# Naranjo Subtypes vs Riso & Hudson: Which is better?



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

Quang said:


> Yes, they have a similar description to Naranjo e.g. SP4: Tenacious (Lawrence of Arabia), SO4: Shame (France); SX4 misunderstood genius (Angelina Jolie).


But they don't go into stackings, right? That's mainly what I was saying has limited research behind it.




Angelic Gardevoir said:


> Oh, sorry about that. My mistake. ^_^U


No worries mate. I was just being precise.


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

The Typeless Wonder said:


> But they don't go into stackings, right? That's mainly what I was saying has limited research behind it.


Correct, they only focus on the dominant instinct. I also forgot to add that their description seem less exaggerated in comparison. No counter types mentioned

E.g. SX5: Detective, Secret Agent, Sleuth
Romantic, slow to trust 5. Focused on shared secrets, trusts very few people but surrenders completely when trusted, struggles with being fully present, long distance relationships, nostalgic, rewinds magic memories to savor them, expresses their deeper feelings kinesthetically, intensely, and themselves through art, literature, psychology. Idealizes love and surrendering to their partner means inviting them into their private world. They seek deep and meaningful encounters that are brief. Perceiving that their human aspects might contaminate their idealized love, they therefore internalize their love in their minds so that it is untainted.


----------



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

@Swordsman of Mana
Naranjo an INTJ? Are you sure?


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

Both are good, but riso is a lot easier to read and to understand how it manifests in reality, which is what is important to me. If i cant apply it tangibly what is the point? 
Naranjo is nice, wordy and deep, but understanding and reading something on a higher more theoretical and idealized level doesn't translate to understanding how it tangibly manifests as easily as you might think.

I have roughly the same amount of books from each source. both are great. Naranjo at times is a little bit too caught up in the theoretical side of things and i find myself not relating to the descriptions of my types.
sometimes I wish riso would go a little deeper though, so both have their advantages.

If i had to pick one, I'd pick Riso and Hudson.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Kink said:


> @Swordsman of Mana
> Naranjo an INTJ? Are you sure?


about 85% sure


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Quang said:


> Correct, they only focus on the dominant instinct. I also forgot to add that their description seem less exaggerated in comparison. No counter types mentioned
> E.g. SX5: Detective, Secret Agent, Sleuth
> Romantic, slow to trust 5. Focused on shared secrets, trusts very few people but surrenders completely when trusted, struggles with being fully present, long distance relationships, nostalgic, rewinds magic memories to savor them, expresses their deeper feelings kinesthetically, intensely, and themselves through art, literature, psychology. Idealizes love and surrendering to their partner means inviting them into their private world. They seek deep and meaningful encounters that are brief. Perceiving that their human aspects might contaminate their idealized love, they therefore internalize their love in their minds so that it is untainted.


this is somewhat accurate, but I don't understand how any of this sounds "detective", "secret agent" or "sleuth". if anything, it sounds more like a fantasy author


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

I like Naranjo and Maitri better, their descriptions seem more accurate and I don't like how Riso and Hudson match functions with enneatypes and I disagree with some of their associations too. But I prefer reading material from different sources, exploring them, considering all angles, learning more and then choosing what appeals the most to me, my values and the way I am and think.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

I don't relate very well to Naranjo's description of a social 6 (as given on that resource thread). I do find more of a match with the soc/sex description on that thread (probably from Ocean Moonshine). Naranjo goes into longer detail on some of those descriptions, and I find it annoying as a subtype that doesn't get one of the longer descriptions. Beatrice Chestnut does give longer descriptions of each subtype, so it gives me more to examine. Being compared to "Hitler's henchmen" in that resource thread is more irritating and inaccurate than personally useful to me.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> he is INTJ, but yes, he is very Te in his categorizations (which this Te-heavy ENFP finds very useful). thing is, Naranjo's writings work best when accompanied by the narrative tradition. naturally, not every Sx 2 is going to be a carbon copy of the femme fatale, Poison Ivy/Cleopatra-ish slut posited in his works. you have to get a grasp of what _normal_ Sx 2s, So 5s, Sp 8s, So 9s etc look like in real life for it not to sound like a dissertation on archetypal character motifs in ancient literature (well, that and Naranjo is verbose as fuck. Beatrice Chestnut's book is far more accessible).


ENTJ might make more sense to me. I don't recall seeing a whole lot of leading-Ni in what he writes. 

