# Type Counter Type



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

TreeBob said:


> I'm definetly selfish and have no issue with ab being called selfish. That said, I'm at a point in my life where I am actively trying to curb my selfishness. No matter how well I am doing though, I still think of myself first by default.


that's a good point. 8s tend to soften up and start caring about others more as they mature, but identifying as "good" or "caring" is not a source of pride for them, and I think we agree it's certainly not something they would get defensive about.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> a combination of descriptions and ample experience with dozens of actual 8s. @TreeBob said it best when he said that if someone called him "magnanimous" he would be more embarrassed than anything.


As I think would be the case with most people who would consider themselves selfish. This equally applies to me. Any type can be selfish for a wide number of reasons and I wouldn't chalk selfishness as an inherent trait to any specific type. Imo 2 is the most selfish type in the enneagram due to its motivational nature being so conflicting with how they appear to be and what they really desire.



Swordsman of Mana said:


> hence the "well, mostly". I sure as hell don't agree that Sx 8s look like Social 4s or Self Preservation 4s


I don't agree with the idea of comparing types by looks to begin with. It becomes quite nonsensical at a certain point because if sx 4 looks like 8 and sx 8 looks like 4, then wtf is a 4 or an 8 because you can't tell them apart anymore.


----------



## Arya (Oct 17, 2012)

This is bs when it comes to type six. Not all SX 6s are cp, and other instinctual variants of sixes can be cp. In fact, SX 6s have a lot more open vulnerability in general than SP dom sixes. SP dom sxies can be like a stone wall. 

And also, most of the types are pretty damn selfish. They feed their ego over anything else. Well that's the case with the average person I know anyways. I have always considered myself a selfish person, because I am primarily concerned with my own survival and will automatically take care of it first before thinking about others. My family is always happy to tell me that I take care of myself before anyone else in general. Not that I don't care, but that's my pattern.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Entropic said:


> Because an ESTP 7 is not going to be the same like an INTP 7. Same motivations but the difference between Se and Ti dominance is going to give rise to several behavioral differences between the two.


i can't really understand how that would detract from counter attitudes existing though. 
the mbti doesn't deal with psychodynamic issues and can't be linked in the same context. how does the function specifically eliminate the possibility of a counter attitude in a fixation.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mushr00m said:


> i can't really understand how that would detract from counter attitudes existing though.
> the mbti doesn't deal with psychodynamic issues and can't be linked in the same context. how does the function specifically eliminate the possibility of a counter attitude in a fixation.


What I mean is that the logic of counter-type applies in that sense that people think that counter-type is "acting against" the core motivations of the type. My point is that cognition plays a huge role in how someone comes across so someone who appears to be counter-type could easily just as well be because those specific authors observed different cognition being at play; an INFP 6 is not going to be the same as an ISFP 6 where the ISFP 6 will by default look more counter-six simply because Se tends to as a whole, be much more outwards pushy and aggressive compared to the conflict-avoidant and more low-key nature of the INFP due to Ne first, not Se.

The very core of counter-type is based on observable _behavioral differences_, hence it can very well overlap with the MBTI/Jung. If the types were described without using counter-type, we would call them 6 regardless of their outwards appearances as long as they are motivated by the core issues of type 6. Counter-type is used to describe behavioral differences (instincts do too, btw), rather than motivational ones.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Arya said:


> This is bs when it comes to type six. Not all SX 6s are cp, and other instinctual variants of sixes can be cp. In fact, SX 6s have a lot more open vulnerability in general than SP dom sixes. SP dom sxies can be like a stone wall.
> 
> And also, most of the types are pretty damn selfish. They feed their ego over anything else. Well that's the case with the average person I know anyways. I have always considered myself a selfish person, because I am primarily concerned with my own survival and will automatically take care of it first before thinking about others. My family is always happy to tell me that I take care of myself before anyone else in general. Not that I don't care, but that's my pattern.


2 great points-
1. yes, looking at it from the point of view of type 6, you can see how the typical-type or counter-type qualities blend among the subtypes (i.e. all sixes can be both phobic and counter-phobic). Thats a great model for how to look at the other counter-types too-- i.e. all subtypes can exhibit counter-type behavior as well as very typical behavior, but one subtype might be much more likely to be counter-type. 

2. That is true, everyone is fundamentally selfish, that's why we all have "egos". For some people, their ego demands happen to make them LOOK very kind, while others look unkind. REAL selflessness comes from a place far beyond ego-- so everyone who is functioning in their personality, whether its a 9, a 2, or an 8, is selfish. Although since some people restrain their selfishness more than others, I guess that's as good as saying some people aren't as selfish.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Entropic said:


> What I mean is that the logic of counter-type applies in that sense that people think that counter-type is "acting against" the core motivations of the type. My point is that cognition plays a huge role in how someone comes across so someone who appears to be counter-type could easily just as well be because those specific authors observed different cognition being at play; an INFP 6 is not going to be the same as an ISFP 6 where the ISFP 6 will by default look more counter-six simply because Se tends to as a whole, be much more outwards pushy and aggressive compared to the conflict-avoidant and more low-key nature of the INFP due to Ne first, not Se.
> 
> The very core of counter-type is based on observable _behavioral differences_, hence it can very well overlap with the MBTI/Jung. If the types were described without using counter-type, we would call them 6 regardless of their outwards appearances as long as they are motivated by the core issues of type 6. Counter-type is used to describe behavioral differences (instincts do too, btw), rather than motivational ones.



Great point-- 
One view of the counter-type is that it is a motivational force _against_ the core force- like a CP 6. As in, the counter-force was actively created specifically to oppose the driving force. So a CT 9 would be anti-lazy, a CT 7 would be anti-gluttony, a CT 2 would be anti-pride, etc.

Another way to look at it is that certain qualities of the subtype just _happened _to make the person seem not like that type-- just out of a coincidence. Not out of any particular oppositional force. 

As a SO 9, this would make more sense to me. I'm not anti-9; it's just that my 9-ness kind of goes around in circles and sometimes ends up looking like the opposite. (For example, Nine's just go with the flow, which usually results in them being kind of lazy and subdued, BUT sometimes, they are really motivated and energized by the flow, and so "going with the flow" ends up meaning that they are energetic leaders in social situations.)

I think that Chestnut believed the first theory, although I'm not certain.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> Great point--
> One view of the counter-type is that it is a motivational force _against_ the core force- like a CP 6. As in, the counter-force was actively created specifically to oppose the driving force. So a CT 9 would be anti-lazy, a CT 7 would be anti-gluttony, a CT 2 would be anti-pride, etc.
> 
> Another way to look at it is that certain qualities of the subtype just _happened _to make the person seem not like that type-- just out of a coincidence. Not out of any particular oppositional force.
> ...


Chestnut is a part of the Naranjo school or so it seems, so naturally. I don't agree. Essentially it seems that counter-type just attempts to describe why people of the same type can look very different. I think the much simpler answer is that well, they are duh, different people. That's why.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Chestnut is a part of the Naranjo school or so it seems, so naturally. I don't agree. Essentially it seems that counter-type just attempts to describe why people of the same type can look very different. I think the much simpler answer is that well, they are duh, different people. That's why.


