# Is type 2 really a superego type?



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Dying Acedia said:


> ... that isn't really central to the type and moreover can lead to a servant-like image of the 2 that R&H have presented, rather than the actual nature which is as much seduction and self-indulgence as it is benevolence.
> 
> I would rather call attention to the 2's nature as a response to the loss of Holy Will, pitting their will *against the will of the universe* through a thrust that can only be maintained by egoic pride.


Now you almost make it sound like 'disobedience/insubordination' (as opposed to 'compliance' or 'congruence'), and I also wonder how according to you "holy freedom" fits in this picture. 

How about resentment, vanity, gluttony or lust, is that going *against* the universe also?
Like with for instance e3, Holy Law/Hope, I don't think the idea is that a 3 goes *against* the law of the universe, but rather _the mindset that the ego is in control_ (of the accomplishments). 



RH said:


> This Holy Idea has to do with correcting the ego's false perception that it is the source of doing and functioning—that the ego is accomplishing something. From the non-dual perspective of Essence, everything is one: there is only one complete and total reality that is here in each moment. (...) There can be no independent doing or accomplishment because everything is happening together.
> Enneagram History and Origins: The Traditional Enneagram


Pride is the idea (or expectation) that one has *earned* what it desires, through compliance, and Superego being for instance the social construct of reciprocal altruism, return/ exchange of favors and services. Pride is close to Vanity (like 'vainglory')



Reciprocity said:


> Reciprocal actions are important to social psychology as they can help explain the maintenance of social norms.


(btw I agree with the shortcomings of mapping enneatypes with Freuds psychodynamics)


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

unctuousbutler said:


> Yada yada yada. A healthy two still places others first.


- a healthy 9 doesn't procrastinate
- a healthy 5 doesn't hoard
- a healthy 8 doesn't seek to dominate his environment
- a healthy 7 has good focus and is hard working
....you have to look at types in the average to unhealthy range because that's when the fixation is _actually affecting the personality_ and the _natural weaknesses_ of the types become clear.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> - a healthy 9 doesn't procrastinate
> - a healthy 5 doesn't hoard
> - a healthy 8 doesn't seek to dominate his environment
> - a healthy 7 has good focus and is hard working
> *....you have to look at types in the average to unhealthy range because that's when the fixation is actually affecting the personality and the natural weaknesses of the types become clear.*


I agree, for the most part. There's actually still some fixation in the healthy range but not as much. The twos I have personally come across are pretty selfless, and not all in the healthy range. Two is definitely a superego type. Are you familiar with the QUEST? Twos clearly should score as "C" on the first component (superego) irrespective of health really. The reasons for helping might be different depending on health, though. Even 2w3 (ruling out w1) wants to know the "right" thing to do (superego) and follow the rules. 

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/QuestTest.pdf


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> - *a healthy 9 doesn't procrastinate*
> - a healthy 5 doesn't hoard
> - a healthy 8 doesn't seek to dominate his environment
> - a healthy 7 has good focus and is hard working
> ....you have to look at types in the average to unhealthy range because that's when the fixation is _actually affecting the personality_ and the _natural weaknesses_ of the types become clear.


I would actually amend this example and say nines of all health stripes are typically more relaxed than sixes. So two = helping on almost all levels of health and nine = chill on almost all levels of health. Procrastination is way too narrow.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

unctuousbutler said:


> I agree, for the most part. There's actually still some fixation in the healthy range but not as much. The twos I have personally come across are pretty selfless, and not all in the healthy range. Two is definitely a superego type. Are you familiar with the QUEST? Twos clearly should score as "C" on the first component (superego) irrespective of health really. The reasons for helping might be different depending on health, though. *Even 2w3 (ruling out w1) wants to know the "right" thing to do (superego) and follow the rules. *
> http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/QuestTest.pdf


I beg to differ
most of the 2w3s I know don't care at all about rules. it's a common misconception that superego equates following rules. superego types are compliant to their own superego, which may or may not include a set of external rules created by someone else (I'm sure most of the 6s on this forum would attest that they detest most externally imposed rules. just ask @Free beer @fourtines or @Promethea)

also, have you considered that the 2s you met simply gave off the _image_ of being selfless rather than actually being selfless? it's something most of them are notoriously good at


