# Instinctual Variants



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

ningsta kitty said:


> oh I've never come across that thread. would seriously be interested if you come across it. I don't know why he doesn't touch base on it. I find that it's one of those things that you could probably find evidence of equal value from both positions. when that happens I generally understand it to be one of those things that has no right or wrong answer, but rather is a matter of what appeals to who .. due to the very nature of nuance (and that fact).


possibly this one?
http://personalitycafe.com/articles...ing-interrelationship-instinctual-drives.html
stupid site is bugging up and not letting me load it, so I can't actually open it up and see.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Pelopra said:


> possibly this one?
> http://personalitycafe.com/articles...ing-interrelationship-instinctual-drives.html
> stupid site is bugging up and not letting me load it, so I can't actually open it up and see.


yeah, I read that article and I saw some merit in it. but * lots of personal experience gibberish omitted *

this is why I'm really wanting to focus on learning the instincts for me, about me and improve my communication skills. I found most people I've known NOT to be contra flow. (and I'm not either). so Mario's work seriously helps deepen my understanding for my purposes. ya know what I mean ... pair bonding will happen when it's going to .... I feel much more healthier and stronger if I focus on my self pres back up. besides, I'll be 35 soon so my market value is seriously going to decrease. I think it's better to focus on me, my strengths and how to further my career, make money and so on.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

ningsta kitty said:


> I'm not looking to what others think. I'm learning. Why would I ask myself what I think if I wanted to learn? Why would I ask someone who thought like me, to learn anything new about me. Wouldn't I figure it out myself then if they thought like me? And why don't you want to learn from a multitude of sources when learning? Is that really a 5 thing to think that there is one 'sole' source for anything? Really? I never realized 5's and 6's were so different when collecting information before drawing conclusions.


To address this, since I want to clarify:

No, it's _not_ just a "5 vs 6 thing", if that even plays into it.

The way @_enneathusiast_ put his need suggested to me that it's also based on Si, his need to absorb a 'pure' - rarefied, singular, personal perception of *what a thing is.* As listed, Si is the tertiary element in his type. With Ti at the head, he also rarefies subjective definitions, which is what the symbolic expressions through Si are feeding.

The presence of that element would be one reason for seeking sources themselves, the need for that kind of material purity through perception.

You're someone whose mindset utilizes the Ni perspective. Ni dominants need to _subconsciously _absorb a lot of data so that they can _consciously_ come to their own idea of *what connects it.* For Ni, there are multiple sources whose _raw material data_ are all valid to take in for coming to that conclusion, so Ni explores the surfaces of the world through Se in order to see through it. You seem to be talking about a relatively large emphasis on this exploration for a purported Ni dom, but this is probably something that (over)engaging in your tertiary can bring about.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Flatlander said:


> To address this, since I want to clarify:
> 
> No, it's _not_ just a "5 vs 6 thing", if that even plays into it.
> 
> ...


Actually. ... Wow. That was perfect. I was getting confused and irritated and ya kinda sliced through it. Thank you!! *blushing* that was awesome and made it so clear. >.<


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

ningsta kitty said:


> Actually. ... Wow. That was perfect. I was getting confused and irritated and ya kinda sliced through it. Thank you!! *blushing* that was awesome and made it so clear. >.<


Sometimes I just see things. >_> No problem.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Flatlander said:


> Sometimes I just see things. >_> No problem.


:blushed: I like your eyes. hahaha :tongue: 

seriously. this is why I'm always setting bear traps but no one likes my cookies 

as in, I bake cookies and leave trails of my cookie crumbs to the bear trap. 

Just, ya know. to make that clear.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

ningsta kitty said:


> :blushed: I like your eyes. hahaha :tongue:
> 
> seriously. this is why I'm always setting bear traps but no one likes my cookies
> 
> ...


Am I the bear?


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Flatlander said:


> Am I the bear?


