# Sx: the all-or-nothing instinct? (and other thoughts)



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

Just so there's no deceit, impetus for this thread came from observing argument about sx, having some thoughts, and then noticing it was closed :frustrating: But maybe this can be a thread where we can civilly discuss how we view the sx instinct as well as others.

*My observations about the instincts*

Everyone seems to basically agree about what the social instinct is, does, and looks like, and there seems to be limited confusion on this point.
There is some confusion and differing opinions regarding sp, and practical anarchy on the sx front. This makes me think that there are areas where we do not know where to separate sp and sx, as well as areas where we don't know how to separate these instincts from basic human nature.

If you look at the example of sex, I think it's obvious that there's a reason this would get tangled: if libido is sx and pleasure is sp, the physical act of sex sp and the emotional act of sex sx - it's hard to draw a line in the sand. Personally I don't think it's altogether relevant. Sex is a basic aspect of human nature, it is natural for us to give ourselves to another person, and have this experience on the physical, emotional, spiritual level. Just like food, humans are made to appreciate food, not just to stave hunger, but for the flavor, etc. etc. etc. People are also made for the company of other people, and are generally inclined to make connections, establish bonds, make and break rules. If instinct theory would mean that one person couldn't fully experience a really good meal, a beautiful group experience, and an intense intimate connection, instinct theory would be rather silly. (Not saying people are saying this, just setting the stage haha)

*My thoughts regarding instincts in general*

If instinct theory is going to make sense, and we agree that there are three instincts, then these three instincts should be things that we are able to see in, let's say, most members of the human population on a daily basis, and there should be three identifiable (even if not easily categorized) energies at work in any given person. i.e. each person, pretty much, should be able to see 'sx instinct in me' 'so instinct in me' 'sp instinct in me'. I think the division in terms of preference should be _fairly_ even, otherwise each instinct would not really say something valuable about the human condition - if say only 1% of all people seemed to prefer one of the instincts, it would seem like a difficult way to divide the populace into three. 

And obviously since there are a good many more people on this earth than instincts, each of the instincts is going to manifest in different ways.

In short, the province of the instincts must _exclude_ experiences common to mankind, and _include_ the average sweep of the average person's life.

*What I don't think sx is, based on the above*

So, I don't agree with the idea that sx is this never-resting unchained starved beast - because I have only met _perhaps_ a handful, perhaps five people, who could match this description of a sx-first. It is possible that all the places I've lived have been peculiar oases from men and women driven by raw passion alone, but I think it's improbable. I also don't see this as a weighted factor in most people - the average person's - life. These descriptions tend to remind me of romantic-era descriptions of music, "when I heard this strain of melody, my senses were filled with the roaring scent of violets washed over by a silver-lit moon", which are fervently meant and tend to excite the imagination but also, as was noted in a book on music appreciation that I read, confuse would-be music lovers who feel that they must be listening to the symphony wrong if their listening experience is not actually marked by violent hallucinations 

Likewise, I don't agree with the notion that sx is

a. simple intensity, as this seems to mean something different to anyone who says it. I'd guess that most of our sx troubles come from the fact that each of us hear 'sx = intensity', take our own view and experience of intensity, and then apply it to the instinct
b. Intense personal attraction, as this is a basic human experience, and certainly not true love
c. Tendency to prioritize relationships, people do or don't for a myriad of reasons, there's not a single core impulse to it
d. Anything along the lines of divine inspiration, poetic fever, etc. that's separate and universal or not imo 

*What I do think sx is*

Not sure :sad: 

But the one thought that occurred to me was 'all-or-nothing' as it seems to fit my categories and I want to push this theory a little, not married to it. By all-or-nothing I mean in one moment - not the conscious choice to take risks, that is more sp imo

I think this 'all-or-nothing' is an energy which can be seen

a. dominating the personalities of people you are likely to meet on a daily basis
b. In the average person on an average day, whether rejected or denied
c. Tied to the literal sexual instinct imo, die or die mentality
d. But applicable to wide range of things, i.e. it can be sexual, energy-wise without being sex, there's a million things that affect how people literally express themselves and behave re: sex but I think there's a constant here

Basically an addictive energy, I would say, just not the same as physical or psychological addiction
And I think this view of the instinct can make it pretty easy to divide things into three parts, example:

Competition:
so: competing with competitors, establishing dominance, outranking
sp: doing well for oneself, showing one's edge
sx: thrill of chase, in-the-moment addiction 

_____________________________

Putting this out there as a theory, I've never really understood the instincts, don't really like most views on the sx instinct, but this is making sense to me, for the moment at least. I don't mean offense to people who have put out their views on sx in the past, just trying to express myself as clearly as possible and needed some walls to bounce things against.

edit: sorry, wanted to add
I mean 'all or nothing' literally and I think it's better not to discount the 'nothing' half 
If I were being elaborate I'd want to divide it into 'all' as a 'masculine' (self?)-_destructing_ force and 'nothing' as a 'feminine' (self?)-_defeating_ force but idk

idek if I believe in instincts theory at all, or Enneagram _that_ deeply, for that matter


----------



## Gilly (Apr 22, 2012)

I think a lot of question as to how people's "intensity" comes off can come down to the equation of factors in it (obviously). 

For example;
An ESTP 8w7 3w4 7w8 Sx/so (or some combination there in) will seem like one of the most intense/volatile person most are likely to ever meet. Cocky, in your face, little care for how it affect you except for how much closer it brings them to what they want. 

Admire them, or hate them, annoyed but amused (from afar), and probably want to sleep with them in conjecture with the previously mentioned feels (Just me?)- you'll have an 'intense' reaction to them as well. 

However...
An ISTJ 8w9 5w4 4w5 Sx/Sp will likely seem mostly reserved - to most. 
Probably with visions of self grandeur, knowing they're better than the rest, enjoying the game for a mate but finding most lacking. (One potential description). They'd be looking for extreme intensity with a partner and see others as beneath their concern. Others would likely only see it expressed in the temper - and even then with this combo I'd think the rage would be in a rejection from an envisioned and approved perfect mate. 


You can't ever really look at anything in a bubble when it comes to people since we're all mixed up. 
Everyone of course, attempts to do so, because it's personality theory and it's nice to keep things 'scientific'.
Also necessary for descriptions to be as distinct as possible for people to try to fuse them when typing themselves. 

Even then one gets many mistypes and retypes along the way.

That effect where some people can walk into an empty house and imagine it with everything the way they like it, but others can't see if they'd like it without their things already in it (or the style of things they like).
This is often an issue in people typing. 


* *





I honestly don't know how many mistyped ENTJs and INFPs I've seen wandering around in here. 
Generally speaking, typing issues are not something we should discuss because it's impolite to a persons journey and kind of a political correctness issue. Not to mention the fact that as a whole, different types -really- interpret the information differently. So the details they pick up on makes sense with what they chose. 
Although I suspect that much of this also has to do with how one idealizes the image of the self more than the misinterpretation of data. 

(Really hoping this is just not commented on because it isn't meant to cause drama, still think it's an opinion woth stating)


----------



## not enough (Jan 15, 2016)

I like this phrasing and can strongly identify with it <3



The Night's Queen said:


> *sx*: thrill of chase, *in-the-moment addiction
> *


I found these descriptions from this website http://www.projectevolove.com/education/1/dating-instincts#.WIia-EbHb81 to be helpful because they offer a somewhat different perspective on the sexual instinct in comparison to the other descriptions I found up till now:



> Sp instinct
> 
> Those with the Secure Primary Instinct are concerned with "nesting and nurturing." They are focused on protecting the self, ensuring that its physical needs, comfort, health, and self-sufficiency are met. They are keenly aware of their environment, such as its temperature, safety, and cleanliness. They are inclined to make their surroundings healthy and comfortable. They need personal space and privacy, even with their loved ones.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gilly (Apr 22, 2012)

Oh, further observation. 

I think sx/so comes off as "more intense" and also "more sexual" (in relation to sex) is because of their environment. When a person is in a social environment and an Sx/so turns their attention on you - many feel a connection. 

Depending on your primary that will feel more or less comfortable I imagine.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Ooh, interesting thoughts!

The "all or nothing" described reminds me of an important aspect of Sx that hasn't been talked about all that much (even if it seems like an obvious thing when mentioned), namely "*attraction vs repulsion*".