I'm tempted to agree with this as well... although the idea a "counter-force" is exciting and romantic haha. And really everyone has counter-force abilities, and expresses them in all parts of their personality, not just their Enneatype.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Chestnut is a part of the Naranjo school or so it seems, so naturally. I don't agree. Essentially it seems that counter-type just attempts to describe why people of the same type can look very different. I think the much simpler answer is that well, they are duh, different people. That's why.


Weren't you the great advocate of underlying motivations? 

Don't you think there's a certain conflict of interest between sexual instinct and type 5s avarice and inclination to retreat?

Or gluttony and social instinct?

It's no rocket science.

The underlying assumption seems to be that people are consistent. It takes some serious self reflection to know that we simply aren't as much as we like to believe. Cue in cognitive disdonance and self-serving bias.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Weren't you the great advocate of underlying motivations?


Ergo, two people can appear different but be motivated by the same thing. It appears to me that you weren't even paying attention to what I was expressing which I am not at all surprised over. 



> Don't you think there's a certain conflict of interest between sexual instinct and type 5s avarice and inclination to retreat?


That's behavior, not the underlying motivation. They are both motivated by avarice and that remains true regardless of how they choose to manifest said motivation. 



> Or gluttony and social instinct?





> It's no rocket science.


Again, you are focusing on behavior. Nothing you've expressed has actually contradicted what I've been expressing. 



> The underlying assumption seems to be that people are consistent. It takes some serious self reflection to know that we simply aren't as much as we like to believe. Cue in cognitive disdonance and self-serving bias.


Never suggested that so strawman.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Arya said:


> This is bs when it comes to type six. Not all SX 6s are cp, and other instinctual variants of sixes can be cp. In fact, SX 6s have a lot more open vulnerability in general than SP dom sixes. SP dom sxies can be like a stone wall.


The opposite to "open vulnerability" isn't "closed invulnerability", because being guarded or closed doesn't make you invulnerable. One may in fact just be hiding feelings of hurt. Being vulnerable doesn't mean you will be hurt. It may cause the other to take his guard down, or help you out, because you don't pretend you don't need any. 

If you want to connect on an intimate level, you need to be prepared to make yourself vulnerable and take your guard down, and sometimes make yourself vulnerable for rejection or disapproval. If you want to transcend boundaries and explore new grounds you may need to be prepared to leave your comfort zone or let go of a need to be in control. In that sense it is Sx that counters fear or shame, and it doesn't surprise me that Sx is considered "the most" counter-phobic of all 6s, which doesn't necessarily equal sx to counterphobia. Sx doesn't necessarily need to transcend boundaries (penetrate) to connect or fuse though, it can also lose oneself like in the case of sx9, which would be more on the receptive, self-sacrificing end.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Ergo, two people can appear different but be motivated by the same thing. It appears to me that you weren't even paying attention to what I was expressing which I am not at all surprised over.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To help you out with your confusion, avarice is not a motivation (for its own sake) but a behavioral (coping) strategy motivated by a fear of (inner) impoverishment, depletion or helplessness.

Like hoarding is not motivation but coping.

Your strawman was just a general comment.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> To help you out with your confusion, avarice is not a motivation (for its own sake) but a behavioral (coping) strategy motivated by a fear of (inner) impoverishment, depletion or helplessness.


I disagree. I think avarice is not so much a behavioral strategy as much as it is an *existential *orientation. The enneagram motivations are about how we existentially relate to a specific concept, what underlies the core of your being in an existential kind of way. What kind of existential angst is it that you find that you lack, that makes your being incomplete? That's what the enneagram deals with. I find it quite nonsensical to differentiate between or separate avarice from the enneagram motivations. The motivations aren't about the fears per se, they too are just a part of the bigger picture that they present. The entire enneagram motivation pertains to all these aspects - the passion, vice and virtue. That's the motivation. 


It may manifest in a specific way we may associate with a specific behavior but that does not mean that behavior must necessarily or by necessity always relate to exactly the same motivation. Quite on the contrary, people can exhibit a wide range of behaviors that at a deeper motivational level may be entirely contradictory to how they come across e.g. a fearful person may appear fearless. The idea of counter-type is precisely that point I'm raising. 



> Like hoarding is not motivation but coping.


It's still behavior which is still not the same as a motivation. It is a manifestation of, but not the motivation in itself. Motivation is an abstract cause, not the outwards manifestation of said cause.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Entropic said:


> I disagree. I think avarice is not so much a behavioral strategy as much as it is an *existential *orientation. The enneagram motivations are about how we existentially relate to a specific concept, what underlies the core of your being in an existential kind of way. What kind of existential angst is it that you find that you lack, that makes your being incomplete? That's what the enneagram deals with. I find it quite nonsensical to differentiate between or separate avarice from the enneagram motivations. The motivations aren't about the fears per se, they too are just a part of the bigger picture that they present. The entire enneagram motivation pertains to all these aspects - the passion, vice and virtue. That's the motivation.


That's a load of quasi intellectual bollocks, that blurs focus on the issue at hand, which is that avarice is not a motivation. 

And it is neither the motivation of Sx, which is what you seemed to suggest with "both" motivated by avarice. 

Envy is not a motivation, it is the habitual behavioral attitude of comparing yourself with others who have what you don't have, which is motivated by fear of insignificance, and is likely to become more obsessive, the more insignificance is feared, and may become a *cognitive behavioral* loop the more one narrows focus on what one lacks, only reinforcing the fear of insignificance. (self-fullfilling prophecy). 

Pride is not a motivation, but is a behavioral attitude motivated by fear of being unloved or unwanted. 

Etc.



Entropic said:


> It may manifest in a specific way we may associate with a specific behavior but that does not mean that behavior must necessarily or by necessity always relate to exactly the same motivation. Quite on the contrary, people can exhibit a wide range of behaviors that at a deeper motivational level may be entirely contradictory to how they come across e.g. a fearful person may appear fearless. The idea of counter-type is precisely that point I'm raising.


It's the Sp instinct that seeks to protect oneself from being overwhelmed. Sp4's counterenvy seeks to neutralize the threat of being affected by envy, which doesn't mean an Sp4 doesn't compare, but it attempts to resolve cognitive dissonance, and excercise containment of anger (even desire), by 'calling the grapes sour', which is a *learned* coping style, or habitual denial of envy, *motivated* by self preservation. 



Entropic said:


> It's still behavior which is still not the same as a motivation. It is a manifestation of, but not the motivation in itself. Motivation is an abstract cause, not the outwards manifestation of said cause.


Yes, you can try an make it all abstract but then it perhaps makes sense in a mental diagram, but such is not life.


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> with all due respect, I think their description of type 8 is bullshit and, like much of their work, emphasizes the positive as the expect of the inconvenient, negative sides of the type which are what needs to be worked on the most to achieve real growth.


With all due respect, I thought their descriptions were actually a fair synthesis of other published authors' works. They mention the negative points as well, but mostly, the overall psychological awareness of each type. 

But, I've heard you criticize many approaches in my short time here. I'm wondering who *you* think is the best source to consult? Naranjo?



