# Chestnut's Subtypes ≠ Instincts



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Beatrice Chestnut's "Subtype" descriptions, based on Naranjo's subtypes, are a separate theory from the instinctual variants approach. They do not describe the same thing, as often happens with different authors.

The "Subtype" descriptions do describe real phenomena, however I don't see them being tied to instinct very much. Instead, the instincts are either misattributed - for example; the "Sexual 4" subtype description is more focused on social competition, stemming from an over-active _social _instinct - or, instead of describing a subtype based on instinct, it portraits the type with different _Tritype_ (Fauvre) influences.

Take the subtypes for type 6 as an example;
The "Self Preservation 6" describes the 9-fixed 6, the "Social 6" describes the 1-fixed 6, and the "Sexual 6" describes the 8-fixed 6.

Similarly with type 4, the "Self Preservation 4" describes the 1-fixed 4, the "Social 4" describes the 9-fixed 4, and the "Sexual 4" describes the 8-fixed 4.

"Self Preservation 2" describes the 9-fixed 2, "Social 2" describes the 1-fixed 2, "Sexual 2" describes the 8-fixed 2.

"Self Preservation 8" describes the 3-fixed 8, "Social 8" describes the 2-fixed 8, "Sexual 8" describes the 4-fixed 8.

On and on the list goes.

I'm not asking you to agree with me, I am asking to read the Subtype descriptions as talked about by Beatrice Chestnut or Naranjo with a skeptical eye. Are they "Subtypes" of the Enneagram types? Yes. Do they describe the instinctual drives for each type? I let you decide.

Here's the link to Chestnut's work, collected on PersonalityCafe.


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

THANK YOU.

I've been saying this for years, actually--same thoughts. I recall having a long discussion about it on EIDB with yet another participant who was also coming to these same conclusions. The "three varieties" of a type have something to do with fixes, as you say. I think we even independently came to the exact correlations you list up there.

A lot of people notice this. No one in the field seems to be doing much about it yet.

The current subtype descriptions lay out three different presentations of a core type according to their emotional structure. None of this actually relates to the instinct, which, as near as I can tell, is a point of insecurity and neurosis rather than anything seriously affecting the structure of your type. 

Arguably, I think Riso and Hudson (in _Wisdom of the Enneagram_) do the best job of actually explaining how the instinct (as in, the biological drive) interplays with the type. It's anyone's opinion though.


----------



## lolalalah (Aug 1, 2015)

Amen.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

I think it's important to expand upon this topic for those trying to make sense of all the pieces.

Identifying with a single Enneagram type was always *only* a starting point. Here's my best guess at a timeline in order of who used what to go beyond just using one of the nine types.

Oscar Ichazo - main emphasis on trifix, one type from each center but the centers weren't the same as used with today's personality types

Claudio Naranjo - three instinctual subtypes of each type but the instincts were used only to create three distinctions of a type, they weren't used separately from type

Various - wings create two subtypes or variations of each type, seems to have become prevalent around the time of the first books (late 1980's)

Riso - levels of development was his solution to explaining the variations in people of the same type

Fauvre - Tritype as a variation of Ichazo's trifix, one type from each center using the personality type centers, idea of Tritype archetype also added

Riso/Hudson - instinctual variants vs. instinctual subtypes, instincts stand separate from type although they can also be used in conjunction with type as well, all three instincts apply to an individual rather than just one as in Naranjo's instinctual subtypes

From old Enneagram Institute website article 
https://web.archive.org/web/2010051...graminstitute.com:80/articles/nartinstvar.asp


> We feel that when the three Variants are properly understood in their own right—without reference to Enneagram type—then the way in which type affects the Variants becomes more clear and compelling. Too often people try first to understand the Instincts in their mixture with Enneagram types...we can discern significant differences within the same type that are caused by the personality's predilection for a particular Variant over the other two. We feel that the Instinctual Variants are especially significant with regard to relationship issues. We might also add that, in our view, people have all three Instincts operative: one Instinct is uppermost and we tend to rely on it excessively. A second also makes its influence felt, and the third Instinct is least developed and creates "blind spots" in our personality.


