The Notes and the Melody
A Simple and Pragmatic Approach to the Enneagram
Part III: The Instincts
By Mario Sikora
(This article originally appeared in the May 2006 issue of "The Enneagram Monthly.")
It has often and confidently been asserted, that man’s origin can never be known:
but ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those
who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or
that problem will never be solved by science.
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
Where he alive today, Darwin would remind us that there is still much we don’t know
about our instincts and that any discussion of the topic is by its nature a work in
progress. But while “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does
knowledge,” there is much we have learned about genetics, neurobiology, and
evolution since the orthodoxy about the instinctual subtypes was first asserted in the
Enneagram literature. Looking into these areas can give us a deeper insight into our
instinctive drives; insight that—given our emphasis here on pragmatism—can be put
to good use.
So What Does the Elephant Want?
Part II of this series addressed the “Strategies,” the central theme at the heart of
each personality type. It also discussed Jonathon Haidt’s metaphor of the elephant
and the rider—the idea that most of what goes on in the brain is beyond our
conscious reach and much of our behavior is driven by forces we are unaware of and
don’t understand.
A Simple and Pragmatic Approach to the Enneagram
Part III: The Instincts
By Mario Sikora
(This article originally appeared in the May 2006 issue of "The Enneagram Monthly.")
It has often and confidently been asserted, that man’s origin can never be known:
but ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those
who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or
that problem will never be solved by science.
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
Where he alive today, Darwin would remind us that there is still much we don’t know
about our instincts and that any discussion of the topic is by its nature a work in
progress. But while “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does
knowledge,” there is much we have learned about genetics, neurobiology, and
evolution since the orthodoxy about the instinctual subtypes was first asserted in the
Enneagram literature. Looking into these areas can give us a deeper insight into our
instinctive drives; insight that—given our emphasis here on pragmatism—can be put
to good use.
So What Does the Elephant Want?
Part II of this series addressed the “Strategies,” the central theme at the heart of
each personality type. It also discussed Jonathon Haidt’s metaphor of the elephant
and the rider—the idea that most of what goes on in the brain is beyond our
conscious reach and much of our behavior is driven by forces we are unaware of and
don’t understand.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
What the elephant wants is to satisfy our survival needs, and these needs are represented by the three
sets of instincts commonly found in Enneagram literature: the so-called self-preservation, social, and sexual
(or one-to-one) instincts.
The topic of the instincts would seem to be very simple, but it is actually a bit more complicated and subtle
than it first appears. While I discuss this information to most of my executive coaching clients and in my
public workshops, I rarely discuss it in corporate group sessions.(1)
No model of the Enneagram can be complete, however, without addressing the instincts because instinct
and personality type work hand in hand: The instincts determine what we want, value, and need; our
personality determines how we go about getting those things.
There are differences of opinion regarding what to call these things that have traditionally been called
“subtypes” and more recently “instinctual variants” by Riso and Hudson. I prefer to use the term “subtype”
when talking about a version of a personality type, such as a Social Eight or a Self-Pres Four, and the term
“instinctive bias” when discussing instincts independent of type. The reason for this word choice should
become clear as you read this article.
The Enneagram subtypes or instincts cannot be fully understood without examining what we currently know
about instincts, genes, and evolution. Therefore, we will take a very brief look at a little bit of the current
science around these areas before addressing the three instinct categories. If we are going to work with the
instincts—if we are to become more effective in areas where our instinct bias causes us to be ineffective—it
is critical to understand the root of these instincts as best we can.
Instincts, Genes, and Evolution
Merriam-Webster Online defines “instinct” as: “a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an
organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason” (italics
added).
One of the misunderstandings in the Enneagram world about the instincts is that they inaccurately are
viewed as three distinct, specific, and monolithic drives; i.e., that we have an “instinct” for self-preservation,
an instinct for social connection, and an instinct for one-to-one intimacy. In reality, we have many instincts
both specific and broad, most of which can be grouped into three broad categories: those relating to 1)
nesting and nurturing (the “self-preservation” instinct), 2) orienting to the group (“social”), and 3) attracting
and mating (“sexual”).
For some reason, we each demonstrate a bias toward one of these broad categories over the other two.
That is, while we all have each of the three sets of instincts, one of them exerts a greater pull on us and
seems to be where our attention goes when it is not consciously directed somewhere specific. A common
explanation for why this bias occurs is that early in life we experience some sort of lack in our holding
environment and then function from a deficiency motivation. For example (the theory goes), you might have
a self-preservation subtype because you experienced a lack regarding your fundamental survival needs in
your holding environment. Therefore, you tend to focus on self-preservation issues to try to heal the
psychological wound caused by that felt deficiency.
This explanation is ultimately unsatisfying and incomplete. Let’s explore why.
Our “instincts” are the method that has evolved for ensuring that we get our survival needs met. Here’s an
example: Two weeks before I was writing these words, my wife gave birth to our third son. Like his brothers,
Alexei knew exactly what to do when placed to his mother’s breast. He instinctively knew to suckle—millions
of years of evolution ensured that he was hard-wired to do it so he would not starve. He did not need to be
taught to suckle, he didn’t attend a class or read a manual, he didn’t construct a cognitive or psychological
rationale for it; he just did it.
The brain is imprinted with this and a plethora of other instincts (to borrow Matt Ridley’s(2) phrase) and
these instincts are passed from generation to generation through our genes.
It is easy to become confused about the exact role of the genes because they are complicated things.
