# Sub-type Descriptions: Helpful or Misleading?



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

For a while, I was into subtype descriptions. But now, I'm starting to find them more misleading than helpful.

To use myself as an example:
I type at Sx 4. I relate to the more "shameless" (or in my case, "ashamed of my shame") version of 4, outlined by the Sx 4. I also can see underpinnings of competitiveness in me. But only in highly specific scenarios, like when someone is "more me than me," which has happened all but... once? ... in my life. Or, when my brother was born. I do enjoy out-doing the competition when chasing a guy, but if I have to compete for his attention once I'm with him, it's a turn-off. As a kid I was in theater, but I preferred singing solo gigs in bars and recording my original songs, so that I wouldn't be in direct competition with others for roles and instead, would carve out my own niche and assert my own identity without hindering someone else's. I'm not someone to be fucked with, but I'm not nearly as vindictive as the Sx 4 description suggests, either. In most situations, when someone has fucked with me hard enough, I withdraw my affections or communication.. forever. They no longer deserve to hear my feelings on the matter. If necessary, I 'take back what's mine' or cut them at the heart in some way. But usually I'm just... done.

In addition, I relate even more to the Sx 8 description than the Sx 4 description. (Aside from, you know, the revenge part... which has happened in a romantic scenario, and it entailed competition too, but its more rare for me.) I'm not crazy - people close to me have noticed the "Sx 8ness" in me as well - and more than once I've been asked after heated moments.. "Are you sure you're not an 8??"... yes I'm sure, but the Sx 8 subtype description does not help my case.

Now back to the Sx 4 description. I find that my Sx 6 friends, for instance, are much more competitive than I am; for them, competition is a necessity in a relationship, at work, etc. My Sx 6 friend never stops competing.. he even needs to date someone with similar interests so he can compete with them. This is not me - I am drawn to people being themselves and having their own interests. I may have a competitive streak in me, and feel a competitive need to prove my superiority in situations where I feel inferior (more specifically, rejected or unlovable), which really is about feeling my own value in relation to someone else who in my eyes, has more 'value' because, perhaps, I am obsessed with them and feel like I'm not worthy.... but I would not call myself the most competitive person on Earth, especially because I am not interested whatsoever in most things, relationships, jobs or lives that other people have. (My ideal life - and more importantly, my ideal _self_ - is very much based on my own vision.) So it seems a bit silly that this 'underlying theme' is related to my subtype instead of some of my friends, when it runs more strongly in them.

If we use Chestnut's subtypes, I relate somewhat to:
Sx 1, Sx 2, So 2, Sp 3, Sx 4, Sp 4, So 4, Sx 5, Sp 7, Sx 8, So 8. So how useful is it really to type myself based on this? It seems to me, sort of like astrology: any description can be stretched to fit a person.

I can see myself more deeply than I'd like in some of the Sx 4 themes, but I can also imagine Sx 6s, Sx 7s, Sx 8s, Sx 1s, Soc 3s and on and on, seeing themselves in that description too. And if ten people close to me did not know enneagram and simply saw those descriptions and was asked to match me up with the right one, I am not sure which they would pick... probably, 9/10 would pick Sx 8... lol. Or maybe something else I haven't thought of.


I've found Chestnut's book more useful where outlining the _underpinnings and underlying themes of each type _is concerned. I've read several enneagram authors and the underpinnings and themes concerned with each type may be interpreted differently by each, but I find some consistency in relating to the underlying themes of type 4. Same thing goes for Sx/So. And to be fair, Sx/So 4 does sound more like me than the other subtype possibilities. It's not that I can't relate to my own descriptions, it's that I find the subtype descriptions somewhat... inefficient. It seems as if they gloss over the central point of the type and the instinct and encapsulate it in a lot of presumptions. (For instance, Sp 4 is made out to be some reckless daredevil, which many 7s and 8s and Cp 6s would relate to. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on how the Sp 4 finds their sense of value or individuality in doing things that other people might not want to do? Or that they don't want to live a mundane life, because it makes their life feel meaningless and thus makes them feel insignificant which is a 4's deepest fear?)


I am not writing this to question my type but rather, to question how other people have related to their own subtype descriptions, whether you relate more to other descriptions, or whether you find them to be helpful.


----------



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

I think they can be misleading yes. While they can be an interesting read, and give some idea of how a type works, unless taken with a grain of salt they can make it sound like you must fit a certain trope/image to be this instinct and type, which isn't always how it works. 



> And if ten people close to me did not know enneagram and simply saw those descriptions and was asked to match me up with the right one, I am not sure which they would pick...


...Now I'm tempted to do this out of curiosity though. If only I knew 10 such people...


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Another thought on Type 4 and instincts -

Any type who is rooted in envy - which 4 is - will have underlying themes which involve competition. There will be moments when the 4 feels "not enough" compared to someone else, or "too much" - too intense, too emotional, too whatever. There will be moments when the 4 feels the need to prove superiority, and moments where the 4 resents their inferiority. This is all natural off-shoots of being rooted in envy.

So, I don't see why Sx 4 would exclusively experience a need to prove superiority via competition, whereas a Soc 4 would break down crying about their inferiority every time. To me, any 4 would experience a _spectrum of emotions and reactions_ where envy is concerned. 

Envy, for 4, is about longing; longing for something just out of reach, longing to become a more ideal self who is lovable, self-actualized and true to themselves, etc. So it's not as simple as wanting what others have, which is something that all humans might experience. 4s tend to be very specific and nuanced about who they want to be, who they aspire to be, who they cannot be, who they authentically are etc. They might feel inspired to 'become' better than they already are, when they encounter someone who is just out of reach; someone who they can aspire to be "worthy of." Or perhaps, they might feel competitive with someone who has done something they always imagined themselves doing. But generally, this will involve a spectrum of emotions which include feelings of inferiority, superiority, competition, longing etc. 

