More Takes on the Secondary Instinct and Self-Image: "What Kind of Person Am I?"
It took me a long time to crack the instincts - mostly in myself. I am one of those people who developed a full-on understanding of the Enneagram before fully typing myself, which, although I suppose it is ideal for the sake of thoroughness, also led to my personal development lagging behind my knowledge somewhat and led to some inconsistency in my narrative about the instincts as a writer and theorist. Along these lines, some of you who know me well may remember that, until recently, I was playing around with different instincts in my flair. The Enneagram is partly about understanding pre-established history and theory, but also being a member of the community is about taking part in a theory that is always evolving. I don't talk much about stacking in the book, and if I ever publish anything on it in book format, it will have to wait until later.
I found some experimental ideas about ranges, shifts, flows, etc., from other authors helpful, such as Jase from Typewatch or David from Enneagrammer. But otherwise, diagnosing the secondary again feels more like conscious focus and identification. I read an article a while ago that described the secondary instinct as the one we use more often as a weapon, instrument, or tool. This instinct is understood in a more limited capacity, and the person believes they're taking care of it and embodying it when really, it's somewhat limited. This leads them to be more literal and straightforward about the instinct.
It can be mistyped as the dominant somewhat easily. This is often to make excuses for the inherent weakness that the dominant actually brings. The secondary becomes a focus because the dominant involves bad things. Sometimes we don't want to look there; it is where many of our problems are. So we're more comfortable identifying with generic traits of the secondary. The overall concept here is that the identification in the secondary space is more superficial. It is taken more literally. It presents fewer issues overall because it isn't seen in its full scope. It lacks either the invisibility of the blind spot or the hypersensitivity of the dominant.
The idea is that we don't speak as much about the dominant. We don't want to talk about it, because it's actually quite dark when we analyze its neurosis within our type. On its own, its surface isn't enough to describe us, but when we look into how it operates within us along with our type, it has these deeper-seated problem areas, fears, weaknesses, and hang-ups. So it's easier to identify with the secondary.
Dominant often does include repressed problems and fears from our childhood. E.g., I had some rather mature, early sexual experiences and desires when I was very young, which is somewhat common among SX-firsts, and quite a few shameful problems as an adult, in sexuality. This is where more skeletons in the closet are. While the blind spot is something we can more easily admit we are bad at or don't care about as much, and not feel much shame about, the dominant is something we don't like to talk about in full depth. We can be blunt about it, but that's usually to cover up some sensitivities. We keep the secondary at arm's length a bit and feel like we get it, while actually seeing it in a flatter way.
- Example of SP-second self-concept:
"I'm quite a self-focused, independent person. I take care of myself, enjoy being on my own, and have firm yet fair boundaries. I don't mind putting in the effort and practical effort to get to where I need to be, and I find that I can handle most of my own needs".
SP-seconds tend to use SP as somewhat of a crutch to deal with the fact that their more relational needs in SO and SX are high-intensity and always hungry. They can become lonely people lacking intimacy because they project more independence than they truly feel. Then they run into issues when they realize that it isn't enough.
SO/SP tends toward a pragmatic kind of independence that welcomes others in mutual development. Examples: creating boundaries and foundations so that others feel taken care of and connected, using resources to build a position for themselves, or developing health and independence to further overall status and mobility. They're often quite pseudo-independent and have boundaries that are less firm than they seem, because they're always letting others know about how independent they are, and they're always open to connecting with others.
SX/SP tends toward a more provocative, reactive style of SP handling, designed to rub up against others and create attraction/repulsion. Examples: withdrawing at a time when it will make an impact, ending a relationship to focus on yourself and your health, or showing off independence in hopes of drawing others in. They may act disinterested and disaffected and then find themselves drawn to people for irrational reasons, despite themselves. They can be cut off and inaccessible at times, yet other times they can be more present than anyone expected, but in more aggressive ways.
- Example of social-second self-concept:
"I'm quite a social person. I am friendly, and I like connecting with others. I make friends and acquaintances easily and can naturally reach an understanding with most people. I enjoy being a part of my community and having a wide circle of connections."
