# Frequency of Instinctual Variants



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

this is purely hypothetical, but...
personally, I think it's probably something like this

Sp/So: 29%
So/Sp: 23%
So/Sx: 20%
Sp/Sx: 13%
Sx/Sp: 9%
Sx/So: 6%











or, put another way
So dom: 43%
Sp dom: 42%
Sx dom: 15%











or
Sx last: 52%
Sp last: 26%
So last: 22%










thoughts?


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Where are you getting these numbers?


----------



## Doll (Sep 6, 2012)

I like this, because it means I'm a special snowflake.

In general, it's hard for me to tell based on my own observations. I don't know anyone else in person who is sx-first, though, so I think it does tend to be a rarer primary instinct. I think a lot of it has to do with the environment someone is raised in + culture + personality, obviously. For example, I think my sp instinct is least developed both because of genetics and because I grew up in an environment where that was not stressed. Like... at all.


----------



## RepairmanMan Man (Jan 21, 2012)

Yeah, I'll just echo @madhatter and ask what you're basing that on? Your own sense of it? It's in line with what I've seen others speculate anyway.

All I can say is, I don't think I've ever met anyone who is "sexual" or at least, who I'd describe with usual expressions of how that instinct is typified. My mom's a sx-second, but that's literally all. And I've been all over the world.

So, maybe sx-first really is that rare. One more way for us to divide ourselves into who's "special-er" I guess.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

madhatter said:


> Where are you getting these numbers?


"this is purely hypothetical" ie, just a guess based on observations.


----------



## sodden (Jul 20, 2009)

I would say sx/so is more common than sx/sp, in hypothetical land. (Sorry @Doll


----------



## Doll (Sep 6, 2012)

sodden said:


> I would say sx/so is more common than sx/sp, in hypothetical land. (Sorry @_Doll_


Don't take it away from me!!


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

sodden said:


> I would say sx/so is more common than sx/sp, in hypothetical land. (Sorry @_Doll_


I see what you did there since I guess it's harder for you to justify why sp/sx


----------



## Bluity (Nov 12, 2012)

Frequency of instinct variant in what? The forum? One country? The whole world? Where are these observations coming from?


----------



## sodden (Jul 20, 2009)

Doll said:


> Don't take it away from me!!


Oh, in hypothetical land, all things are possible. You can be the most specialist if you want, hypothetically. You could hypothetically disagree with me if you want, in fact. I mean, hypothetically, of course.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

It's funny how people think sx first is so rare & sx last so common, yet most identify as sx first or second :laughing:.

At least with MBTI the theory supports WHY Ns are more interested in typology & why they're greatly over-represented on forums such as these (that or we're all mistyped!  ).


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

So let's say that type 3, 6 and 9 are most common so how can we correlate the instinctual variants to a certain type? I mean, if it's not very common for a type 6 to be a sx/so and 30% (this is all hypothetically speaking of course) is a type 6, then I can understand why the sx/so is not overrepresented.

So if you really want to be more sure, why not create a poll (or several actually) and correlate type to instinctual variants? Or is this what you have done so already? I wouldn't be surprised if you had.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> this is purely hypothetical, but...
> personally, I think it's probably something like this
> 
> thoughts?


I've ran the stats of my typings of different people, here are the percentages:

so/sx - 14.4%
so/sp - 14.4%
sx/so - 15.4%
sx/sp - 17.5%
sp/sx - 17.5%
sp/so - 20.5%
total: 97 individuals

My stats show that all 6 stackings are represented relatively equally. Social primary stackings, so/sx and so/sp, are slightly underrepresented here on the forum, which I think makes sense based on nature of social instinct.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

All in Twilight said:


> So let's say that type 3, 6 and 9 are most common so how can we correlate the instinctual variants to a certain type? I mean, if it's not very common for a type 6 to be a sx/so and 30% (this is all hypothetically speaking of course) is a type 6, then I can understand why the sx/so is not overrepresented.


there are probably correlations (for instance, I think 7 is pretty strongly correlated with Sp last, 1 seems correlated with Sp/So, 3w2 seems likely to be So/Sp etc)



> So if you really want to be more sure, why not create a poll (or several actually) and correlate type to instinctual variants? Or is this what you have done so already?[/B] I wouldn't be surprised if you had.


because not enough people on this forum are correctly typed for the results to be accurate


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

OrangeAppled said:


> It's funny how people think sx first is so rare & sx last so common, yet most identify as sx first or second :laughing:.
> 
> At least with MBTI the theory supports WHY Ns are more interested in typology & why they're greatly over-represented on forums such as these (that or we're all mistyped!  ).


I think people identify with Sx easily because they think it's about either enjoying being in a relationship or liking intimacy. (which.. who doesn't?) That doesn't mean they're Sx-first, though. Sx is one of the _least _adaptive instincts, and as such, probably less common than say Sp/So, who values resources and bonds within society over pursuing your passions and satisfying your need for intensity.


----------



## frenchie (Jul 7, 2011)

Sx primary is VERY rare.

For whatever reason, I can sense when someone is at my level or "beneath" my energy level. Doesn't mean they're better than me or worse than me. But there are a few individuals I've run into with a weird intensity that exceeds mine. 

I can find them mostly based on their personality. It literally feels like their energy spreads out in a 360* circle from their center. My uncle, best friend here in Beantown, and a friend of a friend all have an intensity of them that is above me. Altough the friend of a friend definitely feels like an Sx/Sp, she has a very vampire quality about her and her relationships. She'll latch on very fast and intensely and then all of a sudden disappear. Love her very much though. 

It basically comes down to identify the "alpha male/female" in a situation. I can see it by how other people defer to them. I can see this in So/Sx, So/Sp, and Sx/So. 

Enneagram core type also plays into this as well.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

kaleidoscope said:


> I think people identify with Sx easily because they think it's about either enjoying being in a relationship or liking intimacy. (which.. who doesn't?) That doesn't mean they're Sx-first, though. Sx is one of the _least _adaptive instincts, and as such, probably less common than say Sp/So, who values resources and bonds within society over pursuing your passions and satisfying your need for intensity.


You'd be surprised at how many people don't like intimacy (makes them uncomfortable), or don't need it much or seek it out. I mean the intense kind of intimacy associated with sx; desiring close familial & friend bonds outside of the public sphere is more so, IMO.

I don't think sp is about valuing resources. It's about ability to provide for yourself, not the "stuff" itself. Many sp-dom minimize what they need as a way to maintain control/independence. Resources are then devalued. I see this as less adaptive in a sense, because sp-dom adapt environments to their needs, choose what they need (sometimes rejecting social standards), etc. 

You could say sp is pursuing passions also, because it involves personal emotional needs more than the other two instincts, which are more people-focused.

I see sx as adaptive because they adapt to seduce/grab attention. I think there's an amplifying of self which is as much a put-on as holding back to be more appropriate.

