# Variation within the 27 (Core type + instinctual stacking) Subtypes



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Overall, I like the traditional descriptions as presented by Naranjo and later Maitri and Chestnut. I think they are a great resource for self-typing due to the differing nature of the instinctual variants depending on the type (ie: Self Preservation in 7s is excessive and hedonistic, but in Self Preservation 5s it's miserly and minimalist. ). However, I think they are a bit too narrow, somewhat rigid and don't account for enough variation within said types.

some examples off the top of my head (btw, criticism is welcome, but these are meant to be _basic_. I am describing general temperaments, behaviors and neuroses, so please don't get pedantic)
*Self Preservation 8*
I think this comes in two subtypes. the first is the strong and silent survivalist (think Bruce Lee, Daryl Dixon from The Walking Dead or Katniss Everdeen from The Hunger Games). the second is more cunning, Macchiavellian, often financially motivated (Sun Tzu, Niccolo Machiavelli, Henry Kissinger, Hannibal Lecter, Frank Underwood from House of Cards possibly Ebeneezer Scrooge. @childofprodigy on the forum is a good example of this variety of Sp 8). I correlate the first category with ISTP and the second with _NTJ.

*Self Preservation 6*
they aren't as fiery or impulsive as Sexual 6 (who is usually a bit more physical), but I don't think they're all the submissive pussies Naranjo makes them out to be. I think many can develop their own style of counter phobia which is a bit more cautious, survivalist, less physical)

*Social 6*
this one seems to come in 3 basic varieties
1) more 1-ish, dutiful, rigid, often patriotic (Captain America)
2) slimy bureaucrat/politician (Umbridge from Harry Potter)
3) a more aggressive, almost gang-like variety, "wolf pack" if you will

*Self Preservation 7*
basically, I think there is a more blunt, openly narcissistic variety that says "I take what I want and make no apologies" and can appear 8-ish. the other variety is more crafty, smooth-talking, "used car salesman" (think Saul Goodman from Breading Bad)

*Sexual 7*
I don't think all Sexual 7s are quite as rosy, naive and non-confrontational as they are present. this is one variety (of which I believe many are actually Social 7s), but I think there are two others:
1) a more "Sex, drugs and rock n' roll" types of Sexual 7 Riso and Hudson call this "The Neophile" and it's one of the few things I think they really nailed (think Ke$ha, Freddie Mercury, The Rolling Stones, )
2) a more fiery, aggressively narcissistic variety which can appear pseudo-1-ish (the vindictive, _justice_ oriented side of 1, not the goody-2-shoes side as in many Social 7s) and resemble Sexual 8 and Sexual 4 (less physical than the former; less emotional and limbic than the latter). often sees himself as heroic, but much more megalomaniac and egotistical than a 1 and noticeably more flamboyant. 
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/_...mb/9/9c/Lelouch1208.jpg/640px-Lelouch1208.jpg


*Social 7*
apart from the lame, goody-2-shoes variety of Social 7, I think there is a more hard nosed, "Che Guevara-ish" variety of Social 7 that is willing to put their foot down and say "what are we actually gonna do about this?" there is more a justice fighter side to this variety as opposed to the other which is more of a 9 wannabe
@Naqsh @Phoenix_Rebirth @Paradigm @Doll
@AdverseAffects @KindOfBlue06 @Animal
@flatlander


----------



## ShadowPrince (Jul 6, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> 1) a more "Sex, drugs and rock n' roll" types of Sexual 7 Riso and Hudson call this "The Neophile" and it's one of the few things I think they really nailed (think Ke$ha, Freddie Mercury, The Rolling Stones, )


Freddie Mercury was a Sexual 2.


----------



## DomNapoleon (Jan 21, 2012)

*I have a few mores:*

Sexual 1:
-Extremely aggressive, 8-ish, strong values, doesn't bend over over his own values;
-Very focused in what to expect from other people, prone to deception and anger when the expectations doesn't meet the reality.

Sexual 2:
-Very affectionate, romantic, idealistic; 
-Always wants to be helpful and he resents if others don't meet what he wants;
-Can be stalker, obsession over one person, doesn't consider other possibilities to that same person. 

Sexual 4: 
-Aggressive 4, cannibalistic, anger consuming, stronger connection to 1;
-Anger is their fuel for being competitive, extremely competitive. 

Social 6:
-More focused in creating good and harmonic relationships with others, people pleasing, usually phobic.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

ShadowPrince said:


> Freddie Mercury was a Sexual 2.


interesting. why do you say that? (though I tend to agree that 2s are not correctly understood by most of the Enneagram community. Sexual 2s tend to get mistyped as 7s and 8s; Social 2s are almost always mistaken for 3s, Self Preservation 2s for 6s)


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Phoenix_Rebirth said:


> *I have a few mores:*
> Sexual 1:
> -Extremely aggressive, 8-ish, strong values, doesn't bend over over his own values;


yes! 



> -Very focused in what to expect from other people, prone to deception and anger when the expectations doesn't meet the reality.


fixed. 1 is probably the least deceptive of all 9 types



> Sexual 2:
> -Very affectionate, romantic, idealistic;


romantic: usually only short term (unless they're more integrated)
affectionate: definitely
idealistic: no (the opposite. they're surprisingly amoral)



> -Always wants to be helpful and he resents if others don't meet what he wants;


helpful isn't the right word. most like _desirable_ (the Social 2 is the 2 most concerned with being "useful")



> -Can be stalker, obsession over one person, doesn't consider other possibilities to that same person.


until they've caught them. then they tend to lose interest :wink:
the types which stalk more consistently (in my experience) are Sexual 4, Sexual 6 and Sexual 6 (and occasionally Sexual 7)



> Social 6:
> -More focused in creating good and harmonic relationships with others, people pleasing, usually phobic.


my experience with Social 6s has been much colder and harsher.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> *Social 6*
> 2) slimy bureaucrat/politician (Umbridge from Harry Potter)


I'd say she was a 1w2 so/sp... But then it's been forever since I read them. If I'm remembering Fudge (right? Fudge? The wizard president?) correctly, he might be a good example of slimy SOC 6.

IDK, I'm rather against stereotyping subtypes, but I do agree there's often patterns. Let me just calm my mind by stating it's _not_ a good idea to self-type via subtypes.
(Okay I feel better.)


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Paradigm said:


> I'd say she was a 1w2 so/sp... But then it's been forever since I read them.


eh, that's more like McGonegal (more direct and authoritative, less fake smiling)



> If I'm remembering Fudge (right? Fudge? The wizard president?) correctly, he might be a good example of slimy SOC 6.


I could see that



> IDK, I'm rather against stereotyping subtypes, but I do agree there's often patterns. Let me just calm my mind by stating it's _not_ a good idea to self-type via subtypes.
> (Okay I feel better.)


we're gonna have to disagree here. people's behavior patterns and overall vibe are much easier to predict than most like to think


----------



## Tater Tot (May 28, 2012)

> I don't think all Sexual 7s are quite as rosy, naive and non-confrontational as they are present.


I didn't even know that's what people thought of them? :laughing: Aren't the sexual subtypes always the most aggressive?


----------



## Dalton (Jun 10, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> fixed. 1 is probably the least deceptive of all 9 types


I'm wondering if @Phoenix_Rebirth meant something else by deceptive... like liable to being deceived? Dunno. I'm rarely deceptive of others, except in volatile situations.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

I have a few comments. @Swordsman of Mana I know you asked not to nitpick, but I have to say this because I've seen it too many times not to say anything. 

Sx 1 is still, first and foremost, a type 1. They are not 8's, they do not all look like 8's, and they are NOT expansively aggressive in obtaining whatever they want as they want it. If an Sx 1 looks like an 8, it is because they are aggressive with respect to their own convictions of what should be as these convictions come about, not because they are aggressive for their physical needs. They tend to be charged, will tell you what they think, may be grabby, and do take firm stances on things, but that does NOT take away the self constraint of the type - it is merely a more charged, intense way of carrying it out just as the Self Pres and Social subtypes do. I can see why people want to associate these types, but I do not believe associating Sx 1 to 8 makes it easier to identify or understand Sx 1's and don't understand why people here think it does. 

I will also vouch that 1's are not always exactly the "least deceptive" of types. I've done a few things in my life that weren't exactly honest out of crazy desires underneath the surface nobody would never see or pick up on, that I sometimes can no longer control. I'm not proud to say that I'm also really, really good at schmutzing the situation to hide it, usually using my credibility to get by it.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> eh, that's more like McGonegal (more direct and authoritative, less fake smiling)


Well, there's different types of 1s. I don't remember any real anxiety in frog-face, just RULES AND MORE RULES, and I'M ALWAYS RIGHT.

McG might be more 1w9 sp/so? 



> we're gonna have to disagree here. people's behavior patterns and overall vibe are much easier to predict than most like to think


- That strikes me as hubris.
- I didn't say people weren't predictable. That's not the same subject, IMO. I just don't think everyone of a certain subtype is going to act the same way. They can still be an "abnormal example of a subtype" and be predictable.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Paradigm said:


> Well, there's different types of 1s. I don't remember any real anxiety in frog-face, just RULES AND MORE RULES, and _I'M ALWAYS RIGHT_


therein lies the difference. Umbridge is not "I'm always right". she is "the organization is always right". she fits the "Hitler's henchmen" type of Social 6 that Naranjo describes to a tee and doesn't actually trust her _own_ judgment very much.



> McG might be more 1w9 sp/so?


it's possible (I don't think all Sp 1s are quite as fearful as Naranjo does. I think there is another variety which is more Ned Stark-ish)



> - That strikes me as hubris.


meh, I'm not exactly known for my modesty :tongue:



> - I didn't say people weren't predictable. That's not the same subject, IMO. I just don't think everyone of a certain subtype is going to act the same way. They can still be an "abnormal example of a subtype" and be predictable.


I never said they were going to act the same either. that's the point of this thread. what I am saying is that they will fall within a _range_ of behavior, and we can both agree that this range is a bit broader than


----------



## HighClassSavage (Nov 29, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> *Sexual 7*
> 2) a more fiery, aggressively narcissistic variety which can appear pseudo-1-ish (the vindictive, _justice_ oriented side of 1, not the goody-2-shoes side as in many Social 7s) and resemble Sexual 8 and Sexual 4 (less physical than the former; less emotional and limbic than the latter). often sees himself as heroic, but much more megalomaniac and egotistical than a 1 and noticeably more flamboyant.
> http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/_...mb/9/9c/Lelouch1208.jpg/640px-Lelouch1208.jpg


That ain't no variant of Sexual 7, that's just YOU. :laughing:


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Noble Demon said:


> That ain't no variant of Sexual 7, that's just YOU. :laughing:


you see why I'm questioning my type at the moment? lol


----------



## Teen Rose (Aug 4, 2018)

They are narrow because Naranjo left without learning completely from the original developer of enneagram personalities Oscar Icazo.


----------



## skyboy (Jul 6, 2021)

*



Sexual 7

Click to expand...

*


> I don't think all Sexual 7s are quite as rosy, naive and non-confrontational as they are present. this is one variety (of which I believe many are actually Social 7s), but I think there are two others:
> 1) a more "Sex, drugs and rock n' roll" types of Sexual 7 Riso and Hudson call this "The Neophile" and it's one of the few things I think they really nailed (think Ke$ha, Freddie Mercury, The Rolling Stones, )
> 2) a more fiery, aggressively narcissistic variety which can appear pseudo-1-ish (the vindictive, _justice_ oriented side of 1, not the goody-2-shoes side as in many Social 7s) and resemble Sexual 8 and Sexual 4 (less physical than the former; less emotional and limbic than the latter). often sees himself as heroic, but much more megalomaniac and egotistical than a 1 and noticeably more flamboyant.


Naranjo's vision has a huge bias but his catch about a certain style of 7 is very good. He does not describe the full generality of type 7, only a certain style of it, but he captures that aspect very well.

Freddy Mercury, Mick Jagger... are good examples of SX 7w6s. Liberace is another good example. Michael Jackson, Prince.... are other typical examples of the same style, seen as 4s by most authors for strange reasons. Brigitte Bardot, Madonna (w8), Jane Fonda, Bette Davis for women... It is however easy to give examples of SX 7 that do not match this picture at all : Celine Dion, Natalie Portman... do not have the flamboyant side at all and match "rose colour glasses" more clearly. They are more like the 7 next door, rationalizing their experience through enthusiasm and idealism. Note that rose colour glasses can be used meaningfully for some SX 9s: positive, ethereal and seeing the best in others.

Naranjo is not very good at the other types imo, he tends to reinvent them too much, carried away by his imagination.


----------