Arya said:


> And also, most of the types are pretty damn selfish. They feed their ego over anything else. Well that's the case with the average person I know anyways. I have always considered myself a selfish person, because I am primarily concerned with my own survival and will automatically take care of it first before thinking about others. My family is always happy to tell me that I take care of myself before anyone else in general. Not that I don't care, but that's my pattern.


I agree. I consider myself to be a very selfish person, regardless of what my core type is. My parents used to berate me for being selfish, and yes, this was very hurtful at the time. But as I've grown up, I've discovered that most people are _abominably_ selfish, most far more than I. I'm self-centered and self-involved, but I just can't compete with how utterly thoughtless the vast majority of the rest of humans seems to be.



charlie.elliot said:


> *That is true, everyone is fundamentally selfish, that's why we all have "egos". For some people, their ego demands happen to make them LOOK very kind, while others look unkind. REAL selflessness comes from a place far beyond ego-- so everyone who is functioning in their personality, whether its a 9, a 2, or an 8, is selfish.* Although since some people restrain their selfishness more than others, I guess that's as good as saying some people aren't as selfish.


That's proper usage of the theory.



charlie.elliot said:


> Great point--
> One view of the counter-type is that it is a motivational force _against_ the core force- like a CP 6. As in, the counter-force was actively created specifically to oppose the driving force. So a CT 9 would be anti-lazy, a CT 7 would be anti-gluttony, a CT 2 would be anti-pride, etc.
> 
> Another way to look at it is that certain qualities of the subtype just _happened _to make the person seem not like that type-- just out of a coincidence. Not out of any particular oppositional force.
> ...


I really like what you said in that bolded part. My understanding of the counter-passions is that, like in your own example, they are equally driven by the core passion. After that, the exact mechanism by which counter-types happen sort of breaks down into the author's individual experience (and there's not a lot of information on this topic to begin with).

Now that I think about it, it seems to me that_ actively, specifically moving against the type's fixation_ would actually require a lot of self-awareness on that front. Like CP6s get pegged as "moving against fear", but they're actually still being driven by that fear. They just happen to react to their drive by tackling fears head-on, rather than evading. I don't know if that makes them "anti-fear", but it certainly can make them appear fearless. I imagine the same would go for the other types.

Anyway, just musing here.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@The Typeless Wonder
I prefer the Naranjo _school_ of the Enneagram overall, but he's not always the most articulate and does focus mostly on the negative. overall, I'd say Beatrice Chestnut has the most compelling work in his tradition because she is better organized, a bit more balanced and easily the author with the best subtype information I've seen organized in one place. 

apart from that, Tom Condon has grown on me a bit. he also has a more balanced take



> With all due respect, I thought their descriptions were actually a fair synthesis of other published authors' works. They mention the negative points as well, but mostly, the overall psychological awareness of each type.


I haven't noticed that at all with types, especially 2 (how they took the proud, seductive Naranjo 2 with all it's bravado and cries for attention and turned that into saintly Mother Teresa servant I will never know)


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @The Typeless Wonder
> 
> I haven't noticed that at all with types, especially 2 (how they took the proud, seductive Naranjo 2 with all it's bravado and cries for attention and turned that into saintly Mother Teresa servant I will never know)


That would be due to the popularization of the Riso-Hudson 2, though they're not wholly incorrect in that interpretation. Just limited, very.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

I don't know, I am not writing it off but I think this may be kind of a stretch. I'm almost certainly a self-pres 4, and while I DO relate to the description provided, I don't think that makes me any different of a Four. The Four motivations still resonate, the Four vices still resonate, the levels of heath are still an applicable guideline, so what's the difference, really? I don't think I experience my Envy any differently than any other Four might (aside from the personal differences that apply to every single person). But I'm not like, circumventing the typical path or implications of having "Envy" as a main vice...

...Besides, I think it is a misunderstanding to assume that a "typical" Four wears their heart on their sleeve all the time. And a lot of these ideas (about what makes the type a "counter type") seem to be based on stereotypes that I don't necessarily think to be true.

I'm just examining these thoughts. I'm not totally opposed to the idea of there being counters to every type. I guess I just don't understand why these things make someone counter. Hmm.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

And even if there *were* to be counter types for each type (and I know there is more than one argument about how and why that is really a thing), why would instinctual variant have anything to do with it? No instinctual variant is exclusive to any type, and while it can describe behavioral differences (including how some of the type motivations might be manifested or expressed!)... It's like, at the end of the day, there are basic things about being Sp-dom that any sp-Dom person might relate to regardless of enneatype. 

Further, if the instinctual variants can imply so much in this regard, why are there people who identify as Cp6 but not sx-Dom, while not all Sx6 people identify as CP? 

Real questions here, not trying to be difficult.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> That's a load of quasi intellectual bollocks, that blurs focus on the issue at hand, which is that avarice is not a motivation.


That's what you think. Not what I think. I think it is a specific orientation or outlook on life. That's different from behavior in itself. 



> And it is neither the motivation of Sx, which is what you seemed to suggest with "both" motivated by avarice.


Sx is too a specific outlook in order to fulfill a specific need. 



> Envy is not a motivation, it is the habitual behavioral attitude of comparing yourself with others who have what you don't have, which is motivated by fear of insignificance, and is likely to become more obsessive, the more insignificance is feared, and may become a *cognitive behavioral* loop the more one narrows focus on what one lacks, only reinforcing the fear of insignificance. (self-fullfilling prophecy).


I disagree. Envy is not a motivation but envy is an existential outlook. It defines how you see things which _then_ *may* result in the behavior that you described, but that in itself is not the core of envy. 



> Pride is not a motivation, but is a behavioral attitude motivated by fear of being unloved or unwanted.





> Etc.


Still disagreed. 



> It's the Sp instinct that seeks to protect oneself from being overwhelmed.


Yeah, so how would you differentiate this from avarice motivationally if the behavior, which is what you described in the above concerning type 5 that is, the behavior to avoid being overwhelmed through the act of hoarding, if the outwards manifested behavior is essentially looking the same? How can you tell them apart if not looking at the underlying reasoning behind it? 



> Sp4's counterenvy seeks to neutralize the threat of being affected by envy, which doesn't mean an Sp4 doesn't compare, but it attempts to resolve cognitive dissonance, and excercise containment of anger (even desire), by 'calling the grapes sour', which is a *learned* coping style, or habitual denial of envy, *motivated* by self preservation.


Because envy is an outlook on life, an idea to cover up what one thinks one existentially lacks. Because see, any person for any reason can experience envy, but are they existentially motivated by it? Is their sense of existence dependent upon envy in order to satisfy their specific sense of lack within themselves? The fears that you seem to think are the only part of motivation is simply the existential fear. 



> Yes, you can try an make it all abstract but then it perhaps makes sense in a mental diagram, but such is not life.


And I think you over-complexify behavior by conflating it with very simple archetype ideas. Hence you can't type me because again, what people are motivated by is not always readily manifested in their outwards behavior in that behavior always equal motivation.

Even the Favures recognize this, ergo their invention of tritype. Such is life that humans can manifest outright contrdictory behaviors at any given point in time and that's precisely why it is important to move away _from _behavior because otherwise you end up extrapolating upon behavioral caricatures. Hence you end up with people like Swordsman of Mana or heck, even yourself seemingly, who can't seem to type themselves because you don't see how your behavior fits. No, it's not about how your behavior must fit any given archetype, but it's about how your sense of existence is defined by a specific archetype more than anything else.

Enneatype is about what existentially defines you. Has nothing to do with abstraction and you thinking that my outlook is "abstract" actually exemplifies the point, especially from a cognitive perspective.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Quernus said:


> I don't know, I am not writing it off but I think this may be kind of a stretch. I'm almost certainly a self-pres 4, and while I DO relate to the description provided, I don't think that makes me any different of a Four. The Four motivations still resonate, the Four vices still resonate, the levels of heath are still an applicable guideline, so what's the difference, really? I don't think I experience my Envy any differently than any other Four might (aside from the personal differences that apply to every single person). But I'm not like, circumventing the typical path or implications of having "Envy" as a main vice...




Yeah that's how I feel about SO 9 too-- there are times when I act decidedly un-9-like, but I am still very much a typical 9. Then again, there have always been elements of the 9 description that seemed "off" to me (regardless of author), so maybe that's one reason. One maybe its just normal personal variation.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

The Typeless Wonder said:


> Now that I think about it, it seems to me that_ actively, specifically moving against the type's fixation_ would actually require a lot of self-awareness on that front. Like CP6s get pegged as "moving against fear", but they're actually still being driven by that fear. They just happen to react to their drive by tackling fears head-on, rather than evading. I don't know if that makes them "anti-fear", but it certainly can make them appear fearless. I imagine the same would go for the other types.
> 
> Anyway, just musing here.


Yeah thats true- moving against the fixation could have multiple meanings. It could be genuine development, or just an ego-driven response, like counter-phobia.
I guess I would say that true developement wouldn't seem like "moving against" anything- it would just be acting from your essential self. There wouldn't be anything to "move against", it would just be motivated from some deep, true, place that is still unblemished by the ego. BUT, you'd still be "moving against" typical brain habits, so yeah I don't know.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

charlie.elliot said:


> Yeah that's how I feel about SO 9 too-- there are times when I act decidedly un-9-like, but I am still very much a typical 9. Then again, there have always been elements of the 9 description that seemed "off" to me (regardless of author), so maybe that's one reason. One maybe its just normal personal variation.


imo, the Sp 9 is more the counter type than the So 9. So and Sx 9s are both people-centric and have trouble with personal boundaries and assertiveness. Sp 9 is more selfish, hedonistic (in the way that a couch potato is hedonistic as opposed to the more bold manner of a 7 or 8) and has a more "don't fuck with me" vibe (they are often said to be the 8-ish 9).


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Entropic said:


> What I mean is that the logic of counter-type applies in that sense that people think that counter-type is "acting against" the core motivations of the type. My point is that cognition plays a huge role in how someone comes across so someone who appears to be counter-type could easily just as well be because those specific authors observed different cognition being at play; an INFP 6 is not going to be the same as an ISFP 6 where the ISFP 6 will by default look more counter-six simply because Se tends to as a whole, be much more outwards pushy and aggressive compared to the conflict-avoidant and more low-key nature of the INFP due to Ne first, not Se.
> 
> The very core of counter-type is based on observable _behavioral differences_, hence it can very well overlap with the MBTI/Jung. If the types were described without using counter-type, we would call them 6 regardless of their outwards appearances as long as they are motivated by the core issues of type 6. Counter-type is used to describe behavioral differences (instincts do too, btw), rather than motivational ones.


It shouldn't make someone more counter phobic though because counter phobia can still be strong no matter how visible it is or not, someone could be rebelling against a doctrine or against a theory which isn't the domain of se. If the isfp is phobic, does this mean their auxiliary is lower than the counter phobic isfp? Just out of curiosity, what other functions to you seem to also increase the likelihood of someone being more counter phobic?

In the behavioural differences between mbti and enneagram, how do we know where one theory starts and the other stops? it's just from my understanding that the behavioural differences you mention in relation to counter type, when those behavioural differences are function motivated, they are based on cognitive information and the behaviours coming from counter type related to pushing against, to push against is based on more than cognitive function attitudes, it comes from a place based on insecurity, i don't know, i mean i'm just not seeing a firm, consistent connection, sorry. Thanks for taking the time to explain btw. I do appreciate it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mushr00m said:


> It shouldn't make someone more counter phobic though because counter phobia can still be strong no matter how visible it is or not, someone could be rebelling against a doctrine or against a theory which isn't the domain of se.


Per se no, but it seem to me that as a whole, INxPs are far more likely to be phobic than counter-phobic in the sense that we understand CP anyway of them manifesting outwards rebellion. There is an obvious strong "pushing against" in Se regardless of this is in terms of ideology or more concretely manifested with actual people or things more in the expression or vocalization of it. 



> If the isfp is phobic, does this mean their auxiliary is lower than the counter phobic isfp? Just out of curiosity, what other functions to you seem to also increase the likelihood of someone being more counter phobic?


No, Se is still Se auxiliary. Otherwise it's not an ISFP. I could see an argument for Te also. Te and Se are in a sense, the most "aggressive" out of the functions. 



> In the behavioural differences between mbti and functions, how do we know where one theory starts and the other stops?


We don't if it's just behavior we are looking at. Hence it's more meaningful to speak of one as dealing with existential motivation viz mental cognition. 



> it's just from my understanding that the behavioural differences you mention in relation to counter type, when those behavioural differences are function motivated, they are based on cognitive information and the behaviours coming from counter type related to pushing against, to push against is based on more than cognitive function attitudes, it comes from a place based on insecurity, i don't know, i mean i'm just not seeing a firm, consistent connection, sorry. Thanks for taking the time to explain btw. I do appreciate it.


Obviously anyone can be insecure. Just that insecurity can manifest in many ways. A phobic 6 isn't necessarily less secure or insecure than a CP 6. It's just that the way they go around dealing with said insecurity is what we associate with P vs CP. Not sure what else you were asking for quite.

And no worries.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I always felt a little strange being a social 5. How does one hoard knowledge (avarice) but still express the urge to be of some benefit to the community at large?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I always felt a little strange being a social 5. How does one hoard knowledge (avarice) but still express the urge to be of some benefit to the community at large?


Hoarding knowledge for the community. Libraries come to mind as the perfect example of this.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Hoarding knowledge for the community. Libraries come to mind as the perfect example of this.


Good point. Libraries used to be a sanctuary for me when I was younger. My co-workers generally call me "Google" because if I don't know it off the top of my head, I know exactly where to look it up.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Entropic said:


> That's what you think. Not what I think. I think it is a specific orientation or outlook on life. That's different from behavior in itself. Sx is too a specific outlook in order to fulfill a specific need.


So how is an orientation or outlook a motivation? . 


