The Enneagram "Instincts" Aren't a Real Thing
So then, what are "subtypes"?
Common Enneagram theory suggests that humans have three fundamental instincts: a self-preservation instinct, a social instinct, and a sexual instinct. It also refers to three subtypes or variations of each type based on an apparently dominant influence of one of these three forces.
While I agree with the second part in principle, it’s time for the Enneagram community to start understanding the flaws with the assertion that we have three fundamental instincts driving most of our behavior.
If the Enneagram wants to stay relevant, it needs to keep up with how concepts are used in other fields and adjust its language to reflect that understanding. And using the word “instinct” and insinuating that humans have three of them are problematic. As I will explain below, the common understanding of “instincts” in the Enneagram literature and teachings is both out of step with modern thought and limits the usefulness of the concept of instinctual biases.
Even Claudio Naranjo, through whom many of the concepts of the instincts and subtypes were disseminated, seemed to recognize this problem in his introduction to “Character and Neurosis” as he tried to rationalize the three instinct theory by weaving together ideas of Marx, Freud, and Object Relations theorists in what he admits is an inadequate but, for his purposes, good-enough framework.
It may have been good enough then, but given how much more we know now, the availability of good layperson-oriented literature on the science of human nature today, and the growing exposure of the Enneagram to scientifically literate audiences, it is time for a more-robust theory.
The first problem we must admit—again—is that the concept of having three primary instincts is woefully out of step with how the biological and cognitive sciences understand human nature.
While “instinct” is a commonly used word in a variety of informal contexts, it is not really used in the biological or psychological sciences because there is no agreed-upon definition of the term.* We have more sophisticated ways of understanding the drivers of behavior. It’s simply an outdated and no-longer useful term.
The fact is that we don’t have three distinct “instincts” driving our behavior—we have a plethora of psychobiological drives rooted in inherited evolutionary adaptations. For the most part, we inherited these adaptations because they increased the probability of reproduction in our ancestors. These inherited drives now both aid and impede our ability to skillfully interact with our physical, psychological, and relational environments.
It would be safe to say there are many such drives that inspire a variety of behaviors and attitudes that seem to cluster and correlate differentially into three broad categories or domains of needs. I refer to those domains as “Preserving,” “Navigating,” and “Transmitting” and believe these are more accurate, inclusive, and useful terms than the common “self-preservation,” “social,” and “sexual/one-to-one.”
The science of human nature, though growing in leaps and bounds, is still young and the mechanisms that create those adaptations and drives are not fully understood. Most attempts to explain their cause, especially in the Enneagram literature, are woefully inadequate and speculative.
However, it is empirically reasonable to say that we each have a bias to prioritize these domains and the needs represented therein differentially (i.e., we don’t value them equally). We do this independently of Ennea-type, which leads to the creation of three subtypes of each Enneagram type.
My way of understanding this pattern of differential prioritization is that one is a “zone of enthusiasm” (the one we prioritize most highly), one is a “zone of inner conflict,” and one is a “zone of indifference.” The domain for which we have “enthusiasm”—that is, we prioritize the highest and are most energized in addressing—determines our instinctual bias.
Thus, a “Preserving Three” subtype is a person who prioritizes the preserving domain over the other two; a “Navigating Three” prioritizes navigating; etc.
In this understanding, the instinctual bias is not about some “instinct” being dominant in us, it is about having a non-conscious bias toward prioritizing or valuing a specific domain of needs. What causes this bias is anyone’s guess, but let’s not call it an “instinct” unless we want to look like we are still using out-of-date ideas. It is simply safer (and actually more rigorous) to simply say we have tendency to differentially prioritize fundamental needs and leave it at that until advances in science explain their cause better.
Further, while this still seems to be controversial in the Enneagram world, there are only three patterns of expression rather than six potential “stacks.” In fact, I would suggest the concept of a “stack” to describe how we relate to each domain is misleading and inadequate for addressing how we prioritize the three domains.
This resistance leads to the second problem—not fully realizing the power of the practical applications unleashed by truly understanding the instinctual biases.
Having worked with thousands of individuals, scores of teams, and, in some cases, whole organizations across a variety of industries and fields on five continents since 1997, it is my experience that there is a specific pattern of expression of the biases.
“Preservers” (those for whom the Preserving domain is the “zone of enthusiasm”), the Navigating domain is the zone of inner conflict and the Transmitting domain is the zone of indifference.
For “Navigators,” the zone of inner conflict is the Transmitting domain and the zone of indifference is the Preserving domain.
For “Transmitters,” the Preserving domain is the zone of inner conflict and the Navigating domain is the zone of indifference.
(You can read more about my explanation of the instinctual biases here.)
Further, this pattern of expression does not only apply to individuals—it applies to teams, companies, and organizations of all kinds. It even applies to specific industries.
