The Subtypes at Work, Part One
By Mario Sikora
(Copyright 2005/Mario Sikora. All rights Reserved. This article originally appeared in the October 2005 issue of "The
Enneagram Monthly.")
“We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish
molecules known as genes. This is a truth which fills me with
astonishment.”
Richard Dawkins, “The Selfish Gene”
Sandy had just been through an extensive workshop on the subtypes.
“So what did you learn?” I asked.
“I learned that if you preferred to eat alone in a restaurant you are a self-preservation
subtype; if you liked to eat with a large group, you are a social; and if you preferred to eat
with one or two close friends you are a ‘one-to-one’ subtype.”
“Oh, …” was the best I could do for a response.
Despite the growing amount of literature published on the instinctual subtypes, there
seems to be a surprising lack of clarity about the topic in some Enneagram circles. This
article is an attempt to clearly explain the subtypes and show the practical value of
understanding them, especially as it applies to our working relationships. The article will
appear in two parts. This first part explains the subtypes and how we can identify our
subtype those of others. Part One will also look at the predictable patterns of the “stacking”
of our subtypes (which is instinct is primary, which is secondary, etc.) and the relationship
between subtypes, the types, and the “wings.” The second part of the article will appear
next month and address how the subtypes affect our work lives—our subtype related
strengths and weaknesses, and how the subtypes affect our performance effectiveness and
our interpersonal relationships.
Think back to the last animal documentary you watched on the Nature Channel or PBS.
Chances are, whether the subject was a mollusk or a monkey, a penguin or a peacock, the
documentary covered three fundamental areas: the animal’s nesting habits, its cultural
patterns (i.e., how it formed consistent and ongoing groupings), and its mating habits. If it
was a comprehensive program, it followed that pattern because that pretty much completes
all there is to know about any given animal.
Humans are no different: beyond the way we nest, group, and mate there is not much that
we concern ourselves with (as long as we consider nesting to include self-nourishment).
These are the three things we must do in order to survive and possibly pass along our
genes, and almost every action we take can be traced back to an attempt to satisfy one of
these three fundamental drives. The way we prioritize needs forms the core of our individual
value systems and the constellation of behaviors we use to satisfy our values. That is, our
hardwired, unconscious focus on a particular set of survival needs influences the things that
are important to us, the things we think about, and the things we do to get what we need.
Enneagram Theory and the Instincts
Within the various teachings of the Enneagram of Personality, it is generally acknowledged
that there are three versions of each personality type. These versions are differentiated
into three sets of habitual (and probably hardwired) patterns of attention. The first is a focus
on matters of “self-preservation,” the second is a focus on matters of “social” interaction;
and the third is a focus on matters of, depending on the author, “intimacy,” “one-to-one” or
“sexual” connection. The different “versions” of each personality type are referred to as
“instinctual subtypes” (or “instinctual variants” by Riso and Hudson) because the behaviors
related to each focus are thought to be “instinctual.”
Generally, the subtypes can be defined as follows: The “self-preservation” subtype is
focused on matters of survival, comfort, health, security, and the accumulation of resources;
the “social” subtype is focused on relationships to and interactions among the group; the
sexual subtype is focused on matters of intimacy and bonding with significant others (or, as
some would have it, significant possessions, hobbies, or activities).
For some reason, one of these instinctual drives is dominant in us and our needs and
values tend to constellate around it. People who share a particular personality type will
show distinct differences based on their subtype. For example, a Social Three will be much
more status and image conscious than a Self-Pres Three, who will be more overtly focused
on production than image.
Understanding one’s subtype helps in two fundamental ways:
1) It aids in self-awareness because it helps point to patterns of habitual behavior that can
be problematic, and
2) Understanding the subtypes can help with typing. For example, understanding the
subtypes will make it less likely that a Sexual Six is mistyped as an Eight or a Self-
Preservation Four is mistyped as a Three.
Okay, this sounds simple enough—why do we need another article on the subtypes?
Over the past year or so I have spent more time than previously with other Enneagram
aficionados and I keep running into people who have studied the subtypes extensively but
have either misidentified their own subtype or misidentified the subtypes of their students.
This confusion is most often related to the sexual subtype—half the people I meet think they
are a sexual subtype, and about half of them are wrong.
This confusion seems to stem from a lack of clarity around the terminology used to explain
the subtypes and an understanding of how they relate to personality type. Confusion
between the self-preservation subtype and the sexual subtype, oddly enough, seems to be
the biggest source of confusion. Perhaps this article will make the distinctions a little clearer.
In some circles, there is debate over whether the appropriate term is “instinctual subtype”
or “instinctual variant.” There are valid arguments on both sides of this topic, none of which
seem to have much relevance beyond semantic preference. I frequently use “subtypes,”
“variations,” “versions,” and other words depending on mood, context, and simple whimsy
when I teach this topic to my clients, and it has not clouded the learning.
There is common agreement on the term “self-preservation” for the first subtype and it
seems to be pretty accurate. In a sense, the purpose of all of our genetically based instincts
is preservation of the gene, and this instinct is focused on fundamental survival and well-
being of the host—that is, the individual. Fundamentally, this instinct relates to nesting and
self-maintenance. It is also about conservation; conservation of the self, conservation of
one’s energy, and conservation of resources.
Therefore, one who is a self-preservation subtype will talk about food, their health, financial
security (though not necessarily about vast accumulation of wealth, despite what some have
written), and their immediate physical comfort. They will nest—preferring to be home in the
well-defined and established comfort of their private domain than to be in a place where
they can’t control their environment. This subtype tends to be the most introverted of the
three because their focus automatically goes to their own well-being (i.e., inward) rather
than to what others are doing.
Home and family are critically important the self-preservations and they like to be
surrounded by their relatives and comforting possessions. They often have a persnickety
attitude toward food, textures, and the creature comforts, and they are often highly attuned
to matters of health. Regarding money, they want enough to ensure comfort, but are rarely
willing to take the risks associated with accumulating great wealth.
There is also common agreement on the term “social” for the next instinct, though this
instinct is often misunderstood. This instinct is not about gregariousness, it is a drive to
orient oneself toward the group; i.e., it helps one answer the questions, “Where and how do
I fit into my society?” and “How do I compare to others?” It is often taught that someone who
is a social subtype likes to be around and interact with large groups of people, but this is
only partially true. A social subtype wants to know where they fit in the hierarchy of the
group, and in order to know this they have to keep tabs on what the group is up to, which
requires contact and observation. A social subtype likes the idea of people and often wants
to be around them, but doesn’t necessarily want to interact with them.
Like the first, this instinct aids in survival of the individual in a number of ways. First, it is the
lone antelope that gets eaten by the lion, and being part of a group has many safety
advantages. Second, we learn from the group—we learn where the food and water are and
we learn techniques for survival. Social bonding also ensures that we will be supported by
the group when it is needed, such as in times of sickness, old age, or calamity.
A distinct and observable pattern of the social subtype is comparison and contrasting of
themselves with others. This persistent question of “how do I stack up?” is critical for self-
orientation. Social subtypes talk about people—what other people do, who they do it with,
and why they do what they do. In a sense, the social subtype is the most judgmental of the
subtypes in that they have strong opinions about the ways that others should behave in
relationship to the group, and they are generally the most concerned with or dogmatic
about “social issues”: politics, activism, etc.
In terms of language and terminology, the “sexual” subtype can be problematic. Americans,
in particular, have a contradictory relationship with sexuality, swaying between puritanical
repression and overt sexuality, often in the same person. Many are uncomfortable talking
about sex and sexuality, but everyone wants to be perceived as sexy.
Discussion of sex is even more problematic for those of us who use the Enneagram in
organizations. Discussing sex is inappropriate in the business world and consultants are
wise to avoid the topic if they are teaching the Enneagram to a business group.
Some who teach the subtypes try to get around this discomfort by labeling this subtype as
the “intimacy” or “one-to-one” subtype, and this is where the problem begins (though I use
the word “intimacy” in training programs). This instinct is not about platonic bonding with
another; this instinct is about attracting and mating with another.
If we think back to our nature documentary, the peacock was not displaying his feathers so
he could bond platonically with another peacock or so he could be deeply absorbed in his
preferred hobby (as some Enneagram teachers would have it)—he was trying to attract and
seduce a peahen so he could have sex with her. This is what a human who is a sexual
subtype is instinctively focused on: attracting and seducing a potential sexual partner.