I don't think sx is as "rare" as anyone thinks & there doesn't seem to be any support for this other than people wanting it to be. I wouldn't be surprised if instinctual stacks are more evenly distributed.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

OrangeAppled said:


> You'd be surprised at how many people don't like intimacy (makes them uncomfortable), or don't need it much or seek it out. I mean the intense kind of intimacy associated with sx; desiring close familial & friend bonds outside of the public sphere is more so, IMO.


That's what I meant, people generally misunderstand the kind of intimacy Sx seeks: it's not comfortable and romantic, it's consuming, all or nothing. Sx intimacy and intensity struggles with limits and boundaries, and the way I experience it, it controls _me_ rather than the other way around. 

I don't think Sp is less adaptive than Sx *at all*, sorry. The Sp instinct is about putting your needs first, your comfort and is in a sense much more practical than Sx or So. This is why Sp-last people are generally not very down-to-earth or responsible. The Sp instinct is more grounding in that sense. I don't suppose an Sp/Sx would be ready to drop everything in an instant because they suddenly found their calling or whatever. They'd be much more reluctant, at the very least.

Really, I don't understand how anyone could _possibly_ see Sx as more adaptive. When you constantly feel restless, when you need more and more than most people/situations/experiences can give you, when you are pretty much unable to concentrate on anything else besides the object of your desire, adaptive is not the first word that comes to mind. Perhaps you may be idealizing this instinct a little, but any Sx dom would disagree with you.


----------



## meridannight (Nov 23, 2012)

kaleidoscope said:


> Really, I don't understand how anyone could _possibly_ see Sx as more adaptive. When you constantly feel restless, when you need more and more than most people/situations/experiences can give you, when you are pretty much unable to concentrate on anything else besides the object of your desire, adaptive is not the first word that comes to mind. Perhaps you may be idealizing this instinct a little, but any Sx dom would disagree with you.


very well put. but i think it also depends on how you look at adaptive, and what exactly we are talking about. every human being is adaptive to most things, to a certain degree, under certain circumstances. even what you described about SX, we are adaptive to that too eventually; it's just the degree/range of allowed adaptiveness that is small in that respect. in other things we are more adaptive. it all depends on the matter at hand, not the particular characteristic itself.



OrangeAppled said:


> I don't think sx is as "rare" as anyone thinks & there doesn't seem to be any support for this other than people wanting it to be. I wouldn't be surprised if instinctual stacks are more evenly distributed.


i agree with this. i think some people have a specialness or uniqueness complex. i don't really walk around assessing every person's potential type in my everyday life to come up with an even remote estimation, but i think SO (either 1st or 2nd) stacking might be more prevalent than other variants. it seems that way to me. or maybe it is just that they stick out more, feeling more at home in the crowd and social arena. other than that i've come across plenty SPs and SXs to agree that the distribution is more even. SX doms are definitely not that rare as they are made out to be, or special. unless you wanna take it up and write a whole new definition for the variant. 

not that it matters in any significant way anyway. who cares which variant is more prevalent. i only care about the details with people i let really really close to me. and they are by far few.




Swordsman of Mana said:


> because not enough people on this forum are correctly typed for the results to be accurate


you too. you're entitled to your opinion, but in no way do you have the knowledge of the correctness of someone's type/variant, or the ratio of it, when you haven't even met these people in real life. do you think you know online individuals better than they know themselves?


----------



## SuperNova85 (Feb 21, 2011)

kaleidoscope said:


> I don't think Sp is less adaptive than Sx *at all*, sorry. The Sp instinct is about putting your needs first, your comfort and is in a sense much more practical than Sx or So. This is why Sp-last people are generally not very down-to-earth or responsible. The Sp instinct is more grounding in that sense. I don't suppose an Sp/Sx would be ready to drop everything in an instant because they suddenly found their calling or whatever. They'd be much more reluctant, at the very least.
> 
> Really, I don't understand how anyone could _possibly_ see Sx as more adaptive. When you constantly feel restless, when you need more and more than most people/situations/experiences can give you, when you are pretty much unable to concentrate on anything else besides the object of your desire, adaptive is not the first word that comes to mind. Perhaps you may be idealizing this instinct a little, but any Sx dom would disagree with you.


I agree with this: When you're an Sx-dom, you constantly crave more from certain people and life than it can possibly give you. It's like you're driven and consumed by this powerful force that urges you to feel more "alive" than you already are, no matter how alive you already feel. And I also agree that there are still many who don't know what it means to be a true Sx. 
I'm not an SP-dom (though, as a Sx/Sp I could relate to it), and I'm not a So-dom, so I really can't say which instinct is more adaptable than another. Nor can I say which instinct is the most common or rare as there doesn't seem to be any numbers on this. But through my Sx eyes, it does seem like Sx-dom is the least adaptable and rarest of the 3, but as for the rare part, not really by that much.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@meridannight
I said neither that I was any more likely to be correctly typed nor that I know people's type better than they know themselves. I simply think a significant number of people online are mistyped, enough that it would completely throw off the data in favor of common misconceptions (for example, the number of people who think they are Sx dom simply because they like intimacy and are better at communicating one-one). if I were going to draw data, I would want it to be data collected from individuals typed by trained professionals (which, coincidentally, would exclude myself)
Edit: also, understanding the enneagram _system_ is just as important as self awareness in learning one's type. I was very self aware long before I discovered my true type, because I was basing my evaluation off of preconceived notions of type that had no bearing in reality. do I understand most people better than they understand themselves? probably not in most cases.* what I do have, however, is enough understanding of typology to diagnose likely symptoms of a given type. it's like going to the doctor (okay, I'll use a nurse to sound less arrogant lol). you, of course, are more familiar with the symptoms, but that doesn't leave you in a position to make a diagnosis because you don't have an understanding of different types of diseases or how they operate. 
*however, sometimes I do (if the person isn't self aware). at the very least, people's defense mechanisms, motivations and feelings are pretty easy to read. spotting when people lie to themselves is also pretty easy


----------



## meridannight (Nov 23, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> [MENTION=49293]it's like going to the doctor (okay, I'll use a nurse to sound less arrogant lol). you, of course, are more familiar with the symptoms, but that doesn't leave you in a position to make a diagnosis because you don't have an understanding of different types of diseases or how they operate.
> *however, sometimes I do (if the person isn't self aware). at the very least, people's defense mechanisms, motivations and feelings are pretty easy to read. spotting when people lie to themselves is also pretty easy



fair enough. 

i get your analogy, and i even understand that some _things_, let's put it that way, yes, are pretty easy to spot. continuing on your analogy, a patient can write the doctor (i don't mind arrogance) a letter of his symptoms, let's say he complains he has among other things a rash. now with all his medical expertise the doctor can probably narrow the possible diseases down to a handful, but unless he sees the patient and the rash in person he doesn't have a diagnosis. in actual medical practice it is paramount to examine the patient for the diagnosis. and this is, to me, completely analogous with human interaction.

in my experience written communication tends to distort the true nature of things hugely. at least, i find it very difficult to get a grasp at another person through letters, online, i.e. written communication alone. maybe some people, maybe yourself, are better at this, i don't know. i had a pen friend at school --we were required to have one in our foreign language class-- and me and my pen friend exchanged letters for several years through to high school. and when we met in person, she did not match the impression i had gotten through her letters throughout the years, it was off in significant ways. this example isn't relevant to your thread, but it is a good example. and i think it applies to any online/written communication where you don't have information on the person's body language.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

> I don't think Sp is less adaptive than Sx *at all*, sorry. The Sp instinct is about putting your needs first, your comfort and is in a sense much more practical than Sx or So. This is why Sp-last people are generally not very down-to-earth or responsible. The Sp instinct is more grounding in that sense. I don't suppose an Sp/Sx would be ready to drop everything in an instant because they suddenly found their calling or whatever. They'd be much more reluctant, at the very least.


