# Instinctual Subtypes and Romantic Attraction



## thesleepybean (Sep 15, 2012)

Okay, so in their book about working with the Enneagram in couple’s therapy Moana Coates and Judith Searle reckon that, in their experience, people with matching instinctual subtypes also make for good romantic matches. 

It kinda makes sense right? I mean if you have the same drives as the other person you’re more likely to get along? But according to some, people with the same instinctual drives also have similarities in their looks.
For instance, have a look at these instinctual sub-type face composites (they’re from the Socionics forum over at 16types--I’m assuming of course that Enneagram and Socionic drives are one and the same--kudos to author I should add, they’re nicely done).

So my question is, which subtype in these face composites do you find the most attractive?
Is it:

a) the same as your own?
b) the same primary instinct only?
c) not your own?
d) or maybe you can't stand the sight of your matching subtype.















[As per the hypothesis, (a) seems to work for me, but I’d be interested to know if I’m in the majority!]


----------



## Gilly (Apr 22, 2012)

Sp/Sx, Sx/So, Sx/Sp.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

None of them. :frustrating:


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

I don't know because I can't read the letters. But I'd choose, for the women, upper-right hand side. For the guys, center and top row. I'm bisexual. What are they? lol


----------



## Pendorah (Mar 26, 2017)

I actually can't tell if someone is attractive just by glancing at their face. I'm attracted more to voices/things someone says and they way people carry themselves.


----------



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

I feel "in sync" with so/sx. I think I am attracted to sx/sp though.
@Quernus so/sx and sx/sp respectively.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

Rose for a Heart said:


> I feel "in sync" with so/sx. I think I am attracted to sx/sp though.
> @*Quernus* so/sx and sx/sp respectively.


ooh, thank you. That's interesting although I don't put much stock into this, lol. 

The main trend I've noticed in my romantic life is that everyone I've ever dated on any level has sx either first or second. Only one so-dom, so/sx, but it was also my longest relationship. trying to think about people I've had crushes on/been attracted to without dating, more in line with the point of this post, but that's harder to determine...


----------



## Syvelocin (Apr 4, 2014)

I haven't been aware of instincts in relationships long enough to know if I have to be with the same subtype, or if any sx dom is fine, or if sx second is even fine, but it has been made painfully obvious I can't be in a relationship with an sp/so or so/sp.


----------



## Santa Gloss (Feb 23, 2015)

For both male and female composites, I was attracted primarily to SX/SO faces and just a tiny bit to SO/SX faces. This is unexpected. I normally date SX/SP and SP doms. The male and female faces of my type (SO/SP) were totally NOT my type.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

thesleepybean said:


> Okay, so in their book about working with the Enneagram in couple’s therapy Moana Coates and Judith Searle reckon that, in their experience, people with matching instinctual subtypes also make for good romantic matches.
> 
> It kinda makes sense right? I mean if you have the same drives as the other person you’re more likely to get along? But according to some, people with the same instinctual drives also have similarities in their looks.
> For instance, have a look at these instinctual sub-type face composites (they’re from the Socionics forum over at 16types--I’m assuming of course that Enneagram and Socionic drives are one and the same--kudos to author I should add, they’re nicely done).
> ...


I prefer SP/SO (just ahead of) SO/SX, then SX/SP. None of the others have much appeal for me.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Distortions said:


> None of them. :frustrating:


Well, *that*'s obvious. Your smiley-figure matches your avatar quite well...! :tongue:


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

g_w said:


> Well, *that*'s obvious. Your smiley-figure matches your avatar quite well...! :tongue:


They're not disgruntled for the same reasons, though.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

It's too small to see
For the men, though: top middle stood out to me first, then I noticed bottom right, not sure who's more attractive
Top right really annoys me, it's a look that annoys me, then...bottom middle also has some annoying quality but energy-wise I can see being into a guy looking like that irl
Left two are neutral


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

IRL, I attract so/sx or sx/so. But we obviously clash on the so vs sp stuff. I think some combo of sp+sx would suit me, but sp/sx is more common, and it's hard for us to connect because we are both, well self-preserving.

Sx last are definitely the least attractive to me :X 
The sx seems most important, but not necessarily first, just not last. I can't really vote then...

I tend to like very warm faces (so+sx) or blanker but a tad angsty (sx+sp). Like most people, I prefer syn-flow so/sx or sx/sp best, even though I am contra-flow. The contra flow are not unattractive to me, but they aren't _inviting_. The sp+so look nice and non-threatening, but I get this "dad vibe", like they are Mr. Rogers. 

In the photos, I think my own expression may look more like the sx/sp nowadays because I don't look as blank as the sp/sx. I might have when I was younger, but then people often read me as slightly angry, which looks more like the sx/sp. Or maybe the fact it wasn't inviting was sp/sx. I think my face is more inviting now, especially in photos. I express a lot through the eyes.

edit: Here is a link to the large size of the photos:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/265-Instinct-Stacking-Face-Composites


----------



## Hellfire (Nov 30, 2015)

I like SP/Sx or Sx/Sp. 
Social instinct isn't my thing.


----------



## 0+n*1 (Sep 20, 2013)

Sx/sp, then sp/sx and sx/so. It's the sx. Sx is attraction, so I think it's going to skewed in their favor.


----------



## Manuscript (Feb 12, 2017)

All of the female faces except SP/SO and SO/SP look attractive to me. Of the rest, SO/SX draws the most immediate attention but seems about equal to SP/SX and SX/SP in sum, while SX/SO is the least attractive of the four (fake tan?). For compatibility reasons I would match with SP/SX if I had to choose between them.

I'm surprised to not feel any attraction for the SX-lasts, although I've long known that some people 'stand out' from the rest. But isn't the corollary that they are SO-last or SP-last? That's a strange thought. Finally: I get a sense of déjà vu from the female faces, whereas the male faces look vaguely like psychopaths.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

I'm an sp/sx and I'm attracted to other sp/sx and also to sx/sp.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

I am SX/SP. I much prefer a woman who is also SX/SP, but SX/SO can also work. It is the SX being first that really matters.

I see change in a very linear way - exposure to someone must have a positive correlation with our level of intensity, or I will start to feel bored, unhappy and restless. FTR, this is why I don’t have many male friends (hardly any, in fact). There is no sexual aspect to our relationship, and that deprives me of my main way of bonding with someone. You will eventually reach a plateau in platonic relationships insofar as connection is concerned, and I will lose interest after that point. That is, unless I am actively doing things with said person like creating music, lyrics, etc. This satiates my desire for tangible results and closure as we are turning the subjective (my visions) into the objective (things you can touch, taste, hear, see and smell) as a team. I often feel like I want and need more, always _more_, which can make me demanding in relationships and this creates a need to feel really powerful emotions, exaggerate things and perform extreme acts.

Think of a homing missile always focused on hitting its target destination, which reduced to its most fundamental is the ouvm, _hard_. That’s me. If you put an obstacle directly between me and my target, what do you think will happen? I’ll try to evade, but if I cannot I’ll smash it or be destroyed myself.


----------