(Unfortunately, the indelicacy of that sentence makes it no less true.)
Behaviors consistently seen in this subtype are typical “alpha” male or female behaviors
and tend to revolve around personal display and control of the resources evolutionarily
attractive to the opposite sex. They focus more on their looks and appearance than the
other subtypes, they wear more jewelry, and, generally, they talk about sex more than the
other subtypes. They are typically more extroverted and charming than the other subtypes,
qualities consistent with their habitual focus on getting the attention of a potential mate.
Beyond the physical appearance and charm of the subtype, there is a tendency to attract
attention to by talking about themselves, boasting of their accomplishments or simply
turning the conversation back to themselves in an attempt to be noticed. (In addition to
spreading his wings, the peacock lets out a loud call to turn the peahen’s attention his way.)
Tell-Tale Behaviors
The things we focus on and the things we talk about betray our subtype. When we are not
consciously thinking about something specific, we are probably thinking about the needs
stemming from our dominant instinct.
Therefore, someone with a self-preservation subtype will talk about their homes, their
health, and their physical and financial security. They will constantly monitor their
environment and focus on shaping it in ways that will increase their physical comfort.
The social subtype will talk about other people—who is doing what with whom and why.
They will compare and contrast people, passing judgment on others behaviors and choices.
The sexual subtype will talk about themselves—their accomplishments, their relationships,
and their activities; they will also talk about sex. They will draw attention to themselves
through their appearance, their charm, and their possessions.
Type and Subtype
So what is the relationship between personality type and instinctual subtype?
Merriam-Webster defines “personality” as “the totality of an individual's behavioral and
emotional characteristics.” (I would add something about cognitive patterns to this
definition.) There are many interpretations and opinions on what is at the root of personality
as delineated by Enneagram theory—holy ideas, vices, fixations, original wounds, etc. In
our book, “From Awareness to Action: The Enneagram, Emotional Intelligence and
Change,” Bob Tallon and I lay out the “Enneagram of Strategies.” We propose that the
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral characteristics that comprise a particular Ennea-type
are rooted in a preferred strategy for interacting with the world, or what each type is
“striving to be” (see Table One).
Table One: The Enneagram of Strategies (Copyright 2003 Mario Sikora and Robert
Tallon)
By Mario Sikora
(Copyright 2005/Mario Sikora. All rights Reserved. This article originally appeared in the October 2005 issue of "The
Enneagram Monthly.")
“We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish
molecules known as genes. This is a truth which fills me with
astonishment.”
Richard Dawkins, “The Selfish Gene”
Sandy had just been through an extensive workshop on the subtypes.
“So what did you learn?” I asked.
“I learned that if you preferred to eat alone in a restaurant you are a self-preservation
subtype; if you liked to eat with a large group, you are a social; and if you preferred to eat
with one or two close friends you are a ‘one-to-one’ subtype.”
“Oh, …” was the best I could do for a response.
Despite the growing amount of literature published on the instinctual subtypes, there
seems to be a surprising lack of clarity about the topic in some Enneagram circles. This
article is an attempt to clearly explain the subtypes and show the practical value of
understanding them, especially as it applies to our working relationships. The article will
appear in two parts. This first part explains the subtypes and how we can identify our
subtype those of others. Part One will also look at the predictable patterns of the “stacking”
of our subtypes (which is instinct is primary, which is secondary, etc.) and the relationship
between subtypes, the types, and the “wings.” The second part of the article will appear
next month and address how the subtypes affect our work lives—our subtype related
strengths and weaknesses, and how the subtypes affect our performance effectiveness and
our interpersonal relationships.
Think back to the last animal documentary you watched on the Nature Channel or PBS.
Chances are, whether the subject was a mollusk or a monkey, a penguin or a peacock, the
documentary covered three fundamental areas: the animal’s nesting habits, its cultural
patterns (i.e., how it formed consistent and ongoing groupings), and its mating habits. If it
was a comprehensive program, it followed that pattern because that pretty much completes
all there is to know about any given animal.
Humans are no different: beyond the way we nest, group, and mate there is not much that
we concern ourselves with (as long as we consider nesting to include self-nourishment).
