Personality Cafe banner

41 - 60 of 119 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
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.
That's the thing. Most of the people back thread weren't complaining about SX-the-instinct in the wild as much as they were complaining about how the placards for the different instincts are written in this zoo and how that influences where the crowds go. I think Pixel brought the stuff about SX up to begin with and he's made it quite clear that he actually likes SX doms.


But it does have to do with how SO looks at the SX instinct and offers a glimpse at the biases against it.
If you're clinging to the idea that SO has some generalized bias against SX, you won't ultimately get clarity, so I hope you aren't. That will color your reading of things.

The "it" I was referring to there was the way I see some SX and/or SX-identified people reacting to their own biases and ideas about SO. The point I was making was that the reactions are less in response to actual SO people doing actual SO things, and more in response to the Platonic abstraction of SO they are carrying around in their heads.

The "it" you're referring to is, I think, my statement itself and what you think you can glean from it. But you'd be wiser to take it as how one likely-SO dom conceptualizes SX and/or how she sees dynamics on this forum playing out more broadly (and it is broadly, because I wasn't even just referring to properly typed SX doms when I described them). If you feel like you're getting something useful from it though, good.

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.
"Peacocking" taken literally indicates a mating display, and striving to be chosen for merging by an other - having that drive permeate even unrelated activities - is definitely SX territory. I won't debate it because I know that if someone wants to go survey this forum and look for the kind of thing I'm meaning coming from people with sx in the stack, they'll find it. (I don't exclude myself from that, either, as an SX second who on paper relates about as much to sx/so descriptions as to so/sx)

But sure, any type can show off when they're trying to actually attract someone, and other types can end up preoccupied with status displays, too. The motivations aren't necessarily the same though. SX status displays are very "I'm best/strong and beautiful/pick me," SO-motivated status displays are usually more like "I'm a paragon of community values, admire me, give me influence."


This seems most relevant to SO-last and not simply SX-first. IME SO-last doesn't want to be absorbed into social expectations.

Sort of, yes: That is, I think that when I've seen the dynamic I tried to capture in paragraph 2 "in the wild" it occurs most often and most dramatically between SX/SP people and SO doms - less so with SP/SX, maybe because they aren't always as obvious and vehement in their pos/neg reactions to things. And less so with SX/SO people, or not in the same way.

But since SO is an instinct that, as you said, everyone has, a need that everyone needs to have met... I've noticed most that SO-last people seem to resent being made aware of social expectations and group dynamics at least as much as they avoid participating in them. I don't necessarily see them consistently just not getting involved, including in some of the more down and dirty political ways. But often either they lack awareness of what they're doing, or they are extremely resentful of having attention called to it. They can be quite difficult to deal with in some situations from an SO perspective, yes, because they may want to participate and try to participate, but when they participate they may also 1) want not to be held accountable to group norms and to other group members, despite benefiting from the presence of both when they choose to be involved, or 2) want everyone to pretend they are more removed than is true, and aren't engaging in social behaviors we can clearly spot them doing.

It can equate to an expectation that we (SOs) muffle our natural awareness of group dynamics and help them preserve this illusory sense of being an island among men, in order to interface with/accommodate them without a scene being caused.

I actually wonder if other types also feel like they are vulnerable to being "gaslit" and sometimes parasitized in this way by people blind to their dominant instinct. I do think that as an SP-last I have a tendency to brush off more SP-heavy people's concerns for stability and physical safety as being based on nothing and looking at it this way makes me wonder how much frustration I've been causing some of my SP buds by accusing them of being big babies and what not. :smug:
 

·
Registered
ISFJ 6w7 sp/so
Joined
·
27,953 Posts
I want some social acceptance because it's necessary for survival and my need to connect, but I cannot pretend to like anyone I dislike
That's not who I am. That's like asking me to pick up a gun and kill a guy that didn't violate anything I believe.
 

·
Registered
ISFJ 6w7 sp/so
Joined
·
27,953 Posts
That's the thing. Most of the people back thread weren't complaining about SX-the-instinct in the wild as much as they were complaining about how the placards for the different instincts are written in this zoo and how that influences where the crowds go. I think Pixel brought the stuff about SX up to begin with and he's made it quite clear that he actually likes SX doms.