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

unctuousbutler said:


> I would actually amend this example and say nines of all health stripes are typically more relaxed than sixes.


we're talking about different things here. you're talking about superficial traits; I'm talking about mental pitfalls. in the case of 2, this mental trap is a mask of false humility covering secret feelings of entitlement, selfishness and social obligation. 

however, continuing with your example


> So two = helping on almost all levels of health *with the intention of getting a reward, whether it be social or material*


fixed =)


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I beg to differ
> most of the 2w3s I know don't care at all about rules. it's a common misconception that superego equates following rules. superego types are compliant to their own superego, which may or may not include a set of external rules created by someone else (I'm sure most of the 6s on this forum would attest that they detest most externally imposed rules. just ask @Free beer @fourtines or @Promethea)
> 
> also, have you considered that the 2s you met simply gave off the _image_ of being selfless rather than actually being selfless? it's something most of them are notoriously good at


~rawr~, screw rules.


----------



## Midnight Runner (Feb 14, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I beg to differ
> most of the 2w3s I know don't care at all about rules. it's a common misconception that superego equates following rules. superego types are compliant to their own superego, which may or may not include a set of external rules created by someone else (I'm sure most of the 6s on this forum would attest that they detest most externally imposed rules. just ask @_Free_ beer @_fourtines_ or @_Promethea_)


This is actually quite true of myself (a 2w1), even. While some sense of social convention is important for the purposes of putting on the right mask to generate the correct responses from people, in general I care very little about it (vulgar and politically incorrect jokes in particular is a social taboo I have no personal animosity for, as an example). But as much as I care not what others think in the sense of rules from society, I do care very much about how I come off to them. My id would have me do one thing, my ego another, but my superego overrules and has me do the 'proper' thing to create the desired effect in another person. I police myself far more strongly than any government or social body.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> we're talking about different things here. you're talking about superficial traits; I'm talking about mental pitfalls. in the case of 2, this mental trap is a mask of false humility covering secret feelings of entitlement, selfishness and social obligation.
> 
> however, continuing with your example
> 
> ...


That's not true of healthy twos...I wouldn't called that "fixed" because that only applies to levels 4-9 using R&H's schemata. I have already stated all of this.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I beg to differ


That's fine. You're certainly not the only or final enneagram authority.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I beg to differ
> most of the 2w3s I know don't care at all about rules. *it's a common misconception that superego equates following rules.* superego types are compliant to their own superego, which may or may not include a set of external rules created by someone else (I'm sure most of the 6s on this forum would attest that they detest most externally imposed rules.
> 
> also, have you considered that the 2s you met simply gave off the _image_ of being selfless rather than actually being selfless? it's something most of them are notoriously good at


Not really. Ones follow their own personal ethics, sixes are basically insecure about what might happen if they deviate...


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> also, have you considered that the 2s you met simply gave off the _image_ of being selfless rather than actually being selfless? it's something most of them are notoriously good at


Maybe I have just mingled with an inordinate amount of healthy twos but these people are definitely others first _at the core_. It's not some manipulation. It couldn't be because they demonstrably_ suffer_ from putting others first, without the expectation of subsequent nurturing. But again, maybe I have met an inordinate amount of healthy twos. I understand what you are saying about fixated twos but that doesn't account for the healthy ones. Healthy twos are still twos.

Here's an example. I knew a two growing up who walked into heavy traffic and helped some stranger push his broken-down car to safety. She never saw him again and didn't expect a reward...


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> Not really. Ones follow their own personal ethics, sixes are basically insecure about what might happen if they deviate...


Hah, no. 1s seek to maintain some sort of ideal, and they dedicate their lives to creating it. It doesn't have to be some kind of moral or ethical standard so much as it is fervent idealism. 6s want to maintain "steady ground" and create a sense of stability and predictability for themselves. CP 6s don't give three shits about rules, unless the rules suit them.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Ananael said:


> Hah, no. 1s seek to maintain some sort of ideal


Ones value integrity and follow a personal ethic. Look at someone like Noam Chomsky.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> Not really. Ones follow their own personal ethics, sixes are basically insecure about what might happen if they deviate...