Since Sx is about conquering and penetrating, basically sticking your proverbial thrust into the heart of a conquest.. it makes sense the Sx 4 would present as competitive and shameless.. but deep down, this competition is fueled by feelings of inferiority or inadequacy, so if the Sx 4 is honest with themselves or relatively average health, they will recognize just as much shame behind their actions as any of the other 4s. Social 4s, like Marilyn Manson, might express their sense of 'inferiority' by creating a cult following of goths who are protesting against "The Beautiful People" because they have _superior_ or _alternative_ values. I don't believe any 4 in the world, including a social 4, would lie around crying and envying anyone else who came along.. and would never take a stand to assert their own view about society or protest against norms or whatever it is that bothers them. There's too much need , in a 4 , to express who they are and live in a way that is true to who they are.


----------



## Philathea (Feb 16, 2015)

I have been waiting for a place to write this.. for so long....

I am a So 4. The Social Fours are basically the losers of the enneagram, but that's not my problem with it-- the enneagram isn't supposed to be pretty, or comfortable, and your type certainly isn't supposed to be something to take pride in. So that's not my problem with it. My problem is I really can't relate.. and I've wanted to mention this but there are so many problems with saying “This description is nonsense because *I* personally don't relate to it!”.. lol. There are just too many mistypes for that to even be taken seriously. So for the most part I've kept my mouth shut about it, especially since Naranjo's core type descriptions are so highly regarded.

But a lot of it DOES relate to me. There's a reason I typed as a social four in the first place. I have struggled intensely with shame and insecurity for years, more than it seems other Fours have. And then a lot of it just misses the mark. Take when comparing Sx 4s to So 4s. There is often this “sad 4” vs. “mad 4” dichotomy.. and I don't think that difference exists. I've been known for having a horrible temper my entire life. I've struggled with my anger for too long to even take that seriously. 

But what I relate to least is how Social 4s are supposed to showcase their suffering. I can't display my suffering.. I have way too much shame regarding it. And the idea of complaining and whining as a way to attract attention and solve your problems.. is completely opposed to every value I have ever held. But, most of all, more than I have any moral problem with it.. it would be AWFUL for my image! I have an _aesthetic_ problem with it. There is nothing meaningful or worthwhile about being seen as someone who complains or whines.. I simply care about my image too much to be anything like that. So it makes no sense to me, that an image type's defense mechanism would be so tied towards creating an image that is not desirable in the least.
I relate, most of all, to the Sp 4. I have daydreams of being seen for how strong I am under suffering and difficulty.. so my focus IS on displaying my pain.. but in the most indirect way. Not displaying it myself, but for being seen.. with it? I don't know. It's difficult to explain. But the subtypes just miss the mark, to me. 

And one last note: sometimes I see people trying to get rid of type four stereotypes, and they say, "No, fours don't just sit around and whine, those are just the SOCIAL FOURS.." and on the inside... I... :angry:


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

They're no more misleading than the rest of the enneagram in my honest opinion. It's basically lots of fluff that a lot of people can relate to in some way, shape, or form... what's new?


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

When I first began studying the Enneagram types there was only instinctual subtypes. They didn't resonate with me at all. I could see myself in multiple subtypes. I wrote it off as not worth my time.

Some time later, the idea of instinctual stacking appeared. When I started comparing people just based on instinct and ignoring type it all made experiential sense to me. 

Personally, I don't find much, if any, value in the instinctual subtypes but I find tremendous value in instinctual stackings. The biggest difference is that subtypes are only used for describing variations of a given type. Stackings can be used independent of type or can be combined with type. Learning about my instinctual stacking independent of type had more of an impact on my life than simply learning about my type - it let me know what I've been searching for my whole life and where many of my difficulties lie, those things that type alone just didn't explain.

Bottom line:
Instinctual Subtypes - not useful to me
Instinctual Stacking - extremely useful to me


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Philathea said:


> I have been waiting for a place to write this.. for so long....
> 
> I am a So 4. The Social Fours are basically the losers of the enneagram, but that's not my problem with it-- the enneagram isn't supposed to be pretty, or comfortable, and your type certainly isn't supposed to be something to take pride in. So that's not my problem with it. My problem is I really can't relate.. and I've wanted to mention this but there are so many problems with saying “This description is nonsense because *I* personally don't relate to it!”.. lol. There are just too many mistypes for that to even be taken seriously. So for the most part I've kept my mouth shut about it, especially since Naranjo's core type descriptions are so highly regarded.


Yeah I know what you mean. I stopped caring about "you're mistyped!" accusations.. I used to care because I would feel driven to explain my self typing and it was still raw... but now that I've had some time to sit with it, whatever.. let them come roud:



> But a lot of it DOES relate to me. There's a reason I typed as a social four in the first place. I have struggled intensely with shame and insecurity for years, more than it seems other Fours have. And then a lot of it just misses the mark. Take when comparing Sx 4s to So 4s. There is often this “sad 4” vs. “mad 4” dichotomy.. and I don't think that difference exists. I've been known for having a horrible temper my entire life. I've struggled with my anger for too long to even take that seriously.


I agree.. the whole spectrum would exist for all 4s.. (or all humans, or even animals, for that matter...)



> But what I relate to least is how Social 4s are supposed to showcase their suffering. I can't display my suffering.. I have way too much shame regarding it. And the idea of complaining and whining as a way to attract attention and solve your problems.. is completely opposed to every value I have ever held. But, most of all, more than I have any moral problem with it.. it would be AWFUL for my image! I have an _aesthetic_ problem with it. There is nothing meaningful or worthwhile about being seen as someone who complains or whines.. I simply care about my image too much to be anything like that. So it makes no sense to me, that an image type's defense mechanism would be so tied towards creating an image that is not desirable in the least.
> I relate, most of all, to the Sp 4. I have daydreams of being seen for how strong I am under suffering and difficulty.. so my focus IS on displaying my pain.. but in the most indirect way. Not displaying it myself, but for being seen.. with it? I don't know. It's difficult to explain. But the subtypes just miss the mark, to me.