Nietzsche Perspectivism said:


> It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their For and Against. [emphasis added]
> Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm.
> — Friedrich Nietzsche; , The Will to Power, §481 (1883–1888)'


Of course, merely thought provoking. 



Entropic said:


> I disagree. Envy is not a motivation but envy is an existential outlook. It defines how you see things which _then_ *may* result in the behavior that you described, but that in itself is not the core of envy.


I believe *you* were the one who said that Avarice (passion, like Envy) is the underlying motivation. Wait I'll quote you:



Entropic said:


> That's behavior, not the underlying motivation. They are both motivated by avarice and that remains true regardless of how they choose to manifest said motivation.


I said it was a behavioral attitude /strategy motivated by core fear or desire. How is avarice or envy or pride an orientation/ existential outlook? Attitude and orientation are somewhat the same, but strategy is relevant because they may become self-fullfilling prophecies or self reinforcing feedback loops, which are important as they inhibit people to grow. It's really more comprehensive than an existential outlook. 

I'm not using archetypes, for me it's actually the common sense of cause and effect. I know very well how things are interrelated, and how one thing can lead to another. The existential bits I'd subscribe to ego-fixation, which is aside from other things the ego perspective of worldview, existential view if you will, and personal narrative, ego-defenses, coping strategies, explanatory style, etc. etc. 



Entropic said:


> Still disagreed.


 By all means... 




Entropic said:


> Yeah, so how would you differentiate this from avarice motivationally if the behavior, which is what you described in the above concerning type 5 that is, the behavior to avoid being overwhelmed through the act of hoarding, if the outwards manifested behavior is essentially looking the same? How can you tell them apart if not looking at the underlying reasoning behind it?


Hot damn, you talk about outward behavior vs underlying motivation, like you have seen the light! Yes there is congruence between Sp an type 5. So, just like we speak of counter-types, where an instinct doesn't actually counter the type's "force", for the sake of countering it, Sp is not "pro-type" but congruent with type 5 motivations. For this reason this instinct more likely tends to have a reinforcing dynamic with the core passion, like Soc does with envy. And fwiw, to some extend one could argue that the "counter"-type, which is actually counter-passion (a dynamic of conflicting interest), somewhat "manifests" as the types virtue. 

Though counter-phobic of course is not courage, counter-gluttony is not sobriety, and counter-envy is not equanimity, although it might explain why many sp4's have found it hard to relate to envy. 



Entropic said:


> Because envy is an outlook on life, an idea to cover up what one thinks one existentially lacks. Because see, any person for any reason can experience envy, but are they existentially motivated by it? Is their sense of existence dependent upon envy in order to satisfy their specific sense of lack within themselves? The fears that you seem to think are the only part of motivation is simply the existential fear.
> 
> And I think you over-complexify behavior by conflating it with very simple archetype ideas. Hence you can't type me because again, what people are motivated by is not always readily manifested in their outwards behavior in that behavior always equal motivation. Even the Favures recognize this, ergo their invention of tritype. Such is life that humans can manifest outright contrdictory behaviors at any given point in time and that's precisely why it is important to move away _from _behavior because otherwise you end up extrapolating upon behavioral caricatures. Hence you end up with people like Swordsman of Mana or heck, even yourself seemingly, who can't seem to type themselves because you don't see how your behavior fits. No, it's not about how your behavior must fit any given archetype, but it's about how your sense of existence is defined by a specific archetype more than anything else. Enneatype is about what existentially defines you. Has nothing to do with abstraction and you thinking that my outlook is "abstract" actually exemplifies the point, especially from a cognitive perspective.


But see here's the thing, I do see how my behavior fits, and I know my type. I also know what envy is and what it does, and how it manifests if you will, and the damage done from a young age. I didn't have enneagram theory at my disposal to tell me who I was, to choose a type that 'fitted' my behavior. I learned all about my deepest motivations, fears, envy, by tracing back the chain of cause and effect that conditioned me to become the person I was. And I unconditioned myself by going back to the root of my fears, relived traumas and wandered through shadow territory, confronted myself with whatever self-serving bias was hiding from my ego, because these can just as much be underlying motivations. It wasn't much of a pleasant journey, but I think it was necessary to attain penetrating insight and purge the soul, from being intoxicated by resentment, and come clean with my past, my wrongdoers, my life. 

I don't fear insignificance anymore, and gladly so. Inner void doesn't scare me anymore. I rarely experience envy, perhaps "mimetic desire" (and I subscribed under this username before I knew anything about enneagram), but mostly I am even able to experience compersion (joy) when I witness other people's blessings and joy. I can say I have attained the virtue of equanimity, although I do believe it is not something granted, but something you need to exercise in, much like compassion. Currently I don't think I have any existential angst, in particular. I am grateful for every day that I live and I am not afraid to die tomorrow. I used to feel alienated, orphaned, but I feel rooted and at place now. I feel love and I feel loved. I feel real, in touch, and I love myself wholeheartedly. I had come a long way, though. 

So, I have type unknown because I have long passed the stage of identification. I can't see it as a badge, and I had even experienced it as distracting and an incentive to preconception and narrow mindedness. But if you or anyone think you can draw conclusions from that, that's fine. I'm not selling anything, nobody needs to buy anything. I know what I know, and I know what I don't know. 

And your type...that's your inner journey. But it appears your mantra that manifestations don't equal motivations is also of convenience to ward off unfavorable feedback?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> So how is an orientation or outlook a motivation? .


Because it determines how you see things in the world, how the world should be like or not, what is there or what is not there. Motivation isn't just a fear but from an existential perspective but it is the fundamental idea or principle that drives your being, what makes you _you_ or what or who you are. First we must determine what it is we experience and perceive for us to even know what we fear in the first place. 



> Of course, merely thought provoking.


You utterly failed to express how this passage actually in some way contradicts what I expressed. In fact, it seems very congruent with how I phrased myself in the above. 



> I believe *you* were the one who said that Avarice (passion, like Envy) is the underlying motivation. Wait I'll quote you:


I went back to edit my post several times so I typo'd it. To me the entire type is a motivation that is, passion, vice, holy idea etc. To separate one aspect of the type as behavioral coping strategy and another aspect which is the fear only as motivation isn't how I see it. It's not holistic enough and it seems odd to separate the core type idea in this way when it's a package. 



> I said it was a behavioral attitude /strategy motivated by core fear or desire. How is avarice or envy or pride an orientation/ existential outlook? Attitude and orientation are somewhat the same, but strategy is relevant because they may become self-fullfilling prophecies or self reinforcing feedback loops, which are important as they inhibit people to grow. It's really more comprehensive than an existential outlook.


I can agree on that it is a strategy but I still disagree on that it is behavioral. Again, it first stems from the perspective from which we see which may _then_ appear or manifest in specific behaviors that you observe but this behavior is not the strategy in itself. No, it's the perspective to deal with one's sense of lack in whatever area the type explains one feels there's a lack. What I'm expressing isn't really that much different from CBT in that it's about our thinking first and when we alter our thinking we also alter our behavior. Behavior does not necessarily determine thought but thought most definitely determines behavior. 



> I'm not using archetypes, for me it's actually the common sense of cause and effect. I know very well how things are interrelated, and how one thing can lead to another. The existential bits I'd subscribe to ego-fixation, which is aside from other things the ego perspective of worldview, existential view if you will, and personal narrative, ego-defenses, coping strategies, explanatory style, etc. etc.


But types _are_ archetypes. This idea that you call "3", that's a specific archetype that you observe that fits some idea of what a 3 is, and when we judge a person to be a type 3 or not, we judge how well they fit this archetype of 3. Which is why it becomes highly nonsensical to look at what you say is "cause and effect" or "common sense". When you do that you miss out such a wide range of other underlying factors or aspects of what actually constitutes a type. 



> Hot damn, you talk about outward behavior vs underlying motivation, like you have seen the light! Yes there is congruence between Sp an type 5. So, just like we speak of counter-types, where an instinct doesn't actually counter the type's "force", for the sake of countering it, Sp is not "pro-type" but congruent with type 5 motivations. For this reason this instinct more likely tends to have a reinforcing dynamic with the core passion, like Soc does with envy. And fwiw, to some extend one could argue that the "counter"-type, which is actually counter-passion (a dynamic of conflicting interest), somewhat "manifests" as the types virtue.


You didn't understand my argument at all. I was talking about sp as a whole as is manifested in say, any of the types, which I assume you were as well and not specifically referring to just 5 only. So if you say that sp by default looks similar to type 5, how can you tell apart what is sp or 5? 

It's not about whether it reinforces or not but it's about differentiation. How can you logically differentiate a type, say when one thing ends and another begins, if everything eventually all ends up looking the same? What is the _core_ of 5 that is true regardless of sp or something else? 



> Though counter-phobic of course is not courage, counter-gluttony is not sobriety, and counter-envy is not equanimity, although it might explain why many sp4's have found it hard to relate to envy.


Empty repetition. 



> But see here's the thing, I do see how my behavior fits, and I know my type. I also know what envy is and what it does, and how it manifests if you will, and the damage done from a young age. I didn't have enneagram theory at my disposal to tell me who I was, to choose a type that 'fitted' my behavior. I learned all about my deepest motivations, fears, envy, by tracing back the chain of cause and effect that conditioned me to become the person I was. And I unconditioned myself by going back to the root of my fears, relived traumas and wandered through shadow territory, confronted myself with whatever self-serving bias was hiding from my ego, because these can just as much be underlying motivations. It wasn't much of a pleasant journey, but I think it was necessary to attain penetrating insight and purge the soul, from being intoxicated by resentment, and come clean with my past, my wrongdoers, my life.
> 
> I don't fear insignificance anymore, and gladly so. Inner void doesn't scare me anymore. I rarely experience envy, perhaps "mimetic desire" (and I subscribed under this username before I knew anything about enneagram), but mostly I am even able to experience compersion (joy) when I witness other people's blessings and joy. I can say I have attained the virtue of equanimity, although I do believe it is not something granted, but something you need to exercise in, much like compassion. Currently I don't think I have any existential angst, in particular. I am grateful for every day that I live and I am not afraid to die tomorrow. I used to feel alienated, orphaned, but I feel rooted and at place now. I feel love and I feel loved. I feel real, in touch, and I love myself wholeheartedly. I had come a long way, though.


/shrug 


> So, I have type unknown because I have long passed the stage of identification. I can't see it as a badge, and I had even experienced it as distracting and an incentive to preconception and narrow mindedness. But if you or anyone think you can draw conclusions from that, that's fine. I'm not selling anything, nobody needs to buy anything. I know what I know, and I know what I don't know.


And I remember that you've been waffling and you've also been thinking about whether it is possible to change type all together but that's an aside. 



> And your type...that's your inner journey. But it appears your mantra that manifestations don't equal motivations is also of convenience to ward off unfavorable feedback?


No. I do think my behavior actually fits very well and I see correlations in who I am and between all that which constitutes my type in a way I never saw any other type I was potentially looking into typing as or was typing as. It is however a criticism against people who think that if you behave X you must be Y because X and Y have a correlation. Correlation yes, but causation?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Because it determines how you see things in the world, how the world should be like or not, what is there or what is not there.



Existential outlook is a motivation because it determines how you see things in the world? Isn't outlook how you see things in the world? 

Now, let's look at the definition of outlook:

a person's point of view or general *attitude* to life.

There you go. Your position was that Avarice /Envy was underlying motivation, then it was not motivation but 'existential outlook' that 'may' result in behavior. You disagreed with the passion being behavioral attitude, e.g. coping strategies, compulsions. 




Entropic said:


> Motivation isn't just a fear but from an existential perspective but it is the fundamental idea or principle that drives your being, what makes you _you_ or what or who you are. First we must determine what it is we experience and perceive for us to even know what we fear in the first place.




I can't say you manifest the groundedness one would expect. You seem to miss the human measure. At what age did you start living, or 'existing'? 

My 'fundamental idea or principle' that drove my being, when I was five was not that mothers shouldn't physically abuse their children (such is life, I thought it was normal), but the fact that she was never amongst the other mothers who arrived at the end of a day at school, to wait with other mothers that gathered before the entrance of the school, which we could see through one of the classroom windows. Often, a parent recognized by one of the kids was good for 15 seconds of fame. I guess the 'existential' question for me was: why was nobody waiting for me? But to call this an 'existential' perspective, or 'what made me me' or what 'drove my being' at the age of 5 is way too much sauce. 

Anyway, coming home was not quite the 'safehaven' (on the positive side, I was ignorant of this fundamental principle). In particular when I had wet my bed. My mother had tried to discipline with the leather belt, to no avail, but alternatively threatened the day would come that she would hang the sheets out of my window to dry, for everyone to see. Fortunately I never experienced this humiliation, but I experienced the terror, and knew what I was fearing in the first place. What also made me me was my physical integrity being violated, esp. when my mother was no longer stopped by my father, after he died, and the vicious circle with anti-social behavior and (vindinctive) aggression from my side. Envy didn't stand as much out yet, or as pervasive but I was still a me. Your understanding is one of deduction, top down, not bottom up, which tells me you still don't grasp how personality is structured. Type is not what or who we are. Who we are can be seen as a type of personality. 



Entropic said:


> You utterly failed to express how this passage actually in some way contradicts what I expressed. In fact, it seems very congruent with how I phrased myself in the above.


Fine, I'll utterly refer to the above as well. 





Entropic said:


> I went back to edit my post several times so I typo'd it. To me the entire type is a motivation that is, passion, vice, holy idea etc. To separate one aspect of the type as behavioral coping strategy and another aspect which is the fear only as motivation isn't how I see it. It's not holistic enough and it seems odd to separate the core type idea in this way when it's a package.


Passion is vice right, so I guess you mean virtue. Anyway, I think I can understand and explain the dynamic of core fears/desires, vice/virtue, fixations, all the way to holy idea, because of my bottom-up understanding. Too bad that you have so far only expressed in general statements, while having made more than one typo. I understand what you mean with existential orientation, I know motivation doesn't equal behavior, but it's all too static to me, where my focus is on a process of transformation. 



