# Nobody is So/Sp or Sp/So? O__o



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

theres currently an so/sp in my bathroom


----------



## Wake (Aug 31, 2009)

Spades said:


> People confuse So with being social, Sx with liking one-on-one interaction (who doesn't?), and Sp with introversion.
> 
> I've seen plenty of So-doms who think they are Sp.
> 
> Edit: Just ask @Wake how social he is =P


When I'm part of a group I've been known to dehydrate myself for the team effort. I think it depends on how well I identify with the cause. If not invested I show more SP tendencies. The thing that made me think I was SP first was that I'm not typically in a role of potentially affecting others, so would often care only about my own needs and well-being.

If I know what I'm doing and can potentially have some negative impact on others I'll become energized more than anyone I know. Type 1 belief system seems to make SO/SP come out differently because 1s are action oriented. Any other type may experience SO/SP completely differently because they have a completely different approach to affecting others, not to mention their interaction with people. If you prefer not to stand and chat with people then SO could look very different.

EDIT: My friend appears to be an SO/SP type 6 and she loves standing and talking with people and laughing. She has trouble keeping intimate relationships going and changes partners often.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@Spades - Yeah. I have a hard time differentiating between it all x_X I keep on getting mixed information. Doesn't So like forming deep connections? @[email protected] I mean, having relationships with people in general, whether friends or otherwise. But everyone says that's an Sx thing. And yet that doesn't make sense considering forming deep relationships is something easily found among people. How would you describe So? I've kind of come to the could-be-wrong conclusion that Sx is very focused in a sense, and So is less so. -shrugs- I'm pretty confused. x3


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

Julia Bell said:


> I mean, having relationships with people in general, whether friends or otherwise. But everyone says that's an Sx thing.


Not really. Actually, I thought I was Sp/Sx, because I'm pretty much a loner. But Sx is not about friendship (that would be So, I think). 

From this thread:


Dark Romantic said:


> This is true... but Sx isn't _intimacy_ (as in, warm, fuzzy, closeness), which is more So, anyways, but is more concerned with _intensity_, connection, merging, expression, uncovering, unraveling, pulling in, dancing, jumping, running, fighting, having sex, and experiencing all the hungry, angry, violent passion that the world has to offer. Sx is _primal_, first and foremost. It's a no-holds-barred, winner take all outlook on life. So wants to maintain stable connections with other people: Sx wants to _merge_, connect, and swallow the other person.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@aconite - Oh, thank you! ^^ That's a brilliant quote from Dark Romantic. Very helpful.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

@Dark Romantic


> but Sx isn't _intimacy_ (as in, warm, fuzzy, closeness), which is more So, anyways,


I came across a video of a well-known Enneagram expert describing SP 6 as desiring "warm, fuzzy, closeness." As an SP 6 myself, I have to agree with this... It's not so much about the people, it's about the atmosphere, and SP-firsts are often highly affected by how something "feels" to them.
Haven't had time to listen to the other videos, so not sure if this applies to all SPs across the board... But I'm going infer it does.

To the OP (howdy!)... I know a _lot _of sx-lasts. Many of them online, too. They're just not interested in psychology, so they're not in communities such as these. Not, of course, to imply that sx-lasts are less interested; I don't believe this at all, but the ones I know don't care. And really, the non-sx-lasts aren't interested, either


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

Julia Bell said:


> @aconite - Oh, thank you! ^^ That's a brilliant quote from Dark Romantic. Very helpful.


You're welcome 

Zombie apocalypse scenario, because my Ne is running wild:

Sp: finding shelter, gathering supplies, protecting oneself
Sx: killing zombies, finding the source of the infection (basically, all the things the main character does in a zombie movie)
So: cooperating, planning a group attack, finding another survivors

So, what would you do? Your dominant instinct is your destination, your secondary instinct is your means to an end. For example, I'm Sx/Sp: protect myself, prepare and then kill as many zombies as possible (the lone ranger stacking, lol).


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@aconite - That is the most epic way of putting this. XD I would protect myself. Perhaps fortify my house or whatever. But my goal would be to rally and help the survivors. I don't know if we'd attack, though, because I'm very much for keeping those survivors including myself safe.


----------



## liza_200 (Nov 13, 2010)

Can anyone please explain me the full forms, of sx/so and sp and all? I_ think_ I've taken the test, and my result is somewhat like this:
Sexual |||||||||||| 34%
Social ||||||||||||||| 50%
Self Preservation ||||||||||||||||||||| 70%

What does this mean?


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

aconite said:


> You're welcome
> 
> Zombie apocalypse scenario, because my Ne is running wild:
> 
> ...


I would look for survivors, organize, and use them so that we could kill as many zombies as possible.



liza_200 said:


> Can anyone please explain me the full forms, of sx/so and sp and all? I_ think_ I've taken the test, and my result is somewhat like this:
> Sexual |||||||||||| 34%
> Social ||||||||||||||| 50%
> Self Preservation ||||||||||||||||||||| 70%
> ...


It means it thinks you're Sp/So. Is this the first time you've looked into your variants?


----------



## liza_200 (Nov 13, 2010)

Dark Romantic said:


> It means it thinks you're Sp/So. Is this the first time you've looked into your variants?


Yes. I use to members talking about this, but it didn't interest me much. Back some time, someone had been talking to me about this and I also wanted to figure out my variants.