Yeah..
For me, there is a difference between "being true to myself" and "being my ideal self." It took me some time to reconcile the idea of an "ideal self" when I was typing at 8 but considering 4. I thought - I can't have an "ideal self" because what's important to me is that the outside matches the inside; that I am true to myself. Basically, that would entail being shameless. (Which I am not, but throughout my life I've written songs and stories about wishing I could be. And, I even managed to convince myself that I'm shameless, since I'm not ashamed of things that other people care about hiding, like my appetite for sex for example, and I liked hanging up nude pictures of myself covered in blood or scars after trauma... although at that time I was borderline anorexic so my body looked the way I wanted it, and outside that time period, I simply would not consider photographing myself naked.)

My ideal self would be quiet, mysterious, waif-like but super muscular, would never share her pain and would be guarded and mostly keeping to herself, but would fight for what she believes, would only show her pain in her art, would lure people with her eyes, etc... very similar to Sp 4. But being _true to myself _- which is my _image ideal_ - would entail being Animal. It means acknowledging, embodying and embracing the darkest and most beautiful depths of my true nature, my trauma, my appetite, my power, and my vulnerability. I guess it's fair to say that my "image ideal" is basically putting my deepest, truest, authentic self on display, which is quite Sx/So 4ish. But in reality, I am not always that way. I'm too shy at times, too withdrawn, at home doing nothing, or doing mundane things that I have to do. I spend much of my free time working on my art to show the world who I am in my raw, natural form, but I have only presented a very small percentage of it to the world. I like to think of my life as art, but I have only really "lived this" for short periods of time.

So, I don't exactly base myself or my presentation on what I feel would be most loved or acceptable, but rather what feels most authentic. The problem with that is, of course, that being authentic would entail forgetting about authenticity and just, simply, _BEING_.... but I cannot do that. It would feel like death to me to lose my sense of purpose in self-expression, or to stop working on myself, or exploring my sense of self.

But all that said, the "ideal person" that I could never be, would be closer to an Sp 4 description... or even a 3 or a 1. It's just, it would be so far from who I actually am, that it's not my image ideal. I feel most alive when my passion is on display, I suppose.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> Personally, I don't find much, if any, value in the instinctual subtypes but I find tremendous value in instinctual stackings. The biggest difference is that subtypes are only used for describing variations of a given type. Stackings can be used independent of type or can be combined with type. Learning about my instinctual stacking independent of type had more of an impact on my life than simply learning about my type - it let me know what I've been searching for my whole life and where many of my difficulties lie, those things that type alone just didn't explain.
> 
> Bottom line:
> Instinctual Subtypes - not useful to me
> Instinctual Stacking - extremely useful to me


Yup..I couldn't agree more. Realizing I'm Sx/So and not Sx/Sp, even, opened up worlds to me. Lining it up with 4, it is also useful and enlightening, but I find it more enlightening to consider the basic principles of 4 and the basic principles of instincts and ponder how each is expressed through the other lens. Subtype descriptions seemed more and more pointless as I continued this process - not only for myself, but also applying it to others as I came to understand the instincts more deeply.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

it's all so varied and it scatters. all of this helping or not helping, to me, seems to be about the timing in person's life more than anything. i know that's vague and says little, so i'll just put in how what i've seen aligns with what you're talking about: 

(my type isn't important beyond _it_ drawing me to a place where people actually talk about such things, as it seems more like a transitory, or even ancillary aspect in regards to myself actually growing as a person--it's worth comes from its tie to other happenings in life, and not from the way that it poorly describes me)


sexual 6, as far as i know: the only thing i've ever been competitive in was school or sports. and even then, it wasn't competitive with other people, it was just competitive with whatever the limitations of the situation were. if the highest grade possible was 110, then i wanted to get that grade. if someone was trying to sneak something like a reverse, i wanted catch it and stop it before their efforts became worthwhile. 
there is such a thing as failing yourself in a situation, and this can seem like being competitive and it may be, but to me the word has always held the meaning of it involving other people--which is something i've never really understood: what does one person's ability or lack thereof, have to do with another's? 

i'm also more likely to turn away if i feel like i have to compete when it comes to affection from another. if that's the case, whether bad or good, i'm really not interested. nor do i feel like people have to be won, nor should anyone put themselves up for it. best just to back off and let the person "win". (though, this could just be my phobic side coming out, as rejection i think is a greater component in my specific 6-makeup than some of the more mentioned traits; what could be called 2'ish pride as well, kind of fits). 


i am naturally more or less "intense", but try to makeup for it by reaching out and being nice (to those i can afford to be nice to), as a way to put people at their ease around me, till they know me a bit better... 
without rambling further, i can link these up to traits spoken about in the 6 description (and a number of others), and they would seem to fit when looked at from one perspective, but i can make arguments as to why these observations fit a justification outside of the enneagram, and how what is seen is just a semi-blank canvas for us to superimpose our ideas of another person upon... and the thing is, either side of the argument may be right because all of this criteria and how it used allows us to continuously reshape the fodder to what our current state of mind happens to be... 
i think that humans have the unique quality of being many conflicting things, simultaneously. so, any argument fits within reason to the confines in which it is delivered, meaning that perspective takes potential and gives it shape, and it's only force of perspective that makes that shape remain for a time, and that specific brand of "forceful perspective" is also subject to time, and eventually erodes. 

so it's as helpful as the timing in which you found it allowed it to be.


----------



## Gorgon (Feb 16, 2015)

I find the instinctual subtypes helpful since they concretize the instinctual stackings as they relate to the enneatypes. The danger, as with any personality system, is to take the descriptions at face value. On the surface, the sx4 and the so4 seem like totally different types, but a 4 is a 4 is a 4.