Essentially, the genome (the complete set of genetic and non-coding information contained in the DNA) is
the recipe that the fertilized egg follows to gradually develop into a mature being. In the same way that the
recipe for chocolate cake is not chocolate cake, we are not our genes. We are the expression of our genes,
acted upon by physical, cultural, and psychological factors in our environment. (Studies of identical twins
who are raised apart—but share the exact same DNA—show that about half of our temperament is directly
genetic and the rest is due to other factors.)
To continue with the metaphor, if you bake a chocolate cake in Denver and then bake one in Florida using
the same exact recipe and same ingredients, they will taste different. This happens because the altitude is
different and the altitude alters the expression of the ingredients. It will still be a chocolate cake, however.
Genes work the same way, their ultimate expression will differ based on nurture, but much will stay the
same for creatures that share the same genes.
There is a tendency when talking about genes to assign conscious agency to them, to imply that they
“cause” something or “do” something. However, like our cake recipe, our genes have no agency or agenda.
They are merely coding that allow for specific expressions of biology. (For the sake of discussion, however,
it is grammatically easier to set aside this distinction and write as if the genes “do things,” so please bear
with me.)
For example, if you have a “tall” gene(3) and have access to proper nutrition and good health, you will be
tall. In an environment of malnutrition and disease, however, you will not actualize your genetically
determined “tall” potential. On the other hand, a person with a “short” gene, despite proper nutrition and
good health, will not be tall.
Our genes work the same way when it comes to predisposition for behavior. Take anxiety, for example,
which is the body’s general method of dealing with something perceived as dangerous. Our brain perceives
a threat and sends signals to the rest of the body—pumping blood to the limbs, raising our heart rate,
pumping out more adrenaline, etc. The brain also begins to sift through possible solutions to the threat—
run, fight, submit, etc.—and we act accordingly.
Once the threat is gone, another set of responses begins in the brain, returning us to a normal heart rate
and chemical levels and so forth. Our brain stops sifting through the possible solutions to the no-longer-
existent threat and moves on to other topics.
Your genes related to anxiety are the coding that influences your unique responses to stimuli that your
central nervous system identifies as dangerous. Some people have genetic coding that increase their
sensitivity to possible danger, or that make it more difficult for their body to return to normal heart and
chemical levels, or that make it more difficult to perceive the environmental safety signals that inform them
that the danger has passed. In addition, this coding can be such that generalized anxiety as a personality
trait will be triggered by relatively slight childhood trauma, or the coding may require significant trauma in
order for the same generalized anxiety to manifest. This explains why different people respond differently to
the same environment—they have different genetic coding being acted upon by their early childhood
experience.
Human nature is a complicated stew. While a vast array of our behaviors are genetically driven, many
others are not. There is a complex interplay between cultural and biological evolution that shape our nature.
In addition, some behaviors become wired into us (or conditioned) after birth in response to our
psychological interpretation of events. Examples include dramatic aversion to certain smells associated with
unpleasant experiences or unconscious reactions to stimuli rooted in trauma. (Post-traumatic stress
disorder is an example of the latter; some people exposed to the trauma of battle will develop deeply rooted
habitual reactions to loud, sudden noises.) These are conditioned reactions, but they are not instincts
because they are not inheritable.
However, it is our genetic coding which shapes our brain and allows for all these different elements of
human nature to take shape.
Take any one of a variety of behaviors—aggression, possessiveness, attention-seeking, etc.—and there
is specific genetic coding that sets parameters for the way one will react to the circumstances of one’s
environment. One person will emerge from a violent environment with a predilection for violence while
another will emerge abhorring violence. It’s all dependent on the genetic predispositions and how they are
influenced by the environment.
However, the genome is not static—it evolves over time through the process of biological evolution.
Specific instincts will come and go in response to environmental demands. In order for an instinct to
continue to be passed from generation to generation, it must accomplish one of two things: increase the
individual organism’s chance of survival or increase its ability to pass on its genes, either through
successful reproduction or increasing its ability to nurture the development of the next generation of gene
carriers. Darwin’s fundamental insight was that evolution happens through random mutation and natural
selection. If a specific mutation helps its carrier survive and thrive in its environment, the carrier has a
greater chance of finding a mate and producing a higher number of offspring that carry the same gene.(4)
The instinctive behaviors included in three “instinct categories” of the Enneagram literature enable survival
and reproduction, though there is great crossover and multi-tasking going on within each category. That is,
instincts traditionally thought of as “social” or “sexual” also have a great influence on self-preservation, etc.
Before we go into exactly how they do that, it helps to know something else about evolution: it often works
elliptically rather than either broadly or specifically.
Here’s an example:
We do not have an instinctive drive to “eat.” Such a drive would be too general and we would end up trying
to eat tree bark, dirt, tin cans, and who-knows-what else. We would not be able to discriminate what is
healthy from what is unhealthy and our lives would be dramatically shortened.
Nor do we have an instinctive drive to “eat oranges.” That would be too specific. We would starve when our
environment was depleted of oranges and we would not know to eat other types of fruit. Our environment
changes much faster than our genome and any instinct that was too specific would reduce our chances of
survival rather than improve them.
Instead, our ancestors on the plains of Africa who survived and thrived—and thus passed on their genes
to us—where those who had instinctive drives that said “crave sweets” (since fruit is high in necessary
vitamins), “crave fats” (which tend to be high in protein), “don’t eat things that smell bad” (which is indicates
harmful bacteria), etc.(5)
The individual instincts contained within the three Enneagram instinct categories are similarly elliptical.
They have their root in specific sensitivities that are genetically determined and they manifest as
unconscious, habitual behaviors. In short, they are biases that nudge us toward behaving in ways that
satisfy specific survival or reproductive needs.