These are the three things we must do in order to survive and possibly pass along our
genes, and almost every action we take can be traced back to an attempt to satisfy one of
these three fundamental drives. The way we prioritize needs forms the core of our individual
value systems and the constellation of behaviors we use to satisfy our values. That is, our
hardwired, unconscious focus on a particular set of survival needs influences the things that
are important to us, the things we think about, and the things we do to get what we need.
Enneagram Theory and the Instincts
Within the various teachings of the Enneagram of Personality, it is generally acknowledged
that there are three versions of each personality type. These versions are differentiated
into three sets of habitual (and probably hardwired) patterns of attention. The first is a focus
on matters of “self-preservation,” the second is a focus on matters of “social” interaction;
and the third is a focus on matters of, depending on the author, “intimacy,” “one-to-one” or
“sexual” connection. The different “versions” of each personality type are referred to as
“instinctual subtypes” (or “instinctual variants” by Riso and Hudson) because the behaviors
related to each focus are thought to be “instinctual.”
Generally, the subtypes can be defined as follows: The “self-preservation” subtype is
focused on matters of survival, comfort, health, security, and the accumulation of resources;
the “social” subtype is focused on relationships to and interactions among the group; the
sexual subtype is focused on matters of intimacy and bonding with significant others (or, as
some would have it, significant possessions, hobbies, or activities).
For some reason, one of these instinctual drives is dominant in us and our needs and
values tend to constellate around it. People who share a particular personality type will
show distinct differences based on their subtype. For example, a Social Three will be much
more status and image conscious than a Self-Pres Three, who will be more overtly focused
on production than image.
Understanding one’s subtype helps in two fundamental ways:
1) It aids in self-awareness because it helps point to patterns of habitual behavior that can
be problematic, and
2) Understanding the subtypes can help with typing. For example, understanding the
subtypes will make it less likely that a Sexual Six is mistyped as an Eight or a Self-
Preservation Four is mistyped as a Three.
Okay, this sounds simple enough—why do we need another article on the subtypes?
Over the past year or so I have spent more time than previously with other Enneagram
aficionados and I keep running into people who have studied the subtypes extensively but
have either misidentified their own subtype or misidentified the subtypes of their students.
This confusion is most often related to the sexual subtype—half the people I meet think they
are a sexual subtype, and about half of them are wrong.
This confusion seems to stem from a lack of clarity around the terminology used to explain
the subtypes and an understanding of how they relate to personality type. Confusion
between the self-preservation subtype and the sexual subtype, oddly enough, seems to be
the biggest source of confusion. Perhaps this article will make the distinctions a little clearer.
In some circles, there is debate over whether the appropriate term is “instinctual subtype”
or “instinctual variant.” There are valid arguments on both sides of this topic, none of which
seem to have much relevance beyond semantic preference. I frequently use “subtypes,”
“variations,” “versions,” and other words depending on mood, context, and simple whimsy
when I teach this topic to my clients, and it has not clouded the learning.
There is common agreement on the term “self-preservation” for the first subtype and it
seems to be pretty accurate. In a sense, the purpose of all of our genetically based instincts
is preservation of the gene, and this instinct is focused on fundamental survival and well-
being of the host—that is, the individual. Fundamentally, this instinct relates to nesting and
self-maintenance. It is also about conservation; conservation of the self, conservation of
one’s energy, and conservation of resources.
Therefore, one who is a self-preservation subtype will talk about food, their health, financial
security (though not necessarily about vast accumulation of wealth, despite what some have
written), and their immediate physical comfort. They will nest—preferring to be home in the
well-defined and established comfort of their private domain than to be in a place where
they can’t control their environment. This subtype tends to be the most introverted of the
three because their focus automatically goes to their own well-being (i.e., inward) rather
than to what others are doing.
Home and family are critically important the self-preservations and they like to be
surrounded by their relatives and comforting possessions. They often have a persnickety
attitude toward food, textures, and the creature comforts, and they are often highly attuned
to matters of health. Regarding money, they want enough to ensure comfort, but are rarely
willing to take the risks associated with accumulating great wealth.
