# Are People Aware of their Instincts?



## shalom1 (Jun 21, 2017)

Sparky2929,



> I think what happened here is that you knew you were a 1 first. Knowing the type definitely makes the instincts more difficult to pin down.
> 
> What do you think may have initially clouded your judgment? Maybe you had already defined your MBTI or something.


I was introduced to the 9 types first so maybe it is just that. A friend gave me an explanation of the 9 types, than I started reading everything Enneagram including the instincts, etc. I learned my MBTI type (INFJ) years before I heard of the Enneagram. I'm curious why you say that knowing one's MBTI type could impact finding one's instinctual variant?

I think I was confused by the initial explanations I saw for what the instincts mean. SP sounded like constant existential anxiety or something. I also don't know that I agree with your definition of SP meaning wanting to meet one's basic needs first before others; I haven't seen that elsewhere. My understanding is that it is a focus on survival and security (could mean "me first" or not depending on type, health and other factors; consider SP 8 vs SP 9, for example).

Beatrice Chestnut's books really helped me understand the instincts in the context of each type, which allowed me to see my own. For whatever reason I just don't find them that helpful separate from the types. I do think SX is the 2nd my stack so I was not totally off there.


----------



## Sparky2929 (Jun 2, 2017)

Benty Fagatronicus said:


> 1)
> If you restrict SO to people who are content to conform, you imply, for example,
> 
> 2)
> that people who devote their whole lives to changing societal conditions explicitly for the benefit of others *cannot* have SO as their dominant instinct. Does that not strike you as absurd?


That does strike me as absurd since the first doesn't imply the second. I'm not sure where your leap in logic comes from. Maybe reread what I've said.

I was saying that devoting your life to societal norms doesn't make you a SO type. A desire to fulfill a role within a group does.

If you scroll back to the top you'll also see that my first post clarifies SX vs SO.


----------



## Sparky2929 (Jun 2, 2017)

shalom1 said:


> I was introduced to the 9 types first so maybe it is just that. A friend gave me an explanation of the 9 types, than I started reading everything Enneagram including the instincts, etc. I learned my MBTI type (INFJ) years before II'm curious why you say that knowing one's MBTI type could impact finding one's instinctual variant?


Cause I thought you'd be an F if you were initially leaning towards SX.


----------



## shalom1 (Jun 21, 2017)

Sparky2929 said:


> Cause I thought you'd be an F if you were initially leaning towards SX.


Gotcha. Indeed I am.

ETA: Although actually, it does make sense that Feelers would be more likely to misidentify as SX, but that doesn't explain how _knowing _my MBTI would have contributed. But perhaps it's neither here nor there. Bottom line, in answer to your original question, I do not personally find the instincts an especially helpful or obvious place to start. And if Feelers would be more likely to mistake for SX, that suggests to me that at least some people won't do well starting there. There's not necessarily a one-size-fits-all approach, though.


----------



## Sparky2929 (Jun 2, 2017)

shalom1 said:


> Bottom line, in answer to your original question, I do not personally find the instincts an especially helpful or obvious place to start. And if Feelers would be more likely to mistake for SX, that suggests to me that at least some people won't do well starting there.


Yeah you're kinda confirming what my point was. If you identify with feeler, you'll tend towards SX.

If you're a blank slate, then you'll take the instinct at face value and not impose other ideas.


----------



## shalom1 (Jun 21, 2017)

Sparky2929 said:


> Yeah you're kinda confirming what my point was. If you identify with feeler, you'll tend towards SX.
> 
> If you're a blank slate, then you'll take the instinct at face value and not impose other ideas.


I see; interesting. I personally have not met many people who 1) are truly "blank slates" in terms of ideas about their personalities, be that MBTI or something else, and also 2) are interested in learning their Enneagram type. I'll have to observe/think more about it.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

It's taken me about 2 years to see sp in myself (other people see it...) and I'm still not convinced lol so I'd guess it isn't?
Immediately identified as sx, it was hard to convince me away from that (tbh not totally sure of it still). Being a 2 and a feeler and such I think makes it hard not to see that.

As for others, instincts are still one of the hardest things for me to spot.
Even when they seem obvious...there was one woman I assumed was sp 6 for the longest time because it was like she had walked out of a textbook, was constantly warning me about heat and various other sp-ish things but eventually I realized she was social-first, I think ESFJ 6w5 so/sp. The 6 and Si was imitating higher sp I think.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Sparky2929 said:


> Starting from a place of instinct, a social 4 is a 4 in a group of people. *If you are saying that you think Marilyn Manson is not a group oriented person*, then start with a different instinct. The kind of person your describing seems more like a SX 1, who takes a stance outside of groups and tries to reform others.





> If you start the way you did, and say that *he is merely interested in groups, but doesn't necessarily want be a part of one*, then you'll end up saying that he isn't even SO, and maybe something like SX 1 would be a better description. A need for reforming individuals or groups that you passionately disagree with.


I had a long reply typed up but I think this is the core of the misunderstanding (at least on my part): I understood star tripper's posts as saying that Manson is unconventional, *not* that he isn't group-oriented or doesn't want to be in a group. Unconventional people, non-conforming people, dissidents who criticize and are dissatisfied with specific groups or specific group dynamics can still be group-oriented and desire to be part of groups (actually, contemporary Western psychology indicates that _all_ psychologically healthy human beings want to be part of some group).

So your SO and SX classifications don't make sense to me because you seem to have conforming group-oriented people in SO and non-conforming/dissident group-oriented people in SX, rather than classifying *all* group-oriented people in SO. That seems to mean that non-conforming/dissident group-oriented people *and* one-on-one-oriented people are grouped together as SX, raising the question of what they have in common.


----------



## Sparky2929 (Jun 2, 2017)

Benty Fagatronicus said:


> So your SO and SX classifications don't make sense to me because you seem to have conforming group-oriented people in SO and non-conforming/dissident group-oriented people in SX, rather than classifying *all* group-oriented people in SO.


I guess I was trying to separate SX and SO, as SX is much more ok with non-conforming and isn't necessarily group oriented.

Maybe I can explain SO through myself. As a SO 5, I want to indulge in specific topics, so I can be an expert within a group, the go-to person. 

It's not that I will conform to a group, but that I want a group that I approve of to conform to.

So let me try again. SO: conforms to groups and SX: conforms to intimates.


----------



## Krayfish (Nov 3, 2015)

The first thing I was able to type definitely was my instinctual variants. It took me a while to figure out the order of the first two (sp/so), but I pretty much knew where I stood from the beginning. When typing people, I usually ignore the instinctual stacking unless it's really obvious because a person's natural instincts seems to be more internalized, therefore semi obvious to them.

The only problem I see with this sort of typing is that people often confuse sx and so in their stacking because a) so is described kind of grossly in stereotypes, so people mostly avoid thinking they could be SO and b) so and sx seem to be somewhat similar in their desire for interaction (note: That was worded poorly, but I'm not sure how to fix it). I find that more often than not, sp doms usually know they are sp right off the bat while so and sx dom can be more difficult to decipher


----------



## star tripper (Sep 1, 2013)

Sparky2929 said:


> I guess I was trying to separate SX and SO, as SX is much more ok with non-conforming and isn't necessarily group oriented.
> 
> Maybe I can explain SO through myself. As a SO 5, I want to indulge in specific topics, so I can be an expert within a group, the go-to person.
> 
> ...


This is a much better distinction but I would forgo the use of "conformity" and "convention." Pooling together our agreed upon ideas of soc, I would say soc want to be a part of a group BUT that does not necessarily translate to a willingness to join a group. Soc-doms frequently WANT to be a part of a group but are frustrated that the group isn't good enough or that they can't fit in or, well, other shit. I'm not saying the desire to be in a group is not social but rather soc-doms can be rather critical of mainstream groups and choose to fight these groups with their own. There's this neurotic awareness of groups perhaps to the point of overreading group dynamics. Does that make more sense? There are so many ways an instinct can manifest. I would think of the names as more thematic than hard and fast rules so to speak. General focus on self? Sp (the person doesn't have to focus on money). General focus on people as a whole? So (the person doesn't have to be socially adept). General focus on one singular energy source? Sx (the person doesn't have to slut around).