If you're clinging to the idea that SO has some generalized bias against SX, you won't ultimately get clarity, so I hope you aren't. That will color your reading of things.

The "it" I was referring to there was the way I see some SX and/or SX-identified people reacting to their own biases and ideas about SO. The point I was making was that the reactions are less in response to actual SO people doing actual SO things, and more in response to the Platonic abstraction of SO they are carrying around in their heads.

The "it" you're referring to is, I think, my statement itself and what you think you can glean from it. But you'd be wiser to take it as how one likely-SO dom conceptualizes SX and/or how she sees dynamics on this forum playing out more broadly (and it is broadly, because I wasn't even just referring to properly typed SX doms when I described them). If you feel like you're getting something useful from it though, good.



"Peacocking" taken literally indicates a mating display, and striving to be chosen for merging by an other - having that drive permeate even unrelated activities - is definitely SX territory. I won't debate it because I know that if someone wants to go survey this forum and look for the kind of thing I'm meaning coming from people with sx in the stack, they'll find it. (I don't exclude myself from that, either, as an SX second who on paper relates about as much to sx/so descriptions as to so/sx)

But sure, any type can show off when they're trying to actually attract someone, and other types can end up preoccupied with status displays, too. The motivations aren't necessarily the same though. SX status displays are very "I'm best/strong and beautiful/pick me," SO-motivated status displays are usually more like "I'm a paragon of community values, admire me, give me influence."





Sort of, yes: That is, I think that when I've seen the dynamic I tried to capture in paragraph 2 "in the wild" it occurs most often and most dramatically between SX/SP people and SO doms - less so with SP/SX, maybe because they aren't always as obvious and vehement in their pos/neg reactions to things. And less so with SX/SO people, or not in the same way.

But since SO is an instinct that, as you said, everyone has, a need that everyone needs to have met... I've noticed most that SO-last people seem to resent being made aware of social expectations and group dynamics at least as much as they avoid participating in them. I don't necessarily see them consistently just not getting involved, including in some of the more down and dirty political ways. But often either they lack awareness of what they're doing, or they are extremely resentful of having attention called to it. They can be quite difficult to deal with in some situations from an SO perspective, yes, because they may want to participate and try to participate, but when they participate they may also 1) want not to be held accountable to group norms and to other group members, despite benefiting from the presence of both when they choose to be involved, or 2) want everyone to pretend they are more removed than is true, and aren't engaging in social behaviors we can clearly spot them doing.

It can equate to an expectation that we (SOs) muffle our natural awareness of group dynamics and help them preserve this illusory sense of being an island among men, in order to interface with/accommodate them without a scene being caused.

I actually wonder if other types also feel like they are vulnerable to being "gaslit" and sometimes parasitized in this way by people blind to their dominant instinct. I do think that as an SP-last I have a tendency to brush off more SP-heavy people's concerns for stability and physical safety as being based on nothing and looking at it this way makes me wonder how much frustration I've been causing some of my SP buds by accusing them of being big babies and what not. :smug:
I thought I was so/sp or sp/so, but now idk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
530 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...
Thank you for sharing! I am still figuring out the instinctual variants so this is helpful for me. I have only taken the test once and I got 2W3 and So so that's what I put but I didn't really know the meaning behind them. Plus, the explanation was so small and vague.

I also went with it because I am a pretty social person and was like up that sounds good. I do value one-on-one interactions a lot so I think the wording of certain explanations can also make people confused.
@baitedcrow

I really enjoyed reading your post and thank you for the insight! First, how did you have the courage to hop in a car with a random guy you met at a bar in another country?