There is also common agreement on the term “social” for the next instinct, though this
instinct is often misunderstood. This instinct is not about gregariousness, it is a drive to
orient oneself toward the group; i.e., it helps one answer the questions, “Where and how do
I fit into my society?” and “How do I compare to others?” It is often taught that someone who
is a social subtype likes to be around and interact with large groups of people, but this is
only partially true. A social subtype wants to know where they fit in the hierarchy of the
group, and in order to know this they have to keep tabs on what the group is up to, which
requires contact and observation. A social subtype likes the idea of people and often wants
to be around them, but doesn’t necessarily want to interact with them.
Like the first, this instinct aids in survival of the individual in a number of ways. First, it is the
lone antelope that gets eaten by the lion, and being part of a group has many safety
advantages. Second, we learn from the group—we learn where the food and water are and
we learn techniques for survival. Social bonding also ensures that we will be supported by
the group when it is needed, such as in times of sickness, old age, or calamity.
A distinct and observable pattern of the social subtype is comparison and contrasting of
themselves with others. This persistent question of “how do I stack up?” is critical for self-
orientation. Social subtypes talk about people—what other people do, who they do it with,
and why they do what they do. In a sense, the social subtype is the most judgmental of the
subtypes in that they have strong opinions about the ways that others should behave in
relationship to the group, and they are generally the most concerned with or dogmatic
about “social issues”: politics, activism, etc.
In terms of language and terminology, the “sexual” subtype can be problematic. Americans,
in particular, have a contradictory relationship with sexuality, swaying between puritanical
repression and overt sexuality, often in the same person. Many are uncomfortable talking
about sex and sexuality, but everyone wants to be perceived as sexy.
Discussion of sex is even more problematic for those of us who use the Enneagram in
organizations. Discussing sex is inappropriate in the business world and consultants are
wise to avoid the topic if they are teaching the Enneagram to a business group.
Some who teach the subtypes try to get around this discomfort by labeling this subtype as
the “intimacy” or “one-to-one” subtype, and this is where the problem begins (though I use
the word “intimacy” in training programs). This instinct is not about platonic bonding with
another; this instinct is about attracting and mating with another.
If we think back to our nature documentary, the peacock was not displaying his feathers so
he could bond platonically with another peacock or so he could be deeply absorbed in his
preferred hobby (as some Enneagram teachers would have it)—he was trying to attract and
seduce a peahen so he could have sex with her. This is what a human who is a sexual
subtype is instinctively focused on: attracting and seducing a potential sexual partner.
(Unfortunately, the indelicacy of that sentence makes it no less true.)
Behaviors consistently seen in this subtype are typical “alpha” male or female behaviors
and tend to revolve around personal display and control of the resources evolutionarily
attractive to the opposite sex. They focus more on their looks and appearance than the
other subtypes, they wear more jewelry, and, generally, they talk about sex more than the
other subtypes. They are typically more extroverted and charming than the other subtypes,
qualities consistent with their habitual focus on getting the attention of a potential mate.
Beyond the physical appearance and charm of the subtype, there is a tendency to attract
attention to by talking about themselves, boasting of their accomplishments or simply
turning the conversation back to themselves in an attempt to be noticed. (In addition to
spreading his wings, the peacock lets out a loud call to turn the peahen’s attention his way.)
Tell-Tale Behaviors
The things we focus on and the things we talk about betray our subtype. When we are not
consciously thinking about something specific, we are probably thinking about the needs
stemming from our dominant instinct.
Therefore, someone with a self-preservation subtype will talk about their homes, their
health, and their physical and financial security. They will constantly monitor their
environment and focus on shaping it in ways that will increase their physical comfort.
The social subtype will talk about other people—who is doing what with whom and why.
They will compare and contrast people, passing judgment on others behaviors and choices.
The sexual subtype will talk about themselves—their accomplishments, their relationships,
and their activities; they will also talk about sex. They will draw attention to themselves
through their appearance, their charm, and their possessions.
Type and Subtype
So what is the relationship between personality type and instinctual subtype?
Merriam-Webster defines “personality” as “the totality of an individual's behavioral and
emotional characteristics.” (I would add something about cognitive patterns to this
definition.) There are many interpretations and opinions on what is at the root of personality
as delineated by Enneagram theory—holy ideas, vices, fixations, original wounds, etc. In
our book, “From Awareness to Action: The Enneagram, Emotional Intelligence and
Change,” Bob Tallon and I lay out the “Enneagram of Strategies.” We propose that the
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral characteristics that comprise a particular Ennea-type
are rooted in a preferred strategy for interacting with the world, or what each type is
“striving to be” (see Table One).