The SO-seconds have a way of defaulting to light sociability and loose, unfussy connections as a kind of lubrication for their dominant instinct. It helps take pressure off last-instinct neglect and dominant-instinct cravings.
In some ways, SO-seconds can become subservient people, neither totally satisfied nor dissatisfied with their socialization, who have a hard time pushing others away or choosing their friends and connections, because the dominant is always deciding for them who to connect with and how. But they can also end up with many friendly acquaintances rather than deeper friendships. This can then become embarrassing for them. Deep friendships can either become too intense and neurotic in SX/SO thanks to SX, or they can become unlikely and non-existent due to SP pushing them away. So, true, deep, powerful friendships and group connections can be very hit-or-miss. But SP/SO can be very strong family and community relationship builders, and SX/SO can be very strong best friends or favorers.
SP/SO tends toward light community and sociability to build foundations and cooperative survival; they can build very friendly neighborhoods, take on leadership roles in their community, and offer support to others with ease. But they can also lack true depth and follow-through in relationships and can have trouble connecting without some structure in place. Tension can arise between simple independence and genuine social support, with little SX to add spark to relationships.
SX/SO can tend toward more intense, colorful relationship-building with the intention of screening for mates and fusions. They have a way of reaching out to others and becoming very close, almost like lovers, with even non-platonic friends and connections, very quickly, but can also cool off very quickly when full SX isn't sufficiently engaged. Can have tension between lighter social and heavier SX and forgetting the importance of SP pragmatism and organization in helping everything fall into place in the SO space.
- Example of sexual-second self-concept:
"I'm quite a sexual, intimate person. I enjoy taking physical relationships to the next level with people and quickly to get to know them more intensely, and I am not afraid of revealing all of who I am to those I am attracted to; I take risks in relationships, but I don't mind it much."
SX-seconds seem more sexual externally because their treatment of SX is one-sided and not obsessive. Often, sexual relationships, mating dances, and processes are medium to high intensity but can also have an easy-come, easy-go quality. Maybe the most likely stackings to become promiscuous in a light-hearted, free way. Sometimes can make transgressions in the sexual space, such as faux pas, without worrying about it much. They can then sabotage SX and walk away.
SO/SX tends to have a revolving-door and lazy Susan of friends-with-benefits-style sexual connections. Their boundaries are the most diffuse, and they find that scattering themselves is more intuitive. They might be the most comfortable of all types, for example, with flirting or dating a number of people at a time—and able to do so effectively and in a way that seems acceptable. Lighter sexual connections supported by a strong social instinct. Able to deny how they feel about the pain of relationships ending and soften their deeper impact, sometimes even staying friends; something SP/SX may share in part.
SP/SX often starts with independence and stability, like sharing a space for pragmatic reasons, and then moves into a sexual space. An example might be having a roommate, coworkers, or family-related connection that they end up having a sexual relationship with. They skip SO and go straight for the sexual fix. There is a bluntness there, and they are maybe the most comfortable with breaking social rules for the sake of raw sexuality. They might think in a very black-and-white, non-nuanced way about relationships because SO is pushed away, and SX-second makes them more nonchalant. Can be promiscuous or sexually active with little purpose other than raw, sexual attraction.
These are just ideas for discussion and theory development. Feel free to respond with thoughts about how this resonates with you or ask questions for clarification. I feel these ideas integrate with other material I have read about the stacking and how it operates. Eventually, I will publish a book that seems most effective in dealing with the most modern enneagram material, including the instinctual stackings.
The Occult Enneagram Book I, which is available now, discusses the instincts, but it never explores stackings in depth. It would just be too much for one book, and the full chronology and evolution post-Ichazo will take several hundred more pages. If I had covered everything, it would've been another year and another 500 pages or whatever...so it's just too much to fit into one book all at once. I want to eventually publish something on the stackings that can stand the test of time and scrutiny. To make it prescriptive, I need to focus on balance, consistency, and avoidance of bias.