Looking at the instinctual subtypes, I've come to further understand my core type and instincts, including the misconceptions that I've had, which is the purpose of the system.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

I actually don't find subtypes misleading at all - only certain subtype descriptions. However, I am extremely glad they exist because it really clarifies a lot. Most type 5 descriptions are either SP/SO or SO/SP - never ever SX/Anything. When I first read the SX 5 description, it explained why I related so strongly to type 5's motivations/fears/etc but somewhat less strongly to most descriptions. Of course, that may also be due to my having a strong 4 wing, since similar to certain subtype preferences, most type 5 descriptions describe a 5w6 over a 5w4.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Thanatesque said:


> I find the instinctual subtypes helpful since they concretize the instinctual stackings as they relate to the enneatypes. The danger, as with any personality system, is to take the descriptions at face value. On the surface, the sx4 and the so4 seem like totally different types, *but a 4 is a 4 is a 4*.


Exactly my point. 

The Sp 4 descriptions focus on being reckless and dauntless, and seeking stimulation. I'm not sure why that is related to type 4. All humans want stimulation of course.. but seeking stimulation as a central theme of a type, sounds more 6ish or 7ish if mental stimulation, or 8ish if physical excess type stimulation. I don't have any problem with the idea of any 4 seeking stimulation, per se, but the problem is that this can apply to almost anyone and as a centrality, has nothing to do with type 4.

If an Sp 4 seems reckless in the eyes of others, it's probably not about stimulation (which is more 7ish) or rebellion (which is more 6ish) ... it's about expressing their unique identity or being averse to mundanity. If the descriptions would elaborate a little more on what makes a 4 a 4, what makes Sp types Sp, and how the two might mix together in a deeper way... I'd be all for it. (Hm, perhaps I should write that book. :kitteh: ) But describing surface traits that can apply to anyone is a bit extraneous and misleading.


As for Sx and So 4,
I do relate strongly to some of the Sx 4 themes, but it's a lot more nuanced than the descriptions suggest. I'll pick and choose a specific point.



> Sexual Fours don't care very much about image management or being liked. For them, it's better to be superior. They are highly competitive, and their intense focus on competition takes the form of actively striving to show that they are the best.


I remember writing on my typing thread that I don't mind going to school or leaving the house in my pajamas if that's the kind of mood I'm in. And so, people told me, I could rule out being an image type. But - there's a lot more to it than that. My self-image is "honest, authentic, vain as hell but on my own terms, not caught up in everyone else's bullshit standards." To elaborate on that - I see myself as wild, unruly, hungry, expressive, artistic etc. I want my clothes to match my mood. I choose all of my clothes carefully including my pajamas. I never wear makeup except on stage or at major events, and even then, I only do eyeliner and lipstick. I take excellent care of my skin which involves not caking crap on my face. I think about longevity in terms of my appearance. I invest in having gorgeous, perfect hair in my photoshoots, but to take care of my hair I have to wash it less often so the natural oils can run through it. I also don't wear high heels often - and when I do, the heels are thick ones that I can run in. I love being that person who startles everyone on the rare occasions I'm looking explicitly gorgeous. I like to save that up for special moments. And the rest of the time, I want to look sexy and raw, but I also want to seem like I don't care about it. (And on some level that's true - because I care more about expressing my own image-ideal than being perfect by society's terms.)

I have a philosophy along with this too, and I make it known when it comes up. I find the whole 'skinny heels/ makeup' culture to be stifling, compromising the strength and animalism of women who all feel like they need to look the same.... I don't have any interest in playing that game. And I am very aware of being different - being the one who can look good when I roll out of bed in the morning, who is in a separate category altogether from the made-up, high-heeled, try-hard women; and thus, not comparable to them.

So yes, there's competition in there. But, I wouldn't say it's a lack of image management. Also, in terms of competition, I'm actually AVOIDING competition by doing this. I'm in another category altogether, which makes me impossible to compete with and thus impossible to beat. But it's hardly a lack of image management. It's an investment in being animalistic and appearing to be "above the bullshit," having a strong philosophy along with my image that appears intelligent to men (most men, at least the ones that are drawn to me lol, find makeup and high heels 'fake' and 'put on' - although I'm sure there are many men in the world who prefer women who can excel at that type of look). 

But - this also stems from a deeper sense of inferiority. I don't go in at the waist though I've mostly been a slender person throughout my life. I don't have curves, boobs, hips etc. I don't have high hollywood cheekbones. My hair doesn't behave. I was ugly as a teen and it became ingrained in me that *I can't compete* with beautiful women. So instead of competing with them on their terms, I make my own terms and win. It stems from a sense that I'm not enough, not pretty enough, not measuring up to other people who dress up. Yet at times, I actually feel like I'm better than they are in a way, because I live by my own terms and they are all swallowed up by the same thing.


So... simply calling it "competitive" and "lacking image management" is misleading where I am concerned, anyway. My image management is geared in a different direction than people might realize, which makes it look natural and wild, and gives me a specific type of edge. Yet I'm not classically competitive - in the sense that I am not interested in other people's playing field at all. If a guy likes normal, skinny/curvy dressed up women, he can have them. He's not from my planet. On the one hand, i get angry and feel like "Fuck these plebs..." but on another level, it arouses a deeper sense of inferiority where my beauty comes up short compared to other women, or my potential to pull off "their" look is not as high as theirs. 

So sure.. angry envy, competition, I'll take it, but "competition" to me, implies something more direct.. like taking on the terms of the other person and trying to do it better. I can't do that. I need to excel at being who I am, and I don't attempt to be what I'm not, or what someone else is. So I'm not really competitive at all if you look at it that way. ;D


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

What convinced me most in my self-typing process was the tritype enneagram test. I took the test multiple times, got the same result, read timeless's 479 tritype descriptions and it instantly resonated to me. I found the subtype descriptions (Claudio, Riso) slightly misleading. Although they did cover a part of me much like the textbook 9 description, the combination of instincts & tritype, on the other hand, definitely nailed it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

The more I've studied the enneagram, the more I think that people a) over-conflate the importance of the instincts and b) tbh often miss the point of how simple the instincts + core types play out together in a type.