That's a good point, that you have to know what the typical looks like to see the atypical. But I wonder two things: do most people even bother to look for the atypical, and at what point does someone become atypical? By the latter I mean, someone could fit the descriptors of SP 1's behavior, but really be an SO 7 via fears and motivations (the things you don't see), and the "easy to recognize" adjectives just caused a mistype. By no means am I saying the "RH way" is immune to this problem either, but Naranjo's subtypes seems to be set up for it to happen more often and more easily.


----------



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

What I don't like about Naranjo is that there's a big difference between types (neighboring, connected or none) of the same instinct. I have the belief that instinct overrides type motivations and also the belief that the enneagram is connected (not only by the lines but also wings and triads), so it's weird to see a sx5 between a sx4 and a sx6. Or a sx9 between a sx1 and a sx8. Or a sp6 besides a sp7. Or yada yada.


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

TurtleQueen said:


> Being compared to "Hitler's henchmen" in that resource thread is more irritating and inaccurate than personally useful to me.


You're telling me that all Sixes aren't Hitler's henchmen? :shocked:


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

Quang said:


> You're telling me that all Sixes aren't Hitler's henchmen? :shocked:


Well, apparently Captain America (fictional, but go with me on this one) isn't exactly a big fan of Nazis, and he's been typed as social 6:






Go figure.

Also, I relate more to the positive examples of Bruce Springsteen and the Indigo Girls than any of the main leaders of the Nazi party.

I also like how @timeless pointed out that type 6 is a superego type that is ultimately focused on perfecting their own conscience in this article. Just labeling social 6s as people who will follow rules from an authority no matter how awful they are conflicts with the basic idea of type 6 being a superego type.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

Paradigm said:


> (Now I'm wondering if Naranjo was ESTJ. It seems a very Te-Ne way to take the Enneagram... I hardly ever type "celebrities," idk.)


this gives a chance to present a paradox of sorts (going off on a tangent of jungian/mbti-types, that still pertains to the enneagram, and all typological theories) that kind of paints a picture that it is all "accurate"--even two "contradictions" lying side by side--in direct proportion to the level a person can identify and benefit, in their own personal experience. (wordy, but i'll try to explain)

like another poster said, naranjo may not have meant for his work to be used so rigidly, but just for example, if he _had_ meant for it to encapsulate the drives of humanity within 27 categories, that can at once be a sign of dominant extroverted thinking--in the sense that the extroverted attitude aligning with objective logic can obscure a whole host of unconscious data, in the attempt of remaining true to what the conscious psyche sees as "reality", and in doing so turns a blind eye to much of "what doesn't fit", because "what doesn't fit" is in itself undermining to the defenses of the individual... but at the same time, this could also be a sign of inferior extroverted thinking--not necessarily in quality, but in having the shadow attempt to hold sway over the outer world by reducing it all to an overly simplistic view of reality (jung did credit Fi-dominants with having a shadow characterized by tyrannical thinking, and a tyrannical will that they would then impose over their surroundings... much like freud did with much of his work... though jung thought freud to be a Te-dom + N, while jung's pupil--von franz--believed him to be expressing his shadow self for much of his working life).


the above contradiction in leading minds who helped to coin the subject goes to show that the image/illusion of point A (or the resulting "true type" of a person), can be reached equally by opposite ends of the same spectrum... showing that, a person's experience in life is what truly defines their type (i'm guessing), and not their representation of said type. it'd be like taking all the contradicting points of view and molding them into a literal, multifaceted shape that you could then hold in your hand, and then seeing how one result may be silly, until you turn it and view the "conundrum" from an entirely different angle--which would then immediately offset the previous argument (and vice versa, upon returning the shape to the previous vantage point)... almost like attempting to view disparate views of reality simultaneously (the human mind--lol--as pretentious and cliche as it sounds to say). 


this same "phenomenon" can be found in the enneagram. according to one view, a person is "type A" with "such-n-such instincts", but a wholly different type--and consequently, a wholly different person (especially in regards to how a person's self-image can dramatically change their own reality)--when paired with a different line of thinking. 

all of this just leaves me at the beginning of a circle really (as it all seems very circular... or maybe that's a flaw or sign of inferiority within my own thinking)... and with the thought that there is not just one way to determine a type, or even two, but a myriad of crisscrossing lines that can lead to "point A". and that it comes down to that one person's (hopefully self-aware and honest--whatever that actually happens to be) assessment and traversement of those crisscrosses. 


it's all perspective (again, cliche, but still very true). if it helps, use it. if it doesn't, don't (not picking at the OP, just my general opinion,which is: "which is better" is the wrong question).


----------

