Personality Cafe banner

21 - 40 of 119 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,408 Posts
Discussion Starter #22 (Edited)
On this we agree (Riso/Hudson said half of sx dominants are mistyped due to poor Sx descriptions).

.
Hey @Dare, belissima, it implied that there must be possibility for So mistyping too.

Look, i really have no clue on many of "stereotype in quotes" that you mentioned on your post. Are they coming in other forum because as I said i was just initially wondering why there are no So thread here but you already gone in length. I must miss something.

Please kindly direct me to resource for this but please no reddit, i don't like to waste my time there.

@Lord Pixel, you may help too milord.




Sent sans PC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,348 Posts
It took me a while to realize I was So first. Initially, I confused the idea of being Social first with the idea of actually being a social person, which is an easy mistake to make, of course, and it kind of makes me want the So instinct to be called something else in order to avoid such confusion, because I think it's pretty easy for people who are really So first, but extremely introverted/avoidant/out of place/reserved/whatever, to hear the word social and immediately realize they're not social at all.

I'm the least social person I know, and for the most part I'm too reclusive and really complete shit at even understanding social/group dynamics, but then pretty quickly I realized these things are what lead me to realize just how So first I am, and not due to me being something else(was pretty convinced I was Sp first for a while, and then Sx, and then Sp again), and as far as typology goes it's been the most helpful thing for me to understand the Social instinct.

So I think it's a combination of two things(just speculating) that likely there are many more Social dominants here and in other communities who are mistyped, and also Social dominant types who aren't mistyped but don't want to get involved in the fray and the shitshow that is typical of internet Enneagram communities :tongue: which is what I typically do as an observer here, but I just wanted to share my experience, so...

 

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
I do wonder how So/Sx or So/Sp shows itself? Like especially So/Sx? I guess I am curious as to how the group dynamic can morph in an intense one-one interaction? Just someone who can easily adapt to both scenarios?
Think of the second instinct as a tool or a means that can be used to fulfill a goal or end determined by the dominant instinct, and of how that might play out.

Personally: I pursue intense interactions and intense experiences in general, but those pursuits are subsumed in service of my "social" ambitions or my quest for socio-cultural meaning. (Preoccupation with Ultimate Meaning is a feature of SO-dom type 5s especially, our SO-concerns can end up abstracted to the point of becoming a pursuit of objectivity through collective knowledge... I'm not sure how well SO dominants of other E-types will relate.) My engagement of SX is dependent on whether I'll be brought closer to understanding or identifying or embodying SO-derived "super values" or ideals in the process. Because it is (probably) my second instinct, my SX is less neurotic and compulsive... and more utilitarian, helping me to chase some kind of meaning by seeking out an appropriate role within society, helping to influence society in a way that is productive, especially through gaining greater comprehension of things that affect all of us. I pick it up and use it like a hammer, but I can put it back down, whereas with SO issues I am more likely to cling and ruminate. I "do" SX to chase SO.


A lot of the "intense" experiences I am drawn to having, interpersonal or not, sexual or not, are curated based on whether I can learn something from them that will help me to find my place in the world. I dive into them partly out of curiosity and can climb back out relatively unscathed if I need to. (If I get a little scathed... well... that's a learning experience.) E.g. Me chatting up a guy up at a bar in Beirut while traveling and then the next day taking a shady bus to meet him in Saida and letting him drive me through South Lebanon, conversing with him as he says some pretty horrific stuff about foreign workers and hits on me, and mostly being detached and bemused by all of it as it gives me an up close and personal opportunity to cross-section the guy's brain to see what it can help me learn about politics, society, the human condition, whatever... I've heard it said that SO/SX 5s come across as the most 7-ish of the 5s and looking at some of the things I get up to when I'm not going through a shy phase, I don't wonder at it.



Just someone who can easily adapt to both scenarios?
I'm probably more adaptable in SX-ish scenarios than in SO-ish scenarios, which I don't think is unusual. Because the primary instinct constitutes a kind of fixation, many people seem to be less adaptable when it comes to their dominant instinct than when it comes to their secondary. The second instinct in the stack is the one people are usually most comfortable experimenting with: the first instinct is hard to play with because it's taken so seriously and feels fragile, the blind spot is hard to play with because you don't like or aren't comfortable thinking about it. The middle instinct is more flexible... certainly I'm far more personable 1:1 than in larger groups. I am an extremely keen people-watcher but I feel the "pulse" of groups and the silent shifts of balance that occur within them so strongly, despite being otherwise somewhat disinclined to cope with them, that I usually keep a certain amount of psychological distance from "tribes" in practice.

You really have to account for how SO shows its influence in Withdrawn E-types, and for the fact that SO has subvariations that can come across as similar to the counterphobic stance in a 6. SO isn't just associated with social butterflies and "joiners," it's also associated with social anxiety, social criticism and little Ted Kaczynskis. Not all SOs are what you'd call "socially adaptable" as a result. IME Social 4s and 5s in particular can be very, very picky about who we associate with in any prolonged way, moreso than 4s and 5s with other dominant instincts.

SOs with SX as secondary tend to be a little less puritanical than SP-seconds are, though: I think the drive/ability to connect with others in a focused, psychologically intimate way makes us more motivated to see through others' eyes even when we don't share the same social values or philosophies, if only momentarily. SO/SPs are like the Tankies of the instinctual stackings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,258 Posts
You think this Sx "bashing" would exist if Sx didn't bash So, since that's what the complaining in this thread is about anyway. I don't think so.

You can even go to another enneagram forum and see Sx folks "SO, ugh, I can't vibe with those ppl, SO ppl ugh so fake, SO ppl are the worst ugh....." just give it a rest.
I'm glad you acknowledge this is sx bashing.

If you think it's okay to bash sx/sx doms on this forum due to what sx people say on another, displaced aggression style, I have nothing to say other than that certainly explains why on this forum it's far more So-coming-out-of-the-blue-going-after-Sx than vice versa. I personally am only here so I have no idea what's going on other forums.

Fyi if you reread this thread you'll see the Sx bashing here quickly escalated beyond 'they say mean things about me' (elsewhere?) to criticizing our very nature.

Fortunately people are back on topic talking about their So instinct now so I see no reason to continue talking about this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,133 Posts
I'm glad you acknowledge this is sx bashing.

If you think it's okay to bash sx/sx doms on this forum due to what sx people say on another, displaced aggression style, I have nothing to say other than that certainly explains why on this forum it's far more So-coming-out-of-the-blue-going-after-Sx than vice versa. I personally am only here so I have no idea what's going on other forums.

Fyi if you reread this thread you'll see the Sx bashing here quickly escalated beyond 'they say mean things about me' (elsewhere?) to criticizing our very nature.

Fortunately people are back on topic talking about their So instinct now so I see no reason to continue talking about this.
I never bashed or attacked SX ppl's nature, my complaints are purely "Sx ppl talk shit about So ppl and Sx last ppl."

The main reason why I even feel like this is because I like Sx and Sx ppl . So I'm like wtf. And it's not just elsewhere it's on PerC and in your thread 2, just saying. Anyway yea I'm done talking about this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,258 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,133 Posts
This is factually incorrect. The only incident in the Sx thread was a So dominant starting anti Sx stuff. We went 8 pages without bashing So. This So thread didn't even make it past page 1 before getting started in on Sx. I could cite other examples.

https://www.personalitycafe.com/enneagram-personality-theory-forum/1303965-sx-sexual-instinct.html
You're right. This is the thread where the So bashing happens. Which even you threw some shade as well.

https://www.personalitycafe.com/enneagram-personality-theory-forum/161016-sx-confessions-rants-vents-rages-purges-390.html

And I could also cite sources off and on this site as well that are not even vent threads that shows the general attitude towards So types and Sx last.


You know what, I was all ready to put up a fight but after doing so more research I actually found that it's Neokortex doing alot of this So slandering even on other sites. I mean it's not just him, but alot of what I read was and the worst of it was him on multiple frikkin sites, wow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
This So thread didn't even make it past page 1 before getting started in on Sx.
OP asked a question about why SOs seem to be rare here, and most of the posts within the first few pages were addressing that question. Whether you like the answers everyone came up with is neither here nor there... things had not gotten especially off-topic. You've probably come closer to derailing this thread than anyone else has by pitching an imperious fit over essentially nothing.