Let’s take a look at each category to see how this works.
The Self-Preservation Instinctive Bias (Nesting and Self-Nurturing)
All instincts, in some way, serve the interest of self-preservation, and this category is really a cluster of
elliptical instinctive behaviors that resulted in sensitivity regarding matters of nesting and self-nurturing. It is
not an instinctive drive to “self-preserve.” If “self-preservation” where the order, people of this instinctive
bias would not binge eat, consume junk food, smoke, or do any physical activities that could lead to harm.
Put another way, people in this category are especially sensitive to stimuli relating to safety, nesting, and
self-nurturing. This sensitivity comes from the biological structure of their brain and central nervous system.
This biological structure is shaped by their physical and mental experience interacting with the expression of
their genes. A focus on safety, nesting, and nurturing are elliptical servants in the greater cause of self-
preservation. These matters take up more of their mental energy and they are more likely to execute
instinctive, automatic behaviors that serve these needs. It is not that they have instincts that others don’t; it
is that they are more sensitive in these matters and more likely to demonstrate the instinct.
For example, I have a Social instinctive bias. As I write this I am sitting in a Starbucks and there is an air
vent blowing on me. I have been sitting here for over two hours and just noticed that I am cold. My wife, who
has a self-preservation bias, would have noticed the draft the moment she sat down, not because she is
cognitively focused on it or psychologically compelled to stay warm, but because she has biological
sensitivities that push her to pay particular attention to and address temperature regulation.
For those who think that these drives are consciously cognitive, ask yourself this: Do I think about
shivering, or does it just happen? Do I will my teeth to chatter? Do I consciously cross my arms and rub my
shoulders when chilled, or do I just do it? Natural selection has designed us to address our instinctive needs
by mechanisms in our brain, sometimes referred to as “modules,” that function below the level of
consciousness. As our initial mechanisms prove unsatisfactory, the need is pushed up the ladder of
cognitive awareness. For example, the rub of the shoulders is more conscious than the chattering of our
teeth, but not as conscious as getting up to adjust the thermostat. It is the movement up and down this
“ladder of cognitive awareness”—mixed with our patterns of applying the strategies we discussed in the last
month’s article—that provides us with the opportunity to “work” with our instinctual biases.
Those with a self-preservation bias (SPs) tend to be, like Goldilocks in the children’s story, sensitive to
physical comfort and compulsively seeking chairs, beds, clothing, temperatures, etc. that are “just right.”
They are also highly sensitive to potential illness or threats to their health. They constantly monitor their well-
being, noticing aches and pains, oncoming colds or stomach aches, and so on. This sensitivity allows them
to head off threats to their health.
SPs are generally focused on their “nest.” They want things in their home to be ordered specifically:
comfortable, safe, and well-supplied. Those supplies can also include “enough” money in the bank;
comforting, home-related hobbies; and memorabilia or knick-knacks with calming, sentimental associations.
Notice, that these sensitivities or focuses of attention don’t directly “cause” self-preservation; they inspire
automatic behaviors that, by acting elliptically, ensure our preservation. In a sense, stocking our nest and
nurturing our physical well-being are universal behaviors that lead to increased chances of survival.
Contradictions
We see contradictory behavior in each of the instinctive biases. For example, the SPs often exhibit some
form of binging, whether it is binging on food, shopping for clothes, buying decorations for the house, etc.
These binges occur due to “modular dissonance.” “Modules” are the groupings of neurons and synapses
that link together and govern specific functions and responses to a given stimulus. Modules don’t always
coordinate with each other and sometimes create competing needs or desires. Thus our SP might have a
drive to be financially conservative competing with a drive to splurge on, say, artwork for the house or
enough blankets to survive the next ice age. Both of these superficially conflicting drives are based on
instincts that elliptically support “self-preservation”—conserving resources and “feathering the nest.”
We tend to become frustrated with ourselves over such conflicting urges because we see them as a lack of
will power or some sort of moral failing. This is the “language of the fall” that I wrote about in Part I of this
series. If we understand these conflicts for what they are—very natural modular dissonance rooted in
evolutionary drives—we stand a greater chance of resolving them and changing behavior.
The Social Instinctive Bias (Orienting to the Group)
In Enneagram circles, this instinct bias is often viewed as a desire to be part of a group, surrounded by
people, or even a drive to adapt to the group. That is only a part of the story.
Humans are social animals. Our survival depends on complex interactions with a high number of our fellow
species members. This may be due to the fact that humans have few natural defensive tools—we are not
very strong or fast compared to our traditional predators, and we do not have sharp teeth or claws with
which to defend ourselves. Being part of the pack heightened our chances of survival (it’s the lone antelope
that gets eaten by the lion).
So, yes, part of the social instinctive bias is a blind drive to move toward the group. But, our high sociability
enabled another survival advantage to our hunter-gatherer ancestors: a focus on reciprocity.
Here is an example of the value of reciprocity: When I have a good hunt and end up with more food than I
can eat, I will share it with you in the expectation that when I come home empty-handed you will share a
meal with me. But I must have mechanisms to ensure reciprocity, some guarantee that you will hold up your
end of the bargain. I do this by keeping track of who acts reciprocally and who doesn’t. If I feed you today
but you neglect to share with me later, you get crossed off my list of worthy recipients of my future largesse.
Further, I am going to let the rest of the group know that you are a not to be trusted and I will compare notes
with them on who else I should avoid.