----------



## Cherry (May 28, 2017)

Even after reading all this, I still don't understand the "instincts." I feel like I could have created a random typology that made just as much sense. What do they even mean, why do they even matter (in SIMPLE terms) in life? If someone could explain it in a "fool proof" manner as if I had NO prior knowledge of personality types/psychology at all, that would be superb.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Golden Candle said:


> Even after reading all this, I still don't understand the "instincts." I feel like I could have created a random typology that made just as much sense. What do they even mean, why do they even matter (in SIMPLE terms) in life? If someone could explain it in a "fool proof" manner as if I had NO prior knowledge of personality types/psychology at all, that would be superb.


I'll give it a try, though I must warn you beforehand, I will be forgetting stuff!! 

Instinct, as the name implies, is about biological patterns that we as mammals are programmed for. While these come in many forms, (we have the instinct to hold our breath under water for example), the Enneagram tradition posits that there are three main drives; a self preservation one, a sexual one, and a social one.

These three basic instincts are necessary for the survival of our species. Take one of them away and the human race falls in ruin. No self preservation instinct? Well that seems pretty straight forward, we'd die just from crossing a street. No sexual instinct? No future generations to speak of. No social instinct? No nurturing the young, (or anyone at all really) => babies DIE. Pretty morbid I know.
Instinct happens before such a thing as reason or emotion kicks in. In fact, instinct will very likely be _dictating_ those. It is the animal inside of us, often referred to as the 'reptilian brain.'

The theory goes that we, or should I say our egos, get over-identified with one of them. The ego perceives a life-threatening lack in being able to sustain this one particular instinct, and so will over-focus on it. This becomes neurotic. An over-focus of one instinct leads to an _under_-focus on another, creating a _blindspot_. The _way_ we over-identify with an instinct is referred to as one's Enneagram _type_, and the instinct we focus too much on becomes known as one's first instinct, with the last one being one's blindspot.

To learn which instinct you are dominated by, just pay attention to the areas where you consistently and persistently over-react, almost as if these were life-or-death situations. What gets you going bonkers? What makes you mess up _more_? In what area will you be acting at your worst?
To learn which instinct is the blindspot, well.. which area doesn't seem to register to you, even if so people keep on stressing its importance? There will be a lack of reaction to this instinct, almost as if one could 'easily' do without. Often others are picking up on the mess we make here, where we don't even notice it.

This leads us to the actual definition of the three instinct and, seeing as I just woke up, I'll just point to this thread. The person who took the original notes here has gone to improve his understanding of the instincts even further and here is where you can learn more about them/him.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Typology Jesus said:


> Yeah I think it is pointless to type people in the enneagram if you don't have the instinct.
> Also instinct is usually fairly obvious, so there is that.
> Grab the low hanging fruit.


Why do you value the enneagram only when combined with the instinct? Are you subscribing to the subtype theory, or what?

Anyway, re: the OP:



> So does anyone type instinct first and enneagram second? Has anyone tried this and the person mistyped their instincts?


I don't do type in a particular order of importance, but I type people based on what is the most readily observable about them at any given moment. Sometimes that can be instincts, sometimes it can be the core type or something else. It's all highly variable and context-dependent based on the situation. 

So firsts tend to distinguish themselves in their acute interest in the social sphere though, being concerned about group values and beliefs, organizing or supporting causes, being interested in politics and so on. Sp I am not as good recognizing in people, arguably because it is my own blindspot. Sx is easy to recognize as well because these people often focus on interpersonal dynamics, relationships in general and so on.

