# Estimate the prevalence of instinctual stackings



## ButterflyPsyche (Dec 22, 2014)

I have always wondered what the prevalence of different instinctual stackings are. It'd be fascinating to hear some rough guesses or estimates in the form of percentages, sort of like you generally see with MBTI (You know, 1% of the population is INFJ, etc.).



Not trying to sound like my special snowflake 4 self (lol I totally don't mean it that way), but I get the feeling Sx first people are more uncommon. 

How rare or common do you think all the different sx/so/sp permutations are?


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

I think if the instincts are to make any sense at all it should be FAIRLY evenly spread.

People talk about the instincts often like sx would be 5% or something and that doesn't make any sense to me, just logically for if people go in three groups more or less, 20-40-40 is the most distinguishing thing I'd believe.

And actually something like that would seem about right. I would indeed guess sx is most rare but I don't notice much of a difference between so and sp...though I'm _extremely_ bad at determining instincts. Anyways that's twice the number of both so's and sp's than sx's but you're still quite likely to run into a sx-first on any given day, it's not ~magical lightning-rare instinct~

But I'd wonder if location would change it as well as obviously context (I imagine in a university situation there would be more so-firsts than usual, at a discotheque more sx-firsts, at a...gun show? more sp-firsts)


----------



## compulsiverambler (Jan 7, 2010)

I would expect sx-first to be the rarest, because I imagine that ever since we first evolved into social mammals, proportionally fewer of them would have successfully passed on their genes to offspring that survived into adulthood. That has no doubt changed by now, as we don't need much self preservation or social instinct to have surviving offspring anymore, so the numbers have probably evened out somewhat and will be fully reversed soon as sx-firsts probably now have more babies than the rest. But at the moment I still see more people prioritising physical comfort and the social sphere over intense pair bonding, than vice versa. Especially among women. Sx-first seems to be much more common in men, which stands to reason when comparing how important the other two instincts used to be for female versus male reproductive success.


----------



## ButterflyPsyche (Dec 22, 2014)

why do you think sx would be less common in women? I'm probably misinterpreting you, but I'm hearing that as you saying, "Men are the sexual ones. Women aren't." Which I know isn't true on many counts. But also, as a DEFINITE sx myself and a female, I identify more with the need for emotional intimacy and intense focused energy than a strong need for actual physical intimacy.


----------



## Full_fathom_4 (Jan 23, 2018)

sp/so ~35%

so/sx ~25%

sp/sx ~20%

so/sp ~15%

sx/sp ~10%

sx/so ~5%


----------



## Full_fathom_4 (Jan 23, 2018)

ButterflyPsyche said:


> why do you think sx would be less common in women? I'm probably misinterpreting you, but I'm hearing that as you saying, "Men are the sexual ones. Women aren't." Which I know isn't true on many counts. But also, as a DEFINITE sx myself and a female, I identify more with the need for emotional intimacy and intense focused energy than a strong need for actual physical intimacy.


This is actually an interesting question. Let's start at an abstract level. What is sx... visually? going forward? Protruding? Sound familiar? That's just an idea. In reality, basic human reality, can you think of any reason, at the most evolutionary level that a female would be _as equal_ as male? This isn't about equality, harassment, better or worse... I'm discussing why would a female, at the most organic sense, require ANY sexual component?


----------



## Dare (Nov 8, 2016)

There seems to be some confusion about what the sexual instinct is. I've seen Katherine Fauvre define it purely as a survival instinct (pair bonding). Russo defines it not as one on one relationships, but as attraction (think moth to a flame). There is a general acceptance of SX being about connection/intimacy, intensity, an exploratory approach to life & high energy (relative to the other two instincts). For me personally it's all that plus this sense of getting a high from feeling alive and needing to plug into stimulants that make me feel that way & energize me.

Sex aligns easily with all of this, but SX =/= sex (only). Obviously intense experiences can be non sexual, the other instinctual variants (SO, SP) have sex too and sex itself can be done in less 'intense' ways. People who think SX = sex risk mistyping themselves. Given the magnetism & depth of connection that can occur between two SX doms, I hope nature was kind enough to make female SX in approximately equal number to male SX. I haven't noticed any disparity myself (although I wonder if it's more likely hidden/unexpected in females).

As far as estimating frequency of different variants goes: I read somewhere once that SX doms were estimated at 11% with the remainder being almost equally split between SO and SP, SO being the slightly more common variant. That seems about right to me based on people I meet in person. Even though SX is less common, we are not 'rare'.


----------



## compulsiverambler (Jan 7, 2010)

ButterflyPsyche said:


> why do you think sx would be less common in women? I'm probably misinterpreting you, but I'm hearing that as you saying, "Men are the sexual ones. Women aren't." Which I know isn't true on many counts. But also, as a DEFINITE sx myself and a female, I identify more with the need for emotional intimacy and intense focused energy than a strong need for actual physical intimacy.


Because if there were just as many sx-first females as there are males, then there would be just as many females getting themselves into serious physical or social trouble as there are males. On average, males sustain more injuries and lifestyle-induced diseases (low self-preservation instinct), and get more school expulsions, sackings for gross misconduct, evictions for conflict with family or landlords, and commit more serious crimes (low social instinct). 

And if our average female ancestor had not placed at least somewhat higher priority on a) physical comfort and safety, and b) social awareness and belonging, than the average male seems to place on them, then they'd not have managed to keep the tribe's children alive and community together while the menfolk were chasing mammoths of cliffs and mishandling "human resources" issues. We'd be extinct. 

But as I said, in most human populations the evolutionary pressures to have such sex differences are now absent, so I'm sure by now the genetics have already started to drift so there are more sp-last and so-last females, and more sx-last males, than there were among our nomadic pre-agricultural ancestors. But looking at different rates of the behaviours I listed above, it's clearly still nowhere near a 50:50 split.


----------



## visceral (Apr 11, 2017)

oh wow id love to see some research backing this up
i recall reading somewher ethat sx was the most common instinct and that's also my feeling given my (limited) experience with the world.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

compulsiverