Personality Cafe banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
843 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
EDIT: Sorry about the faulty link! I fixed it.

I've noticed that there's not much literature on the role of the second instinct, and maybe it's not necessary given how much focus the first and last instincts receive. In theory, the secondary instinct is the least troubled and balanced in comparison to the first and last instincts. Unlike the first instinct, it's not a primary (and neurotic) field of focus. And unlike the last instinct, it's not totally ignored. Experientially, how someone relates to their secondary instinct can vary (put this in your brain pocket because I'll get to to this in a bit). The way I see it is that the primary instinct is our primary focus/default: we are never not tuned in to it. Our lifestyle, mindset, habits, and motivations are testaments to our primary instinct, and our enneatype colors how we embody that instinct (or is it the other way around - the instinct colors how our enneatype manifests?). The secondary instinct is the conduit of the first instinct: it's the area where the first instinct disperses its energies. The secondary instinct supports and modulates the expression of the primary instinct. So I'm wondering, how exactly does the secondary instinct look like? So how would so/sx and sp/sx approach the sx instinct, sp/so and sx/so with the soc instinct, and so on? I've heard that secondary instinct is the most exhibitionistic or noticeable since it's the least troubled area and not as closely tied to our ego as the primary instinct. In some ways that makes sense, but I don't know if I entirely buy into that.

Which leads me to....

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/264-The-Three-Ranges-of-Instinctual-Stackings


What are your thoughts on instinct ranges? Is there something to it? How do you see this playing out in yourself?

Like I mentioned earlier, the primary instinct is our immediate and automatic field of focus. Our ego is the most attached to and concerned with issues surrounding this instinct, and these issues are complex and nuanced (in comparison to the secondary and tertiary instincts). I think the stronger the secondary instinct, the more dialed in we are to its issues and concerns. It can have some of the similar complexes and neuroses surrounding the primary instinct, perhaps giving it a more multilayered focus. I think this illustrates the dynamism and flexibility of the secondary instinct. I kind of see it going through ebbs and flows. That's one way to look at it.

With that being said, the instinct ranges in the way it's articulated in the article, can possibly leave room for mistypes and further confusion.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,044 Posts
I have seen the description before, but I am not sure.

Socially, I hate being in groups. I hate having all eyes on me, it makes me very nervous because I am very sensitive to shame and humiliation. When guests come to our house, I am very shy and don't want to interact with them at all and wish they would leave already. My mom encourages me to be "nice" courteous etc. but I have never really cared and hate having my space intruded. That being said, I am nice and smiling, bright, friendly when talking to people. There's quite a bit of awkwardness though, and my brother says I seem to lack some sort of social intelligence (?). Some people online seem to mistake me for SX first, but I am clearly not that. Social first couldn't be more obvious to me, for myself.

I am reclusive, quiet, introverted, and don't go out of my way to make friends or meet new people. They just happen. In an actual group situation I get very nervous as I am sensitively aware of the energy within the group and my space in it. But I don't really interact unless a) someone approaches me first (this is what usually happens) or b) I see a cute guy I would like to talk to.

What does that make me haha?

EDIT: I think I am most likely "midrange." Just from these descriptions anyway.
 

·
Queen of Hearts
Joined
·
17,935 Posts
I find the instinct ranges really fascinating, but I'm not sure I'm convinced by the way they are presented exactly in the link. I would like to hear more speculation about them :)

(Frankly, I'm not sure if I am on board with the concept of instincts in general though)

This link . . . did they get bored when they got to sx/so haha?

And the sp/so was too boring to read.

Always related to this one:

"Mystifier" Sx/Sp (midrange, balanced sp and sx) - The range where the mystique of the sx/sp stack is at its strongest. Unconsciously attracts with intense eye contact and other Sx 'feelers', but holds back enough to give them a kind of untouchable or hard to get close to quality. Depending on their true intentions, this subtype can either frustrate their Sx or reward their functional sp cooling system. Like midrangers of all stacks, there's a seemingly casual approach to meeting their variant needs as the secondary instinct is kept both in play and at bay, while others may wonder what they really want.
A couple of those sound really a lot like people I know.

Anyways, I'd agree that it would be interesting to hear more about the secondary instinct.

Always thoughts so middle made the most sense for me based on the normal descriptions. Don't feel like so is my primary focus - and I can feel really uncomfortable and suffocated or outsider-ish in group scenarios, but I don't really focus on it after or before the fact. Specifically with so, I feel like it is something I can manipulate, turn on and off. For example, my mother always used to suggest that I would be good at a job that involves being social and welcoming and such, greeting and chatting with people, social facilitator sort of role, because even though in day-to-day life I can be really socially awkward and avoid group situations, etc., when I go into 'social mode' I can be extremely charming :sun-smiley: I think moreso than if I were a social-first because I can go on some sort of autopilot, focused autopilot that doesn't expend too much energy.

Take this with a grain of salt as I'm not sure of my instinctual stacking :)

But I don't feel in control of sx and sp in that way, don't feel like I can go into sx or sp mode. In contrast I can feel totally at the mercy of my sp instinct, like right now for some reason my sp things are not in order and I'm completely ineffective, lol, feels like I'm living in a cave even though technically I'm on vacation, and sx...hard to quickly characterize my feelings about it but it's not something I can really manipulate or turn on and off, nor do I try to (I suppose I'll try to make up sx things to force myself to be interested in something but that doesn't work) it's there or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
I read the link, but I don't really understand it, none of them sound like me. I'm 9 sx/so and this is all it says for sx/ so

"Fireside" Sx/So (strong sx) - Pulls from Sp/Sx shadow to intensify Sx. Exhibitionism, wild abandon, most 'on fire' of all stackings and ranges.

"Flirter" Sx/So (moderate sx and so) - Highly sociable and extroverted per type. Flirtatious interaction style. More coy than the firesiders, but more risque than the coolsiders.

"Coolside" Sx/So (strong so) - 'Cooled' by So with some intellectual reserve. Pulls from the So/Sp's secondary political activist streak. Tends to channel Sx into social causes. Gives a fire-and-ice feelings in discussions.
I definitely not exhibitionist/ "on fire", nor highly sociable and extroverted, nor am I a political activist kind of person. I don't get what "pulls from so/sp" means....so/sp seems totally different from sx/so.
But I guess I do have "intellectual reserve" and I probably would be a political activist if it all weren't so depressing.
 

·
Queen of Hearts
Joined
·
17,935 Posts
I read the link, but I don't really understand it, none of them sound like me. I'm 9 sx/so and this is all it says for sx/ so



I definitely not exhibitionist/ "on fire", nor highly sociable and extroverted, nor am I a political activist kind of person. I don't get what "pulls from so/sp" means....so/sp seems totally different from sx/so.
But I guess I do have "intellectual reserve" and I probably would be a political activist if it all weren't so depressing.
I think the idea of 'pulls from' is that you'll use reflections of the opposite instinct stacking. Like sx/so will normally be sx/so-ish but they have a shadow form of so/sp that would define the other end, or...when they act social they're going to act social like a so/sp.
It makes sense to me but is hard to explain; something I really like about this one though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
426 Posts
With that being said, the instinct ranges in the way it's articulated in the article, can possibly leave room for mistypes and further confusion.
Yep, I've found it to be a significant source of mistypings with stackings. Namely, people mistaking their secondary instinct for their first one. This way So/Sp people with strong Sp for example type themselves as Sp/So or Sp/Sx. I've also seen a number of the So/Sx's with very strong pronounced Sx typing themselves as Sx-firsts: Sx/So or Sx/Sp.

The confusion stems from the fact that people think "strong = primary" and that the strongest instinct has gotta be the first one. They don't notice how their strong instinct is not always something they are focused on internally, but something they use to create context outside of themselves. So then they go on to assume it as their primary one.

It also happens that someone mistakes their last instinct for their first one, by means of idealizing it and mistaking the desired, the ideal, the sought for the real - their wish to be certain way for how they already are and what they already offer. Quite a few So/Sp's will type themselves as Sx/Sp's and Sx/So's and go on believing it for a long time.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top