What does the Instinctive Level evaluate?
Our primitive survival instinct—self-preservation—remains active and manifests in the way we relate to our environment and to ourselves.
A possible behavioral excess related to the use of instinctive resources can generate an imposing, intolerant side and, at times, various levels and forms of aggressiveness. On the other hand, the absence of a balanced level of use of the natural resources of self-preservation will cause a person’s behavior to be submissive to the environment, reducing their capacity to take their place in their life and the world around them.
This level will allow us to observe how the individual seeks to occupy their place in the world, relating to people and to their surroundings.
What is the intensity of {{nome}} at this stage?
- INDIVIDUAL PROFILE
(General characteristics: Management of thoughts, emotions, and behaviors)
Highlights:
- Profile of lower dominance and higher concessiveness
- Propensity for emotional wear due to possible procrastinations or difficulty making high-impact decisions
- Tendency to avoid exposure, either due to insecurity or demotivation, even in some occasions when wishing to do so
Individual behavioral tendencies:
- May present ideas clearly in low-risk environments, but hesitate to express strong ideas in critical environments
- Frequently prioritizes own stability over resolving a conflict
- Tends to postpone important decisions due to feeling without clear options
- RELATIONAL MODEL
(Behavioral pattern when establishing personal relationships)
Highlights:
- Some difficulty establishing boundaries or expressing discomfort before the impact becomes very high
- Usually expresses defensively or vaguely in delicate conversations
- Seeks to protect close people by transferring personal fears and insecurities
Tendencies in relationships:
- May try to discourage others from taking risks that he/she would not take themselves
- Prefers to avoid direct conflicts and, when faced with them, may express intense accumulated discomfort
- Often feels certain levels of frustration for not being able to transform uncomfortable situations as desired
- ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGY
(Ability to adapt and perform professionally / in groups)
Highlights:
- Can express clearly, even intensely, in environments he/she controls, but avoids exposure under pressure from influential people or collective judgment
- May lack the skill to sustain positions in critical decision-making environments
- Has a strong hierarchical sense and depends on officially assigned authority to feel in command
Performance tendencies:
- Shows more comfort when feeling in a collaborative, safe, and low-competition environment
- Participates cautiously in professional decisions and avoids direct debates, especially with higher hierarchies
- May seek external justifications to protect from criticism, even with relevant arguments
Detailed profile:
A person with moderate assertiveness can present complaints accompanied by clear proposals, assuming responsibility both for execution and possible failures. At the intensity level presented by {{nome}}, this posture is less frequent, with possible attempts to transfer responsibility to others for agreeing with, approving, or even executing their wishes. Often fears possible harm caused by attempts to advance or change environment without guarantees.
Low intensity present in the Instinctive Awareness Stage may indicate that {{nome}} feels a certain level of demotivation or insecurity when exposing themselves in environments they do not control or where they are not recognized authority, especially in contexts where they believe they don’t hold enough hierarchical position to influence decisions or fear punishment, or certain fear of stating their point of view clearly in environments where they think others seen as authority might judge them poorly, even if they wish to do so strongly, potentially generating emotions like irritation, anxiety, or frustration reflected in feelings of indignation or injustice.
The emotional pattern behind this behavior type has two main variations: one is demotivation toward the environment, a sense of giving up influencing the environment and its directions; alternatively, a strong tendency to fear harm from severe judgment by more powerful people around, possibly taking a more active role among equals or lower hierarchy persons, like someone who shouts at a football stadium with others or speaks firmly to an employee or student, but with less freedom for similar imposition in critical environments where individual action could cause divisions. This may occur especially during large debates, though insecurity or demotivation can appear even in everyday situations where judging results are practically less significant.
Generally, insecurity has been popularized as a weakness or behavioral flaw, leading a person to resist the idea of feeling insecure; thus, it is common for someone with moderate insecurity levels to consider they do not have this feared emotion, defending their ability to express opinions firmly. However, in many cases, upon examining varied contexts, more assertive behavior occurs in low-risk environments, like complaining to uninvolved or non-decision-making persons, e.g., aggressively complaining to friends, family, or coworkers who are not the complaint target. It is important to keep in mind that complaining, no matter how intense, does not mean imposition by itself; indignation and complaints show dissatisfaction with a situation, but complaining without proposing to take responsibility for managing the situation indicates trying to transfer responsibility to someone “who should solve the issue” as desired.
Hesitation in exposing one’s own ideas and perceptions when feeling at risk may lead, when compelled to express in a limit situation, to defensive, intense, and generalized exposition without focusing on the main topic. Sometimes arguments become vague and confusing, going in circles with peripheral arguments invalidating received criticism by pointing out equal faults in others or the environment, seeking annulment or justification of their behavior, caring more about preserving their image and security of what they have than the actual debate point.
In certain relationships, {{nome}}’s individual demotivation or insecurity may transfer to a feeling that close people also should not expose themselves to risks they themselves wouldn’t take, feeling noticeable discomfort about others’ situations and often clumsily trying to discourage others progressing toward environments or changes they don’t feel prepared for or fear to face. This protection is usually well-intended but based on personal intimate analyses that may not be valid for the receiving person. The greater one’s own demotivation or insecurity about observing the other’s situation, the stronger the attempts to prevent the other from taking that risk.
An important difficulty in choosing and indecision among options is frequent in {{nome}}’s behavior, often prolonging situations longer than desired and causing greater emotional wear.
Some discomfort may come from feeling without options or necessary power to act as desired, believing they must submit to an unwanted scenario or do unwanted things, but struggling to lead the process ending that discomfort. This frustration can be caused by insecurity or powerlessness and can be intentionally reversed by developing awareness and emotional skills.
A low presence level in the Instinctive Stage usually indicates a person aware of some discomforts and sometimes failing to achieve desired results but often believing that complaining or showing dissatisfaction means acting. In this case, even positioning oneself in low-risk environments, lack of guarantees may make it difficult to practice effective actions and find efficient ways to express some wishes, discomforts, or set limits in relationships when opportunities arise.
A conscious move is needed to identify existing patterns and possible ways to transform them into new behavioral patterns that develop better capacities to expose themselves, assert, and consciously determine what to engage in or not, without disproportionate or out-of-context embarrassment or fears.