I think you continue to misunderstand what sp means & many sp-dom would disagree with you. When you are adapting everything TO yourself, then you yourself are not the one who is adapting. Everything you mention is _not_ adapting. 

SP-dom can be indulgent & reckless, not necessarily grounded or practical or responsible. e7 sp-dom are the hedonists of the hedonists. Sp-dom 4 are called "reckless" & can be self-sabotaging. 

Also, So-dom do not necessarily adapt either. Some so-dom take an "outsider" stance & are critical of social groups, not fitting in or adapting to them at all.

Someone who is comfortable with discomfort is rather adaptable though...and in that sense sx-dom are adaptable, as well as morphing into whatever they need to be to attract/repulse.

Anyhow, I HAVE dropped things in an instant because an opportunity that seemed promising albeit risky presented itself, and I lost everything in the process. It's amusing to me you use that example with my stacking because of this. However, I think it had little to do with my instinctual stack. There's a lot more to any person than that.



> Really, I don't understand how anyone could _possibly_ see Sx as more adaptive. When you constantly feel restless, when you need more and more than most people/situations/experiences can give you, when you are pretty much unable to concentrate on anything else besides the object of your desire, adaptive is not the first word that comes to mind. Perhaps you may be idealizing this instinct a little, but any Sx dom would disagree with you.


I'm not idealizing it. I'm doing the opposite. _It's not that special_. What you talk about is common to almost any 4 of any stack, btw. On the other hand, e1 sx-dom are unlikely to have the same interpretation.


----------



## Kitfool (Oct 24, 2012)

If I were to guess, I would say Sp dom is more common than So dom in general (though close), otherwise looks pretty good. Based on my own observations (which should of course be taken with a grain of salt, but they are usually fairly accurate) I would say Sp/sx is a bit more common than you would estimate. I seem to know a lot of them, but maybe I just attract them. I also know a few likely Sx/sps, but I can think of MAYBE one Sx/so, so I would agree that's the rarest.

And you should be nice to Swordsman, he's a genius. XD Saying that a lot of people on this website are mistyped is kind of like saying grass is green or the sky is blue, or that that is a really tired simile...There is no arguing this. He's not claiming to know people better than they do (though he might...). It can be easily proven by looking back at old threads and seeing how many people went around spreading well intentioned lies about their types and changing it two or three times within the next month. Nearly everyone has been guilty of this, at least ONCE. 

In other news, I don't think people should be so proud of being Sx dominant even if it is special/rare. They're all good instincts to have, but Sx is the scariest!

In general, I don't understand this obsession with being uncommon...They are probably so rare because of natural selection. I kid! I think.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

OrangeAppled said:


> SP-dom can be indulgent & reckless, not necessarily grounded or practical or responsible. e7 sp-dom are the hedonists of the hedonists. Sp-dom 4 are called "reckless" & can be self-sabotaging.


I don't think Sp 7s on here would agree with you, lol. The reckless interpretation of Sp 4s is that of Naranjo's and not exactly representative of every Sp 4 out there. There has been enough threads on this where most Sp 4s admit to not relating much to this aspect unless unhealthy. Besides, every instinct when primary can swing both ways, so I don't think it's right to assume it goes one way only for e4s.



> Someone who is comfortable with discomfort is rather adaptable though...and in that sense sx-dom are adaptable, as well as morphing into whatever they need to be to attract/repulse.


Sx doms do not morph into whatever to attract/repulse. They just do, and I don't think a polarizing presence is very helpful in a work environment, for example.



> I'm not idealizing it. I'm doing the opposite. _It's not that special_. What you talk about is common to almost any 4 of any stack, btw. On the other hand, e1 sx-dom are unlikely to have the same interpretation.


You really got from what I saying that it's special? I don't like my Sx at all, so I don't understand how you can misunderstand my posts into me glorifying it. After all, you were the one calling it adaptive as opposed to your own instinct. Fact of the matter is, no one's going to find their own instinct less difficult to deal with than others. Also, had I met at least one Sx dom in my life, I would probably be more willing to agree with you, but I don't think it's that evenly distributed. Still, I wish it was. Let's agree to disagree on this, shall we?


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

kaleidoscope said:


> I don't think Sp 7s on here would agree with you, lol. The reckless interpretation of Sp 4s is that of Naranjo's and not exactly representative of every Sp 4 out there. There has been enough threads on this where most Sp 4s admit to not relating much to this aspect unless unhealthy. Besides, every instinct when primary can swing both ways, so I don't think it's right to assume it goes one way only for e4s.


Actually it's Riso-Hudson's; Naranjo is the one who describes sp-dom 4s as the least whiny, most independent, but most masochistic, which fits fine with R&H's characterization. I've seen most sp 4s as relating to being indulgent, including myself (and this is what reckless is getting at, or a lack of care/stability through indulgence). I've seen none "admit" to being grounded or practical.

Maybe those sp 7s aren't sp 7s? That's how they are defined... being the most pleasure-seeking in a sensual, material sense, and not at all "responsibly".



> Sx doms do not morph into whatever to attract/repulse. They just do, and I don't think a polarizing presence is very helpful in a work environment, for example.


Adaptive is not always helpful. It can be unstable, for one. Adaption does not have to be conscious & many ways instincts manifest are not. They all "just do".

It's also not helpful in a work environment to be a critical outsider (some so-dom) either, or "not a team player" because you're very independent/self-absorbed (some sp-dom). 



> You really got from what I saying that it's special? I don't like my Sx at all, so I don't understand how you can misunderstand my posts into me glorifying it.


Yes, different, rare, set apart, more "difficult". There's a distinct tone of it being "special". 



> After all, you were the one calling it adaptive as opposed to your own instinct.


No, I'm saying they all have ways of adapting or not, & you were making an oversimplification of the sp & so types.



> Also, had I met at least one Sx dom in my life, I would probably be more willing to agree with you, but I don't think it's that evenly distributed. Still, I wish it was. Let's agree to disagree on this, shall we?


I've met many sx-dom, and your anecdotal experience doesn't trump mine. I don't notice any stacking being extremely unusual. Some may be more common than others, but not to such a degree that one is "rare".