While I don't necessarily agree with everything said, you have to be reaching dramatically to conclude that what was being criticized was SXs' "very nature." The main gist was: maybe people don't want to identify as SO because on forums like this one SO is mischaracterized, sometimes in a negative way, by posters who don't identify as SO but who may or may not be mistyped themselves (in other words, may or may not actually be SX, if that's what they think they are - could even be unknowing SOs)

Some seemed to think SX doms were the primary culprits. I don’t have an opinion on that - if anything I think people of unspecified stackings just think of times past when someone was catty toward them and made them socially uncomfortable, assume that person must have been SO-dom and then talk out of their asses about it like it's a certainty, misleading newbies in the process. But it shouldn’t be a big deal if other people do have that opinion, or even if they ad lib a little about things they find strange about SX doms. It could have been discussed without the fireworks.

Tbqh your posts in this thread are some of the most ironic I’ve seen on any forum in a while. (In the sense that you’re coming @ SOs by doing a whole lot of the stuff SOs are supposedly chronically guilty of… social policing, rabidly defending your in-group, attempting to manipulate conversation with disingenuous interpretations, telegraphing negative opinions in a shady/plausibly deniable way – you don’t bash SOs, you’re just pointedly “not surprised” that they’re being so naughty)

It’s a bit like you’re trying to prove your words wrong with your actions… and with some of your other words.

I’m going to ignore you because your meaningful contributions-to-silliness ratio is not really looking favorable to me and I don’t have the patience I used to with this place. Would like to be able to participate in further discussion if it occurs without seeing whining nonsense about how SOs are inhibiting SX supposed-differentness by making personal observations on the online behavior of some self-typed SX doms in a convo no one is forcing SXs to read, or something. Because this quite obviously isn't about SOs trying to inhibit SX-ness... if we could understand why some people really, really want it to be about that, then we'd get somewhere.

I’m glad your thread got 8 whole pages before some random came in and made something into an “incident.” I just think it’s too bad this one only got to 2. Good grief.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,156 Posts
You know what, I was all ready to put up a fight but after doing so more research I actually found that it's Neokortex doing alot of this So slandering even on other sites. I mean it's not just him, but alot of what I read was and the worst of it was him on multiple frikkin sites, wow.
And he's quite So himself...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,258 Posts
You're right. This is the thread where the So bashing happens. Which even you threw some shade as well.

https://www.personalitycafe.com/enneagram-personality-theory-forum/161016-sx-confessions-rants-vents-rages-purges-390.html
Yet another unsubstantiated claim. If you can find me "So bashing" go ahead and quote me directly (and in full context including any citations I may have made). My position on instincts is that they are all valuable/serve a purpose.

You know what, I was all ready to put up a fight but after doing so more research I actually found that it's Neokortex doing alot of this So slandering even on other sites. I mean it's not just him, but alot of what I read was and the worst of it was him on multiple frikkin sites, wow.
I'm glad you worked that out. He was the So dominant starting stuff against Sx in both of the Sx threads recently. He's since been banned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,737 Posts
Instead of trying to stay off the SX bashing topic, maybe it would be good to explore what's underneath it in order to better understand the Social instinct.

I see participation as a key aspect of the social instinct in that those who don't participate may be noticed and singled out. An effort could be made to include them or they could simply be disregarded as not one of us. The sx vs. so debate seems to take opposite sides of that issue sometimes. Any of that ring true?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,133 Posts
Yet another unsubstantiated claim. If you can find me "So bashing" go ahead and quote me directly (and in full context including any citations I may have made). My position on instincts is that they are all valuable/serve a purpose.


I'm glad you worked that out. He was the So dominant starting stuff against Sx in both of the Sx threads recently. He's since been banned.
The reasons you claimed Neo was So was "bashing" So nature and pretty much using stereotypes to call him So.

And from what I saw Neo is Sx dom bashing So.


I don't care to bash IV stacks or stereotype IV stacks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,258 Posts
The reasons you claimed Neo was So was "bashing" So nature and pretty much using stereotypes to call him So.
I asked you to substantiate by use of quotes within context and citing the same references I cited. Summarizing what I said from your perspective is inaccurate & unfair. It would be like me pointing out how you recently said "fuck you" to sx in the new Sx thread and called us "elitists" without revealing the context.

The reason I assumed Neo was So/Sx was bc he himself had recently said it. Furthermore, when I called him a So dominant he never corrected me. He even talked about being Sx-ish due to being a 4 (clearly no Sx dominant would need to say this).

When I was trying to understand why Neo was starting stuff I did reference So but I backed it up citing where I took the idea from. This is not "stereotyping" and if you felt it was, I really wish you'd spoken up at the time so we could have cleared it up.

I hope you can see how ridiculous it is to claim I bash So on the basis of what I said one time to someone I felt attacked by (a now banned member who clearly does have unhealthy behavior) when I was careful enough to cite sources.

Bashing is the stuff that is unnecessary (people saying something negative out of the blue) and/or can't be substantiated. If I say something like "So does X when unhealthy" and I'm both in context and citing, this is not bashing even though it may not be fun to hear (every instinct has negative behaviors when unhealthy).

You've acknowledged that in fact checking you discovered your original statement (that Sx bashes So) was largely based on the actions of one individual elsewhere (and, ironically, it turns out the individual is actually So himself). You then claimed I bash So. This is also untrue. Unless you have a new claim, meaning you want to start something else, we're done here.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,408 Posts
Discussion Starter #35
'tis funny, i visited the threads and found from what i gathered that there are disagreements or shall i say' misscommunications' among intj, outside of their initial habitat. Mostly boiled down to ego instead of actual disagreements, if i may simplify the long wall of texts.

And indeed there are faint "dislikes" between sx and so instinctual variants. Kind of unexpected, truly. :woot: Because my logic says so is more probably clash with sp.

Sent sans PC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,696 Posts
I hope you've factored for the nature of the instinct: Sx dominants often can't reveal what's behind their (public) facade. With certain things we can only allude to it at best. Our very nature can be considered 'publicly unacceptable' which is exactly where the So 'policing' can get started.
It's usually the opposite I've seen. It's certain sx individuals intent on "revealing" themselves and seeking validation from it. That's not a problem, so much as what they're revealing is merely their ability to conform to a description that fits their self-image. This is less about the nature of sx, and more about certain individuals who identify with sx because they can't see how their "intensity/obsession/passion" could ever be adequately mirrored in social or self-preservation, who are so lame by comparison (You know it to be true...:wink: ), in part because sx believes it has a monopoly on this, and the over-the-top descriptions (not all) that further this perception.

As you said here in Sexual thread:

I suspect some sx dominants like talking about their instinct bc there is a sense of relief in understanding themselves finally! (after learning about enneagram instincts here). I don't think sp or soc dominants get quite such a relief (simply from the nature of the instincts: sp and soc are 'normal' where sx is often seen as 'crazy' or at least weird irl). I've heard multiple sx doms say that learning they're sx was the most impactful self awareness tool they've ever encountered (true for me too).
Yeah, okay...I think that depends highly on the person. See @mp2's post here today, for instance. I'd actually say your post there shows awareness of Social more than you let on or are aware of.

As said in my previous post, this is really only something I've seen in Enneagram circles/forums, but outside of it, you don't really see people constantly needing to reveal their "SX". In fact, I would expect most sx-doms would do most of their revealing in a more intimate, private setting (Yes, I think sx is one-on-one, and it's ridiculous to claim that's Social as some descriptions do) than on a public forum. And yet, there's a 400 page thread on "Sx Confessions"...:unsure:

There's a damned if you do, damned if you don't set up being created here: if you try to show your sx nature you're "crazy" or "exaggeration personified" or something else negative. If you don't (fully) show it, you're a mistype or "glorifying".
How is it not glorifying when you and others ascribed "transcendence" to sx (I think this more of an Ni-thing, honestly), and manipulation to social (because of the actions of one disruptive member who happens to type as Social), as was done recently in the Sx thread? :bored:

It's the same thing with the anti-sx insinuations. This reveals 'unhealthy soc dominant' more than anything else. *References to two manipulative female criminals doesn't convince anyone to hate sx or women* Manipulation falls into the soc instinct (as discussed/referenced previously). Perhaps this is why (unhealthy) soc dominants 'ankle bite' sx dominants rather than simply say: 'I don't like sx, here's why'. At least I could respect that and perhaps a real discussion on soc vs sx perspectives could actually come from it with mutual learning/understanding (how's that for idealism?)
No, this reveals Neokortex being :crazy: more than anything else.

I really don't think it's fair to pin manipulation onto one instinct, no matter what that source said that you're referencing (I do remember which one), because there are manipulative people found in all the instincts.

As you can see in this thread, according to So, Sx should be ashamed of/change our nature.
Where are you getting that?

But how can a Sx dominant use So values to judge ourselves? I can laugh at myself, I can calculate the odds of my life going towards tragedy but what I can't do is self-reject or alter my instinct. Which means this is all just simple feel-good-about-yourself 'us vs them' bashing.
If it's Social, I was just making an (off-topic) observation about the overall attitude of the Enneagram forum and agreeing with someone who notices the same, not trying to "bash" Sx or create "us vs them".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,133 Posts
@Dare Whatever, I like Sx ppl, I don't bash Sx ppls nature, leave me tf alone.


As far as this thread goes I relate mostly to this So description.

Social/Sexual

Type 4

This is overall the “lightest” type Four when it comes to social interaction. They are likely to utilize charm and humor. This type is more scattered and can be down right disorganized. They can drift through life always feeling like an outsider, yet they usually have friends. They can alternate from being the life of the party to withdrawing. Intimates will know of their insecurities and dark moody side while acquaintances will see a softer, friendlier side. This subtype’s energy is geared towards people, but they never feel as though they really fit in. They are often quite creative, talented people who have many interests, but they frequently lack the energy to actually accomplish what they would like. They can drift and withdraw very easily. When healthy and with the right support from friends (and perhaps a little push) they tap into their instinctual energy. When they do this, they begin to see how much they can accomplish. A positive connection to others helps them stay focused.
I love how it explains both healthy and unhealthy sides of the type and stack combo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,258 Posts
How is it not glorifying when you and others ascribed... manipulation to social...

I really don't think it's fair to pin manipulation onto one instinct, no matter what that source said that you're referencing (I do remember which one), because there are manipulative people found in all the instincts.
As you'll probably recall, since I've said it repeatedly, ascribing an entire group to an adjective is problematic for the purpose of typing. I don't believe only Sx people are "intense", I don't believe only So people "manipulate". However, when the nature of a typed group attempts to be described, adjectives necessarily get used. As a group, are Social more frequently/typically 'manipulative'? Enneagram authorities seem to think so (this is the citation I used at the time):

Social (SO):
• Can be the most decent yet often fake, manipulative, or subtly to grossly antisocial (essence present or left out when relating)
• Prestige, popularity, fame
• Superiority/inferiority problems (forgetting that we’re all equal in our essential functioning)
• Delusions of grandeur or of outcast
• Involved in causes
• Clubs, parties, groups
• The scene, the beautiful people, chic, fashionable, what’s in
• Going with or against the flow
• Socialite/philanthropist/misanthrope
• Political or religious crime (terrorists, anarchists)
• Confusion of boundaries between “you” and “me,” “yours” and “mine” (i.e. using one’s home as a public place, picking from another’s plate as it were one’s own) Subtypes - Enneagram Monthly
I cannot see how using ideas that are commonly held in enneagram circles and citing sources (while being open to better understandings) can possibly be considered "glorifying". I'm sorry if you felt it was a put-down (and me one-upping my type relatively). I hope you're open to considering why you may view it this way when I am 'blind' to this.

Fyi I always appreciated you hanging out on the Sx thread. Ideas should be challenged.