The larger the group is, the more complex the reciprocity-monitoring mechanisms must be. In a group of
100 to 150 (the size of a typical hunter-gatherer tribe) I must constantly take stock of others’
trustworthiness, build mutually beneficial relationships, and establish my own reputation as a worthy addition
to the tribe who will gladly repay you on Tuesday if you share your bounty with me today.
People with a Social instinctive bias have a heightened sensitivity to stimuli associated with social
relationship, causing these stimuli to take up more of their mental energy and resulting in increased
instinctive behavior in this area.
Socials like to be around people because: they like gossip (the information by which we know who is safe
to trust), they like to observe people so they can continue to improve their understanding of human nature,
they desire to ensure that the group’s mores and standards are followed, they strive to manage the group’s
perception of them (i.e., their reputation and status), etc.
Modular dissonance also leads to seemingly contradictory behavior, who are often alternately sociable and
private, introverted in some situations and extroverted in others. This in part relates to the image
management element of the category. If one of my goals is to manage my reputation by influencing your
perception of me, I will only show you what I want you to see, exposing myself in some ways and holding
back in others.
Once again, the so-called “social instinct” is not a specific drive to be part of the group or to adapt to the
group. It is a plethora of instincts that increase our chances of survival by improving our ability to remain an
accepted member of the group and monitor the behavior of others in the group so we will know who to trust
and improve our chances of being trusted by others. This trust ultimately ensures safety and, thus, survival.
The Sexual Instinctive Bias (Attracting and Mating)
Sometimes referred to as a “one-to-one” instinct, this category is easily misunderstood. To understand it
better, we must bear in mind the elliptical nature of evolution. This category is not simply an instinctive drive
toward one-to-one relationships, it is a cluster of interrelated instinctive behaviors that serve the purpose of
attracting attention to ourselves and improving our chances of mating (in the sense of “pairing” rather than
necessarily “reproducing”).
The “attracting-attention” element actually serves two purposes: it not only improves your chances of
having sex, it helps you survive. For example, the child who draws attention to itself (by being charming,
flamboyant, self-assertive, etc.) gets more attention from parents and others. More attention increase
survival rates. (A perfect example of the survival benefits of the sexual instinctive bias is Scarlett O’Hara in
“Gone with the Wind.” She was gifted at getting people to pay attention to her and then charming them so
she could bend them to her will when she needed to.)
The “mating” element provides other survival benefits. Pairing with a significant other in adulthood gives us
someone to care for us when we are ill, boost our spirits when we are down, share the burdens of daily
existence, etc.
The “display” element of the Sexual subtype is often overlooked in the literature, but people with this
subtype have a drive to make people notice them. They may accomplish this by dressing for attention,
acting seductively, being extroverted, spending more time on their appearance than others, become
performers of some sort, etc.
Yes, Sexuals often seek intense relationships, but on an instinctive level the relationship is not for its own
sake, it is to improve chances of sexual reproduction or survival by pair bonding.
One of the significant contradictions sometimes seen in Sexuals is promiscuity, serial relationship, or extra-
relationship flirtation. One module pushes to bond, while another pushes to seek fresh stimulation. Thus,
Sexuals often feel conflicted in relationships—much in love but feeling like there must be something more.
People with this instinctive bias also inadvertently send what appear to be mixed messages to others:
certain (often unconscious) behaviors say “come hither” while the rational mind says “I’m not actually
interested.”
Stringing the Notes Together
We get into trouble in the area of our instincts when we act upon them blindly in ineffective ways. While
these drives exert a great influence on us, we need not be slaves to them. We become slaves when we
follow them unconsciously and without awareness of what short-term and ultimate purposes they serve. By
reflecting on the methods we employ to satisfy natural instinctive drives and the survival needs that they
satisfy, we can modify our behavior in appropriate ways.
Understanding what is really going on with the instincts is the first step to getting free of the trap of some of
our ineffective patterns.
This article is meant as a very brief introduction into a very complicated topic: how our genes, our
environment, and evolution work together to form our instinctive biases. As explained in the first part of this
series, I believe there is more benefit in providing people with a useful set of ideas that can be combined
together in a multitude of creative ways than there is in merely providing a catalog of traits and specific
instructions. That is, teach people the notes and the fundamentals of music theory and then let them create
their own melody.
The strategies addressed in Part II are the heart of this pragmatic model of the Enneagram. Keeping with
Pareto’s principle, they are the 20% that provides the 80% pay-off. They are the most important notes to
learn when looking to play the growth and development tune. The instincts come second—they profoundly
influence every aspect of our lives and when they get out of whack we run into trouble. After I cover the final
pieces of this model—the accelerators and the basic qualities—in upcoming articles, I will address how
these pieces can be put together in useful ways.
(Parts I and II of this article can be found at www.mariosikora.com. A pdf file of any of these articles can be
obtained by sending an email to info@mariosikora.com and the author can be contacted at
mario@mariosikora.com.)
Footnotes:
(1)There are two reasons for this: First, the instincts are, by definition, beneath the level of conscious
awareness and thus difficult to see in a brief workshop. Second, the “sexual” subtype takes us into topics
that put us onto the fast-track to lawsuit land in the corporate world.
(2)Ridley’s book, published in paperback as “The Agile Gene,” is a great introduction to the relationship
between genes, nature, and nurture.
(3) It is not that simple and, to my knowledge, there is no “tall gene.” In fact, there are relatively few specific
individual genes that determine any specific thing. Genes work in combinations and are influenced by other
elements of the genome such as activators and transcriptors (don’t ask) that lead to the manifesting of our
biology. I’ll ask the reader to bear with my oversimplifications for the sake of this article.