----------



## Curiously (Nov 7, 2011)

Hi, I'm a sp/so.


----------



## AngelOnHerFlight (Feb 26, 2012)

Well, I've been pretty sure that my sexual instinct is inferior considering I'm bad when it comes to close relationships. At one point, I thought that my sexual instinct cannot be inferior because I'm seen as "very intense." Yes, I am very intense, but people with an inferior sx can be "very intense." In fact, I once saw Dostoevsky typed as sp/so. He wasn't too "mellow" (but his books are still boring).

Anyways, I later settled on so/sp. The description fits me so accurately. It's scary.


----------



## Curiously (Nov 7, 2011)

cutedeadgal said:


> Well, I've been pretty sure that my sexual instinct is inferior *considering I'm bad when it comes to close relationships.* *At one point, I thought that my sexual instinct cannot be inferior because I'm seen as "very intense." Yes, I am very intense, but people with an inferior sx can be "very intense."* In fact, I once saw Dostoevsky typed as sp/so. He wasn't too "mellow" (but his books are still boring).


Thanks for mentioning the parts I highlighted. I had some trouble settling on the sp/so for me because I am and can be intense in some ways, but when it came to sustaining close, intimate relationships where I'm wanted to make a sure fire commitment especially to one person/partner and what not, I didn't ever do too well and something always seemed 'off' for me in that department.


----------



## sleepyhead (Nov 14, 2011)

Julia Bell said:


> @_Spades_ - Yeah. I have a hard time differentiating between it all x_X I keep on getting mixed information. Doesn't So like forming deep connections? @[email protected] I mean, having relationships with people in general, whether friends or otherwise. But everyone says that's an Sx thing. And yet that doesn't make sense considering forming deep relationships is something easily found among people. How would you describe So? I've kind of come to the could-be-wrong conclusion that Sx is very focused in a sense, and So is less so. -shrugs- I'm pretty confused. x3


One thing I would say is that forming deep relationships is _not_ something easily found among people - I think it's pretty individual and I know there's a lot of people on PerC who struggle with this.

Here's the type 6 Riso and Hudson descriptions without stacking:

*Sx 6:*_
Symbols of power and connection. In the average range, sexual sixes develop physical strength, power, and/or physical attractiveness to feel safe. More aggressive sexual sixes rely on strength and displays of toughness that can resemble type 8 ("Don't mess with me"), while more phobic sexual 6's use their sexuality and coquettishness to disarm others and attract support in ways that can resemble type 4. They mask their insecurities through open assertion and defiance of authority, or through flirtation and seduction. 

Sexual 6's are highly aware of their physical attributes - for instance, spending time in gyms - although not for health reasons but to enhance their strength and appeal. Sexual 6's want to attract a powerful and capable mate, so they frequently test the other, both to see if they will stay with them, as well as to give themselves time to assess the other person's character and fortitude.

Sexual 6's are more openly defiant of authority than the other instinctual variants of the six, especially when anxious. They are also the most doubting of others and of themselves. They can have explosive emotional reactions when their own insecurities are exposed or their connections with others are threatened. When anxious, they may assert themselves against their own supporters or third parties rather than at the true source of their anxieties. Attempts at sabotaging others, or undermining their reputations in various ways, especially through rumor-mongering, are typical.

In the unhealthy range, sexual sixes can be depressive and erratic, especially if they feel that their reactivity has undermined or ruined their intimate connections. Impulsive, self-destructive behaviour alternates with irrational lashing out. Paranoia may become part of the picture, although usually with a distinctly focused and obsessive flavour since it is aimed at particular, personal enemies.
_ 
*So 6:*_
Generating support. In the average range, social sixes handle anxiety by looking to friends and allies for reassurance and support. They project friendliness and attempt to create bonds with others, disarming them with warmth and humour. They often make fun of themselves while offering support and affection to others, and they can sometimes be mistaken for Twos. Social sixes are the most concerned about fitting in. ("There's safety in numbers.") They are fairly idealistic, enjoying the feeling of being part of something larger than themselves - a cause or corporation or movement or group - and are willing to make major sacrifices for the security of that affiliation.

Social sixes can also sometimes resemble ones in their adherence to protocols and procedures. They look for reassurance through commitments, obligations, and contracts - insurance that their hard work will not be taken advantage of. When they are insecure, Social Sixes look for places of safety where like-minded individuals help each other out (twelve-step groups).

Although able to make major efforts for others or for their group, Social Sixes can often have difficultly working for their own success or development. Anxiety can lead them to look for consensus before they act or make decisions; anxiety also leads them to reference the potential responses of others in their imagination. Their own indecisiveness bothers them, however, and leads to ambivalence about depending on allies or authorities. They fear losing the support of the group or authority but chafe at the bit. If frustrated, they can develop passive-aggressive issues with authorities and friends. Under stress, they easily feel pressured, overworked, and under appreciated. At such times, they can be negative and pessimistic.