Where are you getting that?
From my perspective it was quickly escalating from false information to typism. I was hoping by saying something 1) false information could be revealed as such and 2) the escalation would cease (and things could shift back to topic). Both objectives seem to have been achieved but... Next time I'll just report problems in this thread if need be (rather than open myself to being misunderstood & attacked on a personal level).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
Instead of trying to stay off the SX bashing topic, maybe it would be good to explore what's underneath it in order to better understand the Social instinct.
Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to be placing the source of the "SX bashing topic" in this thread with the SO instinct. If you could consult a magic 8 ball and get it to tell you what the root of the problem here is, I'm sure you'd learn a lot, but I really don't think it would be about SO specifically. Probably not SX, either.

I mean, organic interpersonal conflicts between SO and SX people can definitely follow certain patterns and the motivations underlying the behaviors can be predictable on both sides, I could list various ways I think I've seen that happen...

But this isn't that kind of organic interpersonal conflict. It's created less by manifestations of instincts in individuals clashing, more by people getting chips on their shoulders about the concepts of SX and SO: some scapegoating one, some expressing at times over the top frustration with how the other seems to be idealized in a milieu they frequent... esp. while their dominant instinct's reputation is still suffering for the sins of little Cindy Who-Knows-What-Stack-Actually from kindergarten who wouldn't let you sit at her table when your mother packed you pimento instead of Lunchables pizza.

If you want to talk about the instincts: I do think SOs are highly likely to notice the way SX is glorified in these communities, and the way SO is disparaged (even if it isn't overt), partly because of the nature of SO. This is exactly the kind of thing we are liable to be aware of. Are SOs sensitive to feeling like they are less included in the community, or treated unfairly if they try to participate while wearing an “SO” nametag? Probably some are.

I also think that the attraction/repulsion fixation of SX might make them likely to react against the idea of SO once they learn about it, because it gives them a theoretical “all the rest” to differentiate themselves from in that search-for-a-mate peacocking. A lot of the may-or-may-not-be-SX snowflake types who want to be SX because it makes them feel special fall into the same trope, though their drive to act that way might not be “instinctive” per se. This has very little to do with SO itself or SO behaviors themselves.

Some SXs also develop kind of a thing about dominance/submission and interpersonal power played for thrills that can make them manipulative and grasping – and some SX are just socially manipulative for reasons related to something other than their instincts. Some people that probably aren’t SX but wannabe try to claim SX partly because it can give them a kind of status in Enneagram communities. (NB: if anyone is going to try and seriously claim that 2/3 instinctual variants don’t engage in manipulative behaviors, this discussion is closed due somebody taking Enneagram descriptions so literally that they've lost touch with reality.)

In all cases above SO doms are often highly likely to recognize the behaviors for what they are and roll their eyes at them, or react if it starts to become detrimental (in their mind) to the collective or more personally, to their own perceived status. SOs that are in a bad place mentally or who have dumb ideas about what a "threat" looks like tend to have an exaggerated sense of those threats and could come down especially hard.

Being well in touch with typicalities, whether they adhere to them or not, I think many SOs are also pretty aware that a lot of SX doms (or people who think they are) are… pretty normal, honestly. The majority, like the majority of anything, are not standout iconoclasts. They’re not that much more intense and weird than everyone and their brother. Even instinct-wise, SX isn’t the instinct I associate most with serious disruption to the social order and going against the grain, I get that moreso from certain flavors of SO-stacked people.... definitely not SO blinds.

People who are heavily invested in their own uniqueness often don’t like realizing that that’s not being taken seriously, though. It can feel like being undercut even when it’s a pretty emotionally neutral assessment. Even respectful attempts at inclusiveness that are meant to be friendly can become offensive when you're trying to stand out. And that's important to note, because when someone is really unusual, how SO doms will react to it is about as variable as personal ethics and cultural norms are, and depends on how the person is unusual rather than just on the fact that they are, etc.


'tis funny, i visited the threads and found from what i gathered that there are disagreements or shall i say' misscommunications' among intj, outside of their initial habitat. Mostly boiled down to ego instead of actual disagreements, if i may simplify the long wall of texts.