Chestnut - wrote about Naranjo's updated interpretation of instinctual subtypes that she learned about in 2004, she doesn't seem clear on the difference between instinctual subtypes and instinctual variants (as most people aren't and tend to use them interchangeably)

From https://beatricechestnut.com/2017/08/instinctual-subtype-dimension-enneagram/


> note: “subtypes” have also been called “instinctual variants” by some authors, leading to some confusion. What I am calling “subtypes” sometimes gets referred to as “instincts” when the term “instincts” is used as a shorthand for “instinctual variants.” It’s good to know about this use of “instinct” as a synonym for “subtype” because if you don’t know this, it can make the language mourned this topic confusing.


Bottom line: one type was never sufficient to describe a person, there are too many personality variations for people who identify with the same type, a number of concepts have been used over the years in an attempt to explain these variations, people tend to combine these different concepts, IMO sometimes these combinations create over-complication and confusion because they were never intended to be combined and some were re-interpreted without any explicit distinction made between the interpretations, good idea to know which concept and which interpretation of it you're reading so that it doesn't get all jumbled together


----------



## Asd456 (Jul 25, 2017)

enneathusiast said:


> Chestnut - wrote about Naranjo's updated interpretation of instinctual subtypes that she learned about in 2004, she doesn't seem clear on the difference between instinctual subtypes and instinctual variants (as most people aren't and tend to use them interchangeably)


I don't think she's discounting or confused about the difference between instinctual subtypes and instinctual variants, she's simply emphasizing and prioritizing the work of Naranjo as she views it as the most accurate to distinguish types. 

From your source:



> instincts
> 
> the three “instincts” refer to our biological survival drives—those of 1.) Self-Preservation, 2.) Relating to others generally and in Social groups, and 3.) Sexual relationships, or One-to-One bonding, and other types of fusion experiences.
> 
> There are 3 main instincts, 9 types, and 27 subtypes, which result when you mix the dominant instinct with the passion and patterns of each of the 9 types.


She acknowledges the 3 instincts, 9 types, and 27 subtypes (which is the combination of the dominant instinct and core type) so the only general rule I see from her is that your subtype is the combination of your dominant instinct and core type but she also takes into account instincts and core type separately, not interchangeably. 

From her book (Complete Enneagram):



> The Twenty-Seven Subtypes
> 
> SUBTYPES EXIST WITHIN EACH of the nine types, broken down into three distinct versions according to how the
> passion of each type combines with one of three instinctual biases or goals that all social creatures share,
> ...


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Asd456 said:


> I don't think she's discounting or confused about the difference between instinctual subtypes and instinctual variants, she's simply emphasizing and prioritizing the work of Naranjo as she views it as the most accurate *to distinguish types*.


The point I was making is just as you said in bold. As Naranjo did, Chestnut is using instinct to distinguish type. She doesn't describe the differences and similarities between people using only instinct as can be done with instinctual variants or stacking (i.e., sp/sx, sp/so, sx/sp, sx/so, so/sp, so/sx). Two people who are both sp/sx (e.g., an sp/sx 1 and an sp/sx 2) can explore their similarities using sp/sx alone without reference to type. This can't be done with instinctual subtype because it ONLY refers to type (e.g., sp 1 and sp 2 are not compared as to how they both use sp in a similar way because the instinct has been blended with type and no longer stands on it's own). 



Asd456 said:


> She acknowledges the 3 instincts, 9 types, and 27 subtypes (which is the combination of the dominant instinct and core type) so the only general rule I see from her is that your subtype is the combination of your dominant instinct and core type but she also takes into account instincts and core type separately, not interchangeably.


Yes, that's the subtype approach to the instincts.

The difference between the instinctual subtype approach and the instinctual variant or stacking approach is where you're starting from.

Instinctual subtype - start with type, apply each instinct, results in three instinctual subtypes.
Instinct is not used separately from type but only as a way of describing three different subtypes. It's an ingredient that gets transformed when combined with type. The resulting subtype is no longer descriptive of instinct itself. It's only descriptive of a certain variation of type.

Instinctual variant or stacking - start with all three instincts, determine preferential order of stacking, then apply to type if you want.
Instinct is used without type but can also be applied to type. Instinct remains separate and can be looked at on it's own.

@*Daeva* was making a point in his own way that the instinctual subtypes don't describe instinct. They only describe some variation of type. In my response, I was trying to expand upon that to say these are the many ways that variations of type are created and instinct is something separate from type that can be used without combining it with type.

Chestnut, as most people using the instincts, doesn't seem to recognize or acknowledge the distinction between the instinctual subtype approach and the instinctual variant or stacking approach. This points to the general problem of people conflating different concepts, interpretations, and approaches together and ending up missing the subtleties.


----------