Enneagraminstitute said:


> The Passions represent an underlying emotional response to reality created by the loss of contact with our Essential nature. As we saw in Chapter 1, we all inevitably lose contact with the ground of our Being, with our true identity as Spirit or Essence. The underlying hurt, shame, and grief that this loss entails are enormous, and our ego is compelled to come up with a particular way of emotionally coping with the loss. *This temporarily effective, but ultimately misguided coping strategy i**s the Passion. *But because the Passion is a distortion of an inherent, essential Virtue, recognizing the Passion can help us to restore the Virtue.


...



Entropic said:


> I can agree on that it is a strategy but I still disagree on that it is behavioral. Again, it first stems from the perspective from which we see which may _then_ appear or manifest in specific behaviors that you observe but this behavior is not the strategy in itself. No, it's the perspective to deal with one's sense of lack in whatever area the type explains one feels there's a lack. What I'm expressing isn't really that much different from CBT in that it's about our thinking first and when we alter our thinking we also alter our behavior. Behavior does not necessarily determine thought but thought most definitely determines behavior.


Yeah, and I can even agree with you on the CBT aspects, and the more teleological perspective you take, because I incorporate that as well. 



Entropic said:


> But types _are_ archetypes. This idea that you call "3", that's a specific archetype that you observe that fits some idea of what a 3 is, and when we judge a person to be a type 3 or not, we judge how well they fit this archetype of 3. Which is why it becomes highly nonsensical to look at what you say is "cause and effect" or "common sense". When you do that you miss out such a wide range of other underlying factors or aspects of what actually constitutes a type.


I don't so much see 3 as an 'archetype'. Social animals function as a group by establishing a status/dominance hierarchy, which relates to chance of survival and succesful procreation. This is sort of a 'universal law' (Holy Law), like the 'survival of the fittest' (adaptivity), Law of Attraction, even Adam Smith's universal laws of Self-Interest, Competition and Supply/Demand. 





Entropic said:


> You didn't understand my argument at all. I was talking about sp as a whole as is manifested in say, any of the types, which I assume you were as well and not specifically referring to just 5 only. So if you say that sp by default looks similar to type 5, how can you tell apart what is sp or 5?


There are Sp aspects that don't so much relate to 5. Also, de boundaries of 'Self' aren't necessarily as 'introvert' as 5, or any Ego type for that matter. In other words, for Sp, 'Self' can extend 'Ego'. 



Entropic said:


> It's not about whether it reinforces or not but it's about differentiation. How can you logically differentiate a type, say when one thing ends and another begins, if everything eventually all ends up looking the same? What is the _core_ of 5 that is true regardless of sp or something else?


Fear of depletion/helplessness. Desire to be capable and competent. 
Avarice and fixation can already 'manifest' differently. Instinct is not a sub division, more described as an independent variable. 





Entropic said:


> And I remember that you've been waffling and you've also been thinking about whether it is possible to change type all together but that's an aside.


No I am pretty sure about my first two decades at least as a sx4w3 (68). I haven't changed my opinion on my current type of 5. Although, I don't have a 'core' 5. 

I think it's possible that I started as 6, when I was about 3. You haven't yet fully developed an ego yet, or a theory of mind, so my hunch is that we all start of either 369. Between 5 and 9 years, 'vindictive' 4 and 8 'emerged', or became more prominent, starting to develop neurosis. 4 would become most prominent until age 20 something. But I don't disown it or reject it, and you can type me whatever you want. 

But mind you, when you practice Dhyana meditation, there's a certain course of action towards attaining a state of trance, which happens to correspond with the integration lines. Naranjo describes about this in The Way of Silence. So my view on the different types are also looked at from a spiritual transformational perspective, which I find way more interesting than what type I am. I don't know exactly how and why I shifted to 5, but I have some ideas on that. But again, not the thing that draws most attention or has any priority for me. 




Entropic said:


> No. I do think my behavior actually fits very well and I see correlations in who I am and between all that which constitutes my type in a way I never saw any other type I was potentially looking into typing as or was typing as. It is however a criticism against people who think that if you behave X you must be Y because X and Y have a correlation. Correlation yes, but causation?


I have traced back the chain of cause and effect, starting from a certain action in present time, and that can be like unraveling a guardian knot or a plate of spaghetti. Pretty complex. And doing that in meditation, and detached observation of seemingly random recollections that come and go without interference of the ego, while focusing on a certain energetic blockade (gut area mostly in my case) where you feel muscles contract, can lead to a sometimes surprisingly different insight compared to how we usually tend to rationalize our often irrational behavior afterwards.


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

Hm... good thread. I believe that enneagram fixations are called _*fixations *_for a reason. They are like a fulcrum or axis about which the individual dwells, builds up their defenses and shores up their identity (i.e., some ego-fixation in which to cling to for support), to some extent. A fulcrum has no preferred direction, so it can swing to the left or the right or perhaps it could balance anywhere in between. A 6 may be phobic, counterphobic, or any mixture in between (and where that balance lies is surely important), but those outer characteristics still oscillate about the drive for certainty, the grappling with doubt and cloudiness and the desire, in some way or another, for stability (i.e., which could be control, peace of mind, etc.), so regardless of whether a 6 is super aggressive or super passive, they still wrestle with that nagging uncertainty.










Why, for instance, are right-handed people more common than left-handed people (seriously, why the heck is that?)? In this sense, a left-hander or "south-paw" is a "counter-hander" simply because their "attack plan" is less common than that of the "norm." Similarly, if the empiric tendency of a type 2 is repression of needs (i.e., if the Pride fixation views neediness as a sign of weakness, thus desiring to give that impression of "overflowing generosity"), then the fixation is one of need/counter-need (i.e., because we all have needs), hence the Sp 2 "me first" thingamajig. This is why 2s can be simultaneously very generous, yet very demanding as well.

I think @mimesis gave the fantastic analogy that enneagram fixations were like the "I have a hammer so everything looks like a nail" mentality. It is, perhaps, good to consider what you are missing or lacking, but a 4, for instance, might turn this into gospel.

Perhaps, LOL, we can think of enneagram like the 9 deities that we worship (hm... interestingly, in the Elder Scrolls games, there are the 9 divines; total tangent and probably meaningless, but I love meaninglessness).


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

hal0hal0 said:


> Hm... good thread. I believe that enneagram fixations are called _*fixations *_for a reason. They are like a fulcrum or axis about which the individual dwells, builds up their defenses and shores up their identity (i.e., some ego-fixation in which to cling to for support), to some extent. A fulcrum has no preferred direction, so it can swing to the left or the right or perhaps it could balance anywhere in between. A 6 may be phobic, counterphobic, or any mixture in between (and where that balance lies is surely important), but those outer characteristics still oscillate about the drive for certainty, the grappling with doubt and cloudiness and the desire, in some way or another, for stability (i.e., which could be control, peace of mind, etc.), so regardless of whether a 6 is super aggressive or super passive, they still wrestle with that nagging uncertainty.


