# Subtypes : Chestnut vs Condon vs Russ-Hudson



## Karkino (May 25, 2017)

I was wondering if you guys could give me your own thoughts regarding your dominant instinct. Do you relate more to the Beatrice Chestnut's description of your type, the Tom Condon one or the Russ-Hudson one? I know most do tend to correlate a lot but still, some of them are starkly different.

Take the self-preservation FOUR for example : Chestnut's take on it is more about and individual hiding and keeping their emotions down in order to feel worthy of love, while Condon's is more akin to the classical interpretation of the sp FOUR by Naranjo (daring, willing to sacrifice security as a way to be true to themselves, etc.). Finally, RH's description of this subtype is more about giving meaning to material and surrounding themselves with beautiful or signifiant things.

I mean...this it really confusing when considering one's subtype and looking at all the discreptancies between the authors. 

Oh! and one last question, do you resonate with your wing's subtype? Like an sp 4w5 would identify with the self-pres description of a FIVE?

Thanks as always!


----------



## Snakebite (Aug 31, 2019)

For me, Chesnut and Condon are pretty close when they describe a sexual Six, which I am. However, the first time I read Chesnut's description of a sexual six, I was embarrassed. 

It was so accurate.


----------



## Glad (Mar 13, 2020)

I just read up tom condon's. I think generally BC's and TC's is pretty accurate and I think RH's is bs (my personal view only) RH doesn't rly merge the instinct with enneagram properly and when I read, I couldn't relate honestly. I accurately type myself as a sx 1 with Claudio Naranjo and BC's help when I read their books. (I was stuck between 1 & 8) For BC, the few parts I dun agree with is that she say that sx 1 has a feeling of entitlement and they seldom doubt themselves and they are less about the right things and perfectionism and shit as compared to other 1s. (I may have remembered wrongly) For TC, the things I don't agree with, actually is not like specifically I dun agree with a point, more like generally the way he painted the sx 1, I dun agree with, a lot is about jealousy of like your intimate partners (family, lover, friends) Although, im a pretty jealous person but I wouldn't say that's like the general impression of me.

also, he basically just list out points of sx 1 without like further explanation or elaboration so if out of the 3, I would choose BC. But based on many people's comments in personality café, im getting the impression that hers is not thattt accurate for all the types. I think she really hits the point for mine, but im not sure about other types.


----------



## Sonny (Oct 14, 2008)

I rarely relate to anything Riso-Hudson write about type 9s beyond some surface information although I do appreciate their levels of health. Their writing seem to only cover one type of 9; a gentle, pleasant, idealistic 9w1, as a w8 much of the language used gets my back up. They're a better source than the Fauves but that's about it unless I want to learn about 5s as the type that appears to admire their work most is E5.

All I've read of Condon and instincts (excl. E3 iirc) is a list. Some listed points don't gel for me.

I view Naranjo as the source but Chestnut pads it out in a palatable language, there's only one thing in her 9 So description I disagree with; I do not like to talk a lot. Otherwise it works for me.

So pretty much everything Glad just said!


----------



## July March (Dec 11, 2019)

I prefer Chestnut's take on most enneagram theories, and even more so now that she's partnered with Uranio Paes whose work is second to none. I avoid all things Enneagram Institute as I don't see myself reflected in any of their materials on my dominant type, and their "instinctual variants" or whatever vocab they're using for subtypes convoluted their system to Byzantine levels. I am not very familiar with Condon enough to comment.


----------



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

In general I feel like descriptions are rather limited, and the way subtypes are described often feel arbitrary. I don't even remember the Enneagram Institute saying much about instinctual variants, though I like Hudson's take on the instincts.


----------



## Varyafiriel (Sep 5, 2012)

I prefer BC, followed buy TC. I can‘t really relate to the descriptions of RH.


----------



## JonathanA (Jul 1, 2019)

1)You forgot Palmer's descriptions.

2) I find some of them more useful for certain purposes and less so in others.

BC offers the best comprehensive view of the sexual eight. She highlights many important features of the personality and then connects to the dynamic of possession and the core wound/fear of the sexual eight. But her analysis is deficient in three respects. First, she fails to adequately describe the motivation behind "possession," which is only later implied in her analysis of how sexual eights grow. Second, she does not describe the "surrender" part of the dynamic, which is critical to motivation and necessary to fully understand "possession." Third, her description is too colored by her own type, from the perspective of a shame-based and value-seeking person. It's not that sexual eights feel they are unworthy of love and that they need to earn it, as though they were twos like Chestnut. It's that they feel like they are unlovable monsters deep down -- full stop. There is no issue of valuation or merit involved.

Palmer offers a better description of the core dynamic of possession and control, as well as several features of the personality, but perhaps does not connect it as well as BC to other behaviors, though I admit that the connections in BC are often implied, rather than explicit. Palmer's description is also rather short.

RH just seems to offer descriptions of behavior. "This is what they look like." It's too superficial. This is a constant I've noticed with RH. They seem much more inclined to empirical approaches that cluster together features and behaviors while under-specifying the psychodynamics that underlie these behaviors and features. That approach certainly has some merit, but it does not lend itself well to brief descriptions of types (better: egos) that are distinguished by psychodynamics and motivations.

TC is good for a quick and dirty list that begins with general features and healthier behaviors and subsequently lists features and behaviors that are progressively less healthy. This is great to help people type and offers great brief points. I fucking love being characterized as a "boxer-poet."


----------



## Glad (Mar 13, 2020)

JonathanA said:


> 1)You forgot Palmer's descriptions.


Where to find Palmer's descriptions?


----------



## Full_fathom_4 (Jan 23, 2018)

Karkino said:


> I mean...this it really confusing when considering one's subtype and looking at all the discreptancies between the authors.


They're just people, looking at what you're looking at. They went on record, with what they saw.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

Tbh I really don't know much of anything outside of my own observations, intuitions, analyses, and RH books I read a long time ago. Someone said 5's like RH most. Maybe that's why I enjoyed their books so much with my heavy w5.


----------