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

@OrangeAppled

Our experiences obviously differ. I cannot relate to anything you're saying, so with all due respect, the discussion seems pointless.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

OrangeAppled said:


> SP-dom can be indulgent & reckless, *not necessarily* grounded or practical or responsible. e7 sp-dom are the hedonists of the hedonists. Sp-dom 4 are called "reckless" & *can* be self-sabotaging.


I think people and in this case @_kaleidoscope_ missed out on the bold. It's quite subtle.

Logically it would make sense (I don't have to have read Naranjo for this to make sense) that an E7 Sp-dom can be a total hedonist. And why does the ESTP 7w8 sp comes to mind first? xD


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

All in Twilight said:


> I think people and in this case @_kaleidoscope_ missed out on the bold. It's quite subtle.
> 
> Logically it would make sense (I don't have to have read Naranjo for this to make sense) that an E7 Sp-dom can be a total hedonist. And why does the ESTP 7w8 sp/sx comes to mind first? xD


They CAN be, but does that mean they always are? OA seems to be taking definitions and using them as a way to demonstrate that Sp is not adaptive at all. Well, sure, we can do that. *Usually* though, SP doms are much more grounded, at least with their energy and the way they go about things. Growing up in an Sp household, having an Sp close friend, the differences between us are blatant. According to them, I'm the irresponsible, impractical one. I don't see how it could ever be the other way around, but that's my experience.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

kaleidoscope said:


> They CAN be, but does that mean they always are? OA seems to be taking definitions and using them as a way to demonstrate that Sp is not adaptive at all.


"Seems" is the key word, because that's not what I've done at all.



OrangeAppled said:


> No, I'm saying they all have ways of adapting or not, & you were making an oversimplification of the sp & so types.





kaleidoscope said:


> *Usually* though, SP doms are much more grounded, at least with their energy and the way they go about things.


Usually - according to who? You're making all sp-dom sound like sp e6 or 9. Yeah, most sp-dom are that way because there are more individuals of those types. But most sx-dom aren't necessarily like sx 4s, such as yourself. Hence, my reference to the 1 as possibly not feeling so much dramatic, inner turmoil. And other 4s, regardless of stack, are less likely to be grounded than some other types, period.

You're confusing 4ish with sx & 3-6-9 triad with sp.



> Growing up in an Sp household, having an Sp close friend, the differences between us are blatant. According to them, I'm the irresponsible, impractical one. I don't see how it could ever be the other way around, but that's my experience.


Again:



OrangeAppled said:


> your anecdotal experience doesn't trump mine.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

kaleidoscope said:


> They CAN be, but does that mean they always are? OA seems to be taking definitions and using them as a way to demonstrate that Sp is not adaptive at all. Well, sure, we can do that. *Usually* though, SP doms are much more grounded, at least with their energy and the way they go about things. Growing up in an Sp household, having an Sp close friend, the differences between us are blatant. According to them, I'm the irresponsible, impractical one. I don't see how it could ever be the other way around, but that's my experience.


I think she was thinking in possibilities and flexibilities. She has been quite subtle here and you have oversimplified a post on 2 pages back.

Of course you cannot draw conclusions based on just your household/statistically a not insufficient experience. Maybe something likes can even differ per culture. But I don't think you and her are on opposite sides actually. That is what I was trying to point out.

I am an sx/so and I am not that practical either (it sucks, right?) but I have never done anything extreme but I have seen (also nothing more than an experience based on personal observation) Sp-doms totally ruining their lives. They can be grounded as you pointed out but I think they are more prone than sx-doms to visit the other side of the medal as well.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

OrangeAppled said:


> Usually - according to who? You're making all sp-dom sound like sp e6 or 9. Yeah, most sp-dom are that way because there are more individuals of those types. But most sx-dom aren't necessarily like sx 4s, such as yourself. Hence, my reference to the 1 as possibly not feeling so much dramatic, inner turmoil. And other 4s, regardless of stack, are less likely to be grounded than some other types, period.


Why do I have to quote an author to make sense to you? This is based on MY observations, and while they may not trump yours, it certainly isn't the other way around either. You're a 4, you're likely not going to relate to how Sp manifests itself across other enneatypes, so why generalize your experience onto other self-pres? You've made a point of separating on other threads Sp 4s from other Sp types. Don't get offended if my generalization doesn't fit how you experience the instinct, then.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

@All in Twilight

Would you describe being Sx/So as adaptive then? 

PS: Never done anything extreme either.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@OrangeAppled
I agree with @kaleidoscope about Sp being a lot more grounded than Sx (tending to survival and physical comfort is a lot more grounded than pursuing one's passions) but I agree with you about adaptability. lots of Sp, as you say, adapt the external world to _them_ rather than adapting to the external world, and can become disgruntled when reality actually does dictate that they adapt (this is the case with me at least. I'm a stick in the mud when it comes to any change in my standard of living. I even briefly considered xSTJ as my type for this reason)
in my opinion, the most adaptable variant is So/Sp.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @_OrangeAppled_
> I agree with @_kaleidoscope_ about Sp being a lot more grounded than Sx (tending to survival and physical comfort is a lot more grounded than pursuing one's passions) but I agree with you about adaptability. lots of Sp, as you say, adapt the external world to _them_ rather than adapting to the external world, and can become disgruntled when reality actually does dictate that they adapt (this is the case with me at least. I'm a stick in the mud when it comes to any change in my standard of living. I even briefly considered xSTJ as my type for this reason)
> in my opinion, the most adaptable variant is So/Sp.


Really, I don't think Sx has so much to do with passion. It's connecting on an energetic level, perhaps 'tune in' or 'vibe' is a better word for it. It could also be rejection based on lack of chemistry or not liking the energy that comes along with someone. 

It doesn't necessarily have to be 'intense' or 'all or nothing'. I read before that @_kaleidoscope_ doesn't like physical contact, such as hugs. She also said she can only establish physical intimacy when there is an emotional bond. That she desires that one relationship to be intense and 'all or nothing' doesn't make her Sx-dom. In fact there seems to be a precondition on an So or Sp level. My point being, it isn't just about 'that (sexual) relation'. 

I believe every person can have a different vibe, and I don't think it's just a matter of being on the same wavelength or not. You can adjust yourself to some extend for better chemistry. If I would approach it pure sexually, I'd say that the chemistry is different with every woman I'd met. It's a dynamic that is sometimes unpredictable, which makes it exciting at the same time. I don't need to establish a bond first to be physically intimate with someone. Physical contact is a way of connecting on a more energetic level. Not necessarily sexually, because I also enjoy physical contact with male friends and not just a hard pad on the shoulder. Emotional intimacy is another way, not to mention the more spiritual (tantric) connection of energy. 

If I have to move through a dense crowd, I touch people, and never had a complaint. I also think it can be adaptive, in the sense of being able to find the same wavelength, without necessarily needing to conform yourself to eachother. In fact, I'd even say it's because of that, that I was able to stay close to myself amongst people. Because there's a reason why people can have it from one person but can't have it from someone else. (for instance because of one's charming skills) It hasn't always been this way though, so in general I would say that adaption is a skill.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Well, to be honest, I don't think any instinct is all that "adaptable". Either that or they're all "adaptable" in some meaning of the word. To adapt simply means to adjust to new conditions, to be modified for a new use or purpose. And every person modifies the things around them. The things themselves do not modify the person. 