The fundamental problem is that the instincts aren't imo, all that deep or complex or anything that people try to make them come across as. I've moved towards a more simple version of the instincts for the past year or so at least now, and this is where I am atm:

SX: intimacy (no, not intensity, I think that can be an aspect of intimacy, but I do not believe this is what defines SX and why SX types seek intense relationships, I can explain why in some other post if someone's curious)
SO: connectivity
SP: survivability

Of course, now, all of these are inter-related and it'd be dumb to say that they aren't, but if we look at it like this, it becomes so much simpler, see? We can take this main theme and compare it to any of the core types by focusing on that fear, and we suddenly see how that fear is focused on this thematic issue in relation to the instinct. Something like this, using SX (no, I realize this isn't perfect and if someone thinks I sorely misrepresented their type, point out why):

1: Fear of the self/partner not being perfect, seeking the perfect relationship (dynamic/construct)
2: Fear of the one love not loving you back, feeling a need to acquire a partner to prove love or to prove love to a partner
3: Fear of not having the most successful relationship, the most successful partner, being the most successful partner
4: Fear of not having found _the_ relationship, the special one, of not being the special one (I think the soul mate concept is very 4ish in origin, two people just perfectly made for each other and their union is so special it transcends other forms of love)
5: Fear of not finding love, finding a relationship, of not having enough love to give or others not giving enough love
6: Fear of not having a relationship to provide stability/security, fear of loss of partner, fear of loss of relationship
7: Fear of not having had enough relationships, of enough love, not sufficiently varied (intimate) experiences
8: Fear of hurting the one love, of destroying the relationship, to not be able to protect the one love from harm
9: Fear of taking up too much space in the relationship, to treat oneself as more important than the partner, of not making the partner the important one

Anyway, in my mind, the instinctual subtype stuff doesn't have to be more complicated than this. It affects the area in our lives where our core fear will manifest the most neurotically. Every 8 will strive to be self-sufficient for example, but not to the degree sp 8s do it, which is why they can seem 5-ish, though I do think the way Naranjo suggests it is a bit of a misnomer here.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@Animal
you are only Sx 8-ish when you are extremely pissed off, and only with those close to you. for the most part, you are calm, patient, intellectual and surprisingly feminine. you can argue for sure, but you focus on the head and (especially) the heart more than Sx 8

as for subtypes, I get behind them about 70%


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @_Animal_
> you are only Sx 8-ish when you are extremely pissed off, and only with those close to you. for the most part, you are calm, patient, intellectual and surprisingly feminine. you can argue for sure, but you focus on the head and (especially) the heart more than Sx 8
> 
> as for subtypes, I get behind them about 70%


Thanks 
I agree with this generally.. but when it comes to the subtype descriptions or how I relate to 8, its not really related to fighting..

There's 8ness in how protective I am, to the point of controlling at times, though it's not my intent, but I start telling people how I would behave and how I would take control of the situation, and I tend to see most people as pushovers, like they need to stand up for themselves faster and more adamantly. It has gotten me into trouble in relationships when I start telling someone what to say to someone else in an attempt to show them how to be stronger. This is when the 8 descriptions pop into people's heads..

Also, I've been told I'm unapologetic about "taking up space." This is not something I could explain in words. Though it might be apparent in, say, a group chat.

Also, there's my vulnerability issues. Although I have no problem being vulnerable inside myself, my music and my own feelings, or writing posts about them, but when it comes to opening my heart to others there's a lot of resistance. I believe the greatest strength lies in being vulnerable, honest, raw and bare; yet I can't do it... I feel so much more real and alive in my art. I can't help BUT keep my vulnerability to myself. While this is somewhat a human issue, it is emphasized in 8 descriptions.

I literally deny vulnerability sometimes even to myself.. in the sense that I can't imagine someone else 'getting one up' on me, controlling me etc. I am very aware of my advantage and power in a situation, although it's not something I obsess about at all, just something I know is there. (The only time I feel vulnerable is with emotions and being obsessed with someone who then has 'power over me.' ) When I say I'm aware of my advantage, I'm not talking about 7 rationalization , or Sx intensity (which i feel is kind of a misnomer anyway). This is not something I need to convince myself of.. it just IS. 

Some people don't realize power is a relative term. If you're sitting by yourself, there's no power issue. If you're dealing with another person, then either you let them take power or you take it yourself. I'm not talking about suspiciousness, but more of an inherent, instinctual awareness of power. This was something I took for granted and didn't realize it wasn't universal until I mistyped at 8. 

And, I have a strong possession/surrender dichotomy in relationships. And needing to be with someone strong. For me, trust is not about betrayal and lying (I generally am not suspicious about these things), but also about knowing someone is strong enough to take care of himself; to hold his own and be an equal. If not, it's a turn-off because I can't be vulnerable to him, I can't surrender. When it comes to emotional vulnerability, I'm very "all or nothing" and someone has to be able to handle me.


I'm not particularly aggressive when it comes to picking fights or being ballistic, but I'm more naturally an aggressive person. Aggression is not the same as anger. I'm not nearly as aggressive as core 8s - I'm still an image type so I have very nuanced awareness of how I'm perceived, how other people feel , etc - but still an aggressive personality overall.
(Also, I'll point out that I'm not particularly prone to see myself as an aggressive person, but other people have described it that way and made their case and I've come to understand it. I can see myself in the idea 8s being 'unaware of their own aggression' in this sense. Though again, mine isn't related to revenge or fighting.)


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

Really honestly, YES, I find the concept of subtypes misleading. Not necessarily the concept of an instinctual stacking, or the idea of an "archetype"...just the descriptions of 27 types as a tool for typing and understanding the system. Chestnut, for example, almost presents it as though there are three clearly separate versions of each type. I am not sure this is the case, and it's easy to get carried away into, "Hmmm, I can't be a sexual 3 because I'm not sweet and supportive..."