In the most basic and instinctual understanding, the Sexual instinct is there for sex, for procreation, to spill the seed and die. Crude, but it gets the basic idea across. 
Now, just like the Social and the Self Preservation instinct, there is an inborn intelligence at work here: you only want to make the best and the strongest _mini-you_'s. All of this is unconscious, mind, it's not like the Sx dom is going to make lists of traits, instinct doesn't make lists, it's the dumb conscious mind that does (if anything, it will be a lack of security/faith in one's own Sexual instinct that will propel such behavior).
The Sexual instinct seeks the scent of the ideal mate. This 'scent' can be interpreted in many way; actual smell (yes, it's very important, look it up), looks, style, art, the way we move, eye contact,... it's our way of showing to others who we are and what we are about._ (Note, this is different from Social broadcasting)_
So the Sexual instinct makes us display our colorful feathers to attract the right bird, it makes us dance the mating dance, it makes us sing in order to lure them in. We specialize our feathers and our song: if they don't stand out, then how will we attract? How will they find us if we sound like the rest? So the instinct pushes us to stand out and to actively _captivate _others. But the more we stand out, the more extreme we get, the more we will repulse others!!! So what's that about? It's because those who are repulsed by this don't have the 'right' DNA for us. The Sexual instinct seeks ultimate compatibility, not just anyone will do. So repulse them, repulse them! If they aren't attracted to my feathers, and/or I'm not attracted to theirs, our libido couldn't be more "off" indeed! You go where the blood flows. Follow that libido, showcase your allure and your sex. It's the hunt for sex, even if it never comes to the actual deed itself.
It will push boundaries. Why? Because it needs to see someone's _true colors_. It needs to _know_. Who are you? Are you for me? Show yourself! What's your smell? What's your DNA? *I want to taste your sex, so I'll know whether to discard you or to chase you.*


Now I do have to expand a bit on my note saying that this is different from the broadcasting of the Social instinct. The Social instinct also has a need to show and present itself, but it is (obviously) rooted in quite a different thing. It wants recognition; if I show my colors and you show me yours, then we'll both know who we are affiliated with. Names, terms, symbols, flags, brands,.. all of these could be seen as "displaying one's feathers", but the focus and the goal of the allure is ultimately very different.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Not sure if this relates to sx but I have used a baseball analogy to describe this all or nothing mindset. Many of the greatest homerun hitters also are up in the record books for most strikeouts as well.











From SIGNS: 


*SFC Cunningham*: You didn't used to play baseball did ya? Shit, I know you. You're Merrill Hess! I was there the day you hit that 507-footer over the left field wall, set the record. Man, that thing had a motor on it. It's still the record right?
*Merrill*: Got the bat at home on the wall.
*SFC Cunningham*: You've got two minor league home-run records, don't ya?
*Merrill*: Five.
*SFC Cunningham*: Why weren't you in the pros making stacks of cash and getting your toes licked by beautiful women?
*Lionel Prichard*: 'Cause he has another record most people don't know about. He has the minor league strikeout record.
*Merrill*: Hello Lionel.
*Lionel Prichard*: Merrill's a class-A screw up. He would just swing that bat as hard as he could every time. Didn't matter what the coaches said, didn't matter who was on base. He would just whip that bat through the air as hard as he could. Looked like a lumberjack chopping down a tree. Merrill here has more strikeouts than any two players.
*SFC Cunningham*: You really got the strikeout record?
*Merrill*: Felt wrong not to swing.



And the legendary boxer Jack Dempsey was asked where he aimed his punches on his opponent, nose or chin. He said neither, he aims for the back of their fucking head.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

I honestly didn't get through most of the OP (sorry... I'm really sleep-deprived!) but I do agree that the sexual instinct is all-or-nothing. I've described it that way in the past.

It would be interesting to study the various descriptions of sexual instincts across types to find the similarities.


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

not enough said:


> Those with the Sexual Primary Instinct are devoted to transmitting something meaningful to future generations, whether it is their genes or their ideas


I like the rest of the Sx description, but this seems very social dominant and not Sx.


----------



## Nephilibata (Jan 21, 2015)

I still have to read through the OP a few more times to grasp everything, but you make some really interesting points...

When I first got into instincts I honestly couldn't identify with any more than the other. I actually shied away from sx just because of the name, I'm not what I'd consider a sexual person.

I also have trouble understanding exactly what 'intensity' refers to, so that's another thing I'm trying to figure out.

I do identify with 'all or nothing' in the sense that doing something gradually/easing into something doesn't make sense to me; it almost seems like a waste of time because the aim is to get to the true essence of something as fast as possible. Neither does doing something halfheartedly. I'm either fully committed, body and soul, or not at all. I often find myself deeply involved without any consciousness of how I've gotten there. I'm also usually very easy to superficially interest in something but very few things really hook into me. When they do though, all of my attention goes into it, like a laser beam, and it doesn't let up until I've 'sucked it dry'.

My people focus is the same, though I've learned to regulate it somewhat. It's hard to go from an on/off switch to a dial, and control is still shaky.


----------



## not enough (Jan 15, 2016)

Stellafera said:


> I like the rest of the Sx description, but this seems very social dominant and not Sx.


ok, I dunno, for me it did make sence in some way (maybe this is more a sx/so thing?), but on the other hand I'm not really sure if I'm a sx dom myself . So, is this-


> transmitting something meaningful


 something you can identify with as a social dom?

What about you sx doms, can you identify somehow?

For me it's not important to have an impact on future generations but to positively impact the Status Quo. I derive energy from liking things (people, my job, hobbies) and I easily get frustrated when there is a lack of stimulation/ interest in what I do. But I also take into mind which impact my actions have on society/groups. This is why I typed as sx/so. (I'm open for other suggestions though)


----------



## Nephilibata (Jan 21, 2015)

not enough said:


> What about you sx doms, can you identify somehow?


"Transmitting something to future generations."

Hm. At first glance, instant reaction: no. At the chance of sounding very selfish/self-absorbed, my life is mostly about living the way I choose without outside interference (I don't know if enneagram has more to do with this than instinct). It's not really about wanting to make a lasting impact on society other than maybe being acknowledged or remembered for some contribution; but that's not really the focus of my life. The generations after me don't really feature in my mind at all.

I'm nearly certain I have an SO-blindspot though. What I've found helpful in determining instincts is talking to people who identify as something as well as reading through the interactions in threads (descriptions have only gotten me so far; the interaction shows the instincts 'at work').

Additionally, a friend recently helped me make a distinction I've found very helpful. It, of course, may not work for you at all, but I thought I'd try to explain it anyway in case it does.

Like all of enneagram, the instincts are about what you focus on. We all can have traits, behaviours, things we identify with all the types and instincts, but the important bit is to figure out what is your 'absolute focus/obsession'. After all, enneagram is not about healthy coping mechanisms.

SO, to the best of my knowledge, focuses on other people/groups. It wants to fit in and be part of them or even completely reject them. The main point is how MUCH you want to be (a)part of the group, how much you (don't) want to belong, and also how aware you are of groups and the 'internal hierarchies' in general.

SP is 'self-focused', wanting to preserve itself. It wants stability, independence, safety by knowing its needs are taken care of. Often distant, because people are draining them of their internal resources, such as energy. Reluctance to really share themselves so as not to lose their sense of self; focused on separating themselves from other people, setting boundaries 'This is me and this is you'; a clear line inbetween.
=> example: focus on 'your things'. Needing to have them nearby to feel comfortable and at home. Taken from who I suspect to be SP-dom: reluctance to move in with s/o because they can't take 'their special things' with them. 

SX is a focus on finding 'the one', finding activities to channel all of their energy and focus into. Wanting to dive into its depths, learning and experiencing all there is, every nook and cranny. Needs constant medium to pour that 'hungry' energy into, whether that's people or an activity etc. May not look 'intense' rather than hyper focused on 'point of interest'. Maybe a better term instead of 'hungry' > constant stimulation (of some kind).

These vary depending on stacking and enneagram, but we all have a connection to all three. Question is, what is your absolute focus? What is your 'obsession'? What is the thing you can't live without or become anxious over the most if that instinct's needs aren't met?

As far as I've been able to observe in myself, the focus on 'the one' has always featured strongly in my life, not because of some unconscious influence telling me I had to care, but just springing from myself; that image of a 'prince riding a white horse' never disappeared. To me, relationships are sacred bonds, private, only involving the two parties and immersed in a private bubble, a world of their own, cut off from everything else. A relationship is the 'highest aspiration' for me, the only place I feel safe enough to come out of my shell, IF I choose to. I never cared nor paid much attention to fitting in like SO; I'm either in a group or not but I don't care either way. The need for group dynamics eludes me. 

