why do you keep spamming random youtube videos to people when you regularly say you don't know much about enneagram and you're not even sure if you believe it? so many of the videos you share are far from what I'd consider good resources.

 

my best friend is sxsp and very very withdrawn. "shy" and "sx dominant" are entirely compatible.

that said, sx is a commonly-mistyped instinct, so definitely keep reading to find some better resources than ones that claim "sx is loud" or some shit.

sxsc is generally gonna be way way louder than sxsp.

 

sx is a commonly-mistyped instinct

But in my case I actually did not want to be a sx-dom when I discovered I was . It kinda mortified me to discover that because I had extreme issues just trying to get my feet wet with women.

 

It can absolutely be the case, remember that everyone is different even when they have the same type and instinctual variant. Your sx 'aggressiveness' could be expressed many ways; it could be your art, bodily movements, how you play games etc.

 

I do think that other aspects of your personality play a role, tempering the sx description. A sx 3 for instance will be very different than a 4 or a 9. I can relate to what you’ve said because I can also be pretty shy and introverted as well. But I am assuming you must also be more intense than most and assertive, and perhaps your agression and passionate ways are in chaneled into more specific areas of your life.

 

Honestly it depends on the Sx definition you use
I have a friend who's deeply into IVs (much more than I ever will be). He even wrote a small book out of them, I could give you the link if you're interested.
In his opinion however, Sx is described as intensity directed toward people only. I know some people like to allow hobbies and other stuff into the intensity Sx seeks; but as a Sx dom he's of the opinion that it's an incorrect definition because hobbies and static/unalive things will never be able to give you back as much energy as people who can truly answer you.
Having said that. Sx would not need to be agressive in the usual sense of the terme : you don't need to be loud and scream. However, Sx is indeed intense, I've seen many Sx dom talk of "soul-sharing" unironically to describe how much they tried to ""merge"" with a new person they were fixated upon.
In my opinion, Sx can be withdrawn and calm and everything under the sun, but it cannot be shy when it comes to people. You cannot get the intensity Sx craves by staying in your corner, taking things slowly or letting others do the getting-to-know you.

In essence, from the understanding I share with other friends : you do not have to be loud or domineering or agressive. But you DO have to be intense. Sx is not about boundaries and taking things slow. They can adapt if the other IS a sp dom for example or uncomfortable with the intensity, but when establishing relationships with their fixations they certainly don't wait for things to just "happen". They take things into their own hands to get to know the person they're interested in. They can be vastly indifferent toward most others however, especially if they have no Soc. Sx, in itself, can be rather ""elitist"" and picky.

 

Hm, that's very interesting. I do agree with the notion that nothing, absolutely nothing, can give you what another human can (in terms of connection/intimacy/emotion etc), but I feel like my Enneagram type (4w5) can affect the whole "approach to people" thing. My whole life I've never really been "chosen" or had people be interested much in me, so I believe that has affected me in the sense that I don't like to be the one to go after people, or a person. But when they do come into my sphere, then I think that's a different story. I remember one of my closest friends, at the beginning of our friendship, being like "why are you so interested in me", cause I remember I would drill question after question around things like personality and just kind of became obsessed with getting to their core, or just really getting to know them (which for me, I thought that was just normal, nothing out of the ordinary), but I get most people wait, or are slow to get out of the "how are you?... oh great" phase, which I despise, I hate dry conversations or beating around the bush, although I would painfully go through that if I don't feel like I'm close enough with someone to get to be deep. So yeah, I'm confused, cause everything but that extroverted crap I relate to.

Also, I have no interest in "people" as a whole. Like sure, it's nice to be around others, like to feel the energy of other people existing around you, but like I'm really bad at the whole group thing. And it feels more lonely to me to just have a lot of friends around you but no closeness... so I don't know. I have considered before being a so/sx instead, but I feel a bit wary of that cause of the whole being "ungrounded" and "head in the clouds / airy vibe" description.

 

IMO, oceanmoonshine is the absolute best resource for instinctual stackings, relative to enneagram type. This is a direct link to all the E4 permutations so you can assess which stacking resonates with you.

Four Stacks

The Instinctual Stackings of Enneatype Four Self-pres/Social This subtype is the least volatile and fiery of the type Four stackings. They can resemble type One in terms of their efficiency and pra…

oceanmoonshine9.wordpress.com

 

The Sx-dom and how it manifests will depend on the enneagram combination going with it, IMO.
That said, Sx isn't limited to one or the other. It can be intense about relationships, equally as it can be intense about avoiding them. Same goes for hobbies; it's certainly not limited to social interactions, only.

I quite like this snippet:
Sexual types are focused on intense and intimate interactions and experiences with others and the environment around them. Giving them a sense of "aliveness". Sexual types will be intense, even about their avoidances.

 

Exactly this. Wish they had named this variant something else since so many think it's about intense sexuality. Sex can factor into it, in that it's an extension of the need for intense intimacy but really, it's a byproduct. The same goes for the thinker and feeler categories. Misnomers.

 

You sound like an Sx dom to me. And yes, I'm shy and introverted but an Sx dom. I'm not shy online, however. More revealing, an open book. More of my real self comes out. I'm more guarded in person. But that desire for intensity and to merge is always there. It's like a high. Whether that's with people or a topic of fascination. I'm picky about it though. I won't just put energy into something or someone that doesn't really set me on fire or interest me or lacking in compatibility. I don't think most people would describe me as being intense upon first meeting me either because that's the nature of being shy/guarded/introverted. That doesn't mean I'm not very intense inwardly or that I don't ever express it. I do, with those I trust.

Some descriptions are better than others. Take it with a grain of salt. Not everything will fit to a T. I'm a type 6 but don't relate to everything under the sun that was ever written about type 6's because some of it sounds more SJish. But the overall motivations of a 6 very much resonate with me. So I just try to take the overall/main idea and see how that fits because obviously it manifests differently in different people seeing that people are complex creatures. The best word to describe Sx energy is "intense" as everyone keeps saying. If you are more yourself with people who are close to you, I would more so judge based off of that than how you are with random strangers. So like, I'm not going to be very confrontational with strangers but I feel more free to be vocal with people who know me well enough to understand my intentions because then it feels safe to be more vocal/confrontational. I know fours are different. This was just an example. We bring out different sides of ourselves based on who we're with. Go by who you're most yourself around. Just my two cents.

 

@hiddenglass You do realize you can't be the one person that is "right" about everything because enneagram is just a pseudoscience that has many subjective viewpoints about things from lots of different people that are just as "valid" as your differing viewpoints because there is no legit fool proof way to prove these things. Hell, we can't even prove that the enneagram itself is legit. I generally believe in the enneagram, but that doesn't mean its "real" per se. Basically, your opinions about it aren't the only valid opinions, contrary to what you seem to think. Sorry, I know that must deeply trouble you. teehee

 

oh yeah, I forgot to reply to this.

I do realize I can't be the one person that is right about everything… but I do often tend to think I am more right than most people lol, and that has worked out well for me in the past. …well… at least with regard to "being right". working on the "being kind" part… 😬

I have a boatload of thoughts about "whether the enneagram is real" or not, but I generally think it more or less is… a sort of facet of God's Divine perfection instantiated through Number. while obviously the E isn't "scientific" in any sense at all, it is founded on pretty clear ideas imo, and the dynamics of the E can be evaluated by us to either synergize as we'd expect a coherent system that sort of "proves itself" to do, else expose itself as discordant and contradictory. ime, following what I consider to be "good teaching", it largely has proven itself. the system as I dive ever deeper into it continues to open itself up to me in new ways that are satisfying rather than disappointing, or lacking in the sort of way that forces me to make excuses for it.

I'm still learning to be able to defend some of the claims I make by meticulously making connections between what I observe and what the enneagram leads us to expect, but it's a journey, so.

Well according to what you showed me I'm a sp/sx 6. I knew right away it fit me best. See, I AM self-aware, but I was just never exposed to these particular descriptions. My mind is too strong to be in blatant denial.

But not so fast! This still isn't what I learned in the past. So rather than embracing these new "insights" it leaves me wondering exactly what is the more accurate teaching. So I'm probably gonna chew on this for an indefinite period of time that could last anywhere from one day to ten years. I'm just gonna delete my instinct stacking in my signature for now. I'm still not even convinced that there is only one right way to look at this, because like I said...........

well my understanding of the instincts is still evolving years-in, so I think "one day to ten years" is a totally valid time scale lol. if you end up continuing to look into it, make sure you check out the page on Enneasite for the stackings. at first I mistyped my instincts. I got my blindspot right, but the other two were flipped. learning about the flows (contra-/syn-) helped clarify some things, as I was able to realize that, when it came down to it, I was definitely the other one, even if I thought initially that my second instinct was my first.

glad I was at least able to provide you with some material you may not have seen before. check out The Complete Enneagram if you haven't, too. I think Beatrice Chestnut has some issues in her stuff, (especially with 4, and I'm not a fan of "countertypes") but it's content worth consuming fer sher. (for example, you can read how she describes sx6 ["strength & beauty 6"] vs sp6, and combine which you think is a better fit… mix that with whether you think synflow or contraflow fits better, and may help identify whether you're sxsp, spsx, scsx, sxsc, or maybe sx last, whatever) ✌🏻

 

@hiddenglass Please try to explain or show me a comprehensive, yet concise explanation of your beliefs on synflow/contraflow. I've never heard of that.

 

Stackings

Become a Patron!

enneasite.com

David Gray's work on the instincts is not to be dismissed lightly. the person I know personally who knows the enneagram better than anyone I've ever met (including David Gray or Russ Hudson or anyone else) called DG's work on the instincts a stroke of genius, and "divine inspiration". I'd consider what he has to say on stackings and the instincts carefully before dismissing it.

^ (this, @ anyone interested, not you specifically, Ock)

 

the more you have, the more accurate the aggregated picture will be. it's not a perfect method (art—not science) and there are a lot of thoughts I have as to how people engage with it, but I've seen really skilled people get entire types almost fully correct from collages alone.

 

you can always record a video of you answering questions and post it =]

 

Yeah, I'm pretty pathetic. Lol. I wouldn't even know how to do that . I get really stressed every time I try to figure things out too. I can't even post YouTube videos here despite getting really stressed and trying to do that kind of thing 2 or 3 times before. So a lot of times to prevent stress I don't even try to do things.

 

lol bro you think you can get your IQ tested online

I'm not gonna argue with you

 

I feel like too many people see personality typologies as if it were set in stone, it’s always good to try and evolve our understanding of things, not stay stuck in maybe a limited view or being close-minded to a new or different perspective. Typologies are the surface, our real essence and complexed selves are the ocean.

Let’s not forget that advancements of an understanding, or a different view of things, could have also been seen as threatening in the past, in the scientific field for example. We used to straight up let people bleed out to cure them of diseases and we must’ve thought that was the best thing ever until we realized we were wrong and there was a better way. So, yeah, we should always stay open-minded. You can’t really know what’s the most “scientifically correct” or whatever, at the end it’s personality we’re tackling, we can’t really know what applies for everyone, for people in general, but we can know what mostly applies to us.

It’s all theory lol

 

exactly. enneagram is far from something ANYONE could call a closed canon. ichazo says he got his insights from archangel metatron 🙄🙄🙄

anyone actually subscribing to what the enneagram purports to teach has z-e-r-o reason to think every enneagrammatic insight has already been mined. go and find something in the system no one has ever seen before. you can do it.

yes, you, dear reader.

 

I think that the "instinct flows" are non-existent. The idea for them came from random users on the old Enneagram Institute forum, yet it was never confirmed by Enneagram Institute itself.

Currently, the only source on the "instinct flows" comes from a website by David Gray. All other websites quote his. Who is David Gray? He was a forum member of the old Enneagram Institute forum. That's it. A random forum person. Granted, he has currently befriended John Luckovich, who is a follower of Enneagram Institute's Russ Hudson, and as such tries to get his ideas implemented as canon. However, none of this has any legitimacy within the original Enneagram. At best, it's a "different version" of the Enneagram. At worst, it is the fantasies of a random internet dude.

I would caution against any website or author who uses the "instinct flows." They are not supported and unverified. "Instinct flows" are up there with "instinct stackings ranges" and "subwings." You can play with these ideas if you think it is fun, but they have no value.

Indeed, theories have to start somewhere. Ideally, they are rooted in extensive research and data with peer reviewed work. Of course, because of the exact lack of such, the Enneagram model cannot be regarded as scientific. However, it does hold a strong core model based on historical teachings that are backed by psychologists. This "flow" idea (not a theory) has nothing of the sort. Entertain them if you like, just know that if psychological value is what you're looking for, this idea of "flows" is a castle in the sky.

Agreed.

 

Every good or bad new idea starts out with only a few individuals.

 

no, all truth is created by consensus vote at the science convention.

 

I think the sexual instinct itself is very much the opposite of introversion.

Introversion is closer to self preservation, although I think that instinct is bullshit..

See what Jung said about introverts:

"For him self-communings are a pleasure. His own world is a safe harbour, a carefully tended and walled-in garden, closed to the public and hidden from prying eyes. His own company is the best. He feels at home in his world, where the only changes are made by himself. His best work is done with his own resources, on his own initiative, and in his own way. …

His relations with other people become warm only when safety is guaranteed, and when he can lay aside his defensive distrust. All too often he cannot, and consequently the number of friends and acquaintances is very restricted.“

read more here what he said about introverts / extraverts.

Carl Jung on Introversion-Extraversion and Fantasy

C.G. Jung Speaking Dr. Evans: Dr. Jung, another set of ideas, original with you and very well known to the world, center around the terms “introversion” and “extroversion.” …

carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog

 

Self-preservation can come in the form of bonds with other people, and especially family. And the more introverted one is the tighter the control on them as they are an extension of the bubble.
unfortunately Jung didn't take that into consideration enough, he just ran with his conclusion about how they all supposedly withdraw and nevermind the vast majority of introverts who are socially active