Skeptical of Instinct theory

[Daeva]

On the "instinct stackings" themselves, they are describing archetypes. What kind of archetypes? Let's take a look at how David Gray interprets them on his websitethe Mayoroccupations; social roles. They have very little to do with instincts.

[Quindary]

To address this a little...

"Social" types being asocial or antisocial, there is still a pole around the facet of social existence, just a different orientation around it.
"Sexual" types being merged with god or the like...still polarizes around intimate connection.
"Self-preservation" types being reckless...in that recklessness, is it not still, again, polarized around self-pres? Such as a self-pres CP 6 who might throw themself into life to prove they CAN persevere?

The manifestation is not the thing. The polarity and the primality of the centerpoint is the thing. That's the unifying factor.

I tend to agree that "everything comes down to self-pres", but I also think separating the instincts out is of value because they lend to a more nuanced view of motivation. If every shade of gray were just labeled gray, we'd never know them to be shades.

[SpiritoftheGael]

Daeva Animal I would suggest that they are dichotomies and obsessions around an issue, hence why a social first can show asocial behavior vs very social behavior. I also think they exist on their own but also are shifted by other factors like enneagram, which is why an sp/sx has something that always looks sp/sx but also has different manifestations when it is combined.

[SpiritoftheGael]

Daeva I'm in 100% agreement that all of the instincts are a form of self preservation which has definitely bugged me for a long time. At the very least I always felt the self preservation one should be renamed as a more specific form.

[Daeva]

Absolutely. I agree that the "instinct stacks" are pointing towards existing archetypes that are reflected in personality. But what they are in actuality is a mystery, it seems - and I am not buying the "instinct" explanation because it just doesn't add up.

[Animal]

Yeah... the problem is that the thing we're currently calling "Sx/So" or "Sp/So" or whatever - is self-evident in people who are properly identified. Even when they have different core types. But what exactly is it that we're defining? Social firsts can be anti-social or just asocial. Sexual firsts can be merged with God and have no interest in sex. Self-pres firsts can be reckless. Social lasts can be into politics; sexual lasts can have sex all day long or be major sexy models; self-pres last can sustain picky diets or workouts, or get rich. Etc.

Yet if you take people with completely different types who are all the same instinct stack - like say, me and my mom, Sp/Sx - there's definitely a shared.... something. So what is that something? What is it we're actually defining?

What I'm saying is that the stacks, as they stand, seem to have some kind of meaning. But what is it?

[Daeva]

Instincts come in clusters, and ALL of them are self-preservationist in nature, including the sexual and social instinct clusters.

Psychologist William James has done research on human instincts. These included attachment, play, shame, anger, fear, shyness, modesty, and love. Sounds familiar? This is s pattern that keeps on coming up when questioning what instinct *is*. Bottom line is that it is (probably) the Enneagram types themselves: each is an instinctual reaction in order to keep oneself alive.

Psychiatrist Sigmund Freud points to two key motivational forces: the Life instincts (Eros) and the Death instincts (Thanatos). This is reflected in the Health Levels as developed by the Enneagram Institute. Movement upwards is in sync with the life instincts, movement downwards is in sync with the death instincts.
Edit: The "Life Drive" and 'Death Drive" is what they should read. Not "- instincts". Bad translations are to blame.

In psychology, instinct theory is a motivational theory that fell out of fashion. The Enneagram of Personality borrows a great deal from many motivational theories and it could even be interpreted as trying to synergize them into one cohesive model. While instinct theory is part of this, it should not be seen as separate from Enneagram type under any circumstance.

Now we have the idea running around of "instinct stacks" as independent entities and archetypes. I am in favor of identifying these archetypes, don't get me wrong, and there is truth to it, but the connection to this arbitrary rule set around "instinct" is what gets me. There is no basis for this in instinct theory. The Enneagram itself describes instinct better than "instinct stacks" do.