This thread is getting even more interesting. opcorn:
Sent sans PC
Sent sans PC
Hey @Dare, belissima, it implied that there must be possibility for So mistyping too.On this we agree (Riso/Hudson said half of sx dominants are mistyped due to poor Sx descriptions).
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.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?
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.Just someone who can easily adapt to both scenarios?
I'm glad you acknowledge this is sx bashing.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 never bashed or attacked SX ppl's nature, my complaints are purely "Sx ppl talk shit about So ppl and Sx last ppl."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.
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.And it's not just elsewhere it's on PerC and in your thread 2, just saying.
You're right. This is the thread where the So bashing happens. Which even you threw some shade as well.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.
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.This So thread didn't even make it past page 1 before getting started in on Sx.
And he's quite So himself...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.
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're right. This is the thread where the So bashing happens. Which even you threw some shade as well.
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.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.
The reasons you claimed Neo was So was "bashing" So nature and pretty much using stereotypes to call him So.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.
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 reasons you claimed Neo was So was "bashing" So nature and pretty much using stereotypes to call him So.
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.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.
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.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).
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: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".
No, this reveals Neokortex being :crazy: more than anything else.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?)
Where are you getting that?As you can see in this thread, according to So, Sx should be ashamed of/change our nature.
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".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.
I love how it explains both healthy and unhealthy sides of the type and stack combo.Social/Sexual
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.
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):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.
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.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
• 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
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).Where are you getting that?
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.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 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.'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 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.Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to be placing the source of the "SX bashing topic" in this thread with the SO instinct.
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.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.
But it does have to do with how SO looks at the SX instinct and offers a glimpse at the biases against it.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.
That type of statement begins to offer me some insight into SO through how they react to what they perceive in SX.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.
This seems most relevant to SO-last and not simply SX-first. IME SO-last doesn't want to be absorbed into social expectations.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.