind those descriptions seems to be that sx or so is the natural, outward energy that would be flowing outward if it weren't dammed up behind SP self-containment.

The model @enneathusiast presented above seems to imply that a "blocked" sexual instinct, for example, would occur in the stacking sx (ideal but frustrated first instinct)/so (neutral)/sp (getting in the way for sx fulfillment). But it seems odd for a third instinct, which after all is supposed to play a relatively minor part in a person's life, to be able to interfere in a meaningful way in the fulfillment of the primary instinct. 

I'm not sure I like the idea of 'blocked' instincts, though. This smacks of bias, since the assumption is that energy _should_ be flowing outward and sp is impeding it. But the feeling of wanting to express sexual energy or wanting to find social connection but being unable to is certainly familiar to me...I'm just not sure how to cache that out in stackings, or if it should even be considered part of the stacking question. Is the shy person who desperately wants to connect socially but can't due to excessive boundaries so/sp? Sp/so? In such a case it seems like *both* instincts are distorted and unhealthy; sp overstepping its bounds and so not being strong enough to overcome it despite the ego's desire to.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

enneathusiast said:


> I don't understand what you're asking.


 5s apparently are drawn to thinking about what they're frightened of ... But in that they develop a familiarity, and in a certain sense are not frightened of what they're frightened of, even though they may experience anxiety while thinking about what they're afraid of. I'm wondering how that relates to the nines introspection which is related to a 'comfort zone'

You might want to look at this. I just hate the 9 stereotypes. And the 9/5 misidentification passage on PerC is a whole lot worse. The *sleepy gloss comfort vs. alert uncomfortable high-strung: http://personalitycafe.com/type-9-forum-peacemaker/8097-type-nine-misidentifications.html#post177766
Caricature bullshit! Though not unhelpful. I think the types have a very different feel in real life but it's definitely a mistype issue in the literature. I even remember reading that Sx 5s become more "like 9s" open and mergy with the confidence.
I think ultimately, the nine world is more essential/archetypal and the 5 world is more interconnected details. . . but you can tell me otherwise. 

e.g. 9's fantasy idealism vs. 5's fantasy theory/alternate reality
in Sx 9's ideal lover and 5s (ultimate) mate for life.




> Sexual 5: Confidence (passion to confide). Looks for the ultimate in another person. A little more assertiveand with more feeling than other Fives. Chopin was verbally curtailed and prone to feeling oppressed bysocial gatherings and by the only relationship with a woman in his life. He almost couldn't "take" anyrelationship, but there was an outpouring in his music. Someone who puts own self into animals, intoactivity (e.g., Najinsky). (Tells story of female Five in a workshop who wanted him to work with her butNaranjo was exhausted; she said *"Maybe one of these nights we could go for a walk in the moonlight,"*like an excess of confidence in a specific person: "This person has to be somebody who cares so muchfor me that I become the one and I'm confident in that relationship.")


http://www.breakoutofthebox.com/NaranjoSubtypes.pdf



> *Sexual Fives: This Is My World (Ichazo's "Confidence")
> *Sexual Fives focus their hoarding in the area of intimate relationships. The combination of instinct and type are at odds here: *the Five defense is to withdraw, while the sexual instinct demands intimacy and connection*. Most Sexual Fives live in an uneasy truce between these polar influences, but they seek to resolve this tension by slowly inviting prospective intimates into their own *secret world. *Sexual Fives are *primarily focused in their imaginations, *but they believe that most others would find their thoughts and preoccupations dark and even frightening. At the very least, they are certain that others will find them odd or eccentric. Nonetheless, they want to* share their perceptions and hidden worlds and secretly hope to have a deep connection with a single soul, a mate for life, who can understand them *and their sometimes *bizarre views of reality.* Intimacy for them entails finding someone else who will explore the surreal vistas of their inner world. ***They also look to their partner for some degree of help in dealing with people and the practical affairs of life.* *They hope that their partner will run interference for them and give them confidence to navigate the external world. If Sexual Fives are disappointed in love, they may retreat and remain unattached for long periods of time, even years.


*Consider Instinct*
VS.




> *Sexual Nines: Merging (Ichazo's "Union")
> *Sexual Nines seek a sense of well-being by finding something or someone to merge with. They want to be at one with the world, with beauty, with nature, *but especially with a special, ideal lover.* That being said, Sexual Nines have many anxieties about losing themselves by submerging their identity in the other. Thus, they can sometimes appear ambivalent and emotionally conflicted, like Fours or Sixes. They sometimes attempt to "solve" the *inner conflict between their desire for merging and their desire for independence* by "triangulation." They engage in two separate, simultaneous relationships that serve different needs while never completely showing up in either. Needless to say, this can create the kinds of conflicts that Nines are trying to avoid.
> The overall affect of Sexual Nines is one of gentleness, ease, and flow, and they seek these qualities in others and in the environment. *They also tend to be highly sensual, enjoying tastes, textures, and sensations. Although they resemble Fours in this regard, being ethereal and dreamy, *their sensuality is earthy and embodied, and they are not as self-aware or self-doubting as Fours. Sexual Nines tend to be more imaginative than the other Variants—*often with elements of gentle whimsy and heroic fantasy. They see the world in magical terms, investing even ordinary objects with a warm glow. T*hey seem to take in the world with a wide-eyed wonder and have a characteristic child-like aura about them.


https://sites.google.com/site/upatel8/personalitytype5


I think in general personality typology needs to get more specific and that it's very difficult for one type to write about an alien type. Barring the misconceptions, the alien writer cannot (or does not) go into the same depth, and so account properly for all the variable influences at play. It's also very easy to simply go with one aspect of the type or subtype and then miss the whole picture. 

Fucking Beatrice Chestnut doesn't have a clue. There I said it.
Write your book well @_enneathusiast

_


----------



## Bathilda (Nov 4, 2014)

MrShatter said:


> And the 9/5 misidentification passage on PerC is a whole lot worse. The *sleepy gloss comfort vs. alert uncomfortable high-strung: http://personalitycafe.com/type-9-forum-peacemaker/8097-type-nine-misidentifications.html#post177766
> Caricature bullshit!
> Fucking Beatrice Chestnut doesn't have a clue. There I said it.
> 
> [/I]


Bless you. I've always thought RH and Chestnut's 5 vs. 9 disambiguations emphasized qualities that have nothing to do with being a Nine and everything to do with being an idiot. Personally, I think trying to distinguish 9 and 5 through the quality of their inner landscape alone isn't going to cut it. Not all 5s are pessimistic nihilists chasing the darkness just like not all 9's are living in a Disneyfied version of reality, and that's where the descriptions go wrong.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

MrShatter said:


> 5s apparently are drawn to thinking about what they're frightened of ... But in that they develop a familiarity, and in a certain sense are not frightened of what they're frightened of, even though they may experience anxiety while thinking about what they're afraid of.


You sound like you're trying to fit in the idea that 5, 6, and 7 are fear types. It goes along with the idea that 8, 9, and 1 are anger types and 2, 3, and 4 are shame types. Once you step into that you'll forever go around in circles trying to make it fit. Those sorts of ideas can create confusion with what's actually going on by having you look at the wrong thing (and the Enneagram types are rife with those sorts of land mines).

What immediately comes to mind for me about type 5 is that it's about understanding the world in order to be prepared (kind of like having a map to navigate with) and having a place in the world by knowing things (that becomes a role that the type 5 can play for the world in order to be a part of it). There's much more but I'm just trying to touch on the idea of fear that gets projected onto the type (I think inappropriately).



MrShatter said:


> You might want to look at this. I just hate the 9 stereotypes. And the 9/5 misidentification passage on PerC is a whole lot worse. The *sleepy gloss comfort vs. alert uncomfortable high-strung: http://personalitycafe.com/type-9-forum-peacemaker/8097-type-nine-misidentifications.html#post177766
> Caricature bullshit! Though not unhelpful. I think the types have a very different feel in real life but it's definitely a mistype issue in the literature. I even remember reading that Sx 5s become more "like 9s" open and mergy with the confidence.
> I think ultimately, the nine world is more essential/archetypal and the 5 world is more interconnected details. . . but you can tell me otherwise.


To be honest, I gave up on the Enneagram literature several years after I first started learning about the types. The material is good for getting a start into the types at a general level but then the deeper you go into the actual experience of the types the more miserably it fails. It creates a conceptual understanding of the types that almost has to be unlearned so that you don't project the concepts onto the actual experience of the types. At least this was my experience early on after reading several dozen books on the Enneagram. Bottom line for me is that all the material is inaccurate at some point - it's just a matter of the level of detail you get into with the actual experience before it's noticed.

What I ended up doing was to build a foundation to compare the core of each type and then build up from there by looking at the actual experience of each type. So, unfortunately I can't sort out the mess of Enneagram literature for you. I had to basically throw the bulk of it away at some point and start over with a solid foundation in order to get an accurate understanding (BTW, this offers a good example of what type 5w6 may attempt when stepping in to straighten out an illogical mess of a system).



MrShatter said:


> I think in general personality typology needs to get more specific and that it's very difficult for one type to write about an alien type. Barring the misconceptions, the alien writer cannot (or does not) go into the same depth, and so account properly for all the variable influences at play. It's also very easy to simply go with one aspect of the type or subtype and then miss the whole picture.


I think I agree with that but I may think of it a little differently.

For the Enneagram types to get more specific they have to stop trying to describe personality. The types point to nine fundamental psychological processes or types of attention that have a major influence upon personality but are not the sole determinants of personality.

Each person has access to all nine type of attention but uses them to varying degrees and in different ways. A person is not a single type but a dynamic between multiple types. No single type is ever going to explain everything going on within an individual and no arbitrary rule that limits which types you can consider is going to work for doing that (e.g., Tritype, wings, etc.).

If someone is going to write about or teach the types then that person needs to find the experience of each type within themselves and speak directly from experience rather than muddying the water with outside speculations or regurgitated material from others who have not had a direct experience of the types.



MrShatter said:


> Fucking Beatrice Chestnut doesn't have a clue. There I said it.


Trying to buck the type 9 stereotype I see. :wink:

To be fair, Beatrice Chestnut offers a very good explanation of Naranjo's instinctual subtypes. The subtypes however are used very differently than the stacked instincts. With the subtype approach, the instincts are not separate from the types (e.g., an sp3 has no relation to an sp5). The instincts are simply used to describe three variations of each type (i.e., the instincts don't stand on their own).

The stacked instincts do stand on their own. They don't necessarily define variations of a type but instead describe the different instinctual domains where the types play themselves out.

Unfortunately, few people make that distinction and most people seem to use both approaches as if they're the same.

Regarding the SX5, or any SX-first for that matter, it's much easier to think of it as wanting to share the product of your type with an intimate other who will value or appreciate what you have to offer (often by way of type). Likewise, the SO-first wants to bring that to the social domain and the SP-first wants to bring that to their own personal domain. In attempting to do this an individual may try to shape the domain into something that works for them or try to find a domain accepting of or congruent with the product of their type.



MrShatter said:


> Write your book well @_enneathusiast
> _


The one chapter left to finish is the one that describes the types. I won't be happy with that chapter until I'm able to find and explore the experiences of all nine types within myself and write directly from that experience. It's quite ambitious but I simply refuse to do it any other way. The tricky types are 9, 3, and 6 because there's more going on there than can easily be explained by the Enneagram (that's why the authors never seem to get those types quite right even when they identify themselves as one of those types).


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

I love you.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

enneathusiast said:


> Unfortunately, few people make that distinction and most people seem to use both approaches as if they're the same.


Okay so on that, what how would you navigate a last stacking expression of the typeSubtype.
e.g. Social 5 totem in yourself?


----------

