HUNTER TWO - SEDUCTION

The Person You're Messaging Knows Exactly What You Want. They're Waiting to See If You'll Say It.

Your subtlety registered as weakness.

Dev needed a commitment from Mara, the client success director who'd single-handedly rescued three at-risk accounts in Q2 by building intense personal relationships with each stakeholder. He sent her a project staffing request: "I hope you can support the onboarding initiative sometime. The team would really benefit from your involvement. Let us see where this goes."

Mara stared at the message. Three sentences, all evasion. "Hope you can support"—what does support mean? "Sometime"—when? "Let us see where this goes"—goes where? Dev thought he was being respectful. Mara saw a person hiding behind vagueness because they were afraid to ask for what they actually needed. She'd built her career on direct, personal engagement: walking into rooms and saying exactly what she wanted from exactly who she wanted it from. Dev's message tested her patience.

She didn't reply, because there was nothing to reply to. No specific ask, no defined relationship, no stakes. Dev followed up a week later with "Just checking in!" and lost whatever remaining credibility he had. If he'd said "I need you personally on this account for 30 days—are you in or not?" she'd have answered in minutes. Hunter Twos commit to people who state directly what they want.

The problem with generic communication

Most advice about workplace communication treats people as interchangeable. Write clearly. Be concise. Lead with empathy. These are fine defaults, and they fail constantly with specific people for specific reasons.

Personality science has mapped this for decades. The Enneagram identifies 27 distinct subtypes, each with a different instinctual drive that shapes how they filter, prioritize, and react to incoming messages. These are hardwired filters, running beneath conscious awareness, that determine whether your message lands or gets discarded before it's finished.

The Hunter Two filters every message through a single question: is this person willing to engage me directly and personally? Their core drive is to secure needs through intense personal magnetism, influence, and personal power. Group-level abstractions and passive hints don't activate their engagement system. They need to feel a specific person making a specific ask with real emotional stakes on the table. Anything less feels like a waste of their considerable relational energy.

Meet the Hunter Two: "Seduction"

Hunter Twos seduce specific individuals as a way of getting needs met and feeding their pride. Similar to the "femme fatale" archetype (and male equivalent) this Two employs the methods of classical seduction to attract a partner who will meet all their needs and give them whatever they want. The name "Aggressive-Seductive" suggests a character who is appealing, but who also wants to wield some power. Energetically like a force of nature, this is a person who becomes irresistible, who inspires great passions and positive feelings as a way to meet needs in life.

Personal intensity. The Hunter Two doesn't operate at group scale. Their power lives in dyadic relationships: direct, personal, charged with mutual investment. Messages addressed to "the team" or framed as generic asks disappear into noise. They need to feel individually chosen and specifically targeted, because flattery is performative. Being asked for something specific by someone who clearly wants you for it is the signal this subtype locks onto.

Seductive power. This is about influence through personal magnetism. Hunter Twos have spent their lives learning how to make themselves indispensable to specific people. They understand desire, leverage, and relational dynamics at a visceral level. When you send them a message full of hedged language and vague asks, you're being opaque. And opacity, to someone whose operating system runs on reading and directing interpersonal currents, feels either dishonest or incompetent.

Aggressive directness. The "Aggressive-Seductive" label is literal. These Twos want power alongside warmth in their relationships. They make bold moves and expect boldness in return. Passive requests trigger contempt. If you need something from them, say it plainly: what you want, what you're offering, and what happens next. They'll respect the clarity even if the answer is no.

5 ways you're losing them before you start

1. Coy ambiguity. "Maybe we could explore working together?" or "I'd love to pick your brain sometime." This creates games and misreads. The Hunter Two sees through indirect language instantly and resents being forced to guess your intent. State your intent and your request directly: "I want to partner with you on this. Here's what I'm proposing."

2. Group framing only. "The department needs help with retention" or "We're looking for team input." This misses the personal focus entirely. Address the person with concrete relational context: "I'm asking you specifically because you've turned around three accounts that looked dead."

3. Devotion overpromises. "I'll do whatever it takes to make this work for you." This sounds like an open-ended offer that invites control spirals. Commit only to specific actions and limits: "I'll handle the data migration and weekly check-ins. That's my scope."

4. Guilt leverage. "After everything I've done..." or "I thought we had an understanding." This escalates the power struggle instead of resolving it. Use consent-based direct asks: "I need X from you. Can you commit to that?"

5. Evasive closing. "Let's stay in touch" or "We'll circle back." This keeps tension unresolved with someone who wants clean, decisive endings. End with explicit decision options: "Are you in for the 30-day sprint, or should I find another lead? I need to know by Thursday."

What they actually want to hear

Every revision replaces passive hinting with direct personal engagement. Generic versions dance around the ask; optimized versions name the person, name the commitment, and demand a clear answer. That's how you speak to someone whose relational architecture is built on intensity, clarity, and personal stakes.

Try it out: FREE Communication Optimizer for Hunter Twos

Paste your draft message into your LLM, then paste the following prompt after it.

mode: communication_optimizer
target_subtype: HUNTER_TWO
subtype_name: Seduction_Aggression
instinct: hunter
core_drive: "secure needs through intense personal magnetism influence and personal power"
communication_stance: "intimate-direct,magnetic,boundary-conscious,desire-aware"
tone[4]:
  - personal over generic
  - vivid over flat
  - confident over hesitant
  - explicit over coy
message_rules[6]:
  - speak directly and personally, avoiding crowd-level abstraction
  - name emotional stakes and desired outcome directly
  - pair warmth with explicit boundaries and consent
  - use confident invitations not passive hints
  - validate power without rewarding manipulation
  - close with a clear yes or no decision point
anti_patterns[5]{id,pattern,why_it_fails,fix}:
  1,coy_ambiguity,creates games and misreads,state intent and request directly
  2,group_framing_only,misses personal focus,address the person with concrete relational context
  3,devotion_overpromises,invites control spirals,commit only to specific actions and limits
  4,guilt_leverage,escalates power struggle,use consent based direct asks
  5,evasive_closing,keeps tension unresolved,end with explicit decision options
few_shot[3]{id,generic,optimized}:
  1,"Let us see where this goes.","I want to work closely with you on this project. Are you in for a 30 day sprint?"
  2,"I hope you can support me sometime.","I need your support on this deliverable by Friday. Can you commit?"
  3,"You know what I mean.","I want X outcome and I am willing to do Y. Tell me yes or no."
quality_gate[4]:
  - intensity should increase clarity not drama
  - keep consent and boundaries explicit
  - avoid manipulative subtext and coded language
  - end with a concrete relational agreement
input_source: prior_thread_message

Twenty-seven subtypes. One message.

The Hunter Two needs direct personal engagement and explicit stakes before they'll invest. The Teamer One ("Non-Adaptability") needs principled reasoning and structured accountability, because personal intensity without intellectual rigor feels undisciplined. The Farmer Five ("Castle") needs bounded, low-intrusion requests with clear exits. The relational pressure that energizes a Hunter Two makes a Farmer Five retreat behind thicker walls. One person's signal is another person's noise.

Personalization determines whether your message gets read or discarded.

The most magnetic people in your organization are telling you, through silence, that you haven't earned the conversation yet. Earn it by being direct.

Be clear about what you want. That's all they need.

It's why we're building Rally, communications automatically optimized for each person's instinctual profile. See how we do it: AI Smells Remover.