# For anyone who has read Beatrice Chestnut!



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

Octavarium said:


> As I understand it, her theory is that SX 6 = counterphobic by definition, because the instincts aren't independent of type. If you're going to complain that she doesn't take into account phobic SX 6s, then you're working within a different conceptual framework. That's not to say, of course, that she's right and you're wrong (I think your way of thinking about it is probably better) just that we need to get the definitions and concepts straight before we can even have that debate.


If I'm interpreting you right, you want a clear line drawn between whether or not subtypes are being discussed or if instincts should be separate?

Eh, I _did_ post here about seeing the world in grey... :wink:

I think subtypes do fit for some people, but I wouldn't doubt those who the subtypes _don't_ fit. So I can see how both systems can co-exist, while still proving each other wrong. If the question is, should these be used first for people seeking their type? I'm inclined to say no, and shudder to think what would happen if subtypes were the only way people typed themselves. I think it can muddy the typing process very easily. 

In some people, there's no denying that the shoe fits... Which reminds me of the metaphor of "even a broken clock is right twice a day."

So, to sum up, my preference would be to not use subtypes especially if you're newb, but not to throw them out entirely.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

double post page glitch ugh


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

charlie.elliot said:


> For example, if you read through all the Sexual subtypes, they mostly all have a part about this forceful stretching of yourself across the boundaries of something else (except I still don't know what's going on with the sexual four description, it's just too crazy, haha). (and the sexual six description might be an exception). (But all the other sexual descriptions follow this general trend).


I see what you mean by that, honestly; but as you also allude to, there'd have to be some major compare & contrast going on. I'm not sure that's the best tool in a book that claims to cater to beginners, with an easy-to-understand approach, but that's just me. 



> You know what guys, in this whole thread *I forget to mention the one thing I like the most about Beatrice Chestnut* (though it doesn't offer much about whether any of it is actually accurate.
> Her descriptions of Sexual subtypes *do not focus at all on actual sexual intimacy or relationships*. She understands the fact that the Sexual instinct is a type of energy, that can be directed at almost anything in life. I hate descriptions that are just like "In relationship, Sexual instincts will be..." That's when _I_ facepalm. It has never made sense to me that your personality would be built around a specific focus in life, like sexual intimacy or relationships. That's almost the equivalent of being like "his personality is that he likes to skateboard" or something.


Interesting. I have found that many sx-firsts DO have insecurities revolving around sexuality, desirability, and relationships. That's not to say that it doesn't extend much farther than that--it very clearly does. It can be annoying when anyone with any relationship problem immediately thinks they're sx-first--there's more to it than that. And I facepalm at many descriptions of sx-first, too--they make the mistake of describing supposed characteristics rather than describing the neurosis. Again, I think Riso and Hudson do some fine work on the instincts, both in _Wisdom of the Enneagram_, and in general.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Lord Bullingdon said:


> Again, I think Riso and Hudson do some fine work on the instincts, both in _Wisdom of the Enneagram_, and in general.


Damn, I got rid of my copy of that when I moved. Now I'm curious what they say about it... On to google!


----------



## Rose for a Heart (Nov 14, 2011)

I think typology is a way for you to project your own issues on to it; it's not set in stone. People are naturally going to have different views on it (including Beatrice Chestnut). The psyche is too vast to be defined by any single system, psychologist, spirituality or philosopher. That's how I feel anyway at this point.


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

charlie.elliot said:


> Damn, I got rid of my copy of that when I moved. Now I'm curious what they say about it... On to google!


Damn...some of it is in workshops, but several people have posted their notes online. It comes up from time to time. Happy hunting.


----------



## Lady Golden (May 16, 2012)

I am a little comforted to read that other people are skeptical about Beatrice Chestnut's depictions of instincts, because while I couldn't really make sense of most of them, I could almost only read enthousiastic "OMG this is so me"-like reactions. I think this is one of the reasons that made me lose interest in enneagram actually.

What are instincts ? Are they a focus (as Daeva and Lord Bullingdon state it) or are they just a flavor you randomly add to a type ? According to Naranjo and Chestnut, it seems to be some kind of flavor, but the problem is that they don't bring any definitions to the instincts themselves. It's too random, we don't have explanation about why one instinct would look one way or another when it is associated with a type. Maybe the Sx would be somehow "savage" ? But no, it doesn't even work, as the Sx 9 is apparently the softest one.
All of this seems very counter-intuitive and random to me. I'm okay with establishing several flavours of each type, but why mixing this to the instincts theory if it doesn't even fit ? 

I'm actually one of those persons who type 4 Sp without really relating to the depiction. The Ocean Moonshine (especially Sp/Sx) fit very well though. The same for my probably Sx/So 2 cousin (I've just read the OM depiction and it fits more perfectly than I thought). 

I am too aware of my emotions, too connected to them to relate to Beatrice Chestnut's depiction of Sp 4. The exemplar is quite awkward indeed, I will take it as an example :

(in red : what I don't relate at all to)

_"For much of my life it was difficult for me to feel my true emotions because they were so buried; it just wasn't okay to express emotions when I was growing up- the phase I internalized from my childhood was, “Just suck it up and move on.”
__[...]
__Although I've meditated for many years, it's still difficult to relax and to be calm in daily activity. It just seems like waste of time not be doing or accomplishing something. Even now when I feel my feelings, I catch myself trying to figure out what I can DO with them. I've always pushed myself to work hard to be successful because I wanted to prove myself by being really good at whatever I do and I have been fortunate in being rewarded for my hard work.__"_

While I do relate to counter-envy (I actually realized how strong my relashionship with envy is when I discovered the enneagram) and I struggle not to show my emotions too much, I never was able to bury my emotions to the point I didn't even know they existed (I wish it was so easy). 
I find the productivist state of spirit surprising as well. This "waste of time" obsession seems more 3 or 1 (or even 7) to me. Even if I might agree a little (life must be lived at it fullest, I want to be special, etc), I find it very difficult to be productive every moment in my life and I see that as a main difference between 4 and 3 as well, actually.
She seems very Te to me in MBTI, while aren't 4 with this lead fonction supposed to be very rare ?... 

All of this doesn't seem to fit the type 4 as I conceive it actually. Isn't the main difference between 4 and 3, or between 4 and 1 supposed to be this relationship to emotions, precisely ? 3 or 1, being competent types, are able to repress them while a 4, as a reactive, needs them to function, and even identifies too much to them. Here, we absolutely don't know where this "counter-type" stuff comes from (like it was there to be nice and symetric to type 6) and how it doesn't get strong enough to contradict the original core type. I actually don't see how this girl might even relate to type 4 (she actually makes me thing of all these persons who suddenly relate to type 4 because they are going through an identity crisis). Spontaneously, would you have typed her as Sp 4 if Beatrice Chestnut didn't tell you this was her type ?

Actually maybe the BC's So 4 description would probably fit best for me. But this is the problem : I don't really relate to the social instinct itself. It's not that I despise So-first (a thing that many So-first do), it's just that it often feels stranger to me. I find it hard to keep focus on fashionable stuffs (and when I do, I find it weird, why on hearth people follow those arbitrary fashions ?), and I find it hard to keep up to relatives to the point I have almost no friends anymore. And while I do relate to the shameful aspects of 4, I don't feel like my isolation is the biggest tragedy in my life. 
And about this "Social 4 suffer too much" stuff : why on hearth would it be a "social" thing to suffer ??? 
The fact that I relate so much to my emotions and suffering, I actually tend to associate it with the Sp4 instinct as it's somehow dauntless : it can get very intense and I tend not to protect myselft enough from them, as I feel it gives somehow meaning and intensity to my life. I guess this is social according to Naranjo and Chestnut, but it doesn't make any sense to me, as pain is a corporal (or mental) reaction that often has little to do with anything social.

I've actually read other depictions that seemed absurd to me (especially most "counter-types" like Sx 5 or So 8) but I've already been long enough with the Sp 4. 
Actually, right now, thanks of this topic, I realize that one of the biggest problem might be the exemplars. Every time, it's always the part that makes me reject the instinct depictions the most. 
Still, I think this is not the only problem : Beatrice Chestnut often goes too far in the caricature, and also she is way too descriptive while enneagram is supposed to deal with motivations first. She tends to forget core depictions of the original types in her subtypes, and it's a pity, because her core-depictions are actually good.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

Lady Golden said:


> And about this "Social 4 suffer too much" stuff : why on hearth would it be a "social" thing to suffer ???


I believe the idea is that the SOC 4 interprets their suffering as worse in comparison to the rest of the world or whatever group they're comparing against (my SO/SX aunt compares herself against family/friends a lot), not that their suffering really _is_ worse.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Lady Golden said:


> What are instincts ? Are they a focus (as Daeva and Lord Bullingdon state it) or are they just a flavor you randomly add to a type ? According to Naranjo and Chestnut, it seems to be some kind of flavor, but the problem is that they don't bring any definitions to the instincts themselves. It's too random, we don't have explanation about why one instinct would look one way or another when it is associated with a type. Maybe the Sx would be somehow "savage" ? But no, it doesn't even work, as the Sx 9 is apparently the softest one.
> All of this seems very counter-intuitive and random to me. I'm okay with establishing several flavours of each type, but why mixing this to the instincts theory if it doesn't even fit ?



The way I see it, both Enneatype and Instincts are extremely powerful forces in our psyches, and they come together and mix like a chemical reaction, and create something cohesive, which you wouldn't necessarily be able to predict, which might have qualities that you never would have expected to see. It's like a recipe... the whole ends up looking up very different from the sum of its parts, and each part is really important. 


In terms of SP 4 and all the rest of the descriptions, really... One semi-conclusion I've come to regarding BC's descriptions is that as I read each one of them, I get a really strong sense of _spirit_ of the person she's trying to convey... that is, their energy, their overall feel as a person. Some or even many of her details may not apply to everybody, and you have keep in mind how this would all interact with MBTI, as well as life experiences and culture. So the resulting person could look pretty different from the actual description... but they still may have that "spirit" in them, if you will. 

Of course, I don't know for sure BC's descriptions are correct, even on the overall-more-general "just the spirit" level, but I still feel it's valuable information that I can hold in my mind when I think about people and their various types. If anything, it opens your mind to the range of behaviors possible resulting from that core type. 

Also, another way to think about it, maybe, is that her descriptions are just one possible _example_ of how somebody could be with that instinctual variant... given that they're SO detailed. Different life experiences and personal differences could definitely create systematic changes within the type expression, but that person may still have some similarities to the example. Or, like I said above, they could have the _spirit_ of that subtype, even if many details are off. 
@Lady Golden - yeah I agree with what you say about the 4 subtype description flying too far off what type 4 really means. Many of the subtypes have some surprising elements, that you wouldn't necessarily connect to that core type, but nevertheless make sense when you think about it... but sometimes it just goes TOO FAR. Like the example you pointed out. How is someone who "has had a difficult time feeling their emotions because they were so buried" even a 4 at all? I guess they could be a 4 who grew up in some really adverse environment, but if that's the case, that's not a good example, and also I'm not really convinced that a 4 would ever describe their emotions as "so buried" no matter _what_ the situation.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

Not sure if I believe in instinctual subtypes or not

But it's natural that if you take a type and an instinct and spend a little time thinking about how they'd interact with each other maybe having a person in mind, you'll end up with a description that will fit some people of that type! and won't fit others and will fit other people of different types

That's my impression of what's happened with Chestnut.


----------



## Brains (Jul 22, 2015)

I've always had trouble seeing actual people in most of her descriptions. Just something about the wording and the ideas doesn't click. They feel more like "hey, here's an idea" and then riffing on that rather than describing real, living people. Curiously the book's mistype section is actually largely very solid so long as you ignore the subtype and looks like X mentions.