I feel like subtype descriptions lead to lots of more specific personality characteristics and behaviors, but little discussion of _how the instinct actually affects the type_. I was extremely disappointed when I read Chestnut's descriptions, honestly. It left be as confused as any of the blurbs I've seen on the internet! As many criticisms as I've seen of Riso and Hudson, they actually do a far better job breaking down the instincts and trying to connect them to the type's core issues. Shit, Palmer does better with her 1-3 sentences for each. 

Personally. I don't see much of myself in any of the 27, though it would depend upon which source you use. With Chestnut, I don't relate to much of what she says about any of the 8 stackings, fwiw. Social would be the best, but even then it's like only 40-50%. And, I've recently become aware that I am social-last in all likelihood. Go figure. 

I'm not saying it wouldn't work for some people, but it just doesn't seem like a fail-safe method for typing, or understanding the instincts, for that matter. It is so much simpler if you just read what the instincts are, what their motivations are, how they operate, what the blindspot looks like, etc and try to suss out what it means to you in your life. We always speak of the importance of motivations on these forums, and I feel like typing someone by subtype descriptions is a step back from that, that's all.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@Entropic


> SX: intimacy (no, not intensity, I think that can be an aspect of intimacy, but I do not believe this is what defines SX and why SX types seek intense relationships, I can explain why in some other post if someone's curious)


you're reading too much of the Fauvres, it's the opposite. the Sx instinct arose out of sexual _competition_. they are driven to engage in activities related to sex (not always straight up sex, but generally related in some capacity), put themselves out there and establish themselves as highly desirable as mates. 

"intimacy" is social. it's a desire to receive and reciprocate affection for the sake of forming and reinforcing bonds with others. the purpose of the Sexual instinct is to reproduce.

compare mammals (social animals) with reptiles (non-social animals) and you'll see nothing related to "intimacy" in the latter, even though they are as strongly pulled to reproduce as mammals are.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> you're reading too much of the Fauvres, it's the opposite. the Sx instinct arose out of sexual _competition_. they are driven to engage in activities related to sex (not always straight up sex, but generally related in some capacity), put themselves out there and establish themselves as highly desirable as mates.


I don't want to start a debate on here on the instincts (I already know my opinion on it and have no need to argue it) but something came to me a while back about how the SX instinct is usually described. It's often described as the mating instinct as in finding and keeping a mate sort of thing. I wonder where the mothering or parenting instinct comes in. It seems it would be along the same lines as the SX instinct. I'm just wondering if too much emphasis is being placed on just the mating aspect of SX and whether we should keep limiting it to that. While there can be a deep connection with a mate, there can also be a deep, sometimes deeper, connection with the infant.


----------



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

@enneathusiast
I can see the parent-offspring connection being Sp-related myself. Because the offspring is basically like an extension of yourself (which sounds rather objectifying when spelling it out, but well...), so by nurturing them you're prolonging your survival in a sense. Of course, the more I think about this I can see the other instincts playing into it as well, but Sp is the main thing coming to mind for me.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

People here keep mentioning Beatrice Chestnut - Chestnut's book is an extension of Naranjo. She didn't make up subtypes, she took Naranjo's descriptions (in many cases literally citing him) and re-described them. It makes me near nauseous how many times she writes "as Naranjo says" or "according to Naranjo," as is Naranjo's writing itself is somehow above all scrutiny. I'll have to read through her book again, but cannot recall a single instance where Chestnut pushed back against Naranjo's ideas. So if we are challenging Chestnut, we are by default also challenging Naranjo, and it's about damn time in my opinion because I find a lot of his type descriptions absolutely cockamamie. 

Some of Chestnut's extensions on subtype descriptions are pretty good. I think she depicts Social 1's fairly well, picking up on not so much the "rigidity" but in needing to feel superior and being strongly identified with being more correct than other people, both of which are accurate for me. She describes them as being "cool" and "intellectual," which I don't know enough about how I come off to others to be able to assess. Although she included Naranjo's bit on being rigid, "rigidity" isn't at all how I would characterize myself. If anything, I become very much uncomfortable if I am limited in being able to change my mind on something, and would not relate at all to being too set in my ways to adapt. I'm not necessarily a loosey goosey, go with the flow kind of person, but it's not as if I cite Bible verses every time I see someone do something I think is wrong, or still write letters with a typewriter. 

I'm honestly torn on the best way to incorporate subtype into enneatype. On one hand, I don't think core type and instinctual variant _can _be easily separated; the definition of "SX" or "SP" would be at the level of what all SX variants have in common, which to any individual person would experience the instinct directly would be through their own type. Because of that, I'm not sure what the value of defining subtype without specific core type is; nobody is "only SX." Chestnut's approach would align well with that understanding. How well she phrases the actual description is IMO inconsistent, in that she describes some well but as others here have reported others not so much. 

What is the benefit of knowing instinctual variant, other than reconciling the differences between people of a single type? Once you know what your type and subtype are, what does subtype contribute?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Animal said:


> I also can see underpinnings of competitiveness in me. But only in highly specific scenarios, like when someone is "more me than me," which has happened all but... once? ... in my life. Or, when my brother was born.


Envy is competitive mimetic desire.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Animal said:


> So, I don't see why Sx 4 would exclusively experience a need to prove superiority via competition, whereas a Soc 4 would break down crying about their inferiority every time. To me, any 4 would experience a _spectrum of emotions and reactions_ where envy is concerned.



Agreed, they are different strategies. An So4 may complain about how ugly or incompetent they feel, even when they are in fact good looking and competent. No matter what others tell them. ("what's wrong with you to think there's something wrong with you?") So maybe they just prefer not to see themselves as competent or attractive, because of its repercussions? The energy (aggression, lust whatever) that the mad Sx turns outwardly (e.g. to compete), is retroflected in the sad So4, turned against Self. As explained by Chestnut, and Naranjo. 

It's perfectly possible to switch from one strategy to the other, depending on context. Of course it may seem inconsistent, but yeah...there are narratives for that (a question of reframing). Sometimes you're mad, sometimes sad.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Envy is competitive mimetic desire.