Also, that is a very interesting way to compare So/Sx vs So/Sp. When I was first reading through the instinctual variants I was thinking Sx and maybe So/Sx but I get uncomfortable when people want to have a serious intimate conversation with me. It is just a lot at once and I usually am not in that headspace. Sometimes, people tell me things when I hardly know them and I just feel uncomfortable with that. I am happy they are telling me and feel comfortable enough to tell me but just the right away intensity is a lot. When emotions become intense or too negative quickly, I want to pull away. I am pretty sure my partner is an Sx or Sp or a variation of the two and we have worked well together but there are times when he justs wants a lot of "us" time and I want to go out and do things

Do you have any good sources that you have read that talk about this? Like I mentioned above I have tested as 2W3 So but I would like to get to know more about the types :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
I really enjoyed reading your post and thank you for the insight! First, how did you have the courage to hop in a car with a random guy you met at a bar in another country?
It's really not "courage." I'm not going to say that every SP last will relate but I relate this tendency I have back to being SP last. There are whole realms of potential worry based on physical safety, basic comfort and financial and domestic stability that it just doesn't even occur to me to take seriously. I think about them, but moreso from a perspective of "if I can't maintain a certain amount of stability I'll look like an idiot" or "if I am helpless at practical tasks others will have to pick up the slack for me and that isn't fair to them." I don't usually think about them for their own sake.

When I do catch myself taking them seriously for their own sake (sometimes life forces that, of course)... I get annoyed with myself, because they strike me as petty in the grand scheme of things. I know that people who get to observe me up close see it as odd. I am in some ways a person with clear neurotic tendencies. They're just not necessarily focused where a lot of people would imagine "neurotic tendencies" should be focused if you're going to end up with them. I struggle with certain types of social anxiety - less so one on one, I can in fact be very charming in smaller groups - and with My Place In The Universe and with my concerns that humans aren't capable of creating any society healthy enough to make humanity worth giving a damn about.

Getting into a car with some dude... I don't completely lack a sense of caution or anything, I definitely have a radar (it's rather refined in its way) and would turn down some people, but I'm also seemingly more likely than average to take that kind of risk, at least in certain circumstances and when I feel like I can learn from it.

In a way my "self" matters much less to me than one might think.

Also, that is a very interesting way to compare So/Sx vs So/Sp. When I was first reading through the instinctual variants I was thinking Sx and maybe So/Sx but I get uncomfortable when people want to have a serious intimate conversation with me. It is just a lot at once and I usually am not in that headspace. Sometimes, people tell me things when I hardly know them and I just feel uncomfortable with that. I am happy they are telling me and feel comfortable enough to tell me but just the right away intensity is a lot. When emotions become intense or too negative quickly, I want to pull away. I am pretty sure my partner is an Sx or Sp or a variation of the two and we have worked well together but there are times when he justs wants a lot of "us" time and I want to go out and do things

Do you have any good sources that you have read that talk about this? Like I mentioned above I have tested as 2W3 So but I would like to get to know more about the types :)
I really dislike relying on the usual stack descriptions to try and parse stacking for people because I think they can become either overly abstract or overly detailed in ways that stray away from the fundamental dynamic of how each set of (dominant - > secondary - > blind spot)s function. It can complicate the discovery process.... for instance while I relate a lot to type 5 SO descriptions and less so to type 5 SX descriptions, I often relate as much if not moreso to type 5 SX/SO descriptions as to type 5 SO/SX descriptions.


One resource that I found very useful that I think is overlooked is just a set of notes this blogger took during a Riso/Hudson training session.

NB: He speaks of SO as representing a kind of "mechanical energy," but IIRC he is a type 5 like me, and for a 5 SO needs are heavily filtered through issues of intellectualization, overwhelm and withdrawal. I think it's possible that other base E-types will relate to this way of describing SO less than I do.

ETA: I also like this breakdown of multiple "ranges" of instinctual stacking based on the relative strength/weakness of the second instinct. To be clear, I don't believe that people fall neatly into one range or another, by and large. That amounts to over-analysis. However I do think that looking at things this way highlights how variably the combinations of dominant/secondary instinct can manifest. Ex. for SO/SX:

the so/sx version is what I call lightside (soc as unquestioned dictator, just as in warmside so/sp), and on the other end is the darkside (soc as chairman, sx as vice chairman who sleeps with the chairman). and the midrange, that lovely muddy area in between where soc is the boss but sx at least has its own corner office.

lightsiders vs darksiders is almost like a phobic/counterphobic split in attitude. the lightside is engaging, ingratiating even, and is the closest to what has become the stereotype for so/sx. unmistakably friendly, amusing, eager to attend to others in a personal, customized way. also hesitant or unwilling to upset the delicate chemistry or harmony of individual or group dynamics, since soc cohesion is at a premium. some famous lightsiders: mister rogers, steve carrell, george foreman, ben affleck, zach braff, michael jackson, and bill clinton.

darksiders on the other hand seem eager to prove their soc isn't in full control, so they typically test the boundaries of traditional soc values. maybe knee-jerk reactions against sheepish herd behavior, group mentalities, or warmside strategies for making connections. they aren't any less healthy by definition, but can seem that way due to their darker, more confrontational manner. they use highly customized interactive tactics like all so/sx's, but in a more uncompromising "keeping it real" way, owing to the active tension between "good" soc and "bad" sx. some examples are woody harrelson, frank zappa, jack nicholson, lauryn hill, judy garland, chris rock, eminem, george carlin, andy warhol.

midrange so/sx's have a less pre-committed way of dealing with people, and therefore seem to express the mercurial qualities of the so/sx nature more than the others. I used to call it the "grey" range since it made me think of dusky unreadability, or manipulation through inscrutability. midrange so/sx's seem especially averse to being predictable, preferring the license to adapt whatever attitude the situation requires. until those conditions are clear they default to a kind of seeming indifference or nonchalance (a stark contrast to the sociably upfront quality of their cordial so/sp cousins). some examples of this pliant, laid back range of so/sx are hugh laurie, gene simmons, brad pitt, howard stern, hugh grant, shaquille o'neal, and garfield the cat.
Needless to say, I personally lean toward the "midrange" and/or "darkside" SO/SX ranges they've tried to define in terms of my general bearing and self-expression. The more stereotypical "lightside" range, not so much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
530 Posts
@baitedcrow

Thank you so much for sharing these! I am going to take a look at them later tonight. I appreciate your insight into all of this. I think the MBTI theory is a little more common or is talked about more often so I have been having troubles finding reputable sources that talk about Enneagram and Instinutal Variant. it's also nice to read about how people have associated them with things they have done or how they act.

I also agree that people don't fall neatly into a box but I do like learning about these theories and what I have learned so far has been really helpful for me and the different relationships I have.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,222 Posts
This has been a really interesting discussion. For a long time I thought I was Sp/So. I still might be, I’m not sure, and as always it partially depends on interpretation, but at some point a couple of years ago I started to take more seriously the So/Sp possibility. Kind of like @mp2, I’m extremely introverted so I didn’t believe I could be a “social” anything. I am definitely not naturally sociable, and networking and making friends doesn’t come easily to me at all. In fact, I relate to some So-last descriptions that talk about things like finding it hard to keep up with multiple relationships and not wanting to impose myself on others.

But what made me consider the So-dom possibility is that I’m constantly thinking about the social stuff, much more so than the other instincts, and that’s where my anxieties are. I’m much more likely to be worrying about whether I said totally the wrong thing in a social situation than, say, a health-related matter. I’m fascinated by the workings of various kinds of group dynamics and social systems - politics, for instance, or even the culture of a forum like PerC, and typology is part of that because it helps in understanding how people fit together.

I guess I’d say I want to avoid negative so-related things, more than positively seeking them out. For instance, I wouldn’t necessarily say I positively desire to belong to groups, it’s more that I need to not be in a social environment where I feel like I don’t belong. I’d much rather be alone than in a group where I feel like I’ve been excluded. I’ve occasionally looked for other forums to join but a lot of the time I feel like I don’t belong there, even if I can’t quite articulate why. I don’t need or even want people to turn on the warm fuzzies especially to make me feel welcome. It’s more subtle than that.

So does that make me an So-dom? I’m not sure, but interesting to ponder anyway.

As for the discussion about Sx... people often say Sx is glorified but I don’t see it that way. I notice a clear difference between the Sx-doms on this forum and someone like me, and yes, it has to do with words like passion and intensity. I have to confess to finding some Sx-dom posts on here a bit OTT, but that could be a me problem. I can even see how Sx-doms could have legit frustrations with Sx-last types. I mean, if you’re an Sx-dom and you want to be in a relationship with someone who can meet your intensity, I’m not the person you want to be in a relationship with. I’m not the one talking about devouring people’s souls or whatever the sx-dom kids on the street say these days.
@Ashes4719 If you’re looking for more resources on instincts, you might want to have a look at Beatrice Chestnut’s subtype descriptions It’s a different interpretation than what’s been discussed in this thread so far, but it’s another perspective to consider. I don’t really subscribe to any particular school of the Enneagram (I don’t even necessarily subscribe to the Enneagram, really) but I still find it worth discussing so long as critical thinking is applied.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
As for the discussion about Sx... people often say Sx is glorified but I don’t see it that way. I notice a clear difference between the Sx-doms on this forum and someone like me, and yes, it has to do with words like passion and intensity. I have to confess to finding some Sx-dom posts on here a bit OTT, but that could be a me problem. I can even see how Sx-doms could have legit frustrations with Sx-last types. I mean, if you’re an Sx-dom and you want to be in a relationship with someone who can meet your intensity, I’m not the person you want to be in a relationship with. I’m not the one talking about devouring people’s souls or whatever the sx-dom kids on the street say these days.
Thinking on this a little more, I don't think people are mistaken in interpreting it as a kind of glorification, but I think a lot of it just comes from how active SX threads tend to be + the expressiveness of the variant (two things which seem related anyway).

I like lowest common denominator descriptions of the instincts. So for me it makes the most sense to think of SX as related to attraction and the kind of high-key chemical bonding that produces infatuation: it is essentially an extension of the mating drive, the metaphorically-but-not-literally sticky part of it. Infatuation is, of course, notorious for skewing perception so that things may be interpreted and experienced as being more extraordinary or extreme than is strictly true. Like when a friend falls hard for someone and talks them up to the point that you think he's a sexual messiah and her obvious soul mate... but when you meet him he's really an okay but kinda schlubby guy next door, and you can tell by how little they have in common that it probably won't actually last, but at that moment, for her, it's still all a very big deal.

SX as a dominant instinct sort of seems, to me, to do a similar thing at times... It influences a person to perceive/feel things intensely more consistently than it leads them to pursue experiences that are objectively intense. (It also motivates people to seek out stimulation, but some people are easily stimulated, so I don't know if this always means seeking it out in very unusual/edgy places.)

Get a bunch of SX doms or SX-identified people talking together, though, and they can end up reifying the subjective lens of feverishness/potency through which they view the world, and making it sound like they have access to some kind of trippy bonus layer of reality that no one else can tap. Which is not, of course, really the case.. at least I don't observe that as being the case. It's more that for SX people that kind of infatuated energy that most of us will naturally experience at one time or another leaks out into everything else as well. Things that look perfectly tame from the outside can still seem to SX doms like a very big deal and if talk is all you have to go on they will, at times unintentionally, tend to make what goes on in their lives and their minds sound like a very big deal even when it might bore the pants off someone else should they be the ones experiencing it.

When most people are learning about instincts, they're doing it on the internet, and talk really is most of what they have to go on. Hence...

It does make me wonder which parts of our shared lens(es) SO and SP doms could end up unintentionally reifying if we actually managed to keep threads going for a prolonged period.
 

·
Registered
ISFJ 6w7 sp/so
Joined
·
27,953 Posts
I've never heard anyone say reifying. What's that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,264 Posts
Why is SX still being shit-talked on this SO thread?

Insecurity? The joy of passive aggressiveness?

Move SX discussion to the SX thread where it belongs (and can be appropriately challenged with citations etc, none of this 'I feel like SX is_____ from my bitter, flawed perspective' bs).

Making an entire post here talking about nothing but how crap SX is after being asked to stay on topic, after never having posted/participated in the recent SX thread, only daring to talk down SX with your social buddies around has a certain look to it doesn't it?

Then again some people feel safer in echo chambers where you can say anything than in open intellectual discussion where you will be challenged and held accountable (expected to prove what you say and be open to better understanding -- aka intellectual honesty).

Then again it's not like any of this is new. I recall a thread in the INTJ subforum in 2017 where someone asked about INTJ + SX. I didn't participate bc by the time I got to it a certain INTJ (I'll let you guess who) had already got in there and shit-talked SX saying how we (implying all SX doms) "embarrass ourselves" with our 'peacocking'.

I let a lot of negative SX talk slide (even when it directly contains a negative value judgement), but an entire SO thread down talking SX as it's main topic is wildly inappropriate.

Be inaccurate and proud, be hateful even (both revealing more about you than anything else), but do it in the appropriate thread and stay on topic.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,222 Posts
Why is SX still being shit-talked on this SO thread?

Insecurity? The joy of passive aggressiveness?

Move SX discussion to the SX thread where it belongs (and can be appropriately challenged with citations etc, none of this 'I feel like SX is_____ from my bitter, flawed perspective' bs).

Making an entire post here talking about nothing but how crap SX is after being asked to stay on topic, after never having posted/participated in the recent SX thread, only daring to talk down SX with your social buddies around has a certain look to it doesn't it?

Then again some people feel safer in echo chambers where you can say anything than in open intellectual discussion where you will be challenged and held accountable (expected to prove what you say and be open to better understanding -- aka intellectual honesty).

Then again it's not like any of this is new. I recall a thread in the INTJ subforum in 2017 where someone asked about INTJ + SX. I didn't participate bc by the time I got to it a certain INTJ (I'll let you guess who) had already got in there and shit-talked SX saying how we (implying all SX doms) "embarrass ourselves" with our 'peacocking'.

I let a lot of negative SX talk slide (even when it directly contains a negative value judgement), but an entire SO thread down talking SX as it's main topic is wildly inappropriate.

Be inaccurate and proud, be hateful even (both revealing more about you than anything else), but do it in the appropriate thread and stay on topic.
You’re the one who’s taking this thread off topic. Who’s shit talking Sx? Who’s “Making an entire post here talking about nothing but how crap SX is”? If you’re referring to my post, I didn’t even mention Sx until several paragraphs in, in when I did, I 1) made it clear that I was talking about my reactions, not some kind of objective truth about Sx-doms, and 2) said that Sx-doms have legitimate frustrations with other types. If that’s ‘hateful’, then you and I have very different understandings of what that word means.

And who says people can’t challenge posts in this thread? Haven’t you been doing just that? (Although with no citations, I’ve noticed). So if you’ve got a specific critique of anything that’s been said in this thread, go ahead and post it, but please stop taking this thread off topic with you’re posts about the thread being off-topic. Follow your own advice. Wouldn’t you’re complaints about negative Sx talk be better off in a different thread?

And so I don’t become part of the problem, I won’t be saying anything more about this issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
@Octavarium I'm guessing she means me, but no, I'm not trying to "shit talk" SX either... just thinking out loud about why the attitude toward it on-forum is getting perceived a certain way by some members, using personal observations to do so. (Re: citations, I believe "aggressive," "competitive" and "on display" are used to describe SX in the Riso/Hudson notes I linked... I'm not pulling my impressions out of nowhere by any means, in fact I think they are mostly rather standard.) I see the topic as part of the meta-discussion of this thread because it has helped cause dramu in this thread. People are free to disagree with me. Nothing I said seems super offensive/negative to me but my bar for what counts as offensive/negative might just be higher. I also dunno if I participated in any INTJ SX threads in 2017, I'd have to go look.

I'm not directly engaging here because I don't think that'd be productive but don't take it personally, I don't think it was directed at you.

ETA: I already gave an account of how I think SX backs up my dominant, I would like to hear contrasting accounts or examples of how SP backs up SO for people that think they might be SO/SP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,961 Posts
I'm highy concerned of, aware of and wanting to create a healthy dynamics between people incl me. Wanting everything to flow. The base idea being ability voice concerns/objections without the dynamics between people turning into fist fights, bullying, neglect and ignorance.
I will go after people and issues destroying the healthy social dynamics in place.

