# Am I an So/Sx variant or Sx/So variant?



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

I honestly don't know which one I value more. Lately over the past few months I've just been craving intense and deep connections with people, I've always been this way but it's just getting stronger and stronger. It _really_ bothers me when there's a lack of connection between myself and someone Im interacting with (I prefer one-on-one hangouts to groups), and I feel like almost all of my personal connections aren't deep enough (consequently, it causes me to act more distant towards friends who I notice don't _connect_ with me like I search for). I use the things and people I like as motivation to live each day, especially when I _really_ like someone romantically (does not happen often, but when it does the feelings are extremely intense).

This all makes me think Im a Sx first, but I'm doubtful because I test as an 'So' first on a lot of websites. I highly relate to the need/want of feeling accepted and validated within my personal relationships, Im very aware of how I'm conducting myself in social settings - I care a lot about how people are seeing me when I walk into a coffee shop, a classroom, any public space really. I come off as extroverted often times to people and I very much want to feel like I "belong" somewhere. I remember I cared a lot about cliques in middle school and wanting to fit in with "the cool kids", I remember that I even betrayed my best friend at the time to fit in and build relationships with "the cool kids" (I know I was so pathetic but it was middle school cut me some slack). I care a lot about politeness, it is really just how I was raised and I have a lot of "proper" and "gentleman-like" qualities to me. I always desired some form of "high status" even since I was a young kid, I don't care about cliques now and I really hate them (I find them childish and immature); however I still desire "high status" within the world and I enjoy appearing "aristocratic" (which makes me seem unapproachable to a lot of people and makes me seem like a stuck-up dick until they conversate with me and become surprised by how warm and extroverted I can act).

As I'm maturing though, I'm just getting so annoyed with my 'So' traits, I'd rather just focus more on my Sx traits (focus on the intensity of my relationships and the things I passionately enjoy). Maybe I'm confusing my So traits with my tritype? I honestly don't know, any help/advice is greatly appreciated!


----------



## Full_fathom_4 (Jan 23, 2018)

Taking a stab.

I find it easier to de-mystify instinct variants by starting with these two group flows. 

sx/so -> so/sp -> sp/sx 

so/sx -> sx/sp -> sp/so

Comparing the choices you're presenting - does the path of one of these flows feel more familiar, with the other one more 'counter' or foreign? Is there a kinship to one, while the other feels a little too dark, or too light, particularly the middle stacks listed? (one is a needy ghost, the other is, well, kind of a loud mouth). 

My best guess is the second one. so/sx -> neediness of sx/sp riding secondary, framed within the compliant nature of E1 and your proclivity toward people stuff, which was the basic theme of what you wrote. 

As an aside, imagine the average level of natural E type anger that might be (over)expressed in the other flow.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Full_fathom_4 said:


> Taking a stab.
> 
> I find it easier to de-mystify instinct variants by starting with these two group flows.
> 
> ...


I don't really know the difference between the two flows, I'm not very familiar with instinctual variants. I'm not positive im a E1 first either, I might be a 3w4 first. On similar minds I always test as a 3 and on ecleticenergies I either test as a 1w2 So or a 3w4 Sx depending on my mood and the day I guess. I just need someone to clear things up for me


----------



## Full_fathom_4 (Jan 23, 2018)

Given what you just wrote, and re-reading the original post, I'm leaning toward the E3. It's actually rather obvious now, but I was being polite by assuming a self-typing as correct. To be honest, I'm new here and haven't spent much time observing people. 3w4 certainly has an overlap or two with E1 regards perfecting _something._

Now, whether you are a so/sx 3 or a sx/so 3, well, I'll just say this. Status or desirability? There's a subtle difference there.


----------



## Rose for a Heart (Nov 14, 2011)

Something that might help is what are you willing to _sacrifice _in order to fulfill another need _which is the most important one to you_? Can you sacrifice belonging to a group for that connection and bond, or would it be the other way around? SX firsts can often "relax" around their secondary instinct if they are getting the first one fulfilled. That is, I may choose to not engage in social groups very much if I am more concerned with whether my SX is getting fulfilled or not.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Full_fathom_4 said:


> Given what you just wrote, and re-reading the original post, I'm leaning toward the E3. It's actually rather obvious now, but I was being polite by assuming a self-typing as correct. To be honest, I'm new here and haven't spent much time observing people. 3w4 certainly has an overlap or two with E1 regards perfecting _something._
> 
> Now, whether you are a so/sx 3 or a sx/so 3, well, I'll just say this. Status or desirability? There's a subtle difference there.