In the unhealthy range, Social Sixes may become attracted to fanatical beliefs, causes, and groups. They may develop an "us against the world" mentality, feeling besieged by a hostile environment (somewhat like an unhealthy 8). They can be unquestioning of their beliefs (even if others find their beliefs to be questionable) and slavish to a particular authority while being extremely paranoid about authorities not in alignment with their own belief system. 
_ 
*SP in a 6:*
_Responsibility. In the average range, SP sixes attempt to allay their survival anxieties by working hard to build up security through mutual responsibility. They offer service and commitment with the expectation that it will be reciprocated by others. Although they seek secure partnerships, SP Sixes tend to make friends slowly: they observe others over time to see if they are trustworthy and truly "on their side." They are more domestic than the other variants and are frequently concerned with maintaining the stability of their home life. They often take care of the security needs of the household: bills, taxes, insurance, and the like.

SP sixes do not easily disguise their anxiety and neediness. In fact, they may use it to gain allies and supporters - vulnerability can elicit help from others. They tend to fret about small things, which can lead to catastrophic thinking and worst-case scenarios. ("The rent is five days late? We're going to be evicted for sure!") SP sixes are usually frugal, and worry a great deal about financial matters. Conflicts with others over resources are common. 

In the unhealthy range, SP sixes are extremely clingy, dependent, and panicky. They stay in punishing situations - bad marriages or overly stressful jobs - because they are terrified at being without support. They may grasp at relationships with such forceful anxiety that they end up alienating the very people they want to bond with. Paranoia may also drive them to become more aggressive: they exaggerate dangers and strike out at "enemies" to ensure that no one will be able to threaten them. Ironically, this often ends up destroying their own security systems.
_


----------



## Jamie.Ether (Jul 1, 2011)

I agree that it's probably the reason why some MTBI types are missing from this fourm [like ESxx's] they probably aren't as attracted to this website, but there are tons of them out there in the world!


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Julia Bell said:


> @_Spades_ - Yeah. I have a hard time differentiating between it all x_X I keep on getting mixed information. Doesn't So like forming deep connections? @[email protected] I mean, having relationships with people in general, whether friends or otherwise. But everyone says that's an Sx thing. And yet that doesn't make sense considering forming deep relationships is something easily found among people. How would you describe So? I've kind of come to the could-be-wrong conclusion that Sx is very focused in a sense, and So is less so. -shrugs- I'm pretty confused. x3


Yes, So is the one that wants to make connections - strength in numbers. Even if the So-dom is introverted, they look out for the greater good, and are generally more accommodating than the other subtypes. Though sometimes this could appear cynical, if they see humanity doing something negative against itself. I really enjoyed this detailed account of So.

Sx is about passion, intensity, and *aggression*, whether it's to love or to fight. @_aconite_ and @_Dark Romantic_ did a fine job of describing that. From this list here, you can *roughly* see that Sx-doms are the least common. Sp has its own brand of friendliness too, as long as you don't threaten their personal boundaries or safety. Sp will put their own concerns above others'. We have no trouble walking away from a group or an individual if we aren't getting anything out of the interaction.

I could say a lot more, but it will have to be another time.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Spades said:


> Yes, So is the one that wants to make connections - strength in numbers. Even if the So-dom is introverted, they look out for the greater good, and are generally more accommodating than the other subtypes. Though sometimes this could appear cynical, if they see humanity doing something negative against itself. I really enjoyed this detailed account of So.
> 
> Sx is about passion, intensity, and *aggression*, whether it's to love or to fight. @_aconite_ and @_Dark Romantic_ did a fine job of describing that. From this list here, you can *roughly* see that Sx-doms are the least common. Sp has its own brand of friendliness too, as long as you don't threaten their personal boundaries or safety. Sp will put their own concerns above others'. We have no trouble walking away from a group or an individual if we aren't getting anything out of the interaction.
> 
> I could say a lot more, but it will have to be another time.


O_O Oh dear. I'm having a doubt-my-instinctual-stacking moment. I can see myself perhaps in So. I can see Sp. I think I can see some Sx too... must find the order. Thanks for the information, though. ^^ That was helpful.


----------



## sodden (Jul 20, 2009)

cutedeadgal said:


> In fact, I once saw Dostoevsky typed as sp/so. He wasn't too "mellow" (but his books are still boring).


Dostoevsky? Boring? Good God, cutedeadgal, guess you _are_ dead.

Sigh.


----------



## RepairmanMan Man (Jan 21, 2012)

Everyone's pretty much made every point I was going to make.

Personally, although I estimate myself to be sp/sx, I'm open to the idea that I'm actually soc/sp or sp/soc--when I first studied the instincts, I was pretty sure I was sx-last because I'm just "not sexual". Lol, the stereotypes can work in reverse, see? Studying the instincts in more depth has actually drawn me to the conclusion that I am sp/sx. I could be wrong about everything (like I was about my E-type and MBTI), but that's my best guess.

I actually believe my original MBTI result was thrown off by my being sp/sx--I thought I was an ISTP for over a decade...I figure being sp/sx does sort of make me look introverted-sensing (regardless of how stereotypical that might look). I recommend looking at E-type, MB type, and instinct together to get a better feel for what we really are. I think there are likely patterns and common co-occurences among these three classification systems.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Maybe it's because sp and so seem quite conflicting - like sp 9 = taking care of own needs, putting things in convenient places, harmony in surroundings etc. Whereas so 9 = trying to create harmony in social circle, making things more convenient for others, blending.

One's more concerned with it's own needs while the other is concerned with it's affect on others and other's affects on it. One's more focused on one thing while the other is more focused on two.

That doesn't seem to make much sense... Darn XD


----------



## Stan the Woz (Apr 10, 2012)

I know a guy who we think is So/Sp. I think some of what people said is probably true, though: Sx's are seen as more "dynamic" than other types, more flashy, which is something that is very definitely a part of the idealized popular culture image, at least where I live. So people might be more likely to type as Sx (whether they actually are or not) because of cultural values correlating some to Sx traits.


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

Stan the Woz said:


> I know a guy who we think is So/Sp. I think some of what people said is probably true, though: Sx's are seen as more "dynamic" than other types, more flashy, which is something that is very definitely a part of the idealized popular culture image, at least where I live. So people might be more likely to type as Sx (whether they actually are or not) because of cultural values correlating some to Sx traits.


...that person is me, by the way. And this is true about Sx; So does not preclude personal connections with others. It just calls for a different sort of connection. From the Enneagram Institute:



> Just as many people tend to misidentify themselves as Sexual types because they want one-on-one relationships, many people fail to recognize themselves as Social types because they get the (false) idea that this means always being involved in groups, meetings, and parties. If Self-Preservation types are interested in adjusting the environment to make themselves more secure and comfortable, Social types adapt themselves to serve the needs of the social situation they find themselves in. Thus, Social types are highly aware of other people, whether they are in intimate situations or in groups. They are also aware of how their actions and attitudes are affecting those around them. Moreover, Sexual types seek intimacy, Social types seek personal connection: they want to stay in long-term contact with people and to be involved in their world.


Even though I'm an introvert, I am very adaptable. It's an odd thing because I am reserved and held back, and sometimes I can be uncomfortable, but it stems from wanting to be accepted socially. Sometimes sp can hold me back; I can make myself outgoing but I also need to make sure I'm secure.

The other problem with this variant stacking is that both so/sp and sp/so (I'm a little bit unsure which I am) are portrayed as incredibly boring types. Very concerned with social strata and working and being stable and all of that. While I have some of that, I really dislike the notion that having those two variants negates any possibility of being an interesting or intimate person. It's simply not true, it's just about the way you seek these things, not whether or not you want them.


----------



## Sulare (Mar 27, 2012)

I'm definitely either an so/sp or sp/so (not sure which). But I pretty much knew from when I first heard about the instinctual variants that I wasn't sx.


----------



## AngelOnHerFlight (Feb 26, 2012)

brainheart said:


> Dostoevsky? Boring? Good God, cutedeadgal, guess you _are_ dead.
> 
> Sigh.


I've only read Brothers Karamazov. I stopped around page 400 (yet it was interesting, historically speaking).


----------



## BeauGarcon (May 11, 2011)

SX's are also more aggressive. You can see this on the internet, they usually start 'fights' more often and there is more of a personal touch in their posts; their posts are less cold and detached (they get intimate faster, they 'give' more of themselves). SX's are more confident about themselves, therefore they are less afraid to give more of themselves to put into other people.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@sleepyhead - Thanks for that! Wow, So hits the nail right on the head for me... Maybe my definition of "deep relationship" is different than that of somebody with Sx as their first or second variant? @RoSoDude - Yeah, I can't see myself as fitting anything other than So/Sp no matter how much I look into it. But I hate that it seems that Sp/So or So/Sp are almost always described as just that -- boring.


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

BeauGarcon said:


> SX's are also more aggressive. You can see this on the internet, they usually start 'fights' more often and there is more of a personal touch in their posts; their posts are less cold and detached (they get intimate faster, they 'give' more of themselves). SX's are more confident about themselves, therefore they are less afraid to give more of themselves to put into other people.


...okay, wow, this explains why I am really not Sx. I am really not aggressive at all. As stupid as online tests are, I think it does say something that I usually score around zero for 8 on Enneagram tests.



Julia Bell said:


> @sleepyhead - Thanks for that! Wow, So hits the nail right on the head for me... Maybe my definition of "deep relationship" is different than that of somebody with Sx as their first or second variant? @RoSoDude - Yeah, I can't see myself as fitting anything other than So/Sp no matter how much I look into it. But I hate that it seems that Sp/So or So/Sp are almost always described as just that -- boring.


I just try to see them more as how you manifest your personality rather than what it actually is. That helps a bit, because it doesn't make it so sx "wants" personal connections more, or so only cares about social strata, or sp only cares about keeping oneself safe. Those are qualities that are part of other personality types, so it's silly to try to hold them as such. I think the variants are more about how each type expresses who they are, whether it be their fears, their motivations, their desires, or anything else. Some types may have more common variants, too, of course.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@RoSoDude - That is a much better way of looking at it. Thank you. I keep on finding myself getting tangled and trying to sort what is more accurate and what is not. You have earned yourself a Shiny Golden Star Badge of Awesomeness for that. XD Yeah, I get zero for Eight on those silly online tests too. I'm not aggressive at all, really. Or assertive. Some people would describe me as a doormat. ^^' Assertiveness is something I am just recently learning.


----------



## marckos (May 6, 2011)

Hello to all n.n ...... Im a SP/SOC


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

BeauGarcon said:


> SX's are also more aggressive. You can see this on the internet, they usually start 'fights' more often and there is more of a personal touch in their posts; their posts are less cold and detached (they get intimate faster, they 'give' more of themselves). SX's are more confident about themselves, therefore they are less afraid to give more of themselves to put into other people.


>.< there has to be a mistake there. I start fights...but I'm not a crazy Sx firster...they are insane imo ^^ no offense. Some of us just enjoy a lively debate which in some people's eyes is seen as arguing  but its not really that...


----------



## sodden (Jul 20, 2009)

cutedeadgal said:


> I've only read Brothers Karamazov. I stopped around page 400 (yet it was interesting, historically speaking).


Read Crime and Punishment.


----------



## AngelOnHerFlight (Feb 26, 2012)

BeauGarcon said:


> SX's are also more aggressive. You can see this on the internet, they usually start 'fights' more often and there is more of a personal touch in their posts; their posts are less cold and detached (they get intimate faster, they 'give' more of themselves). SX's are more confident about themselves, therefore they are less afraid to give more of themselves to put into other people.


Interesting. I'm a Social dominant and whenever I share too much about myself, I constantly worry about it afterwards.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

cutedeadgal said:


> Interesting. I'm a Social dominant and whenever I share too much about myself, I constantly worry about it afterwards.


Same here, except that I'm self preservation dominant and I worry about it because I'm afraid that somebody from another forum or site I frequent will find something I say here and use it against me. Or a future employer finds a post from me online swearing or something.

I rarely worry about it in real life since if I reveal anything personal it's to my friends, who are hopefully not going to blackmail me.


----------



## possiBri (Jan 4, 2011)

Owfin said:


> Same here, except that I'm self preservation dominant and I worry about it because I'm afraid that somebody from another forum or site I frequent will find something I say here and use it against me. Or a future employer finds a post from me online swearing or something.
> 
> I rarely worry about it in real life since if I reveal anything personal it's to my friends, who are hopefully not going to blackmail me.


Interesting... I think that perspective may have to do with your E-type. For another Sp-dom (just barely, though) perspective, I don't worry about that because I make the argument that if I said it I meant it, and I need to be responsible for my words. I do worry about saying things that might hurt someone, so I try to be tactful — or at least apologize after the fact — but I can't say I've ever posted something online that I wasn't prepared for ANYBODY to read.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

I think I'm SO last and here is why. 

1. I feel uncomfortable in social situations.
2. I don't like the feeling of being part of a group.
3. Never cared about being part of some greater group or anything then myself (partially reason for avoiding church groups as well)
4. Misunderstanding my social anxiety. I'm not "anxious but want to be accepted by the group", I'm anxious and afraid I'll be emotionally and physically harmed. 
5. Misunderstanding my temporary anarchist month and concern for politics for being SO. :\ somehow I forgot and don't care about politics (well unless hey are trying to take away my god damn freedoms).
6. Don't care about tradition, have few friends outside of family and have little inclination towards making more. Being social is draining, annoying and I'd rather avoid it.

Unsure about being Sx or Sp dominant. I can't be sx dom because I'm not like an 8 and I dislike showing off strength unless I'm threatened. Never been addicted to drugs, nor a jealous lover (quite the opposite) and I don't crave to be the everything and all of my partner.

Sp also doesn't seem to fit as I'm not earthy or selfish, neglect health and don't care much bout finances/resources....and people say I don't have the SP vibe. (thou I don't see how an INFP can be earthy and grounded).

*o.o I have no stacking...lol...I think (which is impossible). *


----------



## Eighty (Apr 6, 2011)

Um. I can't seem to find out exactly what this sp/sx stuff is? Can anyone point me to the right direction?

Thank you.


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

Eighty said:


> Um. I can't seem to find out exactly what this sp/sx stuff is? Can anyone point me to the right direction?
> 
> Thank you.


This is a pretty good article on the variants. You can also check this website out for how the stackings might manifest themselves in each type.


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

Rim said:


> I think I'm SO last and here is why.
> 
> 1. I feel uncomfortable in social situations.
> 2. I don't like the feeling of being part of a group.
> ...


I agree from this that you're probably not so, especially given what you have said you understand about your social anxiety, but I think it is definitely possible that you're sp/sx. Again, try to ignore the idea that sp makes you earthy and grounded in real, physical concerns; that's simply not going to be true for certain types. As I see it, sp will simply mean you turn your desires and needs toward what you need with yourself to feel secure. It's not about health issues, it's about first focusing on your own person. Your second instinct would then describe what you seek after that first need has been fulfilled -- for an sp, that would be once they feel personally secure. if you're sx, that would be in interpersonal connections. And so would be about the social atmosphere in general.

I think sp/sx is probably a pretty common variant for an INFP, given this site's description. Don't take it at face value for how the person will be on the outside, think about what the ordering means for how they deal with themselves and the world:


> sp/sx
> Motivation: to live in a secure, comfortable environment where they can pursue their private interests in depth.
> These people often have an earthy, mysterious quality to them. They are quietly intense, but to others may seem oblivious to the greater social world around them, instead favoring personal interests. They are slow to commit, but once they do it is with an attitude of life commitment, to the establishment of an impermeable bond. Others can be taken aback by how suddenly and completely this type can lock into them, and by the depth of understanding of the other's condition. They attach to others at an organic, root level, in contrast to the other subvariant's surface formality. Somewhat hesitant to enter new relationships, they instead preserve the select few enduring bonds they carefully form along the way. The sanctuary of home is of paramount concern, and this type takes particular delight in decorating their spaces to reflect their cherished sense of taste and depth. Depth and discrimination characterize this stacking.
> Expression: wistful self-absorbed expression, sighing, magic is in their head
> ...


As a note, I'm thinking now that I'm sp/so. And no, I don't think it's a contradictory type at all, it's just an ordering of how you fulfill your needs, desires, and how you manage your fears and everything else that goes with your Enneagram type. I might seem slightly so at times because I'm now secure with myself in my environment, but that takes a lot of time and effort. And it doesn't mean I'm really someone who cares about being somewhere on the social ladder; that's some rather boring, unfitting, and shallow analysis, I think.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Rim said:


> I think I'm SO last and here is why.
> 
> 1. I feel uncomfortable in social situations.
> 2. I don't like the feeling of being part of a group.
> ...


I'm feeling your confusion. I think you appear to be Sp first - at least at first glance. You may not be selfish, at least not materialistically, but something to keep in mind is that you are shy, yes? You are anxious and afraid of being harmed. I think something that may be helpful is to think: All of the instinctual variants are actually very _selfish_ to some degree. They focus on _me_. My desire, my wants, my way of feeling comfortable, etc. Me. I don't think if you're an Sp dom you have to be "selfish" in the typical way we think of selfish. You've just got to be human. Lol. 

That said I keep on doubting myself. As for me: 

I like groups depending on the mood. If possible, I prefer one-on-one. I love establishing relationships and I love making interactions with people - no matter how brief. Even if it's just eye contact or smiling or something. I do obsess over things. At the same time I have this reserved side of me. The side that is about meeting practical needs (well, what I consider to be practical for me), simple comforting things, I guess. The side that listens before talking. I see myself in So, Sp, and Sx. And at the same time, none of them. Lol. ^^

Does each variant really have a key motivation or something? @[email protected] A thing it focuses on that can be summed up in a sentence or two?


----------



## mpobrien (Apr 24, 2012)

> *Deciding which Instinctual Subtype is dominant
> We have found in both testing and in teaching that the Social Instinctual Subtype can be the most difficult to determine. When taking the test, the introverted or anti-social, Social Subtype, will frequently find himself stuck between the Self-Preservation and Sexual Subtype answers. If this happened to you, it is important to explore the Social Subtype even if the test indicates that it is your least likely Instinctual Subtype. Try and observe how often you are thinking about what others are doing, if you fit in and who is related to whom.*


I'm SO dominant, and I had a really hard time typing myself as it because I'm introverted. Even though I don't like to be around other people for long periods of time, when I am with them I love to be around people, but I'm also constantly molding myself to fit the group "ideal." It was Naranjo's descriptions of each Enneagram type in each variant that helped me come around to my dominant variant.


----------



## NingenExp (Apr 4, 2011)

Well, first I thought I was sp/so, because I thought one of my priorities (after self-sufficiency, privacy and those sp things (security, health? important, but sometimes I feel I do not care, at all!!!)) was fitting into a group, but it was not just any group, it was my already formed group of friends (intimates) and the word was not fitting into, it is being part of their lifes, getting personal with each one of them and a lot of jelousy if I feel replaced or ignored or abandoned or forgotten. So I thought, maybe sp/sx was a better fit, but maybe I'm going so worng with it, because sometimes I caught myself thinking in climbing up some invisible ladder and being popular and being famous and I say to myself _That's the most impossible thing in planet Earth, really, DO NOT FOOL YOURSELF ANTONIO!!!!_


----------



## NingenExp (Apr 4, 2011)

You guys make me doubt  Not fair


----------



## Lightshadow86 (May 19, 2011)

I'm a Sp/so. hi


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

sleepyhead said:


> I don't think it's surprising there's a lot of sx enneagram types on PerC though - seeking out connections perhaps?


Seeking connections is so ... cementing 1 connection, [be it a romantic one, or social one] is sx ... seeking intimacy is sp. 

A lot of people mistake emotional intimacy for sx. I was one of them. It took a lot of convincing by @Boss to make me realize just how typically so/sx I am  

At least that's my understanding of it.


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

I'll elaborate in the morning. @Jawz.
You're partially right.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

NingenExp said:


> Well, first I thought I was sp/so, because I thought one of my priorities (after self-sufficiency, privacy and those sp things (security, health? important, but sometimes I feel I do not care, at all!!!)) was fitting into a group, but it was not just any group, it was my already formed group of friends (intimates) and the word was not fitting into, it is being part of their lifes, getting personal with each one of them and a lot of jelousy if I feel replaced or ignored or abandoned or forgotten. So I thought, maybe sp/sx was a better fit, but maybe I'm going so worng with it, because sometimes I caught myself thinking in climbing up some invisible ladder and being popular and being famous and I say to myself _That's the most impossible thing in planet Earth, really, DO NOT FOOL YOURSELF ANTONIO!!!!_


Another thing about so first is that there's a very keen sense of social dynamics and almost innate ability to get others to get along as well. The thing about so/sx is that there's a pull however to have a very strong connection with at least 1 of those people. As a 3 so/sx, I've always felt this pull to have one "best friend" who would also consider me their best friend. I've had 2 best friends for over 17 years --- and even though now our connection has faded somewhat --- both of them still consider me their best friend so I'm very happy. I usually let a connection fade over time, if I'm not that person's best friend. The other reason why I believe I'm an so first is because I like to involve my best friend with all of my other connections. I've also always been considered the glue of the group --- basically the one the entire group revolves around because I have an innate ability to get people to get along. I've noticed this in 3 of my groups where after I've left, the group disintegrated - and when asked, people have told me that "you were the only reason why we got along, we started having fights after you left."


----------



## NingenExp (Apr 4, 2011)

When I was introduced to the variant stackings, I thought I was sx last because I have always shown some sort of denial to romanticism, because I have never been in a relationship and I considered that developing emotional attachment with another was foolish. For example, I couldn't understand codependency and people suffering for love. Maybe, I was suffering for love too, but more for not loving myself. In addition, I am sometimes surly. That doesn't mean I do not fantasize with affective relationships. Yes, I do. It increased since I accepted my homosexuality. I feel more comfortable thinking about me with someone since then. And actually, I started "dating" someone (at the end, it didn't work :/). I don't know if I show this indifference to connecting with someone because I am not able to preserve it or build it or because I am genuinely not interested. Sometimes I conclude I do not need someone else to meet completeness, but sometimes I crave for it (maybe because I have never experienced it before). One thing I know about myself that hasn't changed though years is that I am pretty demanding of attention, since I was a kid. I have always linked sx-ness with this trait of mine, but maybe I'm not getting it right. It's so damn difficult to weight my preferences, because I can see my whole spectrum. I can be something, but I can be the opposite and it all changes because of my mood and external factors. And well, sp for me is self-sufficiency and I look for it like my priority. I don't want to depend on others, I want to have my own rules to follow, I want to be independent and free. Sometimes I avoid help, even from the ones supposed to help you. People offering me things can feel exaggerated and unnecessary. I need my space and if I want something, I'll look for it or I'll ask for it. I don't need people worrying about me all the time. I need me and only me. xD 

I'll wait for Boss, better.


----------



## ImminentThunder (May 15, 2011)

...I don't know. I relate to SX very, very well. And I'm not "sexy" at all, although I certainly wish I were. 

I feel like so/sp and sp/so are quite common irl, but the internet is different. 

Thanks @aconite for the test link. 

36 social
98 sexual 
64 self-preservation 

sx/sp it is


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

It would seem im an sp/so, it makes sense though it took awhile and some imput from others to realise. I wasn't sure if I was sp/sx or sp/so because I feel I have a fairly developed SX instinct aswell, I played around with a few other variations. It seems for some reason that sp/so's and so/sp's arn't viewed as particularly creative or portrayed as though they were dull and conservative or something as shown in descriptions and the very fact that nearly everyone has sx in their stacking but sp/so does make sense for myself. I don't agree with the sp/so descriptions though but the 2 variants work okay together in my instance I think. Im am very interested in culture, movements and society but im not particularly an interactor in groups and I think thats where some misconceptions come into play. Most people say they don't do group interaction and because of that, they have no active SO which imo doesn't seem an accurate reasoning. There's a lot of misconceptions about the social instint that should probably be adressed more on here. Of course, we have use all instincts and these seem to make the most sense to me right now.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

I believe a lot of people mistype as SX first. I don't understand why. I'm SX/SO. Do you realize what that means for my every day life that social preservation is really not natural for me? Do you realize how many people in the world are at least SP first or second? I can't relate to them. Do you think that is an easy life? Every day, I feel I'm incredibly off balance with most of the world because my SP is last. 

I could have my house fall around me, but give me that intense connection to a mate, and everything is okay. It's what I want more than everything. I wake up in the morning to be desirable, yet some wake up to protect themselves and build a life. Being desirable is why I run, it's why I work, it's why I do everything. Everything I do is to attract a potential mate. On instinct, I regularly open myself up and spread myself before people. 

I get hit on and flirted with every day. I'm told by strangers I "ooze sex" and wouldn't be able to help it, no matter what I look like, no matter how I age. Do you understand what that does for me is professional relationships? Do you realize how hard it is as a mother who searches for intensity and fusion in relationships? Do you know what I'm going through as my teenager daughter rightfully separates from me?

I can only look at myself objectively with the enneagram to understand what I project. Because of it, I have the awareness that I like to _immerse_ myself in all my interests and attractions. I'm not half assed about anything I believe in.

Perhaps if more people understood that my drive as an SX/SO overides my physical well-being or health, less would be inclined to mistype? My sexual instinct is so much of who I am. I love it, but I see how it gets in the way. I go about obtaining what I want through my sexual instinct. It's not something I have to force. It just is. In fact, I'm so embarrassed by it, I use my social instinct to cover it up in certain groups. But it is always something that leaks out. 

Having sexual first, is certainly nothing to tout. I'm just trying to figure out how to have any SP at all and not be so bugged by the social instinct. I'm aware I need more balance.

And there you go, I just opened myself again because I think so many people are misinformed about the sexual instinct. It's not a bucket of roses and I just used my life and experiences to share that with the world.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

So/Sp here!!! roud:


----------



## elixare (Aug 26, 2010)

aconite said:


> - you don't see them, because So/Sp are busy with their political careers, and Sp/So are busy with their business careers (I know, stereotypes are baaad )


Quoted for Truth.

At least in my case...

Anyways, if Sp/Soc is indeed a rare instinctual variation, then all the better....Less competition = More stuff for me....


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

EnneagramInstitute said:


> Sexual (aka "Attraction") Instinct
> Many people originally identify themselves as this type because they have learned that the Sexual types are interested in "one-on-one relationships." But all three instinctual types are interested in one-on-one relationships for different reasons, so this does not distinguish them. The key element in Sexual types is an intense drive for stimulation and a constant awareness of the "chemistry" between themselves and others. Sexual types are immediately aware of the attraction, or lack thereof, between themselves and other people. Further, while the basis of this instinct is related to sexuality, it is not necessarily about people engaging in the sexual act. There are many people that we are excited to be around for reasons of personal chemistry that we have no intention of "getting involved with." Nonetheless, we might be aware that we feel stimulated in certain people's company and less so in others. The sexual type is constantly moving toward that sense of intense stimulation and juicy energy in their relationships and in their activities. They are the most "energized" of the three instinctual types, and tend to be more aggressive, competitive, charged, and emotionally intense than the Self-Pres or Social types. Sexual types need to have intense energetic charge in their primary relationships or else they remain unsatisfied. They enjoy being intensely involved—even merged—with others, and can become disenchanted with partners who are unable to meet their need for intense energetic union. Losing yourself in a "fusion" of being is the ideal here, and Sexual types are always looking for this state with others and with stimulating objects in their world.


It's easy to mistype yourself as being sx-first or even sx-second.
I say this as a so/sp with a very strong interest in one-to-one relationships.

EDIT: For a long time, I considered myself to be so/sx...however, really trying to figure out my motivations in life made me think otherwise. Also, finally, I would say sp and sx aren't too far apart for me. My defining instinct is Social. 

If you feel that you aren't devoid of the sx-instinct (like me) but that the so-instinct and sp-instinct are likely stronger..you could just be a sp/so or so/sp with not-so-weak sx-instinct.


----------



## possiBri (Jan 4, 2011)

BroNerd said:


> It's easy to mistype yourself as being sx-first or even sx-second.
> I say this as a so/sp with a very strong interest in one-to-one relationships.


oh no! Don't make me reconsider my subtype again!


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

possiBri said:


> oh no! Don't make me reconsider my subtype again!


It appears my evil plan is working.. roud:


----------



## PlushWitch (Oct 28, 2010)

My husband is sp/so. And he'd never be interested in joining PerC. Apart from the fact that he's not interested in the topic, he'd also never join if he were since he's so busy with his (stressful) hobby projects. :laughing:

Many people thought I'm an sp/so. But they were WRONG. Muahahahaha... yeah... :tongue: since sp/sx ascetic doesn't have that strong sx magnetism. I also test as so/sp. So mistyping is also possible the other way round. But there were a few people who saw that I must be sp/sx ascetic... including myself... so whatever... 

And if I compare myself to my hubby it's also quite apparent that I'm a lot more on the SX side and he's a lot more on the SO side of SP...

But I couldn't say what instinct is most common in general...


----------



## possiBri (Jan 4, 2011)

Sneaky Bastard said:


> My husband is sp/so. And he'd never be interested in joining PerC. Apart from the fact that he's not interested in the topic, he'd also never join if he were since he's so busy with his (stressful) hobby projects. :laughing:
> 
> Many people thought I'm an sp/so. But they were WRONG. Muahahahaha... yeah... :tongue: since sp/sx ascetic doesn't have that strong sx magnetism. I also test as so/sp. So mistyping is also possible the other way round. But there were a few people who saw that I must be sp/sx ascetic... including myself... so whatever...
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure I'm sp/sx ascetic, it makes a lot more sense than any of the other types. Thanks for the specificity!


----------



## Steel Magnolia (Apr 10, 2012)

I find instinctual variants to be confusing. I know I'm an SO-dom, but sometimes I wonder what my secondary instinct is. In the context of my Enneatype (Type 1), SO/SX seems to fit me best. I am most fed up with imperfections in people and society, rather than in the physical environment. I am also emotionally intense (but less intense than an SX-dom), have a lot of internal conflict, and have very high standards when it comes to close relationships with others- I can't be close friends with people who are very different from me, and I want a deep emotional connection with others right away. All that said, I definitely care about my physical comfort, no denying it, and I worry about things like money and shelter. Can an SO/SP be emotionally expressive and passionate (most people describe me as "passionate")? I have no idea.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Steel Magnolia said:


> I find instinctual variants to be confusing. I know I'm an SO-dom, but sometimes I wonder what my secondary instinct is. In the context of my Enneatype (Type 1), SO/SX seems to fit me best. I am most fed up with imperfections in people and society, rather than in the physical environment. I am also emotionally intense (but less intense than an SX-dom), have a lot of internal conflict, and have very high standards when it comes to close relationships with others- I can't be close friends with people who are very different from me, and I want a deep emotional connection with others right away. All that said, I definitely care about my physical comfort, no denying it, and I worry about things like money and shelter. Can an SO/SP be emotionally expressive and passionate (most people describe me as "passionate")? I have no idea.


Emotionally expressive and passionate Sp/So reporting! ^_^ I'm not as "aggressive", though, as somebody with primary or supporting Sx.


----------

