I really like this enneagram resource about the instincts.

[Bethanyclaire]

on_the_nature_of_subtypes.pdf (enneagramdimensions.net)

I really like the charts at the bottom of this resource (see above). I find myself referring back to them a lot and thought others might find them useful.

The descriptions of the different instinct variants are simple, so I don't feel pigeonholed by them but there is enough there so that you can build up a picture of a personality that you see yourself reflected in.

I relate a lot to the words and phrases which are used to describe the social subtype for enneagram 9. It's helped me to realise I am indeed in the correct line of work and stop worrying that I should have tried a different career. I think so anyway haha.

You can also think about your instinct stack and your tritype when looking at the chart. For example, I consider myself to be so/sx 946. I mostly relate to the social 9 descriptions but I also relate to the sexual 4 and self-preservation 6 descriptions. In fact I relate to all of the 9,4,6 descriptions a little bit.

You can even use it to think about the 'wings' of each part of your tritype too. Or what you could look like when you integrate or disintegrate from your main Ennegram type.

I will try to copy and paste some of the 'key words' I relate to later on.

To me, it feels like a very 'complete' resource, summarising and simplifying a wide range of archetypes humans might relate to. There is also some noticeable cross over between the type descriptions, and I think this goes to show how difficult it is to separate people into precise descriptions or personality types.

[WVBRY]

Interesting descriptions, though as someone who has read a little Gurdjieff, I think the following from the background section of the article is innaccurate:

Since most teachers and students have traditionally been male, this approach is a very masculine in nature. It’s based on a “slay the dragon” view of life that’s quite direct and adversarial. The ego or personality self is viewed as an enemy of the higher good and is ruthlessly attacked in order to strip away its defenses so that the disciple might realize its limitations.This approach has its uses, but it’s risky. And in the wrong hands, it can be disastrous. As Jungian scholar James Hollis observed in an interview for What is Enlightenment? magazine, “the ego is a necessary formation for the creation of identity, consciousness, intentionality, and purpose—all of which are pluses.”1 But he says that the ego is also malleable. It can be dominated by influences of both the inner psyche and the outer world if it lacks the strength and resiliency necessary to maintain its integrity. So from this perspective, what we need isn’t to destroy the ego, but to support it. With proper support, the ego can develop in a healthy way. It can help us function in the world without interfering with our ability to be inwardly attentive to the energies of the[higher] Self. An integrated ego-personality helps us develop both inner balance and outer poise. It can support us in finding our life’s calling. And this, as Hollis observes, has very little to do with ego in the selfish sense.

For Gurdjieff, the self consisted of both the personality and the essence, and his teachings are about the development of what he calls essence, there isn't any kind of "destruction of the ego" that you see in the Dharmic religions for example. The way the author writes that gives the impression she believes Gurdjieff's teaching was about "slaying the ego" like you find in many Eastern systems, or in some Western systems like Aleister Crowley's Thelema where one had to "cross the abyss" which meant to destroy the personality. Perhaps I don't know enough though, but I don't Gurdjieff's system involved destroying the personality.

Anyways, a digression which I thought was interesting, it's talking point though I don't expect anyone to bite.

[euphoricfilth]

There are definitely aspects of the classic subtypes that are illogical to me. I appreciate that Russ Hudson is updating his perspectives on the subtypes, and I've done the same. SX 4 being the "angriest" type that's "more 8 than 8" is a bad meme. It makes no sense that 4, a withdrawn type, would ever be predominately aggressive. Especially since SX is equally as receptive as it is aggressive and concerns lowering boundaries of self; SX 4 would perhaps be the most vulnerable type by nature. I see some SX 4w3s express competitive feelings, but the core of SX 4 to me is extreme infatuation, idealization of romantic partners, and a willingness to take risks in the name of love.

I also dislike how the classical subtypes completely ignore the "caregiver" kind of 2. Naranjo 2 subtypes are a pillow princess, a whore, and an ambitious intellectual type. Where in this mess is the kind of 2 that looks after other people's needs while neglecting their own? Nowhere, because Naranjo conceptualized 2 in a very different way than we do now. He viewed 2 as an aggressive, egotistical, pleasure-seeking type that would be considered 7 or 8 by modern standards. IMO SP 2 is primarily characterized by attending to other's needs and comfort and desiring the same attention in return.

[Bethanyclaire]

Thanks for the responses, I think you are all a bit more well-read on the enneagram than I! I have read things but didn't pay much attention to whose work I was reading. I am familar with Naranjo's descriptions of the subtypes which I found on a thread on this site: Enneagram - Claudio Naranjo's Lectures on Instinctual Subtypes / Instinct Variants (the16types.info) Though, I'm not sure how I feel about them.

Personally, I feel that I relate to all of the subtypes for E9 (in this resource and probably in others). I can most definitely be a self preservation 9, a sexual 9 and a social 9, even if some of the descriptions are not always that flattering!!

Btw, underneath all the charts there is a note which says:

Sources: Labels from Peter O’Hanrahan, parenthesized descriptors from Oscar Ichazo, information from the work of Helen Palmer, Tom Condon, Katherine Chernick & David Fauvre, Don Riso & Russ Hudson, and Sandra Mai (if people are interested).

[Bethanyclaire]

anyways, I really like her list of movies and how its related to each enneatype (another article on her website). I found even as a kid up until now the movies that made the most impression on me/I connected with were mostly in the 4 and 5 sections.

btw, Katherine Fauvre (she came up with the stacking theory) thinks that the primary instinct actually permeates the whole tritype so sx 946 may relate to sx9 sx4 so on instead of (what you said in the op)

-Thanks, will check out the movie list for E9s

-Ohh that's an interesting way of looking at it..so I might relate to the social 4/social 6 descriptions as well as 9. Nice!

-I actually find the tritype descriptions surprisingly accurate (though I guess they are kind of vague, but I still find them really useful). These are the ones I mean: Tritype archetypes and variant descriptions (the16types.info) Guessing they're by Katherine Fauvre.

I also like Katherine's video about the triple focus of each tritype: (43) From "KATHERINE FAUVRE .com #9": Triple Focus of Each of the 27 Enneagram Tritype Sextets - YouTube

[Bethanyclaire]

I think that being an E9 IEI, I can put a positive spin on any of the negative descriptions haha. At least, I am learning it is helpful to! Also I just remember that every single person has some of the negative aspects of a 'type' within them.

I can't imagine what it's like to be E4 though. As an E9 IEI with some E4 in me, well, life hasn't been easy. I once read a description about a social 9 that said 'this is the person that feels like they could walk off the edge of a cliff and no one would notice'. This, I related to lol.

What is helping me? Well, learning about socionics for sure. But I like the enneagram a lot. It makes me feel like I have the potential to reach different parts of my personality because of how interconnected all the types are. It's reassuring to see myself as a 9 who can be like a 4 and 6 sometimes. With a bit of the others thrown in too. I feel like I can accept myself more and enjoy trying on different ennegram hats if I so wish. An E9 who is comfortable in their 9ness and in being so can more easily reach the other e-types.

For example, this year I joined a writing group at work. I had never written anything before. I'm not really that driven to do it, but I joined the club and took part and now I do enjoy writing a little poem every now and again. But mostly, I like participating in the group (like an E9) and I'm inspired to be more 4ish and get in touch with my feelings through writing (which is healthy), by just being there in the group and taking part (also healthy because it's fun and challenging).

[SGF]

/o\ fuck now I think I'm Sx again!

[Bethanyclaire]

/o\ fuck now I think I'm Sx again!

how come?

[SGF]

how come?

Based on the document you provided, everything points towards me being Sx type 6.

[Bethanyclaire]

Based on the document you provided, everything points towards me being Sx type 6.

Ah k. I know a couple of sx 6 types. They seem to have that tough/beautiful image thing going on, one or the other. Or be really into the arts/intense experiences. It’s probs described better in the doc, lol.

[Bethanyclaire]

Interesting descriptions, though as someone who has read a little Gurdjieff, I think the following from the background section of the article is innaccurate:

For Gurdjieff, the self consisted of both the personality and the essence, and his teachings are about the development of what he calls essence, there isn't any kind of "destruction of the ego" that you see in the Dharmic religions for example. The way the author writes that gives the impression she believes Gurdjieff's teaching was about "slaying the ego" like you find in many Eastern systems, or in some Western systems like Aleister Crowley's Thelema where one had to "cross the abyss" which meant to destroy the personality. Perhaps I don't know enough though, but I don't Gurdjieff's system involved destroying the personality.

Anyways, a digression which I thought was interesting, it's talking point though I don't expect anyone to bite.

Developing your 'essence' sounds better than 'slaying your ego'. Soz I'm not well-read enough to say more! Although I have always liked the Jung quote 'Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate'. Which sounds a bit like slaying your ego. But perhaps it isn't. It's just saying we need to be more self-aware. I do sort of feel like I have crossed an abyss since discovering typology. But I was living with mental health problems before..maybe now I can focus on developing my 'essence'

I'm wondering if I'll go a bit deeper into the enneagram..I have learnt the basics (my version of basics) of socionics and enneagram but not sure where I'll go next. I think it would be healthy for me to learn more about my 9ness at least.

I just did a quick wikipedia search and it seems like the ennegram first began to gain popularity in the 1950s, which is really not long after Jung was writing. I think both systems are as useful as each other to know about!

When I was first learning typology I had these frightening moments where I was like 'ah I know too much, life seems so pointless because it's like I have all the answers now. There is no more beauty to discover..' Although maybe I was just coming out of my poor mental health cocoon into the real world.

But now the thought of learning more about the enneagram, and maybe socionics and actually trying to find the answers, actually seems quite exciting, as if it will help me to experience life on some higher level of awareness- knowing why I'm here on earth, knowing I have a purpose to be here and make the most of it. Hopefully anyway.