Above is true at work, where I've been for 5 years now. I don't have formal power over people but I can influence the place from my position as an organisational outlier, a roamer. I'm at a perfect position to create the social dynamic I long for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
So, SOs (and other dear readers):

I listened to this podcast recently, where the host goes over notes from a panel on the instincts that included Russ Hudson, Mario Sikora, Beatrice Chestnut and Tom Condon. What is discussed up until about the 13 minute mark is mostly nonsense and not always Enneagram related, but the talk after serves as a good compare and contrast of the different notions of the "instincts" that exist.

My understanding of them - which is partly cultivated based on what seems most internally consistent and in line with my experiences - matches up best with that of Hudson and Sikora, although I disagree with both of them on a few points still. I think Sikora's conceptualization of them as three clusters of evolutionary drives/behaviors, and of variants/stacks as biases, is better than Hudson's idea that they are "energies within the body." But I think Sikora's take that only synflow instinctual stackings (so/sx, sx/sp, sp/so) exist is way, way too stringent.

I was aware before that I tend to prefer Hudson's take on them to most others, as it is the neatest/most to the point/easiest to apply in my opinion. But I was completely ignorant of Sikora. His work is very much geared toward applied organizational/business psychology, which I find valuable in that it's very practical compared to some Enneagram theory and dislike in that I don't give a crap about business and it runs a bit shallow.

He characterizes the SO instinct as "Navigating," which is a way at getting at the core of it that I do like and want to draw attention to. (SP is "Preserving" and SX is "Transmitting" which also aligns with my preferred interps pretty well). Links to some of his articles for perusal/commentary at your leisure, if you're into that sorta thing:

General info:
Enneagram Learning International Blog
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/three-instinctual-biases-how-shape-your-behavior-home-mario-sikora/

All Articles:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mariosikora/detail/recent-activity/posts/

Blog:
http://www.awarenesstoaction.com/blog-enneagram-learning-international/?author=3

NB: he tends to use the word "extroverted" very loosely and then dials himself back a bit in the footnotes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,737 Posts
I listened to this podcast recently, where the host goes over notes from a panel on the instincts that included Russ Hudson, Mario Sikora, Beatrice Chestnut and Tom Condon. What is discussed up until about the 13 minute mark is mostly nonsense and not always Enneagram related, but the talk after serves as a good compare and contrast of the different notions of the "instincts" that exist.
Thanks for the link. Seems the fast forward was disabled so I set it to 3x speed to get to the instincts (at about 13:30).

It all sounds like a bunch of BS to me. Now I remember why I didn't bother with the instincts for 15 years until one day I stumbled upon the experience of them for myself. Some day maybe I'll figure out how to share that. For now, I just like hearing other people describe their own experience of the instincts.

The one thing that stood out was a reminder of Mario Sikora describing the social instinct as "navigating." I believe he identifies himself as SO 8 which for me gives his interpretation of the social instinct some validity (I don't know about his interpretation of the other two).

Could anyone SO-first describe how "navigating" does or doesn't fit your experience? Being SO-last myself, I've not only been minimally aware of and had difficulty "navigating" various social structures but for the most part I didn't even want to be bothered with it (felt like a waste of time to me - though I know it can be useful).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
It all sounds like a bunch of BS to me. Now I remember why I didn't bother with the instincts for 15 years until one day I stumbled upon the experience of them for myself. Some day maybe I'll figure out how to share that. For now, I just like hearing other people describe their own experience of the instincts.
Yes. It is by far the least fleshed out piece of "theory" in Enneagram if I'm not mistaken, people tend to pull it out and use it for...whatever they want, really. Trying to make it all make sense in my head/make it usable is why I'm on such a research/concept-building binge about it right now. Maybe I'll just eventually give up, who knows.

I think I find value in both internal and external perspectives of the variants and would need/want both to develop well-rounded personal definitions of them. In fact, that's part of why I think Sikora's framing of them as biases rather than just variations is useful - it's hard to uncover the exact nature of one's own biases without more objective or at least detached/neutral/uninvolved input.

Anyway I'll probably reply to your Q myself at some later point, but I want to give people that aren't me more floor space than I have been.
 
41 - 60 of 119 Posts
Top