*big sigh* ... yes. yes dear. when I say the term "bear" , it's symbolic of men. :tongue:


----------



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

ningsta kitty said:


> *big sigh* ... yes. yes dear. when I say the term "bear" , it's symbolic of men. :tongue:


Bears eh?

So which animal do you best think symbolizes women, out of curiosity?


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Kink said:


> Bears eh?
> 
> So which animal do you best think symbolizes women, out of curiosity?


Men are both bears and dogs. They're bears when I'm wanting them. They're dogs though, yet, if you can find a good bear who will love you and be good to you, his inner dog could hypothetically be domesticated.  

at the very least, trained to not poop in the house.

Women I would think are more like either, cats or ... I don't know. That's a good question for men! Not to mention that I'm sure my perception is incredibly biased. I say cats would be the closest thing for a woman like myself. If the guy in the crowd is all "KITTY!" . I'm running away. If they say, "here kitty kitty kitty" softly and nice, I might approach. if they sit back and relax, I feel safe and might jump on their lap. if they give me pets, I might purr. If I feel for them after connecting with them, then, I might get a little too excited and stimulated and love bite them, then run away real fast just in case. then I come back after I calm down. hahaha! If you've ever owned a cat, this will make sense. sadly, I'm allergic now so I pretty much express my affections for kitties through metaphorical symbolism and - well - the analogy works 


other women might work so different that they might be referred to as a different animal altogether. I'm curious to know, though I don't want to derail the thread too too much. I do really like the topic despite the fact I typically could care less about derailments.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Flatlander said:


> The way @_enneathusiast_ put his need suggested to me that it's also based on Si, his need to absorb a 'pure' - rarefied, singular, personal perception of *what a thing is.* As listed, Si is the tertiary element in his type. With Ti at the head, he also rarefies subjective definitions, which is what the symbolic expressions through Si are feeding.
> 
> The presence of that element would be one reason for seeking sources themselves, the need for that kind of material purity through perception.
> 
> You're someone whose mindset utilizes the Ni perspective. Ni dominants need to _subconsciously _absorb a lot of data so that they can _consciously_ come to their own idea of *what connects it.* For Ni, there are multiple sources whose _raw material data_ are all valid to take in for coming to that conclusion, so Ni explores the surfaces of the world through Se in order to see through it. You seem to be talking about a relatively large emphasis on this exploration for a purported Ni dom, but this is probably something that (over)engaging in your tertiary can bring about.


Now I remember what turned me off the Jungian typologies - it sounds like they offer something insightful and relevant but they really don't - not for me at least. Just generalizations interpreted to fit where you want them to.

On the other hand, if it made sense to ningsta kitty, then good for that.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> Now I remember what turned me off the Jungian typologies - it sounds like they offer something insightful and relevant but they really don't - not for me at least. Just generalizations interpreted to fit where you want them to.
> 
> On the other hand, if it made sense to ningsta kitty, then good for that.


It made sense because it was explaining why we differed in our preferences of information. MBTI is more about what information we take in or gravitate towards - how we process the information about the world around us and the people within it. the different types are going to see value in different information (sources) and that is what the confusion is about. thus I felt it absolutely relevant. 

On the other hand, enneagram is incredibly more insightful in my opinion with regards to understanding a person as a whole: what motivates them, what drives them, what's important to them; values, goals, dreams ... etc.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

ningsta kitty said:


> MBTI is more about what information we take in or gravitate towards - how we process the information about the world around us and the people within it. the different types are going to see value in different information (sources) and that is what the confusion is about.


So, I've heard. The Enneagram also does this, in a much better way IMO, by describing how each type's attention filters for certain information and certain sources of that information that fit the way the type processes and structures their reality. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be well understood by most people learning or even teaching the types. This is sometimes evidenced by people who drag in the Jungian concepts to explain such things instead of understanding it in terms of the Enneagram types.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> Now I remember what turned me off the Jungian typologies - it sounds like they offer something insightful and relevant but they really don't - not for me at least. Just generalizations interpreted to fit where you want them to.
> 
> On the other hand, if it made sense to ningsta kitty, then good for that.