YES. Exactly.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@mimesis I have no interest to pursue this any further because it becomes utterly clear to me that you do not understand the perspective I am taking though you keep saying that you do but if you were you would understand me better and I would feel that you "get" it. You don't. You want to see type as a result of evolution. I think that's nonsensical and trying to ascribe an origin to type by removing it away from its original spiritual nature. I don't care what made type into what it is today or what type really is beyond the definitions of what the types are. You said it yourself, I want to abstract the types. Indeed I do, because I think there is value in understanding things at an abstract level and how it manifests in concrete reality. You don't want to abstract and therefore it ends here because there's no way I can ever make you see my perspective or its value, nor do I think there will ever be a way for you to convince me to see yours as I completely devalue your perspective. I simply don't find it overly meaningful or relevant. 

I also sorely disagree with you on that every person must start out as a 369. If anything, actual literature suggests that we start out with all the types so 123456789 or perhaps more accurately, neither of them. As we go through life these types narrow down over time due to whatever sense of lack in our life we think we never received. I also never suggested that "lack" must be unique to type 4 or 8, two types often described as experiencing a lack or longing within themselves. Instead I mean lack as in an experience of never having a specific existential need met. Maitri for example touches on this with her soul child theory. I can see that play out in myself so I am inclined to agree that it has some merit.


----------



## J Squirrel (Jun 2, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> For each type, one of the subtypes is considered a counter-type, the subtype that would be really hard to identify as that type.
> 
> *Sexual Five*- because they primarily search an idealized union with someone else
> 
> So, for anyone of any of these types, do you agree with it? Do you think you are a counter-type? Did it take you longer to find your type? Did you score as something else on the test?


I'm a 5 sx and I have no arguments with the description. However, I also don't think I'm particularly hard to identify as a 5, and score 5 pretty convincingly on tests.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Entropic said:


> @_mimesis_ I have no interest to pursue this any further because it becomes utterly clear to me that you do not understand the perspective I am taking though you keep saying that you do but if you were you would understand me better and I would feel that you "get" it. You don't. You want to see type as a result of evolution. I think that's nonsensical and trying to ascribe an origin to type by removing it away from its original spiritual nature. I don't care what made type into what it is today or what type really is beyond the definitions of what the types are. You said it yourself, I want to abstract the types. Indeed I do, because I think there is value in understanding things at an abstract level and how it manifests in concrete reality. You don't want to abstract and therefore it ends here because there's no way I can ever make you see my perspective or its value, nor do I think there will ever be a way for you to convince me to see yours as I completely devalue your perspective. I simply don't find it overly meaningful or relevant.
> 
> I also sorely disagree with you on that every person must start out as a 369. If anything, actual literature suggests that we start out with all the types so 123456789 or perhaps more accurately, neither of them. As we go through life these types narrow down over time due to whatever sense of lack in our life we think we never received. I also never suggested that "lack" must be unique to type 4 or 8, two types often described as experiencing a lack or longing within themselves. Instead I mean lack as in an experience of never having a specific existential need met. Maitri for example touches on this with her soul child theory. I can see that play out in myself so I am inclined to agree that it has some merit.


There are even more types who experience inner lack. How they interpret it, and how it relates to core fear, or if you will their 'existential outlook' is different. But it's basically the same inner lack, and the same false self in each case. So the 4 inner lack is not different from the 8 inner lack, or 5 or 7. 



Enneagraminstitute Inner Lack said:


> Gluttony seeks to fill the emptiness of the false self up with experiences and ideas from "outside." Avarice is also based on a sense of inner impoverishment, but copes by withholding the self, by shrinking back from contact, and by clutching at the little we think we already have because we are afraid of losing it. The ego self feels empty, rejected, and without nourishing sustenance, so it hoards whatever it feels it has.


I don't expect you to agree whether we all start of as either 369, it's just a hypothesis. But from what I understand and remember, the Fauvres see the other types as basically variations of 369 (I even remember Katherine personally addressed this to you in a post). So in that sense it suggests a mutation or transformation from one to the other. Naranjo also uses a different approach in his book on meditation for 369 and 147582. Not that this proves my point, but the perspectives are congruent. Also to open your mind for my hypothesis requires a different 'outlook' on type, not as 'what makes you you' (like as if that is all a person is made of) or to open yourself to the idea that there may be something underpinning your 'fundamental principle'. But then of course, it wouldn't be fundamental! 

But if you are looking for stories that you can see play out in yourself, well I guess that's fine too.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Entropic said:


> @mimesis You want to see type as a result of evolution. I think that's nonsensical and trying to ascribe an origin to type by removing it away from its original spiritual nature. I don't care what made type into what it is today or what type really is beyond the definitions of what the types are. You said it yourself, I want to abstract the types. Indeed I do, because I think there is value in understanding things at an abstract level and how it manifests in concrete reality. You don't want to abstract and therefore it ends here because there's no way I can ever make you see my perspective or its value, nor do I think there will ever be a way for you to convince me to see yours as I completely devalue your perspective. I simply don't find it overly meaningful or relevant.
> .


I don't mean up re-open a can of worms you were trying to close up, and I haven't been in the least following this conversation, but what do you mean type isn't caused by evolution? What else would it be caused by? Assuming you believe in evolution at all.
Fear of death/ desire to survive is the ultimate reason for any personality...
I don't understand at all what you mean by the use of the word "spiritual" in this case. It sounds like you feel that personality comes from some other realm... which... okay.... I guess it depends what you believe, but ego personalities have a very straight-forward reason for existing (i.e. they've helped us to survive)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> I don't mean up re-open a can of worms you were trying to close up, and I haven't been in the least following this conversation, but what do you mean type isn't caused by evolution? What else would it be caused by? Assuming you believe in evolution at all.
> Fear of death/ desire to survive is the ultimate reason for any personality...
> I don't understand at all what you mean by the use of the word "spiritual" in this case. It sounds like you feel that personality comes from some other realm... which... okay.... I guess it depends what you believe, but ego personalities have a very straight-forward reason for existing (i.e. they've helped us to survive)


Yes, but I don't think that something that has an inherently spiritual origin should be reframed into a biological one. It's doing the core idea of it deep disservice because when you reframe the context like this, you also need to reframe the core of what it is because you move from one realm of existence to another realm of existence the essence of what something is must change. I can see why to mimesis given his focus on behavioral archetypes as being the origin of type would lead him to conclude why it must have an evolutionary origin but I don't think that must be true at all. It could equally just have existed in an objective kind of way like logic. /shrug


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Yes, but I don't think that something that has an inherently spiritual origin should be reframed into a biological one. It's doing the core idea of it deep disservice because when you reframe the context like this, you also need to reframe the core of what it is because you move from one realm of existence to another realm of existence the essence of what something is must change. I can see why to mimesis given his focus on behavioral archetypes as being the origin of type would lead him to conclude why it must have an evolutionary origin but I don't think that must be true at all. It could equally just have existed in an objective kind of way like logic. /shrug


Yeah but what does it really mean to make a divide between something biological and spiritual? Is that really a big difference...? Humans were created biologically and humans create spirituality... it all has the same origin- ourselves and our experience as conscious beings. There really is no divide. You're not really making any statement at all, you're just saying that it should be called "spiritual" without really saying what you think that actually means.


----------