All the instincts are about the things you _need_, the stuff you do so you feel safe. So they're all about changing the things around you so you can feel secure. When you're not in a position to do that, you feel helpless and you become unhealthy. 

Sp is about you changing your environment. You are not the thing changing -- you change things. Sp is all about the control (just like every instinct is). It's not about having resources or being at the mercy of resources, just like So isn't about being at the mercy of the people exactly. So isn't about _adapting_ to a community or whatever, it's about _taking_ a bunch of people and _forming_ connections. So isn't about changing yourself, it's about forming your _own_ path among a network of people you _choose _to form connections with. You manipulate the "group" you have chosen so to speak, the group doesn't change you. It's an active choice you make to get what you need. 

And Sx similarly is about carving your own way too in a sense. People of the Sx instinct aren't helpless to fall into their desires. The people they form a bond with aren't in control of them. Just like the group doesn't control the person of the So instinct and just like the resources or the environment are in control of the Sp-dom. 

It's easy to think Sx is the most difficult to control instinct -- but _all_ the instincts are just as powerful. It's not like Sx is the "neediest" or even greedier. No, it just has something different that it desires, that it needs to feel secure. But _all_ the instincts are about having some strong desire that when you don't have it, you feel helpless and like you're desperately missing something that you have to have. 

No, it is the person with the Sx-primary instinct who is in control, who forms their own way to find a strong bond in order to get what they need. Probably a good word to describe Sx is something like "lusty" because it is about craving a strong energy of some sort (can't word it correctly but you can get the idea). Just like "lust". That is why Sx-doms appear on and off and perhaps more flashy than people of the other instincts. 

@_kaleidoscope_, my sister as I've mentioned is Sx/Sp (or so I do believe) and she would definitely relate to what you've said about Sx, but of course she's a fellow Four. I think whenever you feel like you're at the mercy of some desire, that you're longing for something that seems near impossible to get, that you yourself can't be in control and that it feels like no matter how hard you try you feel like it's always going to be beyond your reach -- that might be more of the Four side of you that you might want to watch our for, not Sx (but the Sx instinct probably does accent that aspect of Four, I can imagine). Not to trivialize your difficulties. I just don't think all of what you mentioned is the difficulty of a Sx-dom. What you said had a seemingly Four flavor to it. Just like whenever I try and write a description of Sp, it possibly comes out kind of Six. XD And I also don't think you're trying to sound "special" or anything. 

Like, there's Sp "anxiety" and then there's Six "anxiety" and it's hard to tell which one is which. Just like there's Four "longings" and Sx "longings", and they probably look super similar. 

All of the instincts are about manipulating in order to feel safe. It's all about how you change the things around you (the tools you are given).


----------



## sodden (Jul 20, 2009)

kaleidoscope said:


> You're a 4, you're likely not going to relate to how Sp manifests itself across other enneatypes, so why generalize your experience onto other self-pres? You've made a point of separating on other threads Sp 4s from other Sp types. Don't get offended if my generalization doesn't fit how you experience the instinct, then.



I don't think she was. I think she was making the point that to make generalities like you did about self pres types doesn't work, due to the variances in enneagram type- some are reckless, some are hedonistic, some don't feel particularly practical or grounded, while some are what is perceived as the more 'typical' way of being self pres.

I'll admit, I have no fucking clue what my instinct stacking is anymore, but I think this has a lot to do with being a four. Because self pres fours are supposed to be atypical as far as self pres instinct goes, and social fours are supposed to not really see themselves as social, so the only thing I'm sure of is that sexual is either first or second. My point is that enneagram type (not to mention plain ol' individual differences) affect how the instinct manifests to such an extent that to say 'self pres do this' or 'social are like that' or 'sexual is this way' just doesn't work. I think, as a sexual four, it's quite easy to feel that no one else is like you, and everyone thinks you're really intense and out there, but I think that most fours, regardless of instinct, feel that way. I think it's just part of being a four, and probably why so many fours initially type themselves as being sexual doms. 

I think instinct theory is, at this point, still a rather young theory that everyone is still trying to figure out. For this reason, I think it's really difficult to say anything in terms of absolutes (not that you really can about enneagram anyway). It's like enneagram coach Ginger Lipid-Bogoda says after going to a subtype conference with Naranjo (from Boss's instinct thread):

*My experience of Claudio (Naranjo) there is that while he knows this material better than anyone, he is still learning and exploring. No wonder it is so hard for anyone to write an accurate and comprehensive book about subtypes. Just when you think you have it, something new emerges.*


----------



## sodden (Jul 20, 2009)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @_meridannight_
> I said neither that I was any more likely to be correctly typed nor that I know people's type better than they know themselves. I simply think a significant number of people online are mistyped, enough that it would completely throw off the data in favor of common misconceptions (for example, the number of people who think they are Sx dom simply because they like intimacy and are better at communicating one-one).


Are there still people who think that's what sexual means? I mean, hasn't that information really been put out there that that's not what sexual is about? (It drives me nuts when the sexual instinct is termed 'one to one', though, for this very reason.)


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @_OrangeAppled_
> I agree with @_kaleidoscope_ about Sp being a lot more grounded than Sx (*tending to survival and physical comfort is a lot more grounded than pursuing one's passions*) but I agree with you about adaptability. lots of Sp, as you say, adapt the external world to _them_ rather than adapting to the external world, and can become disgruntled when reality actually does dictate that they adapt (this is the case with me at least. I'm a stick in the mud when it comes to any change in my standard of living. I even briefly considered xSTJ as my type for this reason)
> in my opinion, the most adaptable variant is So/Sp.


These look like "passions" at times when they have nothing to do with practicality or survival needs in a true sense. The reason I see this as sp & not sx is that it's about _control_ to me, about _self-soothing_ (which for some types, is a kind of excitement to soothe boredom or longing), _not attracting/repelling_. If you want to say sp-dom are generally more controlled/controlling (we don't see ourselves as being out of control when indulgent; it feels like a way to take control), then I'd agree with that, but not grounded. Of course that's from my 4 perspective, and that's the other main point. Maybe in relation to an sx 4 I am more "grounded", but as compared to many other sp-dom types, not really. Seeing the instinct within core type is important as far as what kind of behaviors manifest, what kind of vibes one has. 

If we look at focus within a person, then we may see more commonalities. That's really what the instinct is - a _drive, _not "destination". Then an sp 6 & 4 & 7 may agree they want to control their environment, although one may be more interested in security, one in soothing, and another in distraction.


----------



## sodden (Jul 20, 2009)

OrangeAppled said:


> If you want to say sp-dom are generally more controlled/controlling *(we don't see ourselves as being out of control when indulgent; it feels like a way to take control)*, then I'd agree with that, but not grounded.