The way I see it, Jungian typology explains differences in how we process data. It's like talking about AMD vs. Intel architecture - a basic mechanical way to describe the difference between mental setups.

When I see it as the basic reason for how/why something works the way it does, it's because the thing is simply skin deep. There's nothing too meaningful or differentiating involved in why she seeks multiple/different sources and you seek original ones - you're both trying to get basically the same thing, an understanding of the subject. You'll find 5s whose minds function more like hers even though they're working toward a different endpoint and 6s whose don't even though their minds work toward a similar endpoint. Yay?


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> So, I've heard. The Enneagram also does this, in a much better way IMO, by describing how each type's attention filters for certain information and certain sources of that information that fit the way the type processes and structures their reality. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be well understood by most people learning or even teaching the types. This is sometimes evidenced by people who drag in the Jungian concepts to explain such things instead of understanding it in terms of the Enneagram types.


To me, this is slightly overstepping the bounds of Enneagram. Enneagram in my mind is a way to explain a person's existential stand/endpoint in this world, what they're missing, what they're really after. To extend that all the way up to cognitive _structures_ may be a little much.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Flatlander said:


> To me, this is slightly overstepping the bounds of Enneagram. Enneagram in my mind is a way to explain a person's existential stand/endpoint in this world, what they're missing, what they're really after. To extend that all the way up to cognitive _structures_ may be a little much.


I wasn't talking simply about cognitive structures but how each Enneagram type processes and structures their reality. The type then seeks out or filters information based on what's relevant to that process and reality.

It's along the lines of what Helen Palmer calls _focus of attention_. You can download a brief audio here.

I've been working with the Enneagram for so long that I keep forgetting how limited the popularized understanding of the types are. I guess what I'm talking about is at another level not familiar to most people. So, what I'm saying would be overstepping the bounds of that popularized understanding. It's frustrating to keep running into that wall. Maybe someday I'll learn.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> I wasn't talking simply about cognitive structures but how each Enneagram type processes and structures their reality. The type then seeks out or filters information based on what's relevant to that process and reality.
> 
> It's along the lines of what Helen Palmer calls _focus of attention_. You can download a brief audio here.
> 
> I've been working with the Enneagram for so long that I keep forgetting how limited the popularized understanding of the types are. I guess what I'm talking about is at another level not familiar to most people. So, what I'm saying would be overstepping the bounds of that popularized understanding. It's frustrating to keep running into that wall. Maybe someday I'll learn.


It's not about what's popularized. I have never been one to go by popular versions of what a thing is, otherwise I'd be going by the profiles of the types and the way people seem on some outward level to type them. 

Granted, there are different levels of expertise to enneagram, and you're probably seeing me as being at some level not as deep as you, but first off it's not entirely about the amount of time you've studied or thought about something, it's about the understanding you gain over that time, and second, there needs to be some limit or guideline for how to extend the enneagram into understanding the human - _what are the limits of the system._

Not _everything_ about a person can be explained by their enneagram type. And certainly not basic cognitive mechanics which persist across types.

By the way, I don't believe most people have a static focus of attention, and I don't believe most focuses of attention are nearly so telling as to be a 1 to 1 correlation with a given type. Let's take for example the idea that a 2 focuses on "other people's needs". Well when you take such a thought, it bears explanation as to _why_ the person is focusing on other people's needs. Is it to gain power via value for themselves like a 2 might, is it to lose themselves like a 9 might, is it to earn others' respect like a 3 might? Etc., it just isn't so incredibly clear cut.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Flatlander said:


> It's not about what's popularized. I have never been one to go by popular versions of what a thing is, otherwise I'd be going by the profiles of the types and the way people seem on some outward level to type them.
> 
> Granted, there are different levels of expertise to enneagram, and you're probably seeing me as being at some level not as deep as you, but first off it's not entirely about the amount of time you've studied or thought about something, it's about the understanding you gain over that time, and second, there needs to be some limit or guideline for how to extend the enneagram into understanding the human - _what are the limits of the system._