Yea I lean a bit towards E3 too, however I relate more to the 1s direction of stress and growth rather than the 3s direction of stress and growth (going to 4 under stress and 7 in growth is a lot like me). I'm very, very perfectionist (not so much about my projects/morals but more-so on perfecting myself and my interests). I also have OCD so this may or may not be a factor, I'm not too sure.

I think I value desirability more than status, the only reason I desire high status is to appear more impressive/attractive to other people and to satisfy myself with the accomplishment of being "the best version of me there is" or people (as shallow as it sounds) better than other people (although I don't like to give off that stuck-up asshole vibe to people because I want to be very likable, even though I do unintentionally).


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Rose for a Heart said:


> Something that might help is what are you willing to _sacrifice _in order to fulfill another need _which is the most important one to you_? Can you sacrifice belonging to a group for that connection and bond, or would it be the other way around? SX firsts can often "relax" around their secondary instinct if they are getting the first one fulfilled. That is, I may choose to not engage in social groups very much if I am more concerned with whether my SX is getting fulfilled or not.


Well a few years ago it was the other way around, but for the past few years it's been connection/bond always comes first. I don't care about groups/cliques unless it makes me have a "high-status" within the rest of the community (like I said, I enjoy appearing "aristocratic"). I care first and foremost about building a deep, intense connection with someone and growing closer together (unless I'm not really attracted to them myself obviously). 

If it helps at all, I feel a greater sense of belonging and fulfillment by building deep and intense connections with specific individuals rather than a group as a whole.


----------



## Rose for a Heart (Nov 14, 2011)

MusiCago said:


> Well a few years ago it was the other way around, but for the past few years it's been connection/bond always comes first. I don't care about groups/cliques unless it makes me have a "high-status" within the rest of the community (like I said, I enjoy appearing "aristocratic"). I care first and foremost about building a deep, intense connection with someone and growing closer together (unless I'm not really attracted to them myself obviously).
> 
> If it helps at all, I feel a greater sense of belonging and fulfillment by building deep and intense connections with specific individuals rather than a group as a whole.


I wonder if you dig a little deeper you can actually see one instinct predominate throughout your life? Sometimes we talk about instincts in a more detached and intellectual manner, which might actually get in the way of you typing at it. I think the actions at securing your needs are so immediate and unconscious you may not even be aware why you are doing it. Do you feel that way about any of the instincts? Like it's a really important part of you. 

Honestly, I have had to uncover issues around my instinct slowly and gradually, and I did not even realize at first what was my primary instinct. I didn't follow my intuition. I didn't realize how much of a complex I have built around avoiding rejection (SX) at all costs. That I cannot even look it in the eyes; I bury it and hope it will go away. I never truly get over any rejections. It may not hurt anymore, but I have never processed it fully. 

Getting the needs of your primary instinct threatened - it really hurts. You will do anything and everything possible to ensure that does not happen. 

I will abandon the group - or the whole wide world - if I can get completely lost in one beloved other. I don't need to "belong." I just need that bond. Group rejection might still bother me a bit, but romantic/sexual rejection...that hurts 100x worse. I also cannot engage in something I am not 100% into. I feel quite drained and depressed. 

Anyways, I hope that helps you with your typing.


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

I’d think so/sx - your focus seems heavily on how you’re perceived by others within your environment. Social-first types even if not extroverted are naturally inclined towards this. However, on the flip side, I suppose a sx/so can be attuned to that as well.

Also given the sx-second, most so/sx types feel a high level of comfort with high intensity relationships as long as it doesn’t break of their connection to the outside world. Also sx-first types tend to always desire intensity while sx-second types are more hot/cold in that regard. At least that’s how I am as a sp/sx.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Rose for a Heart said:


> I wonder if you dig a little deeper you can actually see one instinct predominate throughout your life? Sometimes we talk about instincts in a more detached and intellectual manner, which might actually get in the way of you typing at it. I think the actions at securing your needs are so immediate and unconscious you may not even be aware why you are doing it. Do you feel that way about any of the instincts? Like it's a really important part of you.
> 
> Honestly, I have had to uncover issues around my instinct slowly and gradually, and I did not even realize at first what was my primary instinct. I didn't follow my intuition. I didn't realize how much of a complex I have built around avoiding rejection (SX) at all costs. That I cannot even look it in the eyes; I bury it and hope it will go away. I never truly get over any rejections. It may not hurt anymore, but I have never processed it fully.
> 
> ...


I relate so much to you.. I hate group rejection and it hurts (a lot I should add). Being the only one in the group not invited out to things is something that hits close to home and it cuts deep and it's an awful feeling. However something that burns actual holes in my heart is the separation of that "special bond" with something/someone I _really love._ I had an extremely special bond with my dog and when he passed away I fell into a deep depression (completely had no motivation to hang out or talk with any friends at all). Then when senior year started I began to get invested in a special person and literally all of my focus, thoughts, emotions, and everything is focused on them. It's intense for me, and this is the first time I've fell this hard for someone. When I like someone it's either "eh they're okay" or "I CRY OVER YOU EVERY NIGHT ALL I WANT IS TO BE IN YOUR ARMS AT ALL TIMES OF THE DAY". There is no in between with me, even in friendships I'm either "they're okay" or "they are my best friend in the whole world". My true feelings towards something or someone will either be really "I don't care" or extremely intense and deep. Also if I am forced to participate into something I am not 100% into I feel extremely drained as well. I derive energy from engaging in the things and with the people I really love and care about. I honestly think I'm Sx/So, I'm just iffy because I was definitely an So dom in middle school and that's usually when our minds are developing and maturing by starting with the most basic form of our psychology and personality.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

BroNerd said:


> I’d think so/sx - your focus seems heavily on how you’re perceived by others within your environment. Social-first types even if not extroverted are naturally inclined towards this. However, on the flip side, I suppose a sx/so can be attuned to that as well.
> 
> Also given the sx-second, most so/sx types feel a high level of comfort with high intensity relationships as long as it doesn’t break of their connection to the outside world. Also sx-first types tend to always desire intensity while sx-second types are more hot/cold in that regard. At least that’s how I am as a sp/sx.


I don't really care about that outside world that much as long as I'm with someone that I have a really good bond with (very.. very rare in my life do I bond like that with someone). I'm a strong idealist in the "soulmate" aspect and a big fantasy/ideal of mine is being with my soulmate with a "fuck it. It's us against the world" mentality. Also what do you mean by "always desiring intensity" vs "hot/cold"?


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Well, I think status/belonging vs a special bond can be misleading, as bonding and connecting in general is actually Social.


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

MusiCago said:


> I don't really care about that outside world that much as long as I'm with someone that I have a really good bond with (very.. very rare in my life do I bond like that with someone). I'm a strong idealist in the "soulmate" aspect and a big fantasy/ideal of mine is being with my soulmate with a "fuck it. It's us against the world" mentality. Also what do you mean by "always desiring intensity" vs "hot/cold"?


Basically is what you describe something you always want or is it something that just pops up when you feel deprived of it?


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

BroNerd said:


> Basically is what you describe something you always want or is it something that just pops up when you feel deprived of it?


Something I always want


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

No idea what the instincts actually are at this point/think they actually probably don't exist but I think there's _very few_ people who would choose a group over a romance or even a friendship, and that might not even be for social-instinct reasons, so I don't think it would be a good way to determine this non-existant concept

I guess my suggestion would be to look at subtypes, maybe at how things manifest in a particularly 1 way (is your righteousness sexual or social? far-reaching or ascendant?)

I also think Fe can have to do with this but how aware are you of social context/how much of an imprint does that make on you? I think that can be a decent barometer of how strong your social instinct is...as noted I don't get the instincts/believe in them (think they can be _descriptive_ of some people but I don't see them as true in an _operational_ sense) but obviously social-first people do seem to have in common a knack for 'politics', like it's obvious in actual politics, I think social-firsts in general understand subtleties and connections better than not social firsts, maybe tend to overanalyze even, smaller things have more import, even social-lasts can read the time but social-firsts tend to look at the gears too, of course only in the sphere of their interest though and not everyone likes politics, but also just the politics of ordinary situations, but all the examples I can think of are either stupid and wrong or core-type-specific

vs so-seconds for whom social things are more of game imo, doesn't count for people for whom everything or nothing is a game though, I think a lot of revolutionary leaders and such (and normal politicians as well, just focusing on politics because it's such an obvious example of social) are sx/so, I think they tend to be a little more naive about social things, that stacking most of all because it has sp-last, not an anchored idea of what people need on a daily basis, more focus on the Vision, there's a more sexualized, unified idea of social, haven't really studied him but to my eye Fidel Castro looks like a sx/so, clearly he was adept at social but there's also a vibe like the social project is a personal magnum opus, fictional example would be Daenerys Targaryen, think she's sx/so too

So yeah sx/so compartmentalizes social into sexual, so you get something more like 'This is my vision and the people will play this part because my vision demands it' 'this is my energy and I want the world to be part of it and it to be part of the world' 'world, dance with me'

Whereas so/sx compartmentalizes sexual into social so it's more like 'the people are my passion' 'the passion is the keystone to my arch'

In Parks and Recreation I think Leslie Knope is (exaggerated and extremely government-obsessed) so/sx and Jean-Ralphio is (exaggerated and extremely 7) sx/so, only really relevant if you've seen the show though I think, can't find very demonstrative clips

Anyways, others disagree but to me:

sx/so with social-ish song:






so/sx with sexual-ish song:






(she has more sexual songs I know but this illustrates the point (?) I am trying to make better, which is...he's filling the role, he'll be playing the prince, he'll be the keystone...so/sx is more to do with structure and sx/so more to do with effect 'I live for glitter')

Not sure if this makes sense, made sx/so sound pretty lunatic and so/sx boring maybe, and as i said I don't think the instincts exist, they're just fun to talk about


----------



## Rose for a Heart (Nov 14, 2011)

Nissa Nissa said:


> No idea what the instincts actually are at this point/think they actually probably don't exist but I think there's _very few_ people who would choose a group over a romance or even a friendship, and that might not even be for social-instinct reasons, so I don't think it would be a good way to determine this non-existant concept


I don't really agree with this. I love meeting SX firsts because I recognize them. It feels like we are speaking the same language. I tried to be more I suppose, laid-back with my friends, but I quickly grew bored. None of them are SX first, although a few could SX secondary. They seem completely fine keeping things more pleasant, surface level, and friendly, while I very soon got tired of it and craved for more. I _need _that transformational intensity - and it's not just the 4. 

And in fact people do choose being more appropriate within a group than a romance. For example, I was very briefly with someone who was very concerned that we stay with his friends and prioritized that over intimacy between us, which I had a hard time understanding at the time. I think the instincts are legitimate, and I am glad to have found this concept for it helps explain why some people speak the same language as I do, and some don't.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

Rose for a Heart said:


> I don't really agree with this. I love meeting SX firsts because I recognize them. It feels like we are speaking the same language. I tried to be more I suppose, laid-back with my friends, but I quickly grew bored. None of them are SX first, although a few could SX secondary. They seem completely fine keeping things more pleasant, surface level, and friendly, while I very soon got tired of it and craved for more. I _need _that transformational intensity - and it's not just the 4.
> 
> And in fact people do choose being more appropriate within a group than a romance. For example, I was very briefly with someone who was very concerned that we stay with his friends and prioritized that over intimacy between us, which I had a hard time understanding at the time. I think the instincts are legitimate, and I am glad to have found this concept for it helps explain why some people speak the same language as I do, and some don't.


Hm. That seems valid, I guess for me...I spent a lot of time trying to use Enneagram or MBTI or whatever to try to pinpoint that 'same language' or what makes someone a 'kindred spirit' and I think it was a mistake because I was trying to categorize something that is more magic and real than that...so this is a result of my personal poor expectations, like I used to imagine like...that before we were born we were all oysters in a gigantic ocean in different bays and coves and sometimes we'd come across someone from our same bay and we'd _know_ that we remembered the same ocean, I was trying to convert that concept into Enneagram but I think my ocean thing was more true or the 'whatever souls are made of ours are made of the same' rather than a figment of personality. if this doesn't sound too mawkish, it's hard for me to avoid :laughing:

And well...it just doesn't seem to work, it feels limiting in a way, obviously instincts don't define experience but it feels like they do, maybe it's the way they ended up tasting to me but it's like so-last smells like sweat, sp-last is forever curtailed from the simple pleasures, sx-last forever confined to the guildhalls, it's...the descriptions, obviously, but it's become this really strange way to look at the world, as if everyone couldn't (and didn't) experience everything, I also just don't see _most_ people consistently favouring one instinct, it would make sense to me if they could change throughout life at least but...

There are some people who do seem firmly entrenched in the track of one instinct but it really seems like a deviation from the norm, it seems arbitrary that there are three and that each person would have one dominant one, think if there were three ways people diverged instinctually it would have been noticed a long time ago and would be a lot less confusing, it feels as relevant as sorting everyone into 'rock' 'paper' and 'scissors' you could do that for a while and then you'd start to make rules about it and it could make sense in some way, but I don't think it would hold up and I don't think the instincts do either, think it's really a situation of trying to apply false categories to people (every conversation about them pretty much goes...in general universal things or molecular things get assigned to them imo 

Like I can see with my own eyes how Enneagram types hold up...I do see these patterns in people...I'm not sure if it's a perfect system, don't know how deep it runs or how much it means, but I can see it and...I can't really see instincts at work, think they're a decent subcategory but 'which Greek god are you?' would be equally decent category, maybe better

So I think it can describe things, maybe explain things, but I don't think really in the 'this is why' way, something else

Not explaining myself well but it's more or less in the range of what I'm trying to say


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

MusiCago said:


> Something I always want


Got it, I’m actually starting to think sx/so is a real possibility. One of your other posts on this thread seems to indicate sx is stronger than so - your response to Rose for a Heart - since sx concerns seem to be priority. At first I was honestly thinking maybe you were confusing it with a need for physical sex (a lot of mistypings as sx because of that), however, it is clear you are after the deep and all-encompassing connection which is true sx in the instinctual variant world.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

BroNerd said:


> Got it, I’m actually starting to think sx/so is a real possibility. One of your other posts on this thread seems to indicate sx is stronger than so - your response to Rose for a Heart - since sx concerns seem to be priority. At first I was honestly thinking maybe you were confusing it with a need for physical sex (a lot of mistypings as sx because of that), however, it is clear you are after the deep and all-encompassing connection which is true sx in the instinctual variant world.


Need for physical sex is very low for me in all honesty. When I fantasize about sex, it's all about the passion and intimacy and _closeness_ that I like. I mean, cuddling sounds just as good as sex to me (obviously not but they're both equal in terms of emotional fulfillment in my eyes). However that's not my focus in searching for deep, intense connections with people; for me it is about the special unknown and unspoken bond that you feel when you're with someone, looking into their eyes, and overall just being in their presence which makes you feel so unbelievably comfortable to be with them and be close. This bond is rarer than finding another INFJ in "the real world" (such a stupid term for internet talk but tangent).. When this bond is found my soul radiates with joy.

Typically though the connection I get with friends only comes about half way (sometimes not even that) to what I look for and crave, and it makes me feel kinda disappointed and melancholy on the inside because those feelings also correlate to me feeling very "alien" and feeling like I don't belong where I am (like I'm meant to be somewhere else). The best metaphor I have for this feeling within me is to think of a girl in an all boys school (or a boy in an all girls school) and the outsider thinking/knowing "hey.. There's something different about me and I don't think I should be here" but they can't quite pinpoint _why_ they feel this way (it's their gender but they don't know it, they're oblivious to it but they're also trying to figure it out at the same time). When I make that deep and special connection with someone, that feeling goes away as long as I'm with them. It's like some hole in my soul and heart is being filled when I'm with them, I don't know how to describe it.


----------



## star tripper (Sep 1, 2013)

@Nissa Nissa I feel like when it comes to personality theory, certain aspects can be very distinguished in one person and completely negligible in another. One of my closest friends is definitely an ESTP -- _hard_ ESTP -- but enneagram-wise, the only thing that truly stands out is her tritype is likely 379 or something along those lines. And she values so. I don't think it would benefit her really to learn enneagram because it's just such a nonfactor to her? Idk. She's definitely more preoccupied with the Se-Ni dynamic.

My INFP bff is an OBVIOUS INFP and yet it's definitely not as problematic nor prominent as her 9w8 so/SP personality. Even though her INFPness is quite distinguished, it doesn't inform her life enough to matter.


----------

