Personality Cafe banner

61 - 80 of 119 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,133 Posts
Does SO have to do with searching for a sense of purpose? I feel like SO alot for me is constantly looking for some purpose to embody in a group, and on a larger scale some purpose I fulfill in the world, constantly searching for that niche where who I am is meaningful just as I am.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,408 Posts
Discussion Starter #62
Does SO have to do with searching for a sense of purpose? I feel like SO alot for me is constantly looking for some purpose to embody in a group, and on a larger scale some purpose I fulfill in the world, constantly searching for that niche where who I am is meaningful just as I am.
Yes. For larger things than just living and let live.

Sent sans PC
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,408 Posts
Discussion Starter #63
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:
Thanks for valuable readings, you've been very helpful.

For me it is not so much of 'Navigating' but more like 'Coordinating', if that making any sense.

Sent sans PC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
639 Posts
Thanks for valuable readings, you've been very helpful.

For me it is not so much of 'Navigating' but more like 'Coordinating', if that making any sense.
It does make sense, but I'm usually too hands off to really "coordinate" so it's not quite my experience most of the time. (I am attentive to how other people's attempts at coordination are working though, I guess I'd rather just whisper in the ear of a more earnestly social person to give them ideas on how to proceed.) This is where I think input from a more extroverted SO dom would start to be useful - really social SO dom, as it were.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
@baitedcrow @enneathusiast You’re right about the instincts being an especially underdeveloped part of the theory. It’s the area with the most blatant contradictions between theorists, e.g. should you type yourself with descriptions of the instincts independent of type, and, to avoid mistyping, ignore combined type/instinct (subtype) descriptions until you’re at a sufficiently advanced stage of Enneagram study? Or is it a mistake to rely on instinct descriptions independent of type, and, to avoid mistyping, do you need to include subtype descriptions in your typing process? Here we have different theorists giving the exact opposite information and advice. Not to mention significant differences in what each instinct actually is.

I’m not sure what I think of ‘navigating’ as a name for the social instinct. I like Mario Sikora for his ability to think critically about the Enneagram, question established ideas and cut through a lot of the bullshit that gets repeated in Enneagram circles, but I’m less keen on his additions and modifications to theory and his way of presenting the types. Trying to answer the question about whether I personally relate to ‘navigating’, bearing in mind that I’m not totally sure whether I’m an SO-dom, honestly I’ve no idea. I don’t even know where to start answering that question. Do I like navigating social structures? What does that even mean? Networking? No. Ok, I just read over his instinct descriptions to refresh my memory, and based on that page preserving is the best/least poor fit for me, (navigating and transmitting are both too extraverted) but there’s a lot that I don’t relate to in all three descriptions, none of them sound very much like me, so these descriptions don’t work for me, whatever my dominant instinct turns out to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
639 Posts
I’m not sure what I think of ‘navigating’ as a name for the social instinct. I like Mario Sikora for his ability to think critically about the Enneagram, question established ideas and cut through a lot of the bullshit that gets repeated in Enneagram circles, but I’m less keen on his additions and modifications to theory and his way of presenting the types. Trying to answer the question about whether I personally relate to ‘navigating’, bearing in mind that I’m not totally sure whether I’m an SO-dom, honestly I’ve no idea. I don’t even know where to start answering that question. Do I like navigating social structures? What does that even mean? Networking? No.
I can't really speak for Sikora but when I think about how I think SO functions in me, it's easy for me to imagine it as being like steering a boat, either steering my own boat to avoid social problems and get to a social destination, or helping to steer a group to reach a destination and avoid problems. Or perpetually studying the use of tools of social navigation, even, and trends in other boats' directions. That's why the imagery seems suitable to me. But, I think my conceiving of/experiencing it in a more mechanistic way could be a 5 thing / and INTJ thing / a me thing.

Ok, I just read over his instinct descriptions to refresh my memory, and based on that page preserving is the best/least poor fit for me, (navigating and transmitting are both too extraverted) but there’s a lot that I don’t relate to in all three descriptions, none of them sound very much like me, so these descriptions don’t work for me, whatever my dominant instinct turns out to be.
IIRC Sikora emphasizes typing people based on how they act more than on what they "relate" to, basically using default behaviors as tells. I wouldn't take it as far as he does in terms of trying to erase people's experience of themselves from the typing process, but it is part of why I like his descriptions, whether or whether not they really have a 1-for-1 relationship with say, Beatrice Chestnut's instincts. I definitely feel like I can classify coworkers reasonably well using his system, if I consistently observe them. In some cases I doubt they are aware of the behaviors they show to other people regularly, and might not "resonate" with the classification I'd assign to them. The downside to Sikora's typing is that I think it is at very least much easier to pinpoint a person's motivations/preoccupations with their help/their introspective insight... provided they're reasonably self-aware and willing to be honest.