By popularized, I'm referring to what material is readily available on the Enneagram. I'm finding the limits of the system for most people has to do with defining the system by this material - which is expected. Personally, I see the system as a work in progress that got stalled out and frozen when it became popular and people could make money off it. Most of the time I spent "studying" the Enneagram has really been about going beyond the popularized system to continue beyond this stall point and I often forget that when talking about it. So, yes there are many limitations to the popularized system, but there is so much more beyond that.



Flatlander said:


> By the way, I don't believe most people have a static focus of attention, and I don't believe most focuses of attention are nearly so telling as to be a 1 to 1 correlation with a given type. Let's take for example the idea that a 2 focuses on "other people's needs". Well when you take such a thought, it bears explanation as to _why_ the person is focusing on other people's needs. Is it to gain power via value for themselves like a 2 might, is it to lose themselves like a 9 might, is it to earn others' respect like a 3 might? Etc., it just isn't so incredibly clear cut.


Two things of note in my version of things (which may or may not fit the popularized version - I simply don't know anymore whether it does or not).

1. We are not a type. The types define nine aspects of being human. While one of those aspects is dominant, the others are also available. This dominant type tends to dictate which focus of attention is most important and relevant. Often, the other focuses of attention are negated in comparison. This is the fixation of type. It's a denial of those other aspects of yourself because the dominant type is in control (very often at an unconscious level). It just seems like the best way to be.

2. The _why _a person is focusing in a particular way is putting the cart before the horse. The focus is an unconscious habit of type. There is no awareness of it when it happens so the _why _isn't thought about until afterwards when it might be ascribed a reason or motivation. Type indicates how someone might pay attention to life in a certain way that fits the way they process and structure their reality. Cognition or awareness of that often is secondary and doesn't come into play unless there's some sort of observer involved (either the inner observer or someone from the outside). That's why I think of it in terms of how type structures reality rather than a cognitive structure.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Paradigm said:


> Wow that's incredibly untrue of SP. What does SP (or any instinct) have to do with traditions? I could _maybe_ see one correlating it to routines, but even that's a bit of a stretch IMO.
> (PS I didn't watch the videos, I hate watching things.)


It did raise an eyebrow too here. Why 'tradition' of all things?

But come to think of it - and this is how I look at it, not sure if it is also his view, and just to entertain the thought - from the perspective of evolution of human nature, we have developed by passing on information and behavioral patterns genetically through natural selection and instinctual drives, like any other animal. But looking from the perspective of the history of humanity, we see a certain dynamic or interplay between nature and nurture. So instinct vs tradition, or passing on genetically vs "memetically", as coined by Richard Dawkins



Meme said:


> A meme is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture." A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.
> 
> Proponents theorize that memes may evolve by natural selection in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution. Memes do this through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance, each of which influence a meme's reproductive success. Memes spread through the behavior that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagate less prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate. Memes that replicate most effectively enjoy more success, and some may replicate effectively even when they prove to be detrimental to the welfare of their hosts.


So I could go along with that statement, although not so much ascribing Sp as the stereotypical Bill O'Reilly in the war on Christmas, (who, like @Dalton, wants to pass on values too and wants the other "to become one"), but more seeing tradition as "memes", with Sx focus on creativity and transcending boundaries (destruction or shifting boundaries, exploring new grounds) versus Sp focus on groundedness, competence, consistency and efficiency. 



Sexual Instinct said:


> - "Intelligence of the evolutionary process"
> - The drive to evolve
> - The sx instinct is what "attracts us to go beyond what's comfortable for us" (Russ)


You can't explore new grounds without knowing how to sustain yourself. (I mean you could, but...) So, on the scale of humanity and cultural evolution, I'd look at how they operate in conjunction, rather than seeing them as opposing forces, which may seem more evident on an individual level. 