A lot of Naranjo's original descriptions feel odd like that.
"Okay, so, we have a problem. We defined this one type as the antisocial person but one of the named-like-this-because-tradition subtypes is called the social subtype."
"Hm, yeah. How about we just call it the social antisocial person? Maybe say they hit dad in defense of their mom, that's bound to depict most people!"
"Yeah, seems legit."


----------



## Firemoon (Sep 19, 2015)

charlie.elliot said:


> I was just reading the Sexual Four description. This is some crazy shit! Is anyone really like this?


Yeah, I thought the same, I'm not sure this is an accurate description though. BC portrayed Sx 4s as if they were dramatically unhealthy all the time!


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

@Lady Golden - yeah, I've always thought the quote from the SP 4 exemplar didn't sound much like a 4. If I read it without knowing her identified type, and was going to type her, I'd put her at 1, although reading it again I can see where you're getting 3 from. Going through it:



> For much of my life it was difficult for me to feel my true emotions because they were so buried; it just wasn't okay to express emotions when I was growing up- the phase I internalized from my childhood was, “Just suck it up and move on.” Plus, I've always had a stubborn streak, as if I'm the only one who knows how to do something right. My colleagues used to think I was a One because of my need for perfection. And it has sometimes been really difficult for me to connect with the passion of Envy in a meaningful way.


"the only one who knows how to do something right", "need for perfection", these are key type 1 phrases. "difficult for me to feel my true emotions" doesn't sound much like a 4; as Chestnut herself says, "this Four feels a wider range of emotions- more ups and downs- than Ones, even if they don't always express their feelings." And she finds it "difficult... to connect with the passion of Envy in a meaningful way." So why does she type at 4, not 1? She explains:



> But one day when I was thinking of someone I admired and how I came up short by comparison, and I heard my internal voice say “You're not good enough,” I knew I was a Four. I really got the Envy bit then. Now my emotions arise more freely, in small impulses and bursts though, not like the bigger, wilder swings of emotions that you hear about with a lot of Fours.


Because 1s never have an "internal voice" that says things like "you're not good enough", right? I mean 1s don't have a strong inner critic or anything. I know many 4s have those thoughts too, but what an odd reason for settling on 4 instead of 1! It actually reminds me of what Helen Palmer says about how 1s pay attention (that's here.)



> Although I've meditated for many years, it's still difficult to relax and to be calm in daily activity. It just seems like waste of time not be doing or accomplishing something. Even now when I feel my feelings, I catch myself trying to figure out what I can DO with them. I've always pushed myself to work hard to be successful because I wanted to prove myself by being really good at whatever I do and I have been fortunate in being rewarded for my hard work.


That's rather more of a competency focus and need to be productive than I'd expect of a 4. I can see how you might think it has a 3ish slant, but it's also consistent with 1.



> I also see the idea behind the former name of the Self-preservation Four, Reckless/Dauntless, showing up in my behavior. In a way that seems to counter to “self-preservation” I have a penchant for spending money to buy fine things and help others out, sometimes more money than I make. (My mother used to say that I thought money grew on trees.) It's like I get this reckless feeling that money will always be there, so why not spend it on what I love? Plus, I tend to make snap decisions without really thinking it through. For instance, I left my job of 18 years and my 20-year marriage within a month of each other. Of course, the result was some pretty tough years but at least I began to feel my feelings!


Ok, this doesn't sound much like a 1. I'm not going to force her self-description into a type if it doesn't quite fit. I'd still say that 1 is the best fit for her description taken as a whole, although a case could be made for 3. Does that part sound like a 4? It's reckless/dauntless like the old SP 4 name as she says, but if that's what it took to make her feel her feelings... well, 4s are the type that's all about feeling their feelings. Chestnut doesn't say that SP 4s don't feel their feelings, only that they don't express them as much. And she admits that it seems counter to SP, so if that's typical of SP 4s, why call it an SP type? Just one more thing that makes it seem like some of the subtype descriptions are assigned to instincts (and even core types sometimes) at random.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Octavarium said:


> Because 1s never have an "internal voice" that says things like "you're not good enough", right?


Or _anyone_, for that matter. lol


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

@charlie.elliot, you may enjoy this podcast with Chestnut on all the subtypes. She basically outlines the subtypes in her book, but expands on them too. The hosts are rather annoying lol.

http://pacesmith.com/wcme-056/
http://pacesmith.com/wcme-057/
http://pacesmith.com/wcme-058/


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

mistakenforstranger said:


> @charlie.elliot, you may enjoy this podcast with Chestnut on all the subtypes. She basically outlines the subtypes in her book, but expands on them too. The hosts are rather annoying lol.
> 
> http://pacesmith.com/wcme-056/
> http://pacesmith.com/wcme-057/
> http://pacesmith.com/wcme-058/


Oooh thanks!! I will definitely look at this, because I was just thinking today I should look her up on youtube.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

charlie.elliot said:


> You know what guys, in this whole thread *I forget to mention the one thing I like the most about Beatrice Chestnut* (though it doesn't offer much about whether any of it is actually accurate.
> Her descriptions of Sexual subtypes *do not focus at all on actual sexual intimacy or relationships*. She understands the fact that the Sexual instinct is a type of energy, that can be directed at almost anything in life. I hate descriptions that are just like "In relationship, Sexual instincts will be..." That's when _I_ facepalm. It has never made sense to me that your personality would be built around a specific focus in life, like sexual intimacy or relationships. That's almost the equivalent of being like "his personality is that he likes to skateboard" or something.
> 
> So whether or not any of it is accurate, I love that she creates this picture of people using their instincts towards all areas in life, as an energy force... not just "social instincts will focus on groups", "sexual instincts will focus on sexual intimacy" "self-pres instincts will focus on getting their needs met"..


Here's the funny thing: I totally see and agree with what you're saying about Sx. 

But I think it's also what she gets completely wrong about Soc. Soc _is_ about relationships in the most basic sense of the word - how one thing _relates_ to another. I think Chestnut thinks it's about us/them, which is a tiny bit of it, but doesn't even begin to cover it. Here's why I say that: 

BC Soc 1 - perfect example to others
BC Soc 2 - seducer of environments
BC Soc 3 - wants to be on stage, admired, winning
BC Soc 4 - victim role
BC Soc 5 - expert collector
BC Soc 6 - obeys whatever authority they ascribe to
BC Soc 7 - constant aversion to gluttony
BC Soc 8 - allying with archetypal mother against archetypal father
BC Soc 9 - merges with groups

In each subtype there is a clear "us" and "them": for 1s, the need to be perfect in front of all the imperfect people. For 2, the host/ess and the guests. 3, the performer and audience/judges/competition. 4, persecutor and persecuted; 5, experts and laypeople; 6, those who follow the authority and those who don't; 7, gluttons and not; 8, victims and aggressors (real, as opposed to the fantasy version in type 4); 9, the collective and the alone. 

But the Soc neurosis isn't about just two groups. It's a constant hyper-focus on the existence and nature of a vast network of relationships - which can yield cowering to authority, or loving celebrity gossip, or strategically making friends in high places, or "spiritual bypass" (using religion/philosophy as a way of avoiding tough intrapersonal growth) or any number of other bizarre, unpleasant quirks - but, regardless, it's always about obsession over relations. BC somehow seems to completely miss this greater picture with Soc and goes right to the us-and-them, thereby nailing it for whatever set of people are in fact impacted by the particular manifestation of neurosis she's describing and bombing completely when it comes to the rest. 



Lord Bullingdon said:


> Interesting. I have found that many sx-firsts DO have insecurities revolving around sexuality, desirability, and relationships. That's not to say that it doesn't extend much farther than that--it very clearly does. It can be annoying when anyone with any relationship problem immediately thinks they're sx-first--there's more to it than that. And I facepalm at many descriptions of sx-first, too--they make the mistake of describing supposed characteristics rather than describing the neurosis.