But it's easy for me, because while I don't relate to all the details of any SO description, I almost always relate more to SO descriptions than to the others (occasionally I'll find an SO desc that emphasizes extroversion/sociability to too great an extent, then the accompanying SX will look more like me). Including Sikora's. I also relate more to type 5 SO descriptions than to others. The only confusion I experience is when I look at stack descriptions, especially for type 5: behaviorally and attitudinally I straddle the dividing line between SO/SX and SX/SO descriptions almost always.

If people trying to type me from outside the black box placed me as something other than social, I'd guess it would be due to failure to perceive that social withdrawal is one of my go-to tactics for "navigating" the social world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,696 Posts
@baitedcrow @enneathusiast You’re right about the instincts being an especially underdeveloped part of the theory. It’s the area with the most blatant contradictions between theorists, e.g. should you type yourself with descriptions of the instincts independent of type, and, to avoid mistyping, ignore combined type/instinct (subtype) descriptions until you’re at a sufficiently advanced stage of Enneagram study? Or is it a mistake to rely on instinct descriptions independent of type, and, to avoid mistyping, do you need to include subtype descriptions in your typing process? Here we have different theorists giving the exact opposite information and advice. Not to mention significant differences in what each instinct actually is.
Yes, this has been my exact problem, because on the one hand, I relate wholeheartedly to Beatrice Chestnut's take on sp-4, and what lead me to type as sp/so, but then Tom Condon's take on sp-4 doesn't resonate at all (While social and sexual 4 do), and when I think of sp by itself, read descriptions of sp, it seems the least important of all the instincts to me and I'm pretty terrible at sp in general (I'm also inferior Sensing, and many descriptions of sp seem heavily Si/Sensing oriented, but I'm pretty sure at this point I'm not sp-dom, knowing others who are sp and how overboard with sp they can be compared to me), so yeah, based on my own experience I don't know what's the right approach either ha. I think Riso-Hudson's take on instinctual subtypes here may the closest to my own involvement with people I've known of those particular subtypes (I'm not sure how others feel about their take on their own type and I'm sure it could always use more elaborating/fine-tuning but I don't see much to disagree with either). https://sites.google.com/site/upatel8/personalitytype4

As far as Mario Sikora's take on instincts. While I'm not very familiar with his work, and would have to read more, on first glance, I find this summary of Sx being "Transmitting" to be rather Social in nature (Does anyone else?), or at least, I could see it equally applying to Social:

The behaviors and attention patterns in the Transmitting domain include:


Broadcasting/Narrowcasting—attempts to send attention-getting signals to the broadest group; once a signal is received by someone the attention goes to that individual. (See here for more information.)

Asserting—attempts to get what one wants, often with little inhibition. (See here for more information.)

Impressing—attempts to “leave one’s mark” so one is remembered or leaves a legacy.
The way "Broadcasting/Narrowcasting" is described could apply to so/sx too. Their attention goes to individuals they "click" with (The sx part) in the groups they're a part of. Asserting, while could be in the sx-domain, also seems Se-based too, like someone like Donald Trump would fit that as an ESTP 8w7 (A very assertive combination, as it is), but he wouldn't be Sexual yet is often mistaken for Sexual too. And Social is definitely concerned with leaving a mark/having a legacy. That seems so inherently Social. Why wouldn't it be?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,714 Posts
I think your questions address something to keep in mind regarding the two approaches to the instincts.

...should you type yourself with descriptions of the instincts independent of type, and, to avoid mistyping, ignore combined type/instinct (subtype) descriptions until you’re at a sufficiently advanced stage of Enneagram study? Or is it a mistake to rely on instinct descriptions independent of type, and, to avoid mistyping, do you need to include subtype descriptions in your typing process?
It seems like Naranjo's approach is to determine which of the 27 instinctual subtypes a person is, not simply which of the 9 types they are. So, I would think if someone takes to using the instinctual subtypes they should look at 27 subtypes instead of simply 9 types. Otherwise, why bother considering instinctual subtypes? With this approach there's also no reason for a discussion thread about the social instinct like this because with the subtypes the social instinct is used only to describe a variation of any given type. In other words, there is no separate social instinct to look at in general but only a social subtype of each type.

The three instincts looked at independently of type is a relatively new development and I think it's this attempt to define the instincts separately that's creating all the different interpretations. The instincts were never really a thing unto themselves with the enneatypes. IMO, trying to make them so basically attempts to look at something new by using labels not designed to do so.

Personally, I don't use the instincts as commonly discussed but some derivative I found by forgetting about the labels and looking at the actual experience being described when people contrast their preferred instinct with the other instincts. I think it's only in contrast that they can be understood independent of type (which comes out naturally sometimes when people talk down other instincts which is why I don't mind when people do that).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
639 Posts
And Social is definitely concerned with leaving a mark/having a legacy. That seems so inherently Social. Why wouldn't it be?
I believe he's trying to relate SX back to the mating drive, and implying that the desire to leave something lasting of yourself in the world is an extension of the drive to reproduce. This is one of the things that gives me the most pause when reading Sikora and trying to fit myself into his ideas, though: I think you'd have to go back to "motivations" to tell the difference between SO legacy and SX legacy.

That's also why he places the broadcasting/narrowcasting (transmitting) dynamic with SX over SO. He's suggesting it's an extension of mating display, putting yourself "out there" to try and draw magnetic interest, then connecting with the interested parties you prefer.

I think SO can display too (and so does Sikora - he idiosyncratically believes that all SO will have SX as secondary, in fact). But the difference would be that SO displays are ultimately meant to affect overall group position or group coordination efforts, whereas SX displays occur without respect to how it will affect the group overall, they're about "me" and to a lesser extent about specific "yous".

(In reality though, in a social species, it's really hard to completely separate these two types of display and competition because social status and the group impact individual sexual viability and individual sexual viability can impact social status and the group. Again, you might have to go back to trying to determine the anxiety causing the behavior/the primary motivation.)

If you are going to try and look at how broadcasting/narrowcasting could apply to people with both social and sexual in the stack, I am partial to the interpretation of the second instinct as being less-neuroticized and therefore often used in service of the first instinct/primary drive, so... I think I would associate broadcast --> narrowcast with sx/so and narrowcast --> broadcast with so/sx. (narrowcast --> broadcast being like... establishing discrete points of contact to help enlarge and amplify the message one ultimately wants to transmit to the group or society.)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
Yes, this has been my exact problem, because on the one hand, I relate wholeheartedly to Beatrice Chestnut's take on sp-4, and what lead me to type as sp/so, but then Tom Condon's take on sp-4 doesn't resonate at all (While social and sexual 4 do), and when I think of sp by itself, read descriptions of sp, it seems the least important of all the instincts to me and I'm pretty terrible at sp in general (I'm also inferior Sensing, and many descriptions of sp seem heavily Si/Sensing oriented, but I'm pretty sure at this point I'm not sp-dom, knowing others who are sp and how overboard with sp they can be compared to me), so yeah, based on my own experience I don't know what's the right approach either ha. I think Riso-Hudson's take on instinctual subtypes here may the closest to my own involvement with people I've known of those particular subtypes (I'm not sure how others feel about their take on their own type and I'm sure it could always use more elaborating/fine-tuning but I don't see much to disagree with either). https://sites.google.com/site/upatel8/personalitytype4
I used to fairly confidently type as SP/SO, but one thing that started to make me think I might be SO-dom rather than SP-dom is that I’m not that focused on SP themes like the ones described on that Sikora page. It takes effort for me to think about health matters. If I feel ill I’ll usually just assume I’ll be ok in a day or two and I think of medical appointments as something to be avoided wherever possible. I’m not overly concerned with finances either. I’m fairly responsible with money, not generally inclined to spend recklessly, and I don’t necessarily mind thinking about these issues when I need to, but I’m not at all obsessive about it, and I don’t get anxious about money unless I have a definite reason to do so, so as long as I have enough money for the things I need/want it’s not a major concern. Money is a means to an end for me. I’m also not overly anxious about physical safety. Again, I’m not likely to do anything risky or reckless, and I do like my comfort, e.g. camping holds no appeal for me because I want to be somewhere that’s warm, comfortable and has an internet connection, but safety it not what I’m focused on.

But then I read So-dom descriptions, and some of them are too extraverted for me to relate to them much, but the themes sound much more like my fascinations, my concerns, the things I do get anxious about even when there’s no definite reason to worry. I already talked about how I relate to SO instinct themes in my first post in this thread (post 48) so I won’t say any more about it here.

The problem is, the instinct descriptions conflate a few things that don’t necessarily go together. Are the instincts about introversion/extraversion, what you’re good at, what you’re obsessed with in a potentially unhealthy way that might make you not good at it, e.g. SP-doms risking their health by overeating, SO-doms not being sociable because of social anxiety, or what?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4 Posts
It does make sense, but I'm usually too hands off to really "coordinate" so it's not quite my experience most of the time. (I am attentive to how other people's attempts at coordination are working though, I guess I'd rather just whisper in the ear of a more earnestly social person to give them ideas on how to proceed.) This is where I think input from a more extroverted SO dom would start to be useful - really social SO dom, as it were.
Why are you hands off? Do the have somesort of tendency to proceed in a manner that is making you work that way? 'Most of the time' so that means occasionally you do take control; whats happening there that is triggering a response instead of a reaction? What changes smooth classyness into firmness?

So. Youd consider an extroverted sosx more social in admin sense I understand. And yes, in a way as the draining is absent, they are. But. They broad manage, meaning low to medium focus. Meaning the can control the outcomes of vast groups, while finding it very difficult to lead leaders. I guess thats where whispering becomes valuable. :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4 Posts
So. Sosx seems diplomatic in a way. F.e. You mentioned avoiding dilemmas. For me, drilling into them and taking care of the outcome is a must. I let things be/dont engage only when I calc theres zero potential for learning/growth for that case/person/project in it left at all. If the issue is neg by nature Ill deal with it quickly. If its a positive issue, such as:

Too much success
Too much pos feelings
Too much drive compared to abilities
Too much competence compared to drive
Too much innovation compared to the era we live in
Or other pos issues, Ive got a completely other style in as how to handle it. Bc the latter requires a take that makes people still hold on to their say project, but with a lesser or more advanced way of functioning. So what they do is great, but how they do it will generate either limitations or positive burnouts. So that needs attention indeed. Luckiest thing is to surround yourself with people with pos issues, they are of succeess to their core.

Great analysis about how those two theorist differ by how the form obs. Ive noticed the same there before. But consistency obs coworkers and doing the hidden analysis Consistently! ...sneaky a bit? Then again. Dont worry, all intjs are natural born stalkers. The more - the higher IQ.

Baited. You need to calc that when they're desc sosx they allocate a portion from the cluster to the extroverted sosx. That why those desc are occasionally perhas too pushy for your tastes. Also, if the game is theorized by an extroverted person.. the projections are usually in the subjective hypothesis, to some extents anyway

Social withdrawals are for sure 5thing, as the fear steps in. There are also other factors to it. What Im interested in is, can you control it? Can you say, ok now I have a binge to retreat, instead Ill go for the opposite say for the sake of growth or soc outcome or which ever inner/outer motive theres strong nuff to flip that one around? And when you do do it, how that like for you?

I would def type you as one of the two. But for what ever reason Im having a fascinatingly hard time defining which of the teo you are. You sound a lot like Mmmm tho. But then youre way over my league in classyness. I guess we are about to find out. :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4 Posts
I believe he's trying to relate SX back to the mating drive, and implying that the desire to leave something lasting of yourself in the world is an extension of the drive to reproduce. This is one of the things that gives me the most pause when reading Sikora and trying to fit myself into his ideas, though: I think you'd have to go back to "motivations" to tell the difference between SO legacy and SX legacy.

That's also why he places the broadcasting/narrowcasting (transmitting) dynamic with SX over SO. He's suggesting it's an extension of mating display, putting yourself "out there" to try and draw magnetic interest, then connecting with the interested parties you prefer.

I think SO can display too (and so does Sikora - he idiosyncratically believes that all SO will have SX as secondary, in fact). But the difference would be that SO displays are ultimately meant to affect overall group position or group coordination efforts, whereas SX displays occur without respect to how it will affect the group overall, they're about "me" and to a lesser extent about specific "yous".

(In reality though, in a social species, it's really hard to completely separate these two types of display and competition because social status and the group impact individual sexual viability and individual sexual viability can impact social status and the group. Again, you might have to go back to trying to determine the anxiety causing the behavior/the primary motivation.)

If you are going to try and look at how broadcasting/narrowcasting could apply to people with both social and sexual in the stack, I am partial to the interpretation of the second instinct as being less-neuroticized and therefore often used in service of the first instinct/primary drive, so... I think I would associate broadcast --> narrowcast with sx/so and narrowcast --> broadcast with so/sx. (narrowcast --> broadcast being like... establishing discrete points of contact to help enlarge and amplify the message one ultimately wants to transmit to the group or society.)
Outstandingly fascinating is the legacy dif. Would you say sosx and sosp have it knotted closer or would you go for the lack of an instinct to prevail both mot and desired outcome? Because for me the legacy is an amplification of total impact. I dont mind about its expected timeframe, as I know how those work when the seed is there and light and water starts to pour on it. But I care very much for it to be beneficial for a more pos construct in the future, applicable to all segments and sectors of life. Even universally applicable in my opinion. Yet. Somehow, I find that sosxs are even more of that than the sxsos. And that stunns me, lots. Its as the sosx wants to leave that legacy in a way fame incorporates larger amplification of it all. Just amazing, really, as I then again use the leverages (fame, soc relations, soc abilities, access to UHNW groups & influence over them through respect, the math group, IQ groups, geomilitar-pol groups, innovation thinkthank lab teams and what not) to what ... find the most special thing? Thats kinda egotistical isnt it? Yak. Ive got a major deficiency here it seems.

But yeah. Placing yourself out there to filter out and test is the thing. You as an sxso want as much experience, data, liberty and stamina to kinda net it all and then be a bit picky about what you then invest time in and if its all genuine, then its time to push it to its max, ideally replacing yourself say professionally. At that point for the 1st time in ones life, you FEEL the professional peak. And, its a relief. Its like you REALLY have made it. Then, you chill and only give advice when asked for. The active leading part is now over. Other people stronger than you have taken the wheel of that boat. Then they invite you over at the country clubs. The youngest over there is around say 65, and there you are, councilling with those that .. give direction to trends. Thats a cool thing. They are pretty humorous too, youd think our avg age is 5 at best if you had no visuals on us. :) but yeah, the many sosxs of that specific group are way more interesting aroung legacy motivations than myself. I find that inspiring. Well itd be weird for me to inspire then, at half to to a third of their expertise in terms of years.

No, theres def a sosp group too. But yes sosx works like that paragraph presents it. The problem of defining grops with whats the first instinct disresonates with reality. Spsxandsxsp, they get eachother well. Mirror imaging? I dont know. On the other hand anyone with 1/10th of a brain can adjust and handle any type, E or instincts with a bit of a talent. While someone whos mentally handicapped will provoke clashes even with someone with whom the person has all the aspects in common with. That handicap is ego. Inferiority/superiority complexes.

Still looking into what you meant by those 3rd last and second last paragraphs. CD, can you translate to an idiot here to get em too?

The narrow broad theory is how I have understood it too, and seeing it working at soc conjuctures only makes me believe in it just more.

That last phrase make me feel I got the answer, at least partially, I was promised to get this weekend. :))
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,696 Posts
I believe he's trying to relate SX back to the mating drive, and implying that the desire to leave something lasting of yourself in the world is an extension of the drive to reproduce. This is one of the things that gives me the most pause when reading Sikora and trying to fit myself into his ideas, though: I think you'd have to go back to "motivations" to tell the difference between SO legacy and SX legacy.

That's also why he places the broadcasting/narrowcasting (transmitting) dynamic with SX over SO. He's suggesting it's an extension of mating display, putting yourself "out there" to try and draw magnetic interest, then connecting with the interested parties you prefer.
Yeah, I get that, but I just see that thing more in Social (at least Broadcasting itself, not for "mating" purposes) than Sexual, like it would apply way more to sx/so than sx/sp, and the reason for that is the secondary Social, not Sexual. I suppose I would use Seduction/Allure as a way of describing sx there (and I see he includes seduction in his sx description) instead of Broadcasting/Narrowcasting. Agree about motivations making the difference.

I think SO can display too (and so does Sikora - he idiosyncratically believes that all SO will have SX as secondary, in fact).
That's weird, and I completely disagree that there isn't a difference between dominant instincts with a different secondary instinct. A so/sx is very different from a so/sp.

But the difference would be that SO displays are ultimately meant to affect overall group position or group coordination efforts, whereas SX displays occur without respect to how it will affect the group overall, they're about "me" and to a lesser extent about specific "yous".
Yeah, like even when so/sx do connect to one person with their sx, they still have the overall group (or groups) in mind that they're interacting with at the time. I've seen this play out a parties and such, where they just keep the group dynamic going rather than connecting with one person. I think sx would just be more indifferent to Social in that case, if they were latched onto someone in the moment. I'm not sure if I would say it's about "me", but rather "us" (two people) or "You and I", like I think the Fauvres describe sx as pair-bonding, and that makes sense. I see it as a there's no me without you, kind of thing, in some instances.

(In reality though, in a social species, it's really hard to completely separate these two types of display and competition because social status and the group impact individual sexual viability and individual sexual viability can impact social status and the group. Again, you might have to go back to trying to determine the anxiety causing the behavior/the primary motivation.)
Yeah, but I do think sx tend to have a more overtly "sexual" display at times too just for the sake of it, and in that I get what Mario means with peacocking and whatnot (although, I think it can be subtly displayed too, which is often overlooked), that Social would be doing so more because of the "trend", for instance. So, sx would focus more on their individual sexual viability while Social on how it impacts status.

Hmm, just a thought but viabilty seems a bit more related to sp, whereas sx can be less interested in the viability and more the high of the "burning out" phase. It's partly why I'm not even sure if Sexual instinct is interested all that much in doing so for purposes of "reproducing", like Mario suggests, despite the term of "Sexual" and attempting to connect it to evolution.

If you are going to try and look at how broadcasting/narrowcasting could apply to people with both social and sexual in the stack, I am partial to the interpretation of the second instinct as being less-neuroticized and therefore often used in service of the first instinct/primary drive, so... I think I would associate broadcast --> narrowcast with sx/so and narrowcast --> broadcast with so/sx. (narrowcast --> broadcast being like... establishing discrete points of contact to help enlarge and amplify the message one ultimately wants to transmit to the group or society.)
Yeah, I don't know I think it's just making it too complicated when he could just use a better word. I find the instincts are far more simpler on the surface than the descriptions tend to make them out to be.