This is getting old.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> Ones value integrity and follow a personal ethic. Look at someone like Noam Chomsky.


Having integrity doesn't make you an honest, noble, person who champions morality. It means being true to ones self and personal standards and ideals. You can be a person of great integrity and be a dishonest cheat who only serves himself.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Ananael said:


> Having integrity doesn't make you an honest, noble, person who champions morality. It means being true to ones self and personal standards and ideals. You can be a person of great integrity and be a dishonest cheat who only serves himself.


Ones tend not to be dishonest cheats...their superegos forbid that...


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> Ones tend not to be dishonest cheats...their superegos forbid that...


In your world of simplistic generalizations, yes.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Ananael said:


> In your world of simplistic generalizations, yes.


And in most one's lives...most ones tend not to be dishonest cheats (which is tautological anyway).


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Ananael said:


> In your world of simplistic generalizations, yes.


You don't even realize what you're saying. If you counter this: 



> _Ones tend not to be dishonest cheats...their superegos forbid that..._


then you are saying most ones_ are _dishonest cheats (and not superego types?)...which is clearly false.


----------



## Midnight Runner (Feb 14, 2010)

unctuousbutler said:


> You don't even realize what you're saying. If you counter this:
> 
> 
> 
> then you are saying most ones_ are _dishonest cheats (and not superego types?)...which is clearly false.


I think the point isn't that they're mostly dishonest or honest, but more that they are no more or less so than anyone else; they simply hold to their own idealized morals and values moreso than those of other types. They are more likely to become the self-righteous defender of those ideals than others are, regardless of what those ideals are (which they pick up from their parents and environment).

As for your story regarding the 2 who helped push someone out of the way of a car, you held them in high esteem because of this act, no? That is the kind of reward we seek, not simple monetary or otherwise physical pleasures (not that those are declined, either). We look for people to praise us, to make ourselves important and held in high regard in their eyes, as we believe we deserve, not just to get _things_ from them. Even at my healthiest, even if I never see the other person ever again, I crave the approval and praise of others.


----------



## Wake (Aug 31, 2009)

@Swordsman of Mana, the ideal of love is a positive goal making it moral for other people. Someone who is supposed to be continuously returning to this goal can appear to be a superego centered person, but as your quotes made light of the person is actually only working for their own happiness. I think this categorization is too vague, but that is my complaint about many things of the Enneagram.

The core of the Two is linked to the superego nonetheless through love of others.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Midnight Runner said:


> As for your story regarding the 2 who helped push someone out of the way of a car, you held them in high esteem because of this act, no?


I wouldn't say so. In fact, my friend and I stayed in the car and called her a bleeding heart at the time.

The story more illustrates how twos are superego and others before self, again, when healthy. :wink:

I encourage anyone who wants to quibble with me to read the R&H description of level one twos.


----------



## Midnight Runner (Feb 14, 2010)

unctuousbutler said:


> I wouldn't say so. In fact, my friend and I stayed in the car and called her a bleeding heart at the time.


And yet, that's still the praise being sought. You may have said that, but it would have come out only as a teasing form of respect for her actions, which is exactly what I would have been looking for out of such an action. Strangers mean very little to me personally unless there is something to be gained from them (including, but not limited to, gaining another connection from which I might glean affection and respect).

Again, if you really don't want to think about 2s as being selfish, that's your prerogative; I'm just saying that, from personal experience _as a 2_, you're wrong. My actions have always been ultimately selfishly motivated, and I would say I'm a fairly healthy 2, especially when it comes to my closest friends. 

If you want to disagree with several prominent writers and the personal experiences of a 2, then you can, but you have to realize you're not likely to win this particular argument when you don't sound like you know the motivations of these 2s all that well (if they are even 2s at all; some people seem to see someone helping others and go "They're a 2! Must be!"). I personally find R&H's descriptions of 2s especially trite and unhelpful when it comes to the type. They make us out to be much better people than we really are, when in reality we're no better than any other type of person. That's all we're getting at here with saying the 2 is selfish; we are flawed, just as everyone else is ultimately a flawed person.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

> That's not true of healthy twos...I wouldn't called that "fixed" because that only applies to levels 4-9 using R&H's schemata. I have already stated all of this.


the key word was "almost" all levels. integrated individuals of any type are the minority.



unctuousbutler said:


> That's fine. You're certainly not the only or final enneagram authority.


never said I was (though people love to play this card when they disagree with me)


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

unctuousbutler said:


> Not really. Ones follow their own personal ethics


like I said, compliant with their own superegos. "the rules" implies an external rule structure that they are compliant to, which is only the case sometimes. 



> sixes are basically insecure about what might happen if they deviate...


this is true of your stereotypical xSxJ 6w5 Sp/So, but it's not true of all or even most 6s.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

unctuousbutler said:


> I wouldn't say so. In fact, my friend and I stayed in the car and called her a bleeding heart at the time.
> The story more illustrates how twos are superego and others before self, again, when healthy. :wink:
> *I encourage anyone who wants to quibble with me to read the R&H description of level one twos*.


and that's why they're level 1, because they've overcome the natural pitfalls of type 2, such as false humility, covert control via social give and take and histrionic attempts to gain love and adoration. we are debating the natural weaknesses of type 2, so using individuals who have overcome these natural weaknesses is irrelevant evidence


----------



## jdmn (Feb 5, 2010)

I've had the same impression. When I've read character and neurosis, I found type 2 not to be a very superego function. I've seen it more as an id function, because of it's strong need for love, and for pleasure, since love equals pleasure according the author's description. I've seen no strong prohibition on self-gratification or socially unacceptable things, even a trait of type 2 according to naranjo is called "hedonism". 

However, the author stated that the nature of pride has some authoritarian elements in the stablishment of relationships. Type 2s set an implicit relationship of give and take between the type 2 and his-her "beneficiaries" which has a lot of guilt inducing and claims for the type to be treated with care. We receive the type 2's love and care, so we must pay him/her back, or we'll meet with the type 2's righteous anger because s/he hasn't received the love s/he gave. They put a super-ego-like authoritarian undertones in their social relationships. 

As for my personal opinion, I think a type 2 may or may not be a "superego" type. It depends on the way a type 2 conducts his/her need for love and the fulfillment of his/her pride. It may have superego understones, or even the id may be heavily pronounced.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> and that's why they're level 1, because they've overcome the natural pitfalls of type 2, such as false humility, covert control via social give and take and histrionic attempts to gain love and adoration. we are debating the natural weaknesses of type 2, so using individuals who have overcome these natural weaknesses is irrelevant evidence


This applies to healthy twos, so levels one to three.

You're really not telling me anything new SOM. :wink:


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> like I said, compliant with their own superegos. *"the rules" implies an external rule structure that they are compliant to, which is only the case sometimes. *


Sometimes yet more frequently than, say, type three. Fives, to take another example, don't care about the rules; typically, fives want to operate outside the rules whereas sixes want to follow the rules.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> the key word was "almost" all levels.


Yeah that's why I used the word almost purposefully. :laughing:


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> never said I was (though people love to play this card when they disagree with me)


Your tone is just laughably categorical. I don't think you've disproved anything I have stated. You just repeat my points, like with the previous post and use of the caveat "almost." 



> _the key word was "almost" all levels._


That's repeating me literally verbatim.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

unctuousbutler said:


> Sometimes yet more frequently than, say, type three. Fives, to take another example, don't care about the rules; typically, fives want to operate outside the rules whereas sixes want to follow the rules.


with all due respect, your understanding of type 6 is novice at best. 



> This applies to healthy two, so levels one to three.
> You're really not telling me anything new SOM.


I'm not telling you anything new because you have not grasped the point I'm trying to make. we're going in circles. 



unctuousbutler said:


> Your tone is just laughably categorical. I don't think you've disproved anything I have stated. You just repeat my points, like with the previous post and use of the caveat "almost."
> That's repeating me literally verbatim.


it wasn't verbatim. I added the following caveat: *with the intention of getting a reward, whether it be social or material*, which made a significant adjustment to your point. 