I agree with you that the instincts are not some rocket science though, and a big problem with the instincts is their lack of clear descriptions and definitions that people can use to make sense of what they are and thus also, recognize in themselves and others. The instincts are at a baseline level, extremely simplistic and this is why I don't care so much for them in the enneagram. They're just yet another way of delineating how people of the same type can be different but are by no means necessary when typing others. I do consider them canon, but I think the core type tends to say more than the instincts do in and of themselves, though the instincts can help to serve a direction of how the core type does manifest. Having pointed out to someone that's been struggling identifying with their enneagram for a long time that I think they are a sx 7w8 helped him to put a lot of his ideas surrounding relationships into a different perspective. He could not, however, do this by just evaluating Sx on its own terms because I think despite being often spoken about in online typology communities, Sx is still poorly understood and conflated with other concepts that makes it unnecessarily nebulous. This holds true for Sp and So as well.


----------



## Cherry (May 28, 2017)

Daeva said:


> I'll give it a try, though I must warn you beforehand, I will be forgetting stuff!!
> 
> Instinct, as the name implies, is about biological patterns that we as mammals are programmed for. While these come in many forms, (we have the instinct to hold our breath under water for example), the Enneagram tradition posits that there are three main drives; a self preservation one, a sexual one, and a social one.
> 
> ...


Thank you so much! Very interesting explanation and well written. It's an interesting theory. Thanks for taking the time to do that! I am understanding better now. I do have more questions though!
What is this "stacking" business regarding the instincts? Why are some of them on perC listed individually and some as two e.g. "sp/sx" How would I find out which one (or which two) I am? I took a test once but didn't even relate to the questions, nor did it give me any sort of "stacking" of two like I just demonstrated...


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Golden Candle said:


> Thank you so much! Very interesting explanation and well written. It's an interesting theory. Thanks for taking the time to do that! I am understanding better now. I do have more questions though!
> What is this "stacking" business regarding the instincts? Why are some of them on perC listed individually and some as two e.g. "sp/sx" How would I find out which one (or which two) I am? I took a test once but didn't even relate to the questions, nor did it give me any sort of "stacking" of two like I just demonstrated...


The stacking is just the ordering of instincts; the first one is the 'dominant' one - the most neurotic one, the second one is more neutral - this one tends to be the most balanced in one's life, and the one that doesn't get listed is the 'blindspot' - the one we don't pay _enough_ attention to in our lives. Each individual possesses all three instincts, the stacking points to the relative imbalance of them for each individual.

With the example you used "sp/sx," this would mean that the person would have the largest focus on the self preservation instinct, a more balanced focus on the sexual instinct, and the social instinct is mostly neglected.
In order to figure out which goes where for you, it is probably the easiest to think about which area gets the most attention (and where you tend to stress out the most) - this would be your first instinct. And then think about which area gets neglected => blindspot.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Entropic said:


> Why do you value the enneagram only when combined with the instinct? Are you subscribing to the subtype theory, or what?


No, I just don't think that the practical value of applying enneagram is usually worth it in day to day affairs.
It is too much work to dig out information that really don't help me that much in manouvering people.
Might be me who havn't used it enough as a tool to be able to use it easily.
I usually just do Jung and instinct typings on people.
If they become my enemy, client or close to me, I might delve into it to troubleshoot issues.

It is a potent weapon/tool if you really want to help/hurt people.
It is like shooting birds with a cannon in casual relationships.
Like using a tomahawk missile to take out one guy, 
you could just as well use a sniper and save yourself the missile bill.

I have found the enneagram most useful in understanding myself tbh.


----------



## shalom1 (Jun 21, 2017)

Typology Jesus said:


> I have found the enneagram most useful in understanding myself tbh.


That is the true purpose of the Enneagram IMO--a self-awareness tool for personal growth. The primary focus should be on understanding oneself, not trying to categorize others. Because the Enneagram deals with deep motivations and psychological preoccupations, there are real limits to typing others. Having a guess that you don't take too seriously can be helpful--I do this a lot--but I think we have to acknowledge that we just don't live in other people's heads. 

Contrast with MBTI types, which I think you can actually spot pretty quickly and then use to modify your communication style, etc. to better work with others, even in casual contexts.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

shalom1 said:


> That is the true purpose of the Enneagram IMO--a self-awareness tool for personal growth. The primary focus should be on understanding oneself, not trying to categorize others.