I used to fairly confidently type as SP/SO, but one thing that started to make me think I might be SO-dom rather than SP-dom is that I’m not that focused on SP themes like the ones described on that Sikora page. It takes effort for me to think about health matters. If I feel ill I’ll usually just assume I’ll be ok in a day or two and I think of medical appointments as something to be avoided wherever possible. I’m not overly concerned with finances either. I’m fairly responsible with money, not generally inclined to spend recklessly, and I don’t necessarily mind thinking about these issues when I need to, but I’m not at all obsessive about it, and I don’t get anxious about money unless I have a definite reason to do so, so as long as I have enough money for the things I need/want it’s not a major concern. Money is a means to an end for me. I’m also not overly anxious about physical safety. Again, I’m not likely to do anything risky or reckless, and I do like my comfort, e.g. camping holds no appeal for me because I want to be somewhere that’s warm, comfortable and has an internet connection, but safety it not what I’m focused on.
Yeah, that sounds in line with sp-secondary. Sp-doms I know worry about that stuff and usually try to stay on top of it. Again, why I can't see myself sp-dom because it's usually the last thing on my mind. For me, it's more of a "I should be better at this/work on this..." but I'm not. I'm not sure if that's how the blind-spot position functions, or if that's my "neurotic" fixation with sp lol.

But then I read So-dom descriptions, and some of them are too extraverted for me to relate to them much, but the themes sound much more like my fascinations, my concerns, the things I do get anxious about even when there’s no definite reason to worry. I already talked about how I relate to SO instinct themes in my first post in this thread (post 48) so I won’t say any more about it here.
Some of the shyest people I've known have been Social-doms, for the very fact that they're worried so much about people and how they're being perceived. At the same time, some of the most extroverted people I've known and who are the life of the party have also been Social-doms. There's a wide variety.

So yes, I do think the idea that one's first instinct is "neurotic" holds true, or at least where your worry is, and where I think the conversation tends to miss out on in these discussions, which I'm glad to see it brought it up in the discussion, because that's how they tend to really show up.

The problem is, the instinct descriptions conflate a few things that don’t necessarily go together. Are the instincts about introversion/extraversion, what you’re good at, what you’re obsessed with in a potentially unhealthy way that might make you not good at it, e.g. SP-doms risking their health by overeating, SO-doms not being sociable because of social anxiety, or what?
I think it can be what you're good at (at a certain stage in your life, since I see a lot of people who have had to overcome the "insecurities" of their instinct in a way before they get to that point; Sometimes I don't see this struggle in others too, so it depends), but also where you're most affected by/sensitive to as well. I see it mostly in terms of where your focus goes. I've even seen one source say your dominant instinct is where you're most damaged. :shocked:

e.g. SP-doms risking their health by overeating, SO-doms not being sociable because of social anxiety, or what?
Yeah, it seems contradictory, but this is more how I see it showing up, whereas someone who is so-last, for instance, tends to not care as much about it, so there isn't the "worry"/neurosis associated with it. Not that a so-last couldn't have social anxiety too, but I don't see that worry in them about Social because they just don't think about it all that much (until maybe they're forced to do so).

I'm just putting forward my understanding of instincts, so I don't really know if it's right or not. Just that's been my experience and curious if others see it the same way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
639 Posts
mistakenforstranger said:
Yeah, I get that, but I just see that thing more in Social (at least Broadcasting itself, not for "mating" purposes) than Sexual, like it would apply way more to sx/so than sx/sp, and the reason for that is the secondary Social, not Sexual. I suppose I would use Seduction/Allure as a way of describing sx there (and I see he includes seduction in his sx description) instead of Broadcasting/Narrowcasting. Agree about motivations making the difference.
This kind of seems like a terminology preference rather than disagreement about the content of what he’s saying on this one point. (Or my interpretation of what he’s saying, or what I’m saying.)

That's weird, and I completely disagree that there isn't a difference between dominant instincts with a different secondary instinct. A so/sx is very different from a so/sp.
I don’t like this part of his system either, I can see ways of interpreting my experience of people to make more than enough room for the additional 3 stacks. I would like to see some kind of synthesis of Sikora’s ideas and say, the ideas people have about contraflow and synflow. It’s very interesting to me that it’s the contraflow stackings (SX/SO, SO/SP, SP/SX) that he doesn’t believe he is able to observe, and the synflow stackings (SO/SX, SX/SP, SP/SO) that he does believe exist.

I'm not sure if I would say it's about "me", but rather "us" (two people) or "You and I", like I think the Fauvres describe sx as pair-bonding, and that makes sense. I see it as a there's no me without you, kind of thing, in some instances.
I see SX as encompassing chemically charged “pair-bonding” too, but I don’t think it’s limited to that – there are other behaviors (related to reproduction) that necessarily precede pair-bonding and also don’t fit well into either of the other instincts. There is nearly always some kind of “pick me” or “win me” that comes before the “us” that pair-bonding creates, IME. I would tend to consider them both different "phases" of the expression of that instinct.

NB: "display" as part of SX isn't even specific to Sikora, it's part of the Riso-Hudson take as well. Ditto "aggression" and "competition." I think that since both SO and SX are considered more "outward pushing" than SP, it can be easier to confuse some of the associated drives and behaviors on a superficial level. A lot of the more negative traits that are IMO most sensibly associated with SX (specific sorts of domination/jealousy/attention-seeking behaviors) end up being pinned exclusively on SO, and that's part of where SO's weird rep comes from.

(Also, I specifically have to relate SX bonds to the kind of chemical pair-bonding that leads with limerence - even if it doesn't end there - because I don’t buy that all one-on-one or even all “intimate” relationships are functions of SX. It seems to me that a lot of long-term relationships slide into being driven more by SP or SO as time goes on. The caveat to that is that I don’t think a relationship has to actually be sexual to have a pseudo-sexual chemical intensity – I kind of want to refer to the “romantic friendships” of yore as an example here.)

Hmm, just a thought but viabilty seems a bit more related to sp, whereas sx can be less interested in the viability and more the high of the "burning out" phase. It's partly why I'm not even sure if Sexual instinct is interested all that much in doing so for purposes of "reproducing", like Mario suggests, despite the term of "Sexual" and attempting to connect it to evolution.
When I say “viability” I mean to others, as a potential mate – and I don’t think it makes sense to shoehorn that into SP or SO, because sexual competition can undermine security in either other area. For instance, WRT SP, a lot of mating displays in many species that are intended to increase reproductive fitness decrease the animal’s individual fitness. A 15 year old boy that tries scaling an overpass to impress a girl on the ground below and falls and breaks his arm is “doing” SX and sucking hard at SP. A peacock’s tail is a hindrance when he needs to hide or run from predators.

Sikora does see SP as always supporting SX, though. I'm guessing he is making a connection between things like being physically healthy and attractive and having a nice home, etc. and how that can be used in SX displays.

Unfortunately IMO when you try and narrow the definition of “SX” to be about something as abstract as having a “high” it becomes too unmoored from anything concrete or objective for me to consider it usable. The whole “instinctual variants” thing is already nebulous/unstructured enough, too much so, really. Becoming overly removed from some external point of reference (like “evolutionary drives” as one possibility, even if it’s kind of contrived due to being an attempt at working backward from something that was unclear to begin with) is what gets us so many conflicting interps of instincts from so many well-regarded Enneagram theorists, and what gets us the “if it isn’t flattering to me it’s not part of the instinct I identify with”/”the instinct I identify with is the one whose descriptions I find easiest to spin in a way that’s flattering to me” attitude that you sometimes see on Enneagram forums. Basically it becomes a free-for-all and wounds the consistency/the usefulness of the concept.

Splitting drives into three categories based on their purpose to the organism is probably a paradigm I’ll stick with for now, because it has the potential to provide more clarity than any other I’ve found so far (at least for me). I might find a better one later, but I haven’t yet. Most of the debate I’m interested in is about which drives/behaviors really belong in/are motivated by which of the three categories (in general) and how to determine which of the three categories are motivating an ambiguous behavior or attitude in a particular instance.

I don’t think something has to be literally motivated by the “original evolutionary purpose” of a category (literally screwing/literally conceiving for SX) to be interpretable as derived from it or related to it in terms of the underlying psychological drives or perhaps patterns. In fact having “energy” from a given instinct/realm leak out into situations where it’s not directly or practically applicable is kind of a hallmark of the dominance of that instinct in my mind.

Yeah, I don't know I think it's just making it too complicated when he could just use a better word. I find the instincts are far more simpler on the surface than the descriptions tend to make them out to be
I don’t really think “the instinctual variants” exist as such, I think we just have to pick how best to sort existing, feet-on-the-floor-level motives/behaviors/tendencies. So I’m leery of under-complicating them by saying they are simple on the surface even when they do seem that way to me. I’ll bet they seem simple on the surface to Sikora and some of the other theorists too, and I find all of their takes on them hit or miss when it comes to how they match up with my own surface read.

@Huzei I might reply to you some time later this week.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,258 Posts
I'm not sure if I would say it's about "me", but rather "us" (two people) or "You and I", like I think the Fauvres describe sx as pair-bonding, and that makes sense. I see it as a there's no me without you, kind of thing, in some instances.
Yep, that is the definition of SX; if you don't instinctively '1 + 1 = 1', you're going to have problems justifying SX in the dominant position.

Yeah, but I do think sx tend to have a more overtly "sexual" display at times too just for the sake of it, and in that I get what Mario means with peacocking and whatnot (although, I think it can be subtly displayed too, which is often overlooked), that Social would be doing so more because of the "trend", for instance. So, sx would focus more on their individual sexual viability while Social on how it impacts status.
I thought Mario's "transmitting" (SX) description was terrible. Describing us (all) as extroverted... Why would a magnetism type talk about accomplishments -- why would we want to draw people on a 'status' basis? (SO much?). And more... I like that you noted any display we SX doms do may be "for the sake of it" (self expression) and that it may be subtle.

The fun part for me is deliberately not signaling and having a fellow sx pick up something 'unseen' anyway. That's what's exhilarating (finding 'the one'/being found by 'the one'), not trying to capture as much attention/status as possible (no wonder Mario imagines all SX doms to be sx/so).

I'm aware a fellow 5 sx here said they don't 'peacock'. The same is true for me; on a regular day I wear very little makeup, mostly neutral colored clothes and I look slightly down as I walk -- being careful to not draw attention/'connection' (I'm not socially anxious in the slightest, this behavior is SX driven in me). When I did meet my 'one', it was as Chestnut describes for the 5 sx: we formed a union in a fairly quickly/non fanfare way.

Of course, different sx dominants will behave differently but applying cliches to everyone of a type is way off the mark. It's very problematic to venture beyond the most basic core description (which defines the instinctual type) in anything more than an exploratory, this won't apply to all, qualified way.

Hmm, just a thought but viabilty seems a bit more related to sp, whereas sx can be less interested in the viability and more the high of the "burning out" phase. It's partly why I'm not even sure if Sexual instinct is interested all that much in doing so for purposes of "reproducing", like Mario suggests, despite the term of "Sexual" and attempting to connect it to evolution.
Re "burning out" I see that idea around (the SX = salmon swimming upstream idea) and while I believe that's true to some degree for some SX doms (unfortunately I've behaved that way at times), there is also a corresponding idea sometimes associated with SX of 'life', 'creation' and a sensitivity to 'life force' (vitality) especially within ourselves (this ties into the SX can = sensitivity/draw to high energy idea). Of course it's possible to feel most alive when risking death... (which may be the motivation).

So, while I don't think this life/death quality will apply to all SX dominants (or is exclusive to SX), I do suspect that "burning out" is only one side of the coin there, at best. I'm also not sure about SX being about reproduction in any broad way either, just as SX is not about sex in the simple sense. I see 'legacy' as more SO personally.

I find the instincts are far more simpler on the surface than the descriptions tend to make them out to be.
Agreed.

Some of the shyest people I've known have been Social-doms, for the very fact that they're worried so much about people and how they're being perceived. At the same time, some of the most extroverted people I've known and who are the life of the party have also been Social-doms. There's a wide variety.
So true. This variety aspect doesn't come up much unfortunately. The same can be said for SX doms and SP doms. For example of the three SP doms I've known best, one was extremely fixated on money, the other on 'home making' (nesting & nurturing) where the third's neuroticism falls on physical safety (from potential physical threats -- he's very into martial arts etc).

So yes, I do think the idea that one's first instinct is "neurotic" holds true, or at least where your worry is, and where I think the conversation tends to miss out on in these discussions, which I'm glad to see it brought it up in the discussion, because that's how they tend to really show up.
Right -- the stays at home introverted social dominant writing the manifesto, the abstinent SX dominant hoping to only be with 'one' in their lifetime, the SP dominant who climbs Mt Everest to focus on physical survival the entire time -- you've got to go beyond appearances into the neuroticism/sensitivity driving the behavior.

I think it can be what you're good at (at a certain stage in your life, since I see a lot of people who have had to overcome the "insecurities" of their instinct in a way before they get to that point; Sometimes I don't see this struggle in others too, so it depends), but also where you're most affected by/sensitive to as well. I see it mostly in terms of where your focus goes.
Yeah, talent and focus/neuroticism won't align perfectly (indeed some have a 'negative' fixation and tend to avoid or do it badly -- e.g., the antisocial social dominant) but overall I think it's fair to expect a positive correlation between dominant instinct & ability for most, by a certain age as you implied anyway, simply bc people tend to get good at things they research/ponder/practice.

I agree that it can be very innate/effectively a talent you were born with for some. The 'system' of romantic relationships (what makes them work well long term) is very easy/intuitive for me (but the price for this 'gift' is paid by my lack of vision/innate value of/ability in my SO 'blind spot').

Yeah, it seems contradictory, but this is more how I see it showing up, whereas someone who is so-last, for instance, tends to not care as much about it, so there isn't the "worry"/neurosis associated with it. Not that a so-last couldn't have social anxiety too, but I don't see that worry in them about Social because they just don't think about it all that much (until maybe they're forced to do so).
Exactly. It's only dawning on me now that if I'm going to be a (good) leader of sorts in a corporation someday I need to take learning SO stuff more seriously.

I'm just putting forward my understanding of instincts, so I don't really know if it's right or not. Just that's been my experience and curious if others see it the same way.
I mainly see things the same way :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,408 Posts
Discussion Starter #79
Haha. It's always nice for an so to watch a discussion run well and deep with such growing mutual understanding.

Funnily, i learned a lot from the "miscommunications" happened here too. Blushing is imminent.

Nothing goes without purpose. I feel like 'coordinating' :popcorn:

Sent sans PC
 
61 - 80 of 119 Posts
Top