Yes - but like I explained in later posts - my self-image and desires are highly specific, but I don't care about the regular things that most people have, nor do I care to compare myself to who they are. Most people are the undead. I am something different. When I was single and would see a couple getting married for instance, I wouldn't feel jealous because I want a very specific life for myself, I don't want their damn average husband, mundane job, white picket fence or 2.5 kids. I am highly competitive when it comes to the things that make me me. But if someone tries to strike up a competition for its own sake about something that doesn't matter to me, I really can't bring myself to care.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Animal said:


> Yes - but like I explained in later posts - my self-image and desires are highly specific, but I don't care about the regular things that most people have, nor do I care to compare myself to who they are. Most people are the undead. I am something different. When I was single and would see a couple getting married for instance, I wouldn't feel jealous because I want a very specific life for myself, I don't want their damn average husband, mundane job, white picket fence or 2.5 kids. I am highly competitive when it comes to the things that make me me. But if someone tries to strike up a competition for its own sake about something that doesn't matter to me, I really can't bring myself to care.


But that goes without saying doesn't it? You need to desire the same in order to compete. 

Counter-envy is the strategy that denies desire (sour grapes and stuff, don't want it anyway), envy, avoiding open direct competition. But may very well end up frustrated. Because what is envied is gratification, rather than the object of gratification (the grapes so to speak).


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

mimesis said:


> But that goes without saying doesn't it? You need to desire the same in order to compete.
> 
> Counter-envy is the strategy that denies desire (sour grapes and stuff, don't want it anyway), envy, avoiding open direct competition. But may very well end up frustrated.


Which is my point exactly - all 4s will likely experience the whole spectrum of strategies when it comes to handling their envy. "I don't want it anyway," is something I can relate to, although the whole idea of that is what leads 4s to seek their identity, to figure out who they are at core, what they really want deep down, to differentiate from others to deal with the envy.


----------



## Shadow Tag (Jan 11, 2014)

I like the idea of counter types, and I think that instinctual descriptions help explain those. It can mean a lot to somebody when they can see the difference between how they act and their core motivations and fears, because counter types usually act against those in some way. 

For example, I don't necessarily act like the stereotypical 9; anybody who meets me for the first time in a group setting would probably peg me as 7 if they knew about the Enneagram (I even thought I was a 7 for months). The problem was that, while I agreed with many of the core motivations/fears of type 9s, I didn't fit the shy, lazy wallflower archetype. Instead I tried to fit myself into the 7w6 zany jokester archetype, but there were too many inconsistencies. Then one day I see the description for social 9s and I figure out that it's my best fit. And everybody lived happily ever after!

So yeah, in my opinion, instinctual descriptions are good for describing how you may act (in a variety of ways) because of your core motivations and fears. Some people may feel excluded from a type because they don't act a certain way, but instincts help account for that, at least in my opinion. Are they that useful after you've found your core type? Maybe sometimes, but they've done their job already.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Animal said:


> Which is my point exactly - all 4s will likely experience the whole spectrum of strategies when it comes to handling their envy. "I don't want it anyway," is something I can relate to, although the whole idea of that is what leads 4s to seek their identity, to figure out who they are at core, what they really want deep down, to differentiate from others to deal with the envy.


But it's more than "I don't want it anyway". You don't want children. Because of that you feel invalidated because of expectations from inlaws, missing out on that gratification. You compared motherhood and housewife to slavery, basically "spoiling" the object of gratification.

Which someone else took personally, for whom motherhood was gratifying. Of course I know you didn't mean to invalidate others, so I'm not accusing you of anything. But there is arguably competive behavior, not in having babies or grandchildren but in terms of gratification. If you were not competitive there would be no motivation to use such terms for the object of gratification at hand.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

mimesis said:


> But it's more than "I don't want it anyway". You don't want children. Because of that you feel invalidated because of expectations from inlaws, missing out on that gratification. You compared motherhood to slavery, basically "spoiling" the object of gratification.
> 
> Which someone else took personally, for whom motherhood was gratifying. Of course I know you didn't mean to invalidate others, so I'm not accusing you of anything. But there is arguably competive behavior, not in having babies or grandchildren but in terms of gratification. If you were not competitive there would be no motivation to use such terms for the object of gratification at hand.


Good point. You got me there. :ninja:

/hides under the table


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Animal said:


> Good point. You got me there. :ninja:
> 
> /hides under the table


Haha, I know you didn't mean it that way, and I understand, because I've done it so often myself. It was the best way I could think of explaining. 

But it's like when you envy a loving couple, you envy the love, not necessarily desire for the man or woman.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Haha, I know you didn't mean it that way, and I understand, because I've done it so often myself. It was the best way I could think of explaining.
> 
> But it's like when you envy a loving couple, you envy the love, not necessarily desire for the man or woman.


It may be more complex to describe what I want/ desire/ envy, but yeah , you are spot on about how I'm competitive and don't even realize it. It's the same thing with being aggressive. (Aggression is not the same as anger)... I don't realize I'm like that until people point it out to me because it's just so natural for me to be that way.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Animal said:


> That's a presumption.. I am a big picture thinker and I'm very close with two 5s, one I've known all my life and one , an Sx 5, who I met here, and I'm very close with. They have shared their minds with me enough that I can understand the big picture (which is generally how I think anyway). What I don't know is every last detail. Nobody can know that about anybody. But if I know someone well enough for a long enough time, I can generally glean how they operate at least in terms of their patterns.


There's no presumption. It wasn't about you (is that a type 4 thing where it gets turned that way?). I was just sharing with you how I've operated internally from type 5 most of my life (to try and offer you some insight into type 5 as I experience and understand it). I don't know how it got turned around to something else or even what that is that had @_Swordsman of Mana_ jumping in with a big "thank you" about it. Strange.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> There's no presumption. It wasn't about you (is that a type 4 thing where it gets turned that way?). I was just sharing with you how I've operated internally from type 5 most of my life (to try and offer you some insight into type 5 as I experience and understand it). I don't know how it got turned around to something else or even what that is that had @_Swordsman of Mana_ jumping in with a big "thank you" about it. Strange.


Haha I see.. sorry, maybe a misunderstanding.
I confess I've come down with a really bad stomach virus, fever and tremendous pain today, on and off pounding headaches too.. so my comprehension skills are definitely compromised. I get you now


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

enneathusiast said:


> There's no presumption. It wasn't about you (is that a type 4 thing where it gets turned that way?). I was just sharing with you how I've operated internally from type 5 most of my life (to try and offer you some insight into type 5 as I experience and understand it). I don't know how it got turned around to something else or even what that is that had @_Swordsman of Mana_ jumping in with a big "thank you" about it. Strange.


I thanked @Animal 's post because she addressed a common type of argument which kills discussion and dismisses the power of observation, intuition and, frankly, the ability to gather any kind of subjective information.


----------



## Asd456 (Jul 25, 2017)

enneathusiast said:


> When I first began studying the Enneagram types there was only instinctual subtypes. They didn't resonate with me at all. I could see myself in multiple subtypes. I wrote it off as not worth my time.


I find this interesting because it was the complete opposite for me. I started with tritype but it didn't work for me. Next, I learned the wings and 6w5 fit me yet with time I noticed a lot of contradictions such as variations within 9, 7, 6, 3, 1, and 2. I learned subtypes last and it made the most sense to me yet it was also clear to me that like you I could see myself in multiple subtypes.



enneathusiast said:


> Personally, I don't find much, if any, value in the instinctual subtypes but I find tremendous value in instinctual stackings. The biggest difference is that subtypes are only used for describing variations of a given type. Stackings can be used independent of type or can be combined with type. Learning about my instinctual stacking independent of type had more of an impact on my life than simply learning about my type - it let me know what I've been searching for my whole life and where many of my difficulties lie, those things that type alone just didn't explain.


Subtype is the manifestation of your stacking and core type, not simply a variation of a given type. 

I find value in both. I don't think you can separate the two, at least not for me. 

Example, I recently went to a funeral. For two days, I was hostile and angry. Similar to Chestnut's Sexual 6 description, I maintained a three-foot "no fly zone" around me. The times I felt myself getting more emotional, I projected more anger because I couldn't let myself show any vulnerability. I attended lunches and dinners and because of my So-last, the social aspect of it irritated me (the fact that it was a 'group gathering'). The lack of emotional depth (Sx-first) also irritated me. Everything felt lacking and I didn't care if I appeared intimidating. 

It's ironic that the Sexual instinct seeks emotional depth and intimacy yet the fixation of the Sexual 6 is to suppress it with anger and aggression. My point is for me I couldn't separate the two (Sexual 6 subtype and Sx/Sp stacking). It's interesting you have a different experience. I think subtypes should be updated and revised (splitting each subtype into two) and instincts should be entirely revised and maybe people will relate to it more.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Asd456 said:


> Subtype is the manifestation of your stacking and core type, not simply a variation of a given type.


That's not the traditional use of instinctual subtype (stacking is not part of it). The traditional type 6 subtypes for example are sp6, sx6, and so6. Those are three different variations of type 6. Stacking came much later and can be used on it's own without reference to type (sx/sp) or with reference to type (sx/sp 6). That's not done with the traditional subtype (sx6 but not sx on it's own).



Asd456 said:


> My point is for me I couldn't separate the two (Sexual 6 subtype and Sx/Sp stacking). It's interesting you have a different experience.


Naranjo and Chestnut are describing instinctual subtypes not stackings. When I read the subtype descriptions I just see different aspects of each type. With stacking I primarily look at the instincts by themselves and maybe secondarily how they affect type.

For example, I can compare my own sx-preference with the sx-preference for someone of a different type and see the commonalities. This is also true of my own so-last when compared to someone so-last of a different type. This is independent of type and not at all what the instinctual subtypes do. It was when I started using the instincts in this way that they became useful for me.



Asd456 said:


> I think subtypes should be updated and revised (splitting each subtype into two) and instincts should be entirely revised and maybe people will relate to it more.


I agree and have been working on that. IMO, the instincts need to be better defined independently of type and understood in that way first then looked at in terms of how they redirect the focus of each type.


----------



## Asd456 (Jul 25, 2017)

enneathusiast said:


> That's not the traditional use of instinctual subtype (stacking is not part of it). The traditional type 6 subtypes for example are sp6, sx6, and so6. Those are three different variations of type 6. Stacking came much later and can be used on it's own without reference to type (sx/sp) or with reference to type (sx/sp 6). That's not done with the traditional subtype (sx6 but not sx on it's own).
> 
> Naranjo and Chestnut are describing instinctual subtypes not stackings. When I read the subtype descriptions I just see different aspects of each type. With stacking I primarily look at the instincts by themselves and maybe secondarily how they affect type.


Right. Chestnut uses the dominant instinct from your stacking to expand on that instinct in terms of the impact and influence on your core type. 

I'm making the distinction and adding that the dominant instinct is not enough and should incorporate the entire stacking as well. 

I understand stacking came much later. IME, you can't separate the two as in it's obvious there are similarities and patterns of subtypes with the same dominant instinct such as Sexual 1, Sexual 4, Sexual 3, Sexual 5, Sexual 6, Sexual 8, Sexual 9, etc. 



enneathusiast said:


> For example, I can compare my own sx-preference with the sx-preference for someone of a different type and see the commonalities. This is also true of my own so-last when compared to someone so-last of a different type. This is independent of type and not at all what the instinctual subtypes do. It was when I started using the instincts in this way that they became useful for me.


This is independent of type and not at all what the instinctual subtypes do because of the fact that as of right now it only considers the dominant instinct of each subtype (Sexual 6 as opposed to Sx/Sp 6 and Sx/So 6). IME, if the subtypes split into two which is what I mentioned you can compare commonalities in terms of the first instinct and commonalities in terms of the last.


----------