Table One: The Enneagram of Strategies (Copyright 2003 Mario Sikora and Robert
Tallon)
|
For example, the characteristics found in Type Two are rooted in “striving to be connected” and all
of their intra- and interpersonal characteristics are in some way related to this preferred strategy for
being in the world. In short, our personality type is a collection of tactics consistent with a strategy
for how we go about getting our needs met.
Our “instinctual subtype,” on the other hand, identifies which of these three instinctive drives is
dominant in us. This instinctive drive is the root of our fundamental needs and values; it is the “goal”
you are trying to achieve. If you are a self-preservation subtype, for example, your “goals”—the
fundamental needs and the things you deem important—will be related to nesting and nurturing.
Therefore, our instincts determine what we want; our strategy is the “theme” of how we go about
getting what we want; and our “personality type” is a classification of the habitual cognitive,
behavioral and emotional tactics we rely on to carry out our preferred strategy.
(Of course, this raises a question: Should we actually be calling the instinctual subtype our “type”
and our Ennea-type our “subtype?”)
Let’s look at how this interaction plays out with Ennea-type Eight.
Ennea-type Eight primarily relies on the strategy of “striving to be powerful” as their means of
interacting with their world. “Power” is the capacity to act or produce an effect. Eights accumulate
this capacity and put it to use at almost any opportunity. There is an element of dominance and
control to this strategy, and Eights implicitly or explicitly dominate and control their worlds, especially
those parts of their world related to their dominant instinctive drive.
The Self-Preservation Eight uses the strategy of “striving to be powerful” to meet his nesting and
nurturing needs. They aggressively protect their “turf” and can become combative when people
mess with their possessions. They are very focused on family and take pride in providing for those
close to them. They place very high expectations of loyalty on friends and coworkers and are
particularly unforgiving of betrayal. They work hard and accumulate resources, but like all self-
preservations they are generally conservative regarding the accumulation (and expenditure) or
resources. They save rather than gamble, and are generally content with knowing that they have
enough of what they need. Of course, Eights being Eights, “enough” is probably more than it would
be for most of the other types.
The Social Eight uses “striving to be powerful” to orient themselves to the group. They are the
classic leaders of the Enneagram; they orient themselves to the group by dominating it. This
dominance, again, can be either implicit or explicit. A Social Eight will allow someone else to lead the
group, as long as she feels that the leader is competent. Even when she is not the official leader,
however, the Social Eight will see herself as the de facto leader. As soon as weakness or
incompetence is observed, the Social Eight will step in and take over—she simply can’t help herself.
If dominance of the group is not possible and competence is not being demonstrated by the official
leader, the Social Eight will leave and form her own group. Social Eights also compare and contrast
themselves to others in terms of power; habitually identifying ways in which they can (even if only to
themselves) demonstrate dominance over others by being stronger, smarter, better connected,
more determined, etc., than those they have to interact with.
Sexual Eights are the alpha males and females of the Enneagram. They are the most forceful
presence in any room and demand that all eyes be turned to them. They are louder and more self-
assertive than others, demonstrating their virility or desirability at any opportunity. They
aggressively accumulate and control resources, but in a very different way than the SP Eight. They
control resources not so they will be secure for a rainy day, but so that the desired other will notice
and desire them in return. As Tony Montana says in the movie “Scarface”: “In America, Manny, first
you get the money. When you get the money, you get the power. When you get the power, you get
the girl.”
As an example of the confusion between the self-preservation and sexual subtypes in general, it is
often taught that Donald Trump is a Self-Preservation Eight because he is “so focused on money.”
He is not—he is a Sexual Eight. Each time he plasters “Trump” on the top of a building, gets in front
of a TV camera, or “writes” another book he is spreading his feathers for all of the peahens to see.
Dominant and Secondary Instincts
We possess all three instincts to a greater or lesser degree, and our innate prioritization of them
can be viewed as a stack. One instinct is dominant, and it is the area where we most often habitually
place our attention. This area seems to be the source of our greatest gifts; since we place so much
energy there we get good at the skills required for success in that area. Self-preservation subtypes
tend to be knowledgeable or skilled around food, managing money, decorating their homes, etc.