I realize you're frustrated because we're going in circles and people are probably coming across a little condescending (hell, I probably sound a bit condescending now), but you're new to the enneagram. it takes awhile to grasp fully and you, quite understandably, have a relatively simplistic/incomplete understanding at this point which _seems_ to be supported by the evidence yet actually isn't (as powerful and self evident as it is, the Enneagram is frustratingly nebulous and subjective and the texts are a bitch to interpret correctly. R&H quotes are probably misused more than Bible verses :frustrating: )


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> with all due respect, your understanding of type 6 is novice at best.


Then Riso, Hudson et al. must be novice at best too. :kitteh:


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I realize you're frustrated because we're going in circles and people are probably coming across a little condescending (hell, I probably sound a bit condescending now), but you're new to the enneagram. it takes awhile to grasp fully and you, quite understandably, have a relatively simplistic/incomplete understanding at this point which _seems_ to be supported by the evidence yet actually isn't (as powerful and self evident as it is, the Enneagram is frustratingly nebulous and subjective and the texts are a bitch to interpret correctly. R&H quotes are probably misused more than Bible verses :frustrating: )


How do you mean misused? I can find you chapter and verse...to carry your biblical analogy. Seriously, you can criticize the source but not my accurate conveyance of the source...read Wisdom of the Enneagram...the bit before the type chapters about the types' relation to rules. You will read what I just said about fives and sixes.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> with all due respect, your understanding of type 6 is novice at best.


Now it's my turn, with all due respect, SOM, you're not that smart. I watched your latest video and you have some maturing to do. At any rate, a six in the throes of his/her ego fixation and basic fear will likely seek out sure things - jobs with security, etc. Any renegade quality is in relation to fear. Basically every six is counter/phobic at different times. When someone says, she's a counterphobic six that means she acts more counterphobically than phobically. The rebellion is in relation to fear, still.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@unctuousbutler


> Then Riso, Hudson et al. must be novice at best too.


1) to be honest, kind of. The Wisdom of the Enneagram is kind of like Enneagram 101. while Riso and Hudson themselves have a comprehensive understanding, the book is meant as an entryway into the Enneagram, with works by Naranjo, Maitri, Ichazo, Palmer etc being more advanced (and usually a lot darker/taking a look at the ugly side of each type).

2) reading a book does not mean you understand it fully (which is no insult to your intelligence). using the Bible example again, most novice preachers have read the Bible several times.



> How do you mean misused? I can find you chapter and verse...to carry your biblical analogy. Seriously, you can criticize the source but not my accurate conveyance of the source...read Wisdom of the Enneagram...the bit before the type chapters about the types relation to rules. You will read what I just said about fives and sixes.


I am criticizing your _interpretation_ of the source, not your _conveyance_ of it. big difference (I chose my words carefully for this very reason)


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @_unctuousbutler_
> 
> 1) to be honest, kind of. The Wisdom of the Enneagram is kind of like Enneagram 101. while Riso and Hudson themselves have a comprehensive understanding, the book is meant as an entryway into the Enneagram, with works by Naranjo, Maitri, Ichazo, Palmer etc being more advanced (and usually a lot darker/taking a look at the ugly side of each type).
> 
> ...


It's not an interpretation. Just read that section I referred you to.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

> PS: I appreciate you responding calmly and not taking my last post as a personal attack.




Meh, that's just passive aggressive. You call my understanding novice and then get touchy when I tell you your assessment is off.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> 1) to be honest, kind of. The Wisdom of the Enneagram is kind of like Enneagram 101. while Riso and Hudson themselves have a comprehensive understanding, the book is meant as an entryway into the Enneagram, with works by Naranjo, Maitri, Ichazo, Palmer etc being more advanced (and usually a lot darker/taking a look at the ugly side of each type).


Yeah this is masturbatory and going in circles. So, tell me something I didn't already know about type six...from your apparently extensive reading. I would be surprised if you told me anything new or valuable but try to dazzle me.


----------