I'm fine by myself though I do want a confidant or two for company if I choose to. I typed as SP for a while but have since come to realise that I lack the ability to enjoy and cope with solitude. I've adapted and can cope just fine alone but I do need to have the knowledge that someone is there for me. The need/ability to be utterly alone or 'having things' feature heavily with SP-firsts, something I can't identify with to the extent that would make me SP. As a 5, solitude is something I do need but not complete, prolonged isolation. I prize my independence but would be willing to give it up or at least close the distance for the elusive 'special person'. I'm on constant lookout; much like a constantly spinning compass searching for my 'north' to lock on to.

It's not much and I'm still trying to really grasp the instincts, so I apologise if I said something wrong. Do feel free to correct me.


----------



## Gilly (Apr 22, 2012)

> _transmitting something meaningful_


_
Without reading the above to keep my opinion as objective as possible, no. Not really. 


This is not really a thing for me. 
I do question if this is linked to enneagram as well and not just instinct in what you've quoted @*not enough*


It's almost contradictory to what I feel people should be aiming for which is to be and feel and experiance. Not live for what others have shown or given them - so why would I want to put any of my "something meaningful" onto anyone else. They should be finding their own meaningful. 

__If in terms of passing things on to future generations or some such;
__One of the reasons I wanted to have children (adopted or biological) was to help guide people to grow into the happiest and most true to themselves people possible (while also having the wisdom to interact harmoniously with others and with as much respect for others as themselves). 

Since so many grow up misunderstood and not taught to embrace who they are and reinforce their inner strength. 

That said; it's not some burning feeling inside me, some need to be filled. 




Being real and honest and direct and enjoying everything good and bad. 

Amazing or shitty as fuck.

Click to expand...

Feeling it. Embracing it. Enjoying it. 
Everything is raw and real. Pain and pleasure as intense as possible. Even the droughts and boredom inbetween. 

It always feels a bit like a furnace inside, and no one understands how to really live. Experiance what it is to be alive. _


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

not enough said:


> ok, I dunno, for me it did make sence in some way (maybe this is more a sx/so thing?), but on the other hand I'm not really sure if I'm a sx dom myself . So, is this- something you can identify with as a social dom?


For sure. I'm perennially concerned with the ripple effects of my actions; if I make one person mad, they'll probably affect other people around them with their anger, and then everyone's unhappy. That's why So-doms tend to actually _enjoy_ small talk (or at least understand its purpose). It's a way of making sure that everyone is in a good mood and engaged with each other. We're very sensitive to the idea of somebody feeling left out. You can be an introvert, that's okay. I'm an introvert. It's cool. But it's important to me that you still feel valued... and that you're providing value to others. _Transmitting something meaningful._

I want to leave a legacy of goodwill and make a contribution. Again, another popular social theme. The ever-illusive _contribution_. "Get involved", "be a part of your community", stuff like that. I'd love the idea of a group of people I can call home. Just as much as Sx wants that life-giving attraction to a partner, part of my brain instinctually wants to be a part of a healthy happy caveman tribe. Everyone helps each other, everyone has a role, and everyone's important. Ultimately Social is all about emulating that concept.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

Stellafera said:


> I like the rest of the Sx description, but this seems very social dominant and not Sx.


Also sp? I see people talking about sp this way, at least. Preserving oneself, finding immortality...


----------



## psyche (Jan 5, 2011)

I'm not sure, but...what immediately came to mind for me when I read the bit about future generations is that at the most basic instinctive animal level, the purpose of sex is to distribute one's genes and help ensure genetic fitness (and all genetic fitness really means is to produce as much offspring as possible). Regarding the sx-dom tendency to play with fire, to risk death without even really thinking about it I guess I mean...you see many species in the animal kingdom who will gladly die for the sake of future offspring. A good example would be a black widow's mate; she eats him as he ejaculates, but while it looks like he gains nothing he has actually inserted a copulatory plug into her which prevents her from having anyone's offspring but his.

I don't know if that translates into the sx instinct in humans, though... I can say personally that I have had brushes with death or danger from my own instinctive actions and I have always felt a need to leave a mark here in some way (kind of embarrassed about it and I don't know if it's sx-related but I can at least say it is there, it always has been). In my art class she showed us a slide of cave people's hand prints preserved in France and I immediately understood it... You just want to utilize whatever resources you have to say, "I've been here" and somehow it just feels meaningful. Maybe like an animal marking its territory? And animals essentially do that to preserve their mates so...

I read this quote from Jung recently, I think he was sx-dom and it resonated with me...

"That gives peace, when people feel that they are living the symbolic life, that they are actors in the divine drama. That gives the only meaning to human life; everything else is banal and you can dismiss it. A career, producing of children, are all _maya_ compared with that one thing, that your life is meaningful."


----------



## Alcettus (Aug 21, 2012)

Well, I can only really discuss from my own experience, which is quite biased as I'm a 548 - Scholar tritype, generally described as the most intense tritype. So for me to say that sx has an intensity to it obviously is suspect, as I could be clouding that with general features of my tritype.

To me, though, I think the instincts need to be taken as an accent to the tritypes. They don't literally describe traits that manifest themselves in a person, and we can't really talk about a blank-slate but otherwise sx/so/sp person. But we can talk about the general means by which they accent a person's behaviors, and in particular, I think they accent our attentional biases. To that end, I think that sx shifts the attentional focus towards reciprocal connections between two entities. I do mean that in a deliberately vague way, as it does not only apply to relationships with people, but also relationships to our interests.

For instance, I think in artistic expression, sx types tend to approach the process of creating art as something which reciprocally speaks back to them as they create it.

I've more thoughts on this, but I must go in real life now. Interesting topic though, op, glad there's still discussion occurring on this front.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

maybe it goes back to olden days.

Someone needed to horde food and make sure home was good and safe and save and save for winter. Sp.

Someone needed to maintain a social order, to worry about the tribe, to think a bit bigger purpose. So. 

Someone needed to travel between tribes, to spread genes, to explore, to go hunt the big critters. Sx.

An Sp person generally isn't going to be thrilled about going out in the dead of winter looking for new lands to hunt. An Sx person is going stir crazy, bored horribly, and antsty to go do something.


----------



## Kore (Aug 10, 2012)

drmiller100 said:


> maybe it goes back to olden days.
> 
> Someone needed to horde food and make sure home was good and safe and save and save for winter. Sp.
> 
> ...


I was just thinking about what the other poster said after I read your response. Wouldn't your description of SX blend with your ENTP type 8 personality as a very "out in the world, spreading genes, hunting big critters" manifestation? For someone more insular their experience of SX and just being with their "one" in their own space is highly satisfying without needing to get out into the world, experiencing the new, right? Going home to their "one" is what is satisfying.

Then again, I'm viewing SX as an internal explosion of awareness of the other which demands a merging with them.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Kore said:


> I was just thinking about what the other poster said after I read your response. Wouldn't your description of SX blend with your ENTP type 8 personality as a very "out in the world, spreading genes, hunting big critters" manifestation? For someone more insular their experience of SX and just being with their "one" in their own space is highly satisfying without needing to get out into the world, experiencing the new, right? Going home to their "one" is what is satisfying.
> 
> Then again, I'm viewing SX as an internal explosion of awareness of the other which demands a merging with them.


ok, this might be more bs than I usually spew.

once upon a time I worked on some math/physics. I dug deep into it, and spent MONTHS, 60 to 80 hours a week doing proofs, and figuing out how things worked. I questioned things, I sunk deep, I argued with experts/professors. 

I was INTENSE into it. It was my world.

maybe that was Sx.


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

drmiller100 said:


> ok, this might be more bs than I usually spew.
> 
> once upon a time I worked on some math/physics. I dug deep into it, and spent MONTHS, 60 to 80 hours a week doing proofs, and figuing out how things worked. I questioned things, I sunk deep, I argued with experts/professors.
> 
> ...


Depends on what kind of emotional connection to the work we're talking about here. 

I've spent a month before where I devoted almost every hour of my free time to editing this one hour-long video, and it consumed my brain, but I didn't feel like it _became_ me or anything. I'm just really into video editing and the project was fun and I couldn't take my mind off of it.


----------