(4)Biological evolution is not “conscious,” “intelligent,” or even necessarily “progressive.” It is not inherently
on a path toward something greater or more advanced. It adapts to the changing demands of the organism’
s environment, for better or worse. It is blind, messy, and haphazard, but ultimately it is logical. “Random
mutation” refers to the accidental changes that happen to the genome every time an organism reproduces.
For example, when my oldest son was born, the nurse in the delivery room said to me, “He looks like you,
but in a good way.” She was exactly correct—he does look like me and a bit like his mother, but different.
Most children look like their parents, but different. This is the result of mixing genes and inexact
reproduction, i.e., random mutation. While mutation may be random, natural selection is not mere luck.
Some such mutations confer a survival advantage and are thus “selected” by nature. The survival
advantage makes the carrier more desirable to potential mates and better suited to its environment,
meaning that the carrier will have a statistically greater chance to reproduce and pass the gene along to a
greater number of offspring. This increases the mutation’s chance of being found in the species’ genome in
the future.
(5)Unfortunately, biological evolution lags behind cultural and technological evolution. The same instinctive
drives that helped our ancestors survive during a time of scarcity leads to health-damaging overindulgence
in our times of plenty.
sets of instincts commonly found in Enneagram literature: the so-called self-preservation, social, and sexual
(or one-to-one) instincts.
The topic of the instincts would seem to be very simple, but it is actually a bit more complicated and subtle
than it first appears. While I discuss this information to most of my executive coaching clients and in my
public workshops, I rarely discuss it in corporate group sessions.(1)
No model of the Enneagram can be complete, however, without addressing the instincts because instinct
and personality type work hand in hand: The instincts determine what we want, value, and need; our
personality determines how we go about getting those things.
There are differences of opinion regarding what to call these things that have traditionally been called
“subtypes” and more recently “instinctual variants” by Riso and Hudson. I prefer to use the term “subtype”
when talking about a version of a personality type, such as a Social Eight or a Self-Pres Four, and the term
“instinctive bias” when discussing instincts independent of type. The reason for this word choice should
become clear as you read this article.
The Enneagram subtypes or instincts cannot be fully understood without examining what we currently know
about instincts, genes, and evolution. Therefore, we will take a very brief look at a little bit of the current
science around these areas before addressing the three instinct categories. If we are going to work with the
instincts—if we are to become more effective in areas where our instinct bias causes us to be ineffective—it
is critical to understand the root of these instincts as best we can.
Instincts, Genes, and Evolution
Merriam-Webster Online defines “instinct” as: “a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an
organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason” (italics
added).
One of the misunderstandings in the Enneagram world about the instincts is that they inaccurately are
viewed as three distinct, specific, and monolithic drives; i.e., that we have an “instinct” for self-preservation,
an instinct for social connection, and an instinct for one-to-one intimacy. In reality, we have many instincts
both specific and broad, most of which can be grouped into three broad categories: those relating to 1)
nesting and nurturing (the “self-preservation” instinct), 2) orienting to the group (“social”), and 3) attracting
and mating (“sexual”).
For some reason, we each demonstrate a bias toward one of these broad categories over the other two.
That is, while we all have each of the three sets of instincts, one of them exerts a greater pull on us and
seems to be where our attention goes when it is not consciously directed somewhere specific. A common
explanation for why this bias occurs is that early in life we experience some sort of lack in our holding
environment and then function from a deficiency motivation. For example (the theory goes), you might have
a self-preservation subtype because you experienced a lack regarding your fundamental survival needs in
your holding environment. Therefore, you tend to focus on self-preservation issues to try to heal the
psychological wound caused by that felt deficiency.
This explanation is ultimately unsatisfying and incomplete. Let’s explore why.
Our “instincts” are the method that has evolved for ensuring that we get our survival needs met. Here’s an
example: Two weeks before I was writing these words, my wife gave birth to our third son. Like his brothers,
Alexei knew exactly what to do when placed to his mother’s breast. He instinctively knew to suckle—millions
of years of evolution ensured that he was hard-wired to do it so he would not starve. He did not need to be
taught to suckle, he didn’t attend a class or read a manual, he didn’t construct a cognitive or psychological
rationale for it; he just did it.
The brain is imprinted with this and a plethora of other instincts (to borrow Matt Ridley’s(2) phrase) and
these instincts are passed from generation to generation through our genes.
It is easy to become confused about the exact role of the genes because they are complicated things.
Essentially, the genome (the complete set of genetic and non-coding information contained in the DNA) is
the recipe that the fertilized egg follows to gradually develop into a mature being. In the same way that the
recipe for chocolate cake is not chocolate cake, we are not our genes. We are the expression of our genes,
acted upon by physical, cultural, and psychological factors in our environment. (Studies of identical twins
who are raised apart—but share the exact same DNA—show that about half of our temperament is directly
genetic and the rest is due to other factors.)
To continue with the metaphor, if you bake a chocolate cake in Denver and then bake one in Florida using
the same exact recipe and same ingredients, they will taste different. This happens because the altitude is
different and the altitude alters the expression of the ingredients. It will still be a chocolate cake, however.
Genes work the same way, their ultimate expression will differ based on nurture, but much will stay the
same for creatures that share the same genes.
There is a tendency when talking about genes to assign conscious agency to them, to imply that they
“cause” something or “do” something. However, like our cake recipe, our genes have no agency or agenda.
They are merely coding that allow for specific expressions of biology. (For the sake of discussion, however,
it is grammatically easier to set aside this distinction and write as if the genes “do things,” so please bear
with me.)