In that sense, I'm not too fond of his statement. Sp can be considered conservative, in a (security) strategic sense (playing not to lose, rather than reluctant to change), but while Sx may focus on creating new memes, and strategically may play all-or-nothing, it is rarely separate from any cultural inheritance (just like we all have our ancestors), and new memes are often created through fusion of different meme traditions, like for instance Picasso fused post-impressionist Paul Cezanne with African masks to create his cubism meme. New memes may also appeal to certain traditions stronger than to others.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> By popularized, I'm referring to what material is readily available on the Enneagram. I'm finding the limits of the system for most people have to do with defining the system by this material - which is expected. Personally, I see the system as a work in progress that got stalled out and frozen when it became popular and people could make money off it. Most of the time I spent "studying" the Enneagram has really been about going beyond the popularized system to continue beyond this stall point and I often forget that when talking about it. So, yes there are many limitations to the popularized system, but there is so much more beyond that.


I barely even look at or reference outside enneagram theorists anymore. I've considered a lot of them and supplemented a lot with my own thinking to pare it down to what I've got for myself, so if you're saying I'm talking from the standpoint of the popularized system you're not exactly correct.



> Two things of note in my version of things (which may or may not fit the popularized version - I simply don't know anymore whether it does or not).
> 
> 1. We are not a type. The types define nine aspects of being human. While one of those aspects is dominant, the others are also available. This dominant type tends to dictate which focus of attention is most important and relevant. Often, the other focuses of attention are negated in comparison. This is the fixation of type. It's a denial of those other aspects of yourself because the dominant type is in control (very often at an unconscious level). It just seems like the best way to be.


We aren't just nine types, either. We're also composed of different backgrounds and traumas and unique thought-interactions with the world that may transcend type as well as be adequately seen through its lens.



> 2. The _why _a person is focusing in a particular way is putting the cart before the horse. The focus is an unconscious habit of type. There is no awareness of it when it happens so the _why _isn't thought about until afterwards when it might be ascribed a reason or motivation. Type indicates how someone might pay attention to life in a certain way that fits the way they process and structure their reality. Cognition or awareness of that often is secondary and doesn't come into play unless there's some sort of observer involved (either the inner observer or someone from the outside). That's why I think of it in terms of how type structures reality rather than a cognitive structure.


I think you may not be a socionics INTp/LII. LII types are stronger with Ni than you are, even if it's not the most conscious to them. You seem to have a resistance to it.

The reason you think it's "putting the cart before the horse" is that you just don't think that way. I happen to, and so for me it's _not_ putting the cart before the horse. Even if a mechanism is unconscious, there is _always_ a why to it, always a reason, be it one type of reason or another. You can't simply make one on one correlations between types and evidenced modes of attention and call it a day, because what if you look into the cause of why two different individuals are paying attention to the same element of the world and it turns out they have two different reasons or backstories that imply that it has an entirely different meaning to each person and a different place in each overall psychology?

If you read back to the Jungian understanding that you seem to eschew, you may note that Ni is the function that most readily taps into the unconscious. If you have dominant (hence relatively conscious) Ni in operation, and you are inclined to look into people psychologically, you're going to go about things looking at the unconscious not as a black book with simplistic correlations to life, but as something you can read. If your own operation lets you see into your unconscious structure and motivations for yourself, why wouldn't you be able to do so with others as well? 

So I operate on this basis when I'm typing someone. I will read a person's mentality to see where they're at, then ask what questions I can find that are compatible with their mentality and best cut to the quick of what's going on with their life, why they're looking at the world or reacting to it the way they do, and when I think I've seen through them I'll offer up an explanation based on what I see _underneath_ all the baggage that floats at the surface, and they can make of it what they will. If I'm getting severely impatient or frustrated, only _then_ is when my read may start to be clouded, and we can both reason out why that would happen to me in terms of Jungian cognition and enneagram.


----------