Social subtypes understand people and group dynamics, feeling comfortable and at ease with
different types of people. Sexual subtypes are usually charming, attractive, and assertive and often
become successful in the world.
This area of dominant focus can also be the source of our greatest dysfunction. When we feel
threatened, we tend to greatly overdo our strategy in that area—the sexual subtype becomes
promiscuous or demanding of attention, the social subtype becomes critical and controlling of the
group, the self-preservation subtype becomes fearful and obsessed with lack of resources or well-
being.
Another instinct plays a secondary role in our psyche. We spend energy on it, but to a lesser
degree than the first. Under great stress, this instinct may prove to be even more problematic than
the first because it is important to us but we don’t spend enough time on it to become skillful. Thus,
a secondary sexual instinct will cause insecurity over attractiveness and desirability mixed with a
desire to prove it; the secondary social instinct causes and insecurity about role and interpersonal
acceptability mixed with a desire to gain it; and the secondary self-preservation instinct will cause
insecurity about resources and health mixed with the desire to achieve them.
The third instinct seems to be an area of little concern. There tends to be minimal attention to and a
lack of problematic insecurity in this area. We must be careful that our lack of attention to this does
not cause an oversight that can affect our daily lives, however. If your tertiary instinct is for self-
preservation, you must be careful to take care of you health and save for a rainy day; if it’s social,
you must be careful to develop effective interpersonal skills and sensitivity; if it’s sexual, you must be
careful to groom and remain desirable to your significant other.
It seems that the “stacking” of our instincts is predictable. A primary sexual instinct will be
accompanied by a secondary self-preservation instinct, a primary social with a secondary sexual,
and a primary self-preservation with a secondary social.
The question is: Why, and how can we use this knowledge? As to why, it seems too important to be
a random evolutionary byproduct so it must serve a purpose. Perhaps it is because nature needs
some sort of predictability in its “randomness.” Perhaps it is because the secondary instinct
supports the primary instinct in a particularly adaptive way.
For example, a secondary social instinct supports a primary self-preservation instinct because
understanding group dynamics aids in the accumulation of necessary resources. A secondary self-
preservation instinct supports the sexual instinct because a healthy person is more desirable than
an unhealthy person. A secondary sexual instinct supports the social instinct because desirability
increases one’s standing within the group. Of course, these could also be post facto rationalizations
and I leave this to smarter people to figure out.
Whether or not the stack is predictable is relevant, however, because it can accelerate self-
understanding and aid in relationships.
The way it accelerates self-understanding is obvious. The way it aids in relationships will be
discussed in the second half of this article. For now, suffice it to say that we connect with others
around shared values and interests. Our instinctive drives influence our values and interests. This
predictability of stacking ensures that we will share at least one instinctive drive with everyone else.
Understanding the stacking will help us accelerate the finding of common ground with others.
The Instincts and Wings
While there does not seem to be a noticeable preponderance of any given subtype within any type
(or vice versa), there does seem to be a consistency between subtype and wing.
A caveat: I do not place a lot of value on the various wing theories and I do not teach them to my
clients. They seem to be confusing to people; I’ve heard far too many debates about who has what
wing in Enneagram circles and watched too many people struggle to decide their wing. They also
don’t seem to add information that can be used for action. They don’t seem to answer any practical
questions that can’t be answered by more critical components of the Enneagram model and the
subtypes. They add a level of complexity that may be valuable for description but can be distracting
for work on self. The Enneagram is already complex enough and the wings don’t, to my mind, add
value that outweighs the added complexity. (I can feel many readers taking umbrage with this;
please remember that it is a personal bias. If you find the wings to be of value, flap away.)
That said, there seems to be a consistency between subtype and type/wing relationship. For
example, Sexual Fives identify themselves as having a Four Wing while Social Fives identify as
themselves as having a Six Wing. Table Two identifies the Type/Wing/Subtype patterns I’ve
identified so far.
I offer this observation up to the readership of the Monthly to debate and either confirm or refute,
and to offer any observations on why these relationships may exist.
TABLE TWO: The Type/Wing/Subtype Relationships
* Indicates an area of confusion. The individual may resonate with both or neither wing, the wing
may vary depending on gender, or it may change depending on circumstances.
|
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |