I got this from Krae a while ago. This two articles are a must read if you want to understand and not be confused of your instinct subtype.

instinctsspiarticle

http://www.triunitytransformations.c...20Instinct.pdf

2. Good stuff. Sikaro's site also seems to have some decent articles on the enneagram.

3. yeah, those were good. thanks for posting!

4. Interesting articles and good explanations of the instincts. One thing however, I disagree with the article's interpretation of stacking. Article says if your dominant instinct is preservation (SP), your secondary should be navigating (SO). If your dominant is navigating (SO), your secondary should be transmitting (SX). If your dominant is transmitting (SX) your secondary should be preservation (SP). Mathematically speaking, there should be six possible stackings:

SP/SO/SX
SP/SX/SO
SO/SX/SP
SO/SP/SX
SX/SP/SO
SX/SO/SP

According to the article, the only three that are really possible are:
SP/SO/SX
SO/SX/SP
SX/SP/SO

This contradicts what I've read in other enneagram sources which make no mention of the secondary instinct being determined by the primary instinct. Instead the secondary instinct is essentially independent of the primary instinct.

5. warrior-librarian, I have thought about this as well. maybe it just means that it is more likely the stacking will go So>Sx>Sp>So than So>Sp>Sx>So.

6. Actually I just ignored that bit, but yea it doesn't seem right. I'm so/sp.
Aside from that, great articles.

I like how they can bring a new perspective on the instincts, but they present it too rigidly, I think... claiming that only certain stackings exist etc.... its seems too rigid to be a realistic model, it smells of being a ideal model contrived in someones mind to better conceptualize an idea.

The same way people do it in science, the ideal gas law, isn't really how gases behave but is an idealization to help get the main idea from something without being belabored by a highly complex "real world" model.

8. it is true there are intertype relations with the enneagram and even more with the instincts?

does any one have information on this?

9. There is no explicit set of relations for e-types, but consistent trends exist nonetheless. With instincts, the main theme seems to be that aligned primary instincts is optimal. However, I've previously considered that it may be the accord of the first two that is the most important (so, sx/so would get along better with so/sx than sx/sp... still not certain of how much weight this holds).

10. Originally Posted by strrrng
There is no explicit set of relations for e-types, but consistent trends exist nonetheless. With instincts, the main theme seems to be that aligned primary instincts is optimal. However, I've previously considered that it may be the accord of the first two that is the most important (so, sx/so would get along better with so/sx than sx/sp... still not certain of how much weight this holds).
I think relations with instincts can be derived if you consider the one to one relations first...

so and sx
so and sp
sx and sp

Using this information you then consider how each type interacts at the primary, secondary, and teriary level....

Then combine this into a unified theory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For an example you could consider social and sexual instinct...

Social is essentially an instinct which is concerned with networking

Sexual is essentially an instinct concerned with 1-to-1 intimacy (friendship, romantic, etc) and with creativity.

If you adopt a darwinian view as your fundamental basis, considering that all instinct amount to natural selection...

you see that the mutual benefit of the so and sx interaction is based around trading of resources. The social person utilizes their networking skills to help the sexual person "get their self out there" while the sexual person helps the social person by allowing them a gateway to share their intimate thoughts/feelings.

This is a crude model for the interaction... its comparable to the way nations trade resources to benefit each other mutually. Except here its the skills of each variant.

Applying such a model to the overall portrait of instinctual stackings you can elicit a model for intertype relations.

one of the problems is determining a more precise definition of what constitutes "primary, secondary and tertiary". To me I consider primary to be the core focus, secondary is like something you focus on also but is held in second priority - it is worried about and is concious, but is delegated to less importatnt, tertiary is held in last priority and is mostly unconcious - only dealt with when a specific case emerges.

Using this model you could determine the relation across all levels... for example... how does a primary sx deal with a teriary sx.... how does a primary sx deal with a secondary sx.... how does a primary sx, teriary so trade with a teriary sx, primary so.... and so forth.... usw.... etc

11. maybe sp helps so preserve networks lol?

I don't like this idea of preferences.

12. Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
maybe sp helps so preserve networks lol?

I don't like this idea of preferences.
What do you mean idea of preferences?

Anyways Sp and So....

Well see So's resource is access to social networks and being a good operator in that

Sp's resource is well literally resources... they are preserving

So the relation between the two is sp's provide for so's in a material way while so's provide for sp's in a networking way.... the intertype relation is crucial in business logistics for example because it aids in the moving/maintence of material resources across a social network.

The hardest part about this is... one would think a sp/sx/so would naturally be attracted to a so/sx/sp because one can make up for the other's deficiency... but that may not be the case... the other may end up clashing for their different perspectives.... where as sp/so/sx and so/sp/sx may get along better because they both are slightly focused on so and sp, but they can still benefit each other. Then again this gets even more confusing when you line up things so they don't work evenly; for example => sp/sx/so and so/sp/sx.

You'de have to determine the nature of primary to primary; primary to secondary; primary to teriaty; then each one to one interaction (sx,sp,so etc), tie it together and out pops a crude intertype model. You could give each the intertype relations names to be illustrative of the underlying concepts etc..... maybe I'll build a model up, if anyone is interested and won't pick it apart like an angry hungry fat lady at a buffet. Criticism is good but I don't like to be accused of self-agrandizing schemes.

13. I don't think so/sx is more likely than so/sp.

14. Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
I don't think so/sx is more likely than so/sp.
yeah I thought part of the article was stupid... I'd be a little more swayed if they gave a rationale or some motivation for saying that but they just stated it as if it were obvious, and really its something that goes against the standard teaching.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•