And indeed there are faint "dislikes" between sx and so instinctual variants. Kind of unexpected, truly. :woot: Because my logic says so is more probably clash with sp.
I don't really get that there's an SX vs. SO opposition at all outside of this forum and maybe others like it. IRL - and even on forums where Enneagram is known but it's not a main focus - SX and SO people co-exist happily enough in groups all the time and argue at about the usual rate people argue as far as I'm able to surmise. Their interactions can have certain themes or a certain flavor through both the good and bad parts, just like SO-SO and SO-SP interactions do... but whatever weirdness is being aired in this thread appears pretty specific to environments where "SX" and "SO" are explicitly identified and strongly identified with by some posters, and at that is mainly perpetuated by a small # of individuals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,737 Posts
Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to be placing the source of the "SX bashing topic" in this thread with the SO instinct.
I used the phrase "SX bashing topic" because it was used elsewhere in this thread to refer to the discussion at hand. There's no judgement either way as to who's the source or at fault or any other finger pointing.

I see the instincts as something all of us have available. It's just that we have preferences about which is most important and relevant to us. When someone is critical of another instinct and in favor of their preferred, it's an opportunity to understand what the instincts actually represent through contrast. I was hoping to get under the labels (sx and so) and into the details of the actual experience being associated with those labels.

I'm somewhat surprised at how closely some people seem to identify themselves with the instinct. Even creating an us vs. them distinction (this also happens with the types). The instincts are just preferences we have. They're not who we are. At least that's the awareness that the Enneagram types have historically aimed at.

Bottom line: When I hear people complain about another instinct I'm listening for a contrast of preferences underneath along the lines of the rest of your post below.

If you want to talk about the instincts: I do think SOs are highly likely to notice the way SX is glorified in these communities, and the way SO is disparaged (even if it isn't overt), partly because of the nature of SO. This is exactly the kind of thing we are liable to be aware of. Are SOs sensitive to feeling like they are less included in the community, or treated unfairly if they try to participate while wearing an “SO” nametag? Probably some are.
Since my awareness is not on SO, I'm interested in knowing more about what SO is specifically aware of or pays attention to that the other instincts may not.

I also think that the attraction/repulsion fixation of SX might make them likely to react against the idea of SO once they learn about it, because it gives them a theoretical “all the rest” to differentiate themselves from in that search-for-a-mate peacocking. A lot of the may-or-may-not-be-SX snowflake types who want to be SX because it makes them feel special fall into the same trope, though their drive to act that way might not be “instinctive” per se. This has very little to do with SO itself or SO behaviors themselves.
But it does have to do with how SO looks at the SX instinct and offers a glimpse at the biases against it.

BTW from my own personal SX-first experience, SX has nothing to do with peacocking. That could take place with SO-first or certain types as well.

In all cases above SO doms are often highly likely to recognize the behaviors for what they are and roll their eyes at them, or react if it starts to become detrimental (in their mind) to the collective or more personally, to their own perceived status. SOs that are in a bad place mentally or who have dumb ideas about what a "threat" looks like tend to have an exaggerated sense of those threats and could come down especially hard.
That type of statement begins to offer me some insight into SO through how they react to what they perceive in SX.

Being well in touch with typicalities, whether they adhere to them or not, I think many SOs are also pretty aware that a lot of SX doms (or people who think they are) are… pretty normal, honestly. The majority, like the majority of anything, are not standout iconoclasts. They’re not that much more intense and weird than everyone and their brother. Even instinct-wise, SX isn’t the instinct I associate most with serious disruption to the social order and going against the grain, I get that moreso from certain flavors of SO-stacked people.... definitely not SO blinds.

People who are heavily invested in their own uniqueness often don’t like realizing that that’s not being taken seriously, though. It can feel like being undercut even when it’s a pretty emotionally neutral assessment. Even respectful attempts at inclusiveness that are meant to be friendly can become offensive when you're trying to stand out. And that's important to note, because when someone is really unusual, how SO doms will react to it is about as variable as personal ethics and cultural norms are, and depends on how the person is unusual rather than just on the fact that they are, etc.
This seems most relevant to SO-last and not simply SX-first. IME SO-last doesn't want to be absorbed into social expectations.
 
21 - 40 of 119 Posts
Top