Yep.

My brother is a very clear sx/sp and his on-again, off-again girlfriend is a very clear sx/soc. It's a constant, fascinating study into the instincts for me. They each exhibit the characteristic push-pull and I both observe and get to hear from them (him in particular) the joys and challenges of such a strong internal magnetism. And, of course, their dating relationship is fraught with it. But it is clearly a focus that impacts their whole lives, and just happens to be particularly evident in human relationships. 

I have the suspicion that this mis-depiction of Sx as only/mostly manifesting in romantic relationships shows up because those are where people of other instincts get to actually feel and understand Sx on a visceral level, whereas it's kind of like looking at a beam of light through a window otherwise. Sure, you can see it and get the idea that it's probably hot and bright, but you don't really _get it_ until you step outside into the blinding, scorching summer sun.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

angelfish said:


> Soc _is_ about relationships in the most basic sense of the word - how one thing _relates_ to another. I think Chestnut thinks it's about us/them, which is a tiny bit of it, but doesn't even begin to cover it. Here's why I say that:
> 
> BC Soc 1 - perfect example to others
> BC Soc 2 - seducer of environments
> ...


I don't read the descriptions as an us vs. them. I read them as describing how each type interfaces with others or the group (e.g., so1 as modeling the right way to be gets them accepted into the group and suggests how those in the group should also be).



angelfish said:


> But the Soc neurosis isn't about just two groups. It's a constant hyper-focus on the existence and nature of a vast network of relationships - which can yield cowering to authority, or loving celebrity gossip, or strategically making friends in high places, or "spiritual bypass" (using religion/philosophy as a way of avoiding tough intrapersonal growth) or any number of other bizarre, unpleasant quirks - but, regardless, it's always about obsession over relations. BC somehow seems to completely miss this greater picture with Soc and goes right to the us-and-them, thereby nailing it for whatever set of people are in fact impacted by the particular manifestation of neurosis she's describing and bombing completely when it comes to the rest.


I do agree that the descriptions represent a limited interpretation of what the social instinct is (as well as the other instincts), but I think the instinctual subtypes are just built around a very narrow and limited view of each instinct. That's one reason I don't use them and think they aren't good representations of the instincts.


----------



## Santa Gloss (Feb 23, 2015)

enneathusiast said:


> I don't read the descriptions as an us vs. them. I read them as describing how each type interfaces with others or the group (e.g., so1 as modeling the right way to be gets them accepted into the group and suggests how those in the group should also be).


I see it the same way. 



> I do agree that the descriptions represent a limited interpretation of what the social instinct is (as well as the other instincts), but I think the instinctual subtypes are just built around a very narrow and limited view of each instinct. That's one reason I don't use them and think they aren't good representations of the instincts.


Idk about this. The way I see it, she's trying to show how each instinct shows up in each type. She's not trying to show the instinct itself as a whole. If she included a lot of generalities about an instinct, too many people would identify with the wrong type or too many people would say that her descriptions are not specific enough. Somewhere, a compromise has to be struck.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Santa Gloss said:


> Idk about this. The way I see it, she's trying to show how each instinct shows up in each type. She's not trying to show the instinct itself as a whole. If she included a lot of generalities about an instinct, too many people would identify with the wrong type or too many people would say that her descriptions are not specific enough. Somewhere, a compromise has to be struck.


I agree that she's describing how each instinct shows up in each type, but I think she's just describing and elaborating on what she learned from Naranjo. I think Naranjo's take on the instincts is much narrower than and perhaps different from the newer approach where instinct is used independently of type (that seems to be what @*angelfish* was describing in my 2nd quote of her in my last post - the other aspects of the social instinct not described or accounted for in the subtypes). I don't think the descriptions should elaborate more about type. I think they should elaborate more on instinct (instead of just a narrow part of it). Otherwise they're not sufficiently describing instinct.


----------