For example, an individual with a preserving bias will tend to have an inner conflict around navigating (“I want to engage with others, but only up to a point…”) and be largely indifferent to transmitting (“my work should speak for itself”).
A team that takes on a Preserving culture will emphasize preserving concerns (process, structure, consistency, risk-mitigation), have inner conflict about navigating (paying some attention to team building and cross-functional collaboration but being frustrated about the time, energy, and cost it requires), and be generally indifferent to transmitting (ignoring the importance of building excitement about and promoting the team’s accomplishments).
A Preserving company (such as, say, a financial institution) will justifiably emphasize process, cost controls, risk mitigation, and regulation; but they will also create a structured but often-overly siloed and under-communicative organization (conflicted navigating); and be very cautious and conservative about its promotional claims (indifference to transmitting).
Similar patterns play out in Navigating and Transmitting teams and organizations following the patterns of expression described above.
In this way of thinking, the subtypes are not the result of a (non-existent) “instinct” being interfered with by some psychological force such as the fixation or the vice, they are a label given to the intersection of the way of prioritizing our psycho-biological needs (the instinctual bias) and the Ennea-type strategy (the thematically consistent, habitual patterns of thought, feeling, emotion, and behavior we use to satisfy those needs).
[Also in the introduction to “Character and Neurosis,” Naranjo described the Ennea-types as “adaptive strategies”—thematically consistent ways of adapting to our environment and meeting our needs. Though he did not expand on the concept in the book, I believe this is still the best way to understand what is at the heart of each Ennea-type and it is the term I use when defining and describing the types.]
Thus, a Preserving Three subtype is what we call someone who prioritizes the needs of the Preserving domain and uses the strategy of striving to feel outstanding to meet those needs (as well as those in the other domains when they address them). They will be conflicted related to the Navigating domain (somewhat liking to be around people but quickly feeling like they should be doing something more productive or preserving-related), and indifferent to the Transmitting domain (and thus seeming like a Three who doesn’t care as much about recognition in the traditional sense).
I would argue that this theory of the subtypes is simpler (more parsimonious), more accurate, more science-friendly, and more useful for understanding the dynamics of the subtypes than what is proposed in much of the common teaching.
In fact, after years of grappling with the concept of instincts and subtypes as I had learned them and trying to apply them in my work with limited utility, coming upon the understanding of them as I have described here has revolutionized the way I teach the Enneagram in general, work with my clients, and operate my own business.
While I still focus on the Enneagram in my work (specifically, the ATA Approach to it), I always start with the instinctual biases independent of Ennea-type (something I used to be criticized for, but which now seems to be more common). Since the instinctual biases are a focus of attention on more tangible needs, they are perfect for understanding what happens in an organization. (The strategies tend to address more nuanced psychological needs and patterns of feeling, thought, emotion, and behavior that spring from them as we try to satisfy the needs rooted in the instinctual domains.)
Every organization—from Fortune 500 companies to governments to small businesses to churches to NGOs to sports teams—must address functional elements that can be easily understood through the lens of the instinctual domains: finance, operations, benefits and compensation, employee wellness, etc. are Preserving activities. Teambuilding, organizational design, most human resource functions, employee onboarding and development, marketing, and corporate communications can all be seen as Navigating activities. Sales, innovation, branding, and PR are all Transmitting functions.
Further, when one understands the pattern of expression, it becomes easy to see what parts of the business will probably be underserved or ineffective. Preserving companies will not pay enough attention to innovation and promotion; Navigating companies will not pay enough attention to operational and administrative discipline. Transmitting companies will often have chaotic and ad hoc internal dynamics and human resource challenges.
The same dynamics affect individual entrepreneurs—including coaches, consultants, therapists, etc., who use the Enneagram in their work—and the ATA Instinctual Bias framework is a helpful way to, among other things:
Structure their business activities to ensure they are taking care of all aspects of the business (preserving, navigating, and transmitting).
Recognize what aspects of their business they tend to ignore and create mechanisms for compensating for those weak areas, such as outsourcing these tasks or getting additional training.
Better understand and highlight their personal or business brand and the services they provide their clients.
Deepen their understanding of their clients’ needs and better serve those clients.
As you can see, this fuller understanding the instinctual biases can help improve almost any activity and is not limited to self-development.
But this improvement won’t happen if we keep holding on to outdated understandings of human nature and using terms and concepts that are not credible in more science-literate environments.
*Mark S. Blumberg describes this well on pages 10-13 of his book “Basic Instinct: The Genesis of Behavior.” Another telling example of this is the title of Nicola Raihani’s excellent book “The Social Instinct,” which does not include the word “instinct” anywhere in the text and was named by the publishers over the objections of the author.)