For example, if you have a “tall” gene(3) and have access to proper nutrition and good health, you will be
tall. In an environment of malnutrition and disease, however, you will not actualize your genetically
determined “tall” potential. On the other hand, a person with a “short” gene, despite proper nutrition and
good health, will not be tall.
Our genes work the same way when it comes to predisposition for behavior. Take anxiety, for example,
which is the body’s general method of dealing with something perceived as dangerous. Our brain perceives
a threat and sends signals to the rest of the body—pumping blood to the limbs, raising our heart rate,
pumping out more adrenaline, etc. The brain also begins to sift through possible solutions to the threat—
run, fight, submit, etc.—and we act accordingly.
Once the threat is gone, another set of responses begins in the brain, returning us to a normal heart rate
and chemical levels and so forth. Our brain stops sifting through the possible solutions to the no-longer-
existent threat and moves on to other topics.
Your genes related to anxiety are the coding that influences your unique responses to stimuli that your
central nervous system identifies as dangerous. Some people have genetic coding that increase their
sensitivity to possible danger, or that make it more difficult for their body to return to normal heart and
chemical levels, or that make it more difficult to perceive the environmental safety signals that inform them
that the danger has passed. In addition, this coding can be such that generalized anxiety as a personality
trait will be triggered by relatively slight childhood trauma, or the coding may require significant trauma in
order for the same generalized anxiety to manifest. This explains why different people respond differently to
the same environment—they have different genetic coding being acted upon by their early childhood
experience.
Human nature is a complicated stew. While a vast array of our behaviors are genetically driven, many
others are not. There is a complex interplay between cultural and biological evolution that shape our nature.
In addition, some behaviors become wired into us (or conditioned) after birth in response to our
psychological interpretation of events. Examples include dramatic aversion to certain smells associated with
unpleasant experiences or unconscious reactions to stimuli rooted in trauma. (Post-traumatic stress
disorder is an example of the latter; some people exposed to the trauma of battle will develop deeply rooted
habitual reactions to loud, sudden noises.) These are conditioned reactions, but they are not instincts
because they are not inheritable.
However, it is our genetic coding which shapes our brain and allows for all these different elements of
human nature to take shape.
Take any one of a variety of behaviors—aggression, possessiveness, attention-seeking, etc.—and there
is specific genetic coding that sets parameters for the way one will react to the circumstances of one’s
environment. One person will emerge from a violent environment with a predilection for violence while
another will emerge abhorring violence. It’s all dependent on the genetic predispositions and how they are
influenced by the environment.
However, the genome is not static—it evolves over time through the process of biological evolution.
Specific instincts will come and go in response to environmental demands. In order for an instinct to
continue to be passed from generation to generation, it must accomplish one of two things: increase the
individual organism’s chance of survival or increase its ability to pass on its genes, either through
successful reproduction or increasing its ability to nurture the development of the next generation of gene
carriers. Darwin’s fundamental insight was that evolution happens through random mutation and natural
selection. If a specific mutation helps its carrier survive and thrive in its environment, the carrier has a
greater chance of finding a mate and producing a higher number of offspring that carry the same gene.(4)
The instinctive behaviors included in three “instinct categories” of the Enneagram literature enable survival
and reproduction, though there is great crossover and multi-tasking going on within each category. That is,
instincts traditionally thought of as “social” or “sexual” also have a great influence on self-preservation, etc.
Before we go into exactly how they do that, it helps to know something else about evolution: it often works
elliptically rather than either broadly or specifically.
Here’s an example:
We do not have an instinctive drive to “eat.” Such a drive would be too general and we would end up trying
to eat tree bark, dirt, tin cans, and who-knows-what else. We would not be able to discriminate what is
healthy from what is unhealthy and our lives would be dramatically shortened.
Nor do we have an instinctive drive to “eat oranges.” That would be too specific. We would starve when our
environment was depleted of oranges and we would not know to eat other types of fruit. Our environment
changes much faster than our genome and any instinct that was too specific would reduce our chances of
survival rather than improve them.
Instead, our ancestors on the plains of Africa who survived and thrived—and thus passed on their genes
to us—where those who had instinctive drives that said “crave sweets” (since fruit is high in necessary
vitamins), “crave fats” (which tend to be high in protein), “don’t eat things that smell bad” (which is indicates
harmful bacteria), etc.(5)
The individual instincts contained within the three Enneagram instinct categories are similarly elliptical.
They have their root in specific sensitivities that are genetically determined and they manifest as
unconscious, habitual behaviors. In short, they are biases that nudge us toward behaving in ways that
satisfy specific survival or reproductive needs.
Let’s take a look at each category to see how this works.
The Self-Preservation Instinctive Bias (Nesting and Self-Nurturing)
All instincts, in some way, serve the interest of self-preservation, and this category is really a cluster of
elliptical instinctive behaviors that resulted in sensitivity regarding matters of nesting and self-nurturing. It is
not an instinctive drive to “self-preserve.” If “self-preservation” where the order, people of this instinctive
bias would not binge eat, consume junk food, smoke, or do any physical activities that could lead to harm.
Put another way, people in this category are especially sensitive to stimuli relating to safety, nesting, and
self-nurturing. This sensitivity comes from the biological structure of their brain and central nervous system.
This biological structure is shaped by their physical and mental experience interacting with the expression of
their genes. A focus on safety, nesting, and nurturing are elliptical servants in the greater cause of self-
preservation. These matters take up more of their mental energy and they are more likely to execute
instinctive, automatic behaviors that serve these needs. It is not that they have instincts that others don’t; it
is that they are more sensitive in these matters and more likely to demonstrate the instinct.