A tool has the purpose you give it, there is no true purpose that is inherently given by nature.
Tools by their very nature strive against nature for the purpose of mans arbitrary will and lust.
Yet in a way are under nature as an expression of natures instinctual force.
(A paradox, maybe I'm just against nature)
Still it is up to each man to categorize the tool according to his own philosophy.
And I already sense a great philosophical schism between us.



> Because the Enneagram deals with deep motivations and psychological preoccupations, there are real limits to typing others. Having a guess that you don't take too seriously can be helpful--I do this a lot--but I think we have to acknowledge that we just don't live in other people's heads.


Imo the only limit is time and energy vs skill.
As long as I have the necessary time and energy, I can type anyone "perfectly".
Perfectly up to whatever initial standard I set.
I'e *Heart:XwX Head: XwX Body: XwX*, with each of the types and wings being assigned health levels.
This is entirely possible, yet a total waste of time, unless you want to help the person profoundly
or want to destroy them utterly.



> Contrast with MBTI types, which I think you can actually spot pretty quickly and then use to modify your communication style, etc. to better work with others, even in casual contexts.


I agree that you can spot them fast yes, sort of like spoting car types.
There is a BMW and there is Fiat.
Simple, just look at the label.
Yet the simplicity of spotting it does not necissarily say something about the time/energy.
As skill is also here vital to get a fast and correct result.
However due to the complexity of the enneagram, 
it is not hard to claim that it is a more energy expensive task
to type in it, per level of skill.
There is much more variables to be connected, and it is not always entirely apparent right away.
However, I guess if I worked at it, I might be much faster.
Yet since you also find a barrier there, either you support my difficulty hypothesis 
or you are just as bad, or worse than me in enneagram typing.
Time will probably tell.


----------



## shalom1 (Jun 21, 2017)

I am new here and not sure how this community feels about tangents, so please let me know if I stray too far afield 



Typology Jesus said:


> A tool has the purpose you give it, there is no true purpose that is inherently given by nature.
> Tools by their very nature strive against nature for the purpose of mans arbitrary will and lust.
> Yet in a way are under nature as an expression of natures instinctual force.
> (A paradox, maybe I'm just against nature)
> ...


A great philosophical schism, wow! You might be right.

Anyway, I'd just reiterate that I said it's true the purpose in my opinion. It's a strong opinion (I have those), but it's not an irrefutable part of the fabric of nature, obviously. The purpose I give to the Enneagram is self-awareness. In my mind, this is the "true" purpose because otherwise it is easily used to do harm, as you say, and I think it's wrong to harm others--perhaps especially with a tool that was created for personal/spiritual growth. The Enneagram is not an ideology-free natural phenomenon; it was created by human beings for specific purposes. I think using it mainly to categorize others, and certainly to harm them, is a misuse. Again, I am not saying this is some kind of naturally occurring fact of the universe. It is my view of the Enneagram, based on my study of the Enneagram and my observation of how people apply it. 



> Imo the only limit is time and energy vs skill.
> As long as I have the necessary time and energy, I can type anyone "perfectly".


I don't consider myself able to do this, nor have I observed anyone able to do this, but perhaps I am just worse at it and/or have a different definition of "perfect." 

In case any we seem to agree that it's not a great use of time (even if we arrive there for totally different reasons).


> As skill is also here vital to get a fast and correct result.
> However due to the complexity of the enneagram, it is not hard to claim that it is a more energy expensive task
> to type in it per level of skill.
> There is much more variables to be connected, and it is not always entirely apparent right away.
> ...


Correctly spotting MBTI types certainly requires skill. My view is that while being highly familiar with MBTI types lets you spot people's quickly and pretty accurately, being highly familiar with the Enneagram doesn't do the same, at least not consistently. Is that what you mean by "difficulty hypothesis"? The Enneagram is more nuanced and internal and thus requires more knowledge of the person's inner world to make a decent guess.


----------

