#countertype

[indepth-mbti]

What's the explanation for the existence of the countertypes in Naranjo's theory? I'm currently reading Beatrice Chestnut's "The Complete Enneagram" and there's no word of where does this concept come from. This particular theory always sounded illogical to me, I'm very open to being wrong though so that's why I want to give it a chance, but in order to check for its validity I need to know why that would even be a thing.

This is a very interesting question, and I admit that I have been thinking about the counterphobic topic during this last year after re-reading Naranjo. I don’t really agree with his take on the counterphobic subtype, but I can see where he comes from.

The Enneagram is a triadic system strongly based on Gurdjieff’s the Law of Three: three instincts, three triads (centers of intelligence, harmonic groups, etc). Everything goes through triadic aggrupations. You’ll notice that for each one of these triadic formations, there is one type that doesn’t seem to actually match its triadic formation, for example:

For the Centers of Intelligence: The E1 rejects and limits the body centers, goes against it. The E7 rejects and avoids the fear center, it goes against it. The E4 rejects its need for an external image, it goes against it.

It really looks like it’s a pull and push system. From the very beginning Naranjo bases his theory in the Buddhist take of the human fall called “the three poisons: unconscious, aversion and craving”. And I think that this is the scheme that made Naranjo think about an instinct going against the very nature of a certain Enneagram type.

Is it correct? In my opinion, it is quite an inconsistent affirmation. It is true that, for example, the sp subtype doesn’t quite match the E2 nature, but for the E5 we’ll find that both the soc and sx subtype go against the E5 nature; so why it is the sexual subtype the cp one? I think that the cp implementation is a theoretical ad hoc addition that is meant to cover the holes in his Enneagram Subtypes theory.

I think that Naranjo’s mistake regarding subtypes and the final cp implementation is how inconsistent it is that the Instincts change that much the initial nature of the Enneagram type. This even goes against his original scheme of the human psyche that you can find in the Introduction of Character and Neurosis.

This is the triadic scheme of the conscious/unconscious according to Naranjo. Here, you can find again the obsession for the Law of Three: the passion and fixation that characterize each enneagram type, and - deep down the unconscious - the three instincts.

Naranjo thought that the “neurosis” of the Enneagram type was actually an interference in the instinctual life (here it comes the Freudian influence); but his take on the subtypes and the existence of the countertype just imply the exact opposite: that the instincts are an interference of the Enneagram type.

This is an inconsistency of Naranjo’s Enneagram of Personality. If the instincts take the secondary role of affecting the Enneagram type, you’ll eventually find that some instincts don’t match well with the trait structure that Naranjo uses to describe the Enneagram types. Due to this theoretical problem, Naranjo created the counterphobic subtypes.

Here, I have to agree with Luckovich’s take and say that in personality terms, it’s obvious that the instinct comes first and the Enneagram type is a result of your strategies to cover the instinctual needs. Of course, this doesn’t mean that Naranjo’s trait structures are incorrect or that his descriptions of the subtypes are not accurate.

[delphic-dreams]

Enneagram Countertypes

For each type, one of the three subtypes is considered the countertype. These types are most commonly misunderstood and mistyped because their enneagram's nature runs counter to their instinct. The enneagram's motivation is opposed to the following instincts:

Social 9 - very outgoing and energetic in contrast to the more subdued sp and sx 9. Generous, selfless, self sacrificing. Work hard and try to accomplish for the group. Still has a sense of inertia with own needs and wants. Can be workaholics but avoid showing stress and putting burden on others

Social 8 - express lust and aggression in service to others. Protective, loyal. Defend the weak and exploited. Outwardly calmer than sp and sx 8. Rebels against authority to protect the oppressed through power and control. Seeks solidarity. Still out of touch with own need for protection and care.

Social 7 - against instinct of gluttony, consciously avoid exploiting others. Assuage their guilty pleasure in gluttony with altruism, work for a better world in which there is no pain or conflict. Five-ish acetic ideal. Indulgent and generous character. Repressed guilt for unconscious mix up of altruism and self interest. A desire to reach an ideal purity based on social consensus (opposed to 1's internally generated sense of perfection)

Sexual 6 - turns against the passion of fear by taking a stance of strength and intimidation. Best defense is offense. Bold, fierce, assertive as opposed to the more doubtful and deferring sp and so 6. Use ideals of "strength and beauty" to defend against fear. Disconnected from feelings, tend not to acknowledge the intensity of their aggression/intimidation. Contrarian.

Sexual 5 - inhibited and introverted but less removed from emotions than sp and so 5. Avarice expressed through ongoing search for connection that will satisfy need for most perfect idealized union. Reserved and laconic on outside, more romantic and emotionally sensitive inside. Trust is still difficult so confidence is held as a romantic ideal in which one is safe to share secrets, taboo fantasies. Guarded in the face of emotional intensity but have desire for deep intimacy among trusted few.

Self-preservation 4 - stoic, dauntless suffering. Expresses less outward melancholy than so and sx 4. Swallow feelings of shame, envy, sensitivity, suffering. Withstands frustration. More masochistic than melodramatic. Works to get what others have instead of enviously dwelling on what they are missing. Attachment to enduring.

Self-preservation 3 - vanity for having no vanity. Wants to be successful but wants others to know that image isn't important. Self-sufficient, not forthcoming about accomplishments unlike so and sx 3. Developed focus on autonomy and security due to not having enough protection and resources. Need not only to be seen as the ideal model quality in what they do, but to be the ideal. Productive, secure, "in control" with underlying sense of anxiety.

Self-preservation 2 - childlike, youthful as opposed to the overly adult seductive qualities of sx 2 or the so "power 2". Unconscious assertion of childlike priority, being loved for simply being cute and lovable. Want to be seen without showing themselves. Tender and sweet but more guarded than other twos. Don't want to see themselves as dependent but unconsciously engineer situations for people to take care of them.

Sexual 1 - more of a reformer than a perfectionist. Zealous and driven to make changes in others, less focused on perfecting the self. Unlike sp and so 1, is explicitly angry. Intensity of desire fueled by anger. Impatient, invasive, asserts will over others. Avengers, not afraid of confrontation. Brave, strong, impulsive. Repress pain. Need order in relationships.

[typologyindex]

it's my theory that each enneatype has a potential countertype and associated behaviors, but the only one that really exists in the world now outside of a few individuals raised in unusual circumstances is type 6. the reason for this is that ennea6 is by far the most common type, and a 6 seeing their internal landscape reflected by other 6s becomes aware of the pitfalls of that type and seeks to portray themselves as the opposite of that, despite not actually being able to not be a 6. it's basically an attempt at integration without having any of the internal qualities of 9 whatsoever. this also makes it the most unpredictable type because they're unwilling to admit or grapple with their core motivations.

as society becomes more self-aware and self-monitered thanks to the popularization of personal growth material and recent memes negatively targeting specific type behaviors (mostly type 3 and 4), we will see other countertypes become more identifiable.

[twalkermedia]

Our Girl Series 2 Episode 1 - 10/10/2014

.

In this extract, the character known as 'smurf' has been hit by a sniper in the leg, and molly, the medic has crawled out to help him. First of all we see that molly gets hit by an IED but escapes unharmed. We see a variety on low angle shots on molly as she reaches smurf to show that she is the one in charge of the situation and that she has the power. At the same time we see low angle shots of smurf to shows that he is weak and has no power in the scene. This is heightened when we see this medium shot of molly and smurf, where molly is framed a lot higher that smurf and is kneeling and being active where as smurf is lying motionless. This is a counter type of women. It represents them in frontline roles of the army, and with power over men.

[twalkermedia]

Chuck - Representation of age 10/10/2014

here you see the character Stephen Bartowski, the father of Chuck. he is a counter type as older people are generally seen as incapable with technology and not very good with computers. In Chuck Chuck's father is one of the world's best hackers under the alias 'Orion'. He is shown here in the picture, wearing super computer glasses and typing at what looks like a high tech screen. As well as this through out the series, he plays an active role by shooting bad guys and running around, thus presenting a difficult challenge to enemies. This again is a counter type as older people are normally stereotyped as being very fragile, weak and slow.