For example, I have a Social instinctive bias. As I write this I am sitting in a Starbucks and there is an air
vent blowing on me. I have been sitting here for over two hours and just noticed that I am cold. My wife, who
has a self-preservation bias, would have noticed the draft the moment she sat down, not because she is
cognitively focused on it or psychologically compelled to stay warm, but because she has biological
sensitivities that push her to pay particular attention to and address temperature regulation.
For those who think that these drives are consciously cognitive, ask yourself this: Do I think about
shivering, or does it just happen? Do I will my teeth to chatter? Do I consciously cross my arms and rub my
shoulders when chilled, or do I just do it? Natural selection has designed us to address our instinctive needs
by mechanisms in our brain, sometimes referred to as “modules,” that function below the level of
consciousness. As our initial mechanisms prove unsatisfactory, the need is pushed up the ladder of
cognitive awareness. For example, the rub of the shoulders is more conscious than the chattering of our
teeth, but not as conscious as getting up to adjust the thermostat. It is the movement up and down this
“ladder of cognitive awareness”—mixed with our patterns of applying the strategies we discussed in the last
month’s article—that provides us with the opportunity to “work” with our instinctual biases.
Those with a self-preservation bias (SPs) tend to be, like Goldilocks in the children’s story, sensitive to
physical comfort and compulsively seeking chairs, beds, clothing, temperatures, etc. that are “just right.”
They are also highly sensitive to potential illness or threats to their health. They constantly monitor their well-
being, noticing aches and pains, oncoming colds or stomach aches, and so on. This sensitivity allows them
to head off threats to their health.
SPs are generally focused on their “nest.” They want things in their home to be ordered specifically:
comfortable, safe, and well-supplied. Those supplies can also include “enough” money in the bank;
comforting, home-related hobbies; and memorabilia or knick-knacks with calming, sentimental associations.
Notice, that these sensitivities or focuses of attention don’t directly “cause” self-preservation; they inspire
automatic behaviors that, by acting elliptically, ensure our preservation. In a sense, stocking our nest and
nurturing our physical well-being are universal behaviors that lead to increased chances of survival.
Contradictions
We see contradictory behavior in each of the instinctive biases. For example, the SPs often exhibit some
form of binging, whether it is binging on food, shopping for clothes, buying decorations for the house, etc.
These binges occur due to “modular dissonance.” “Modules” are the groupings of neurons and synapses
that link together and govern specific functions and responses to a given stimulus. Modules don’t always
coordinate with each other and sometimes create competing needs or desires. Thus our SP might have a
drive to be financially conservative competing with a drive to splurge on, say, artwork for the house or
enough blankets to survive the next ice age. Both of these superficially conflicting drives are based on
instincts that elliptically support “self-preservation”—conserving resources and “feathering the nest.”
We tend to become frustrated with ourselves over such conflicting urges because we see them as a lack of
will power or some sort of moral failing. This is the “language of the fall” that I wrote about in Part I of this
series. If we understand these conflicts for what they are—very natural modular dissonance rooted in
evolutionary drives—we stand a greater chance of resolving them and changing behavior.
The Social Instinctive Bias (Orienting to the Group)
In Enneagram circles, this instinct bias is often viewed as a desire to be part of a group, surrounded by
people, or even a drive to adapt to the group. That is only a part of the story.
Humans are social animals. Our survival depends on complex interactions with a high number of our fellow
species members. This may be due to the fact that humans have few natural defensive tools—we are not
very strong or fast compared to our traditional predators, and we do not have sharp teeth or claws with
which to defend ourselves. Being part of the pack heightened our chances of survival (it’s the lone antelope
that gets eaten by the lion).
So, yes, part of the social instinctive bias is a blind drive to move toward the group. But, our high sociability
enabled another survival advantage to our hunter-gatherer ancestors: a focus on reciprocity.
Here is an example of the value of reciprocity: When I have a good hunt and end up with more food than I
can eat, I will share it with you in the expectation that when I come home empty-handed you will share a
meal with me. But I must have mechanisms to ensure reciprocity, some guarantee that you will hold up your
end of the bargain. I do this by keeping track of who acts reciprocally and who doesn’t. If I feed you today
but you neglect to share with me later, you get crossed off my list of worthy recipients of my future largesse.
Further, I am going to let the rest of the group know that you are a not to be trusted and I will compare notes
with them on who else I should avoid.
The larger the group is, the more complex the reciprocity-monitoring mechanisms must be. In a group of
100 to 150 (the size of a typical hunter-gatherer tribe) I must constantly take stock of others’
trustworthiness, build mutually beneficial relationships, and establish my own reputation as a worthy addition
to the tribe who will gladly repay you on Tuesday if you share your bounty with me today.
People with a Social instinctive bias have a heightened sensitivity to stimuli associated with social
relationship, causing these stimuli to take up more of their mental energy and resulting in increased
instinctive behavior in this area.
Socials like to be around people because: they like gossip (the information by which we know who is safe
to trust), they like to observe people so they can continue to improve their understanding of human nature,
they desire to ensure that the group’s mores and standards are followed, they strive to manage the group’s
perception of them (i.e., their reputation and status), etc.
Modular dissonance also leads to seemingly contradictory behavior, who are often alternately sociable and
private, introverted in some situations and extroverted in others. This in part relates to the image
management element of the category. If one of my goals is to manage my reputation by influencing your
perception of me, I will only show you what I want you to see, exposing myself in some ways and holding
back in others.
Once again, the so-called “social instinct” is not a specific drive to be part of the group or to adapt to the
group. It is a plethora of instincts that increase our chances of survival by improving our ability to remain an
accepted member of the group and monitor the behavior of others in the group so we will know who to trust
and improve our chances of being trusted by others. This trust ultimately ensures safety and, thus, survival.