Now this is potentially helpful, not merely for me but others confused as well. Speaking for myself, I feel out of control about 80% of the time, particularly when I'm indulging. I feel like I have no choice in the matter whatsoever. It feels like obsession/compulsion.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

mimesis said:


> It doesn't necessarily have to be 'intense' or 'all or nothing'. I read before that @_kaleidoscope_ doesn't like physical contact, such as hugs. She also said she can only establish physical intimacy when there is an emotional bond. That she desires that one relationship to be intense and 'all or nothing' doesn't make her Sx-dom. In fact there seems to be a precondition on an So or Sp level. My point being, it isn't just about 'that (sexual) relation'.


Are you saying I can't be an Sx dom because I don't like hugs (and I believe what I said was that I didn't like hugs from strangers) or am a demisexual? And what do you mean about the precondition?

I wasn't even talking about relationships or sex. I meant that in general, my approach to everything is all or nothing. I don't like middle grounds. This can be with regards to everything I do, even the way I socialize. And whether you like it or not, that _is_ how the sexual instinct is like.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

@Julia Bell

Thank you for a wonderful post. I never tried to downplay other instincts compared to the sexual one, I know very well that every person will feel like their instinct is hardest to resist and most difficult to satisfy. I do think of Sx as special though, but this is tainted by my own experiences. I've never really met anyone who wanted the same level of connection and intensity I desired, or who were able to sustain it for long. I've never had friendships where the person desired to go as deep as I wanted them to, or who were capable of the self-disclosure that I've longed for. Like I've mentioned many times before, it feels like most people are satisfied at a level that could never remotely be fulfilling to me. My own experiences fuel my perception of Sx being hardest to satisfy. Furthermore, some of the things that could torture me really baffle other people. Perhaps this is Four-ish of me, I wouldn't be surprised if it was ^^

If I want to be blunt, I would much rather not be an Sx-dom. That's why I don't like it when it's suggested that I glorify the instinct, because anyone close to me would know just how much I can hate it.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

sodden said:


> Now this is potentially helpful, not merely for me but others confused as well. Speaking for myself, I feel out of control about 80% of the time, particularly when I'm indulging. I feel like I have no choice in the matter whatsoever. It feels like obsession/compulsion.


I think it can get to a point where you are controlled by the means you're trying to control with (ie. addictions, eating disorders, self-mutilation - all very unhealthy sp to me). Sp-dom may have denial of recognizing this though.

I think if you ONLY experience it this way (or mainly), then that may indicate NOT being sp first, because usually the dominant instinct has the greatest range (to refer back to your bouncing balls metaphor).

For example, when I'm out of work, I bust my butt to get work & make money. But I don't like working, and when I find work, I may test boundaries to see how little energy I can put in (sp/sx are generally more "private interests" people, IMO, not workaholics). I just want money to be able to indulge & soothe myself with pleasant experiences & things, to have control & independence over my state. Status & work achievements mean little to nothing for me, and I'm not saving for retirement. I hate this side of myself, because I'm not materialistic in that status-y way, but I use stuff & pleasures as self-medicating. On the other hand, I don't like too much stuff, because if I become aware of things controlling me, then I resent them. So I like a more simplistic life that's easy to manage but with my few chosen luxuries or ability to treat myself. An unhealthy sp-dom might have issues with "excess" or instant gratification though, or go the other way with deprivation.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

kaleidoscope said:


> @_Julia Bell_
> 
> Thank you for a wonderful post. I never tried to downplay other instincts compared to the sexual one, I know very well that every person will feel like their instinct is hardest to resist and most difficult to satisfy. I do think of Sx as special though, but this is tainted by my own experiences. I've never really met anyone who wanted the same level of connection and intensity I desired, or who were able to sustain it for long. I've never had friendships where the person desired to go as deep as I wanted them to, or who were capable of the self-disclosure that I've longed for. Like I've mentioned many times before, it feels like most people are satisfied at a level that could never remotely be fulfilling to me. My own experiences fuel my perception of Sx being hardest to satisfy. Furthermore, some of the things that could torture me really baffle other people. Perhaps this is Four-ish of me, I wouldn't be surprised if it was ^^
> 
> If I want to be blunt, I would much rather not be an Sx-dom. That's why I don't like it when it's suggested that I glorify the instinct, because anyone close to me would know just how much I can hate it.


Sounds like Sx accenting Four. I can imagine that being a Sx-primary Four is like being the most Fourish Four. Four already desires a certain sort of connection with people, and Sx perfectly brings that out. Although I'd advise you not to hate that portion of yourself (both the Four and the Sx). It's something that plays a large part in you. And it's a good thing, not a bad thing. Sometimes I feel like when you speak, it's like you think there's some deeply messed up part of yourself that you just want to cut out, or totally get rid of, but is somehow unfixable -- and like you think it's what holds everybody back from you. There's not a messed up bit of you, though, Kalei, at least no more messed up than any other human being on this planet. And there's no problem that's unfixable or insurmountable. You're the strong one in control. I'm not entirely sure if that makes sense.


----------



## frenchie (Jul 7, 2011)

This debate is too confusing.

The flows of energy make the most sense to instinctual variant as well as understanding how the different facets of the core types play into the instinctual variant. 

I'm an So/Sp and being a 649, the 4 makes me incredibly anti group and personally I find a lot of society failing in many instances. Not to mention, I feel incredibly alienated from most people. Loner would make more sense. 

It's all parts of a larger puzzle for each part.


----------



## sodden (Jul 20, 2009)

kaleidoscope said:


> @_Julia Bell_
> Like I've mentioned many times before, it feels like most people are satisfied at a level that could never remotely be fulfilling to me. My own experiences fuel my perception of Sx being hardest to satisfy. Furthermore, some of the things that could torture me really baffle other people. Perhaps this is Four-ish of me, I wouldn't be surprised if it was ^^



Well, I don't know what's causing it, sister, be it four or sx or both, but I'm there with you 


@_OrangeAppled_, thanks for the input. It gives me much to think about. And yes, the bouncing balls. I need to think about my bouncing balls (that puts a very interesting visual in my head). :shocked:


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

I want to meet a 4 who doesn't experience such frustrations over connecting, feeling like nothing is ever deep or intense enough. Maybe sx last 4s, but I wouldn't discount them either. 

I personally don't find my dom instinct hardest to control because I experience myself as using it to control. My last instinct feels the hardest to control, & I don't particularly care. I only started to have some decent awareness of my so instinct when I realized it was affecting the areas of life the other two drives focus on. Even still, I am perplexed as to how or why I make social connections or how/why I am perceived a certain way; I have no idea how to control it or how to influence people in that way. It doesn't mean I never do influence or impress or carve a niche, I just don't know how it works, and much of the time I don't care. It frankly, can look "magical" to me, or like a secret code I never learned. 

People have that reaction to the way I decorate or dress or my "taste". Like I have a knack that seems "magical" to them. My e6 sp mom is that way too; a knack for creating pleasing, exciting, &/or comfortable environments & experiences.


----------



## SuperNova85 (Feb 21, 2011)

I don't mean to add to the confusion, but there are also levels to each subtype. Like for Sx/Sp there's the Seducer, the Mystifier and the Wanderer; the Seducer is the most "Sx" and the Wanderer is the least. So really it's sort of like a type within a type within a type.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

SuperNova85 said:


> I don't mean to add to the confusion, but there are also levels to each subtype. Like for Sx/Sp there's the Seducer, the Mystifier and the Wanderer; the Seducer is the most "Sx" and the Wanderer is the least. So really it's sort of like a type within a type within a type.


I took this into consideration when I made the quiz. for instance, an Sp/Sx~Ascetic is more likely to look at the Sx questions and think "hmm, I guess I relate to 2-3 of these" whereas an Sp/Sx~Decadent is more likely to look at them and think "Sx sounds a lot like me, but I relate slightly more to Sp"


----------



## sodden (Jul 20, 2009)

OrangeAppled said:


> I only started to have some decent awareness of my so instinct when I realized it was affecting the areas of life the other two drives focus on. Even still, I am perplexed as to how or why I make social connections or how/why I am perceived a certain way; I have no idea how to control it or how to influence people in that way. It doesn't mean I never do influence or impress or carve a niche, I just don't know how it works, and much of the time I don't care. It frankly, can look "magical" to me, or like a secret code I never learned.


I relate to this, but I wonder how much of it is being a 4w5. I think such a self absorbed type, regardless of instinct, is going to be somewhat bewildered and disinterested in the social world.

So what looks magical to me? Social networking and knowing how to work the system, yes, but I really don't care about that. What looks magical to me that I care about? Longevity. People sticking with careers or projects through to the end, not getting frustrated or disenchanted with it and moving on to something else that's more appealing. I want to be like this very much, but it has always completely eluded me. I always seem to obsess about/completely focus on things that don't go along with this goal, like the enneagram, or individuals who catch my interest. It's annoying.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

kaleidoscope said:


> @_All in Twilight_
> 
> Would you describe being Sx/So as adaptive then?
> 
> PS: Never done anything extreme either.


Not necessarily adaptive but there are so many factors involved that I really can't answer this. I think the whole instinctual variant theory is not static or fixed but full of action and re-action.

I think that we are later to re-act (and with different intention) but we *will* react at a certain point, when the situation demands for it or we will freeze. (Re-act = adapt as you will) and I think an SP is more likely to act first as well to initiate things so their being contains more movement depending on their personal situation.

That's why I think the word adapt is a bit poorly chosen. Does it really apply to a sx/(so)? Can we make that comparison?


----------



## meridannight (Nov 23, 2012)

frenchie said:


> This debate is too confusing.


lol yes. i think they're all looking at the same apple, but some of them are on the side where it appears ''greener'', and others on the side where it seems to be more ''red''.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

sodden said:


> Are there still people who think that's what sexual means? I mean, hasn't that information really been put out there that that's not what sexual is about? (It drives me nuts when the sexual instinct is termed 'one to one', though, for this very reason.)





kaleidoscope said:


> I've never really met anyone who wanted the same level of connection and intensity I desired, or who were able to sustain it for long. I've never had friendships where the person desired to go as deep as I wanted them to, or who were capable of the self-disclosure that I've longed for. Like I've mentioned many times before, it feels like most people are satisfied at a level that could never remotely be fulfilling to me.


This just goes to show how easy it is to mistype due to misunderstanding descriptions. When I first learned the instincts I typed myself as sx or "one to one" precisely because I prefer one to one interactions to groups. I read descriptions that were very similar to what Kaleidoscope said, and I related to them because I completely misinterpreted them. I get frustrated because it seems like most of the people around me are quite content to talk about the weather, but small talk doesn't fulfil me; I'd much rather talk about something deeper, like a mutual interest. The problem is that I was defining "deep" in an intellectual way, but even the use of the word "intimacy" didn't make me reconsider; I love feeling really comfortable with someone, and that's what I think of as intimacy. Words are a big issue because we all come from different backgrounds and cultures, have different life experiences, and our types affect our outlook, so what different people understand even by a perfectly normal english word is going to vary. "One to one" is obviously a misleading term, and I understand that some people think they are a "sexual" type because they like sex or see themselves as sexy, so maybe we need to find a different word for that instinct.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

kaleidoscope said:


> Are you saying I can't be an Sx dom because I don't like hugs (and I believe what I said was that I didn't like hugs from strangers) or am a demisexual? And what do you mean about the precondition?
> 
> I wasn't even talking about relationships or sex. I meant that in general, my approach to everything is all or nothing. I don't like middle grounds. This can be with regards to everything I do, even the way I socialize. And whether you like it or not, that _is_ how the sexual instinct is like.


Really? That's interesting, Kaleidoscope, 20 explains Mimesis, 42 what sexual instinct is. You are not even self-sufficient and independent my dear. Why be so dauntless? 



kaleidoscope said:


> That's what I meant, people generally misunderstand the kind of intimacy Sx seeks: it's not comfortable and romantic, it's consuming, all or nothing. Sx intimacy and intensity struggles with limits and boundaries, and the way I experience it, it controls me rather than the other way around.
> 
> (...)
> 
> Really, I don't understand how anyone could possibly see Sx as more adaptive. When you constantly feel restless, when you need more and more than most people/situations/experiences can give you, when you are pretty much unable to concentrate on anything else besides the object of your desire, adaptive is not the first word that comes to mind. Perhaps you may be idealizing this instinct a little, but any Sx dom would disagree with you.


Sounds to me like your sexual instinct is a bit on the needy side and the receiving end. I just don't hear you about stimulating others, reciprocity, or gratifying other people's needs and desires, or just the unique and significant chemistry, cross-fertilization (fusion) that any set of two individuals in whatever combination of gender, or a group of people can have. So let's just say I have a different take on this instinct. Also, the good news is, as one grows to healthier levels, it becomes more of a 'flow'. (and I just read on the lower levels the dominant instinct rather 'interferes', so maybe that's an explanation)

Anyway, I don't have a problem with your personal view on this. That's really your personal preference. But I don't think the level of desired intensity makes it necessarily dominant and you can establish an energetic connection with your hairdresser as far as I'm concerned, who you only see a couple of times a year. Hell, even if it was just on one occasion. I'm not bothered whether you see yourself as Sx-dom, or whether demisexuality can or can't be Sx-dom. My point was it's not limited to that one relationship, although I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that there seems to be a precondition before 'connecting', and not so much in the realm of Sx but Sp or So. But that's more a thing for you to reflect on, since I am not demisexual and I don't mind to hug someone I don't know, especially when the vibe feels right to me.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

@mimesis

You may like to think of yourself as healthy, I'll allow you to bask in that because it amuses me. But don't drag me into your less-than-subtle attempts at flaunting your so-called health. I honestly couldn't care less; and I don't think anyone truly healthy would feel the need to shove it in people's faces all the time - at age 42 no less.

This thread isn't about how I experience the Sx instinct anyway, so I didn't feel the need to write a huge block of text about myself. You obviously don't have a problem with that, good for you I guess?


