# So>Sp stackings vs Sp>So stackings



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

this is a general pattern I've noticed that seems to be true 90%+ of the time

So>Sp types (So doms and Sx/So)
- want people to take an active role in each others' lives. 
- prefer to reach out to and involve people
- prefer to mix business work with social interaction

Sp>So types (Sp doms and Sx/Sp)
- keep to themselves more. 
- want people to mind their own busines and leave them the f*ck alone (though they may be still be inter-personally friendly)
- more formal style of business. they prefer to fulfill their agreed obligations and then get back to their private lives


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> this is a general pattern I've noticed that seems to be true 90%+ of the time
> 
> So>Sp types (So doms and Sx/So)
> - want people to take an active role in each others' lives.
> ...


Response to the topic at hand in bolded in the quote ^ (i agree with the ones i didn't comment on)

Why the deep interest in variant stackings lately?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

I saw stackings divided into "upper" and "lower" realms in this article, which is the same division that you have here.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> I saw stackings divided into "upper" and "lower" realms in this article, which is the same division that you have here.


Wait, what? I'm confused, what do you mean by that?


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

cyamitide said:


> I saw stackings divided into "upper" and "lower" realms in this article, which is the same division that you have here.


I like how Sp/Sx and Sx/Sp were the "hell" types


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> t
> - want people to mind their own busines and leave them the f*ck alone (though they may be still be inter-personally friendly)


I honestly don't think I've ever read anything more accurate about myself before


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Wait, what? I'm confused, what do you mean by that?


At the very bottom of that link it says three upper realms and three lower realms.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

Ehhh...


@cyamitide That article has got to be one of the worst things I've ever read. Major WTF to "topics XX-dom might bring up in conversation" section.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Marlowe said:


> Ehhh...
> 
> @_cyamitide_ That article has got to be one of the worst things I've ever read. Major WTF to "topics XX-dom might bring up in conversation" section.


It's the same one that has been linked in the sticky threads above: http://personalitycafe.com/enneagra...ce-thread-instinctual-variants-stackings.html and according to that thread lots of people liked it so I assumed a good deal of it is accurate.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> lots of people liked it so I assumed a good deal of it is accurate.


It could also just mean most of them were idiots.

EDIT: @cyamitide

Just in case you wern't clear:


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> It's the same one that has been linked in the sticky threads above: http://personalitycafe.com/enneagra...ce-thread-instinctual-variants-stackings.html and according to that thread lots of people liked it so I assumed a good deal of it is accurate.


Only segments of the article were posted on the thread. The material on there was taken from Ocean Moonshine's webpage and it is credible information on individual instincts, the stacking part gets convoluted as expected. None of the energy flow shit and chakras or whatever was shared in the OP. I chose to leave out much of it in my posts because it's not quality information from start to end.  

Some people did post the energy flow stuff, but I don't find it relevant at all. The esoteric garbage at the bottom is even worse.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> *Sp>So types (Sp doms and Sx/Sp)
> - keep to themselves more. *Well this is true, it's keeping the wider world at a comfortable distance but still keeping ties. My opinion is slightly biased though being a 6. It be interesting what non 6core/fixers who are sp/so would have to say about this. There's the wanting to affect society but self preservational issues still prevail. Would rather affect society once nest is built, this sounds slightly 6 again but it's SP.
> 
> 
> ...


yadda


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Boss said:


> Only segments of the article were posted on the thread. The material on there was taken from Ocean Moonshine's webpage and it is credible information on individual instincts, the stacking part gets convoluted as expected. None of the energy flow shit and chakras or whatever was shared in the OP. I chose to leave out much of it in my posts because it's not quality information from start to end.


The comment was regarding the topics that XX-instinct types might bring to conversation and those are featured in that sticky thread. Recalling some old discussions there were issues even with the Ocean Moonshine information.



Boss said:


> Some people did post the energy flow stuff, but I don't find it relevant at all. The esoteric garbage at the bottom is even worse.


To be honest with oneself, all of this instinct and enneagram stuff is esoteric garbage that does not possess even a modicum of empirical validity. It is not just the bottom of that article, but all the articles on the subject are effectively a blend of modern day pop-psychology and archaic quackery -- this is as to not to trick oneself thinking that some parts have more validity than others.


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> The comment was regarding the topics that XX-instinct types might bring to conversation and those are featured in that sticky thread. Recalling some old discussions there were issues even with the Ocean Moonshine information.


I see. I missed that. I was under the impression that the post was a reference to the chakras/hells part which was a whole another level of ludicrous. And yes, surely OM is not a perfect source. It is among the better ones freely available online. 

As for the conversations part, I didn't take the time to edit that out and didn't feel the need. I don't, however, think that focusing on what topics people bring up in conversation is a good way of typing. Different people are likely to broach different subjects based on who they're talking to. I did mention on the thread that the Stacking descriptions can get especially convoluted. I expect that people will reach their own conclusions about whether stuff like topics brought up in conversation are truly typing relevant or not. The rest of the post on the individual instincts in the OP is informative. 




> To be honest with oneself, all of this instinct and enneagram stuff is esoteric garbage that does not possess even a modicum of empirical validity. It is not just the bottom of that article, but all the articles on the subject are effectively a blend of modern day pop-psychology and archaic quackery -- this is as to not to trick oneself thinking that some parts have more validity than others.


There are different gradients of bullshit is what I'd say to that. However, based on current understanding of Enneagram Subtypes/Instinctual variants (empirical validity they certainly lack), certain segments of said article were definitely more theoretically grounded and Enneagram relevant. The part about hells/energy sits better in the archaic quackery category than much of credible Enneagram scholarship which, without a doubt, has major pitfalls. Empirical validity is the furthest thing I'd expect from a Psychospiritual system like the Enneagram, what with Ichazo receiving 'divine' knowledge or whatever. 

It wouldn't exactly be self-deception to say that segments of the article in question were more rational, cogent and better rooted in current Enneagram scholarship than others.


----------



## rajAs (Sep 14, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> Sp>So types (Sp doms and Sx/Sp)
> - keep to themselves more.
> - want people to mind their own busines and leave them the f*ck alone (though they may be still be inter-personally friendly)
> - more formal style of business. they prefer to fulfill their agreed obligations and then get back to their private lives


100% true. I like inter-personal relationships but I want to decide when and who to interact with. No "surprises". For instance, receiving a phone call can be very invasive.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@cyamitide
I just realized this also correlates nicely with Alphas and Betas (Fe/Ti) vs Gammas and Deltas (Fi/Te)


----------



## WardRhiannon (Feb 1, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> this is a general pattern I've noticed that seems to be true 90%+ of the time
> 
> So>Sp types (So doms and Sx/So)
> - want people to take an active role in each others' lives.
> ...


If you mean me wanting people to get together and meet, I prefer to compartmentalize. However, I do like people to stay in my life. To an extent, I do want to involve people, but I prefer to do things alone. I do a lot of my socializing at work, but I only hang out with one person outside of work.


----------



## The Scorched Earth (May 17, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> this is a general pattern I've noticed that seems to be true 90%+ of the time
> 
> So>Sp types (So doms and Sx/So)
> - want people to take an active role in each others' lives.
> ...


Yes.

P.S. You're triple aggressive now?


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Ice Ghost said:


> Yes.
> P.S. You're triple aggressive now?


yes. it's a tentative typing as there are some things it doesn't explain well, but going with my gut, 8 is the gut type I relate to most. I think what was happening was:
1) I was telling myself subconsciously "you can't be an 8 fixer, they're like white tigers!"
2) I was explaining things away as "oh, that' could just be ___" (usually 1 or cp6, even though I almost never react in counter-phobic fashion). ....the pattern is pretty strong though. it's less evident in most of my posts (more evident on typology central, my posting style there is much more combative) but I have a lot more carnal aggression than a typical 7w6 (7w6s are typically confident and assertive, but not aggressive)
3) for the same reason I mistyped as Sp dom, 8 is somewhat of a sought after type, so I wanted go against the grain and be something that was viewed less positively (I know, a very hipster, adolescent tendency lol). 

I'm not certain on it given
- it leaves a lot of things unexplained
- it could just be wishful thinking

however,the trend in my behavior and thinking towards type 8 is hard to ignore and I think, at the least, there is reason to give it another look as my gut fix. that said, my gut fix is up for grabs. input welcome =)


----------