The Sexual Instinctive Bias (Attracting and Mating)
Sometimes referred to as a “one-to-one” instinct, this category is easily misunderstood. To understand it
better, we must bear in mind the elliptical nature of evolution. This category is not simply an instinctive drive
toward one-to-one relationships, it is a cluster of interrelated instinctive behaviors that serve the purpose of
attracting attention to ourselves and improving our chances of mating (in the sense of “pairing” rather than
necessarily “reproducing”).
The “attracting-attention” element actually serves two purposes: it not only improves your chances of
having sex, it helps you survive. For example, the child who draws attention to itself (by being charming,
flamboyant, self-assertive, etc.) gets more attention from parents and others. More attention increase
survival rates. (A perfect example of the survival benefits of the sexual instinctive bias is Scarlett O’Hara in
“Gone with the Wind.” She was gifted at getting people to pay attention to her and then charming them so
she could bend them to her will when she needed to.)
The “mating” element provides other survival benefits. Pairing with a significant other in adulthood gives us
someone to care for us when we are ill, boost our spirits when we are down, share the burdens of daily
existence, etc.
The “display” element of the Sexual subtype is often overlooked in the literature, but people with this
subtype have a drive to make people notice them. They may accomplish this by dressing for attention,
acting seductively, being extroverted, spending more time on their appearance than others, become
performers of some sort, etc.
Yes, Sexuals often seek intense relationships, but on an instinctive level the relationship is not for its own
sake, it is to improve chances of sexual reproduction or survival by pair bonding.
One of the significant contradictions sometimes seen in Sexuals is promiscuity, serial relationship, or extra-
relationship flirtation. One module pushes to bond, while another pushes to seek fresh stimulation. Thus,
Sexuals often feel conflicted in relationships—much in love but feeling like there must be something more.
People with this instinctive bias also inadvertently send what appear to be mixed messages to others:
certain (often unconscious) behaviors say “come hither” while the rational mind says “I’m not actually
interested.”
Stringing the Notes Together
We get into trouble in the area of our instincts when we act upon them blindly in ineffective ways. While
these drives exert a great influence on us, we need not be slaves to them. We become slaves when we
follow them unconsciously and without awareness of what short-term and ultimate purposes they serve. By
reflecting on the methods we employ to satisfy natural instinctive drives and the survival needs that they
satisfy, we can modify our behavior in appropriate ways.
Understanding what is really going on with the instincts is the first step to getting free of the trap of some of
our ineffective patterns.
This article is meant as a very brief introduction into a very complicated topic: how our genes, our
environment, and evolution work together to form our instinctive biases. As explained in the first part of this
series, I believe there is more benefit in providing people with a useful set of ideas that can be combined
together in a multitude of creative ways than there is in merely providing a catalog of traits and specific
instructions. That is, teach people the notes and the fundamentals of music theory and then let them create
their own melody.
The strategies addressed in Part II are the heart of this pragmatic model of the Enneagram. Keeping with
Pareto’s principle, they are the 20% that provides the 80% pay-off. They are the most important notes to
learn when looking to play the growth and development tune. The instincts come second—they profoundly
influence every aspect of our lives and when they get out of whack we run into trouble. After I cover the final
pieces of this model—the accelerators and the basic qualities—in upcoming articles, I will address how
these pieces can be put together in useful ways.
(Parts I and II of this article can be found at www.mariosikora.com. A pdf file of any of these articles can be
obtained by sending an email to info@mariosikora.com and the author can be contacted at
mario@mariosikora.com.)
Footnotes:
(1)There are two reasons for this: First, the instincts are, by definition, beneath the level of conscious
awareness and thus difficult to see in a brief workshop. Second, the “sexual” subtype takes us into topics
that put us onto the fast-track to lawsuit land in the corporate world.
(2)Ridley’s book, published in paperback as “The Agile Gene,” is a great introduction to the relationship
between genes, nature, and nurture.
(3) It is not that simple and, to my knowledge, there is no “tall gene.” In fact, there are relatively few specific
individual genes that determine any specific thing. Genes work in combinations and are influenced by other
elements of the genome such as activators and transcriptors (don’t ask) that lead to the manifesting of our
biology. I’ll ask the reader to bear with my oversimplifications for the sake of this article.
(4)Biological evolution is not “conscious,” “intelligent,” or even necessarily “progressive.” It is not inherently
on a path toward something greater or more advanced. It adapts to the changing demands of the organism’
s environment, for better or worse. It is blind, messy, and haphazard, but ultimately it is logical. “Random
mutation” refers to the accidental changes that happen to the genome every time an organism reproduces.
For example, when my oldest son was born, the nurse in the delivery room said to me, “He looks like you,
but in a good way.” She was exactly correct—he does look like me and a bit like his mother, but different.
Most children look like their parents, but different. This is the result of mixing genes and inexact
reproduction, i.e., random mutation. While mutation may be random, natural selection is not mere luck.
Some such mutations confer a survival advantage and are thus “selected” by nature. The survival
advantage makes the carrier more desirable to potential mates and better suited to its environment,
meaning that the carrier will have a statistically greater chance to reproduce and pass the gene along to a
greater number of offspring. This increases the mutation’s chance of being found in the species’ genome in
the future.
(5)Unfortunately, biological evolution lags behind cultural and technological evolution. The same instinctive
drives that helped our ancestors survive during a time of scarcity leads to health-damaging overindulgence
in our times of plenty.