----------



## sodden (Jul 20, 2009)

mimesis said:


> Really, I don't think Sx has so much to do with passion. It's connecting on an energetic level, perhaps 'tune in' or 'vibe' is a better word for it. It could also be rejection based on lack of chemistry or not liking the energy that comes along with someone.


Although I disagree as far as your first sentence goes (but I'm also a four so I need to keep that in mind, and I most certainly don't think that sexual types are the only ones who get passionate), I do agree with the rest of what I quoted. I think sexual is very much about energy and chemistry. I also like thinking of it in terms of attraction and repulsion, which also goes along with what you say. 

I can understand your confusion with what @_kaleidoscope_ says as a demisexual. I have difficulty understanding it as well, because I will become absurdly attracted or repulsed by someone due to chemistry. It feels extremely animalistic to me, completely beyond any sort of logic or reason or social tie or affection, and it happens the second I see or smell a person, and there is absolutely nothing I can do to alter that feeling. But because that's my relation to the sexual instinct doesn't mean I'm going to say kaleidoscope's relation to the sexual instinct is wrong. I'm no authority on her life, or demisexuality, that's for damn sure.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

sodden said:


> Although I disagree as far as your first sentence goes (but I'm also a four so I need to keep that in mind, and I most certainly don't think that sexual types are the only ones who get passionate), I do agree with the rest of what I quoted. I think sexual is very much about energy and chemistry. I also like thinking of it in terms of attraction and repulsion, which also goes along with what you say.
> 
> I can understand your confusion with what @_kaleidoscope_ says as a demisexual. I have difficulty understanding it as well, because I will become absurdly attracted or repulsed by someone due to chemistry. It feels extremely animalistic to me, completely beyond any sort of logic or reason or social tie or affection, and it happens the second I see or smell a person, and there is absolutely nothing I can do to alter that feeling. But because that's my relation to the sexual instinct doesn't mean I'm going to say kaleidoscope's relation to the sexual instinct is wrong. I'm no authority on her life, or demisexuality, that's for damn sure.


I don't understand how being a demisexual is at odds with being an Sx-dom. Demisexuality is about *sexual *attraction occurring _after _the emotional/mental bond has been established, as opposed to just happening due to primary sexual characteristics like appearance and the like. Emotional, and mental attraction all occur very intensely when I'm interested in someone, pretty much the way you describe it, sodden. It's very instinctual, irresistible, and strong. 

The stronger the connection/chemistry, the more I'm physically attracted to them. That's it.


----------



## sodden (Jul 20, 2009)

kaleidoscope said:


> I don't understand how being a demisexual is at odds with being an Sx-dom. Demisexuality is about *sexual *attraction occurring _after _the emotional/mental bond has been established, as opposed to just happening due to primary sexual characteristics like appearance and the like. Emotional, and mental attraction all occur very intensely when I'm interested in someone, pretty much the way you describe it, sodden. It's very instinctual, irresistible, and strong.
> 
> The stronger the connection/chemistry, the more I'm physically attracted to them. That's it.


Well, I wouldn't say I'm attracted to people due to primary sexual characteristics like appearance, precisely (although appearance definitely matters), so much as just some sort of energy/chemistry feeling. I just will feel incredibly drawn to the person, or incredibly turned off. It's likely this will fade or increase as/if I get to know the person, due to the emotional and mental bond (or lack thereof), but there is a strong immediate reaction.

I'm not saying demisexuality is at odds with being a sx-dom. Not in the slightest. I just know how my sexual instinct works and how yours works seems to take an opposite approach. So it's a little foreign to me. And it seems to be foreign to @mimesis as well.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

sodden said:


> Although I disagree as far as your first sentence goes (but I'm also a four so I need to keep that in mind, and I most certainly don't think that sexual types are the only ones who get passionate), I do agree with the rest of what I quoted. I think sexual is very much about energy and chemistry. I also like thinking of it in terms of attraction and repulsion, which also goes along with what you say.
> 
> I can understand your confusion with what @_kaleidoscope_ says as a demisexual. I have difficulty understanding it as well, because I will become absurdly attracted or repulsed by someone due to chemistry. It feels extremely animalistic to me, completely beyond any sort of logic or reason or social tie or affection, and it happens the second I see or smell a person, and there is absolutely nothing I can do to alter that feeling. But because that's my relation to the sexual instinct doesn't mean I'm going to say kaleidoscope's relation to the sexual instinct is wrong. I'm no authority on her life, or demisexuality, that's for damn sure.


Haha, well put. 

Again, I'm not saying it isn't, but what I heard from (other) demisexuals is that there needs to be a personal bond established first (and this has also been explained in terms of commitment and trust/security) before even to begin experience sexual attraction/desire. I'm not saying there is anything wrong about that. Or that it is not Sx. But maybe not dominant. But let's not treat this like Sx-dom is anything more special than others, either. And I don't think i'm in the position to judge that, I just questioned it.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

sodden said:


> *Although I disagree as far as your first sentence goes* (but I'm also a four so I need to keep that in mind, and I most certainly don't think that sexual types are the only ones who *get* *passionate*), I do agree with the rest of what I quoted. I think sexual is very much about energy and chemistry. I also like thinking of it in terms of attraction and repulsion, which also goes along with what you say.
> 
> I can understand your confusion with what @_kaleidoscope_ says as a demisexual. I have difficulty understanding it as well, because I will become absurdly attracted or repulsed by someone due to chemistry. It feels extremely *animalistic* to me, completely beyond any sort of logic or reason or social tie or affection, and it happens the second I see or smell a person, and there is absolutely nothing I can do to alter that feeling. But because that's my relation to the sexual instinct doesn't mean I'm going to say kaleidoscope's relation to the sexual instinct is wrong. I'm no authority on her life, or demisexuality, that's for damn sure.


I'm sure there is passion involved. But One (pun intended) can be passionate about right/wrong or (in)justice (possibly So-dom). And as mentioned before e7 Sp is probably passionately hedonist. I am sure even a e4 Sp 'emotional masochist' is pretty passionate too. Fear and passion are not so far away from each other or sometimes hard to distinct. The closer to the edge, the stronger the passion and intensity. Just don't look to long into the abyss...

On a sidenote...

...since we're talking about instincts here. You mentioned animalistic. There seems to be an association of 'lust' or 'competition/dominance' or 'killer instinct' with the 'animal' within. And somewhat implicitly suggesting that 'love' or 'altruism', 'empathy' is something 'superior' and 'human'. I'm not saying you suggest this. But I sense this a bit as being an underlying assumption in discussions.

But we are a social animal. And we are not social because we like to stick around. As a species we have survived by living in a group. So our 'social' instincts are just as 'animalistic'. Social anxieties are profound and connected to survival (and self-preservation) just as much as our sexual instinct. Status and dominance hierarchy is connected to chance of survival, security and procreation. (like a pecking order) That's why we are somewhat preoccupied with self-worth. 



> Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable. (.l.)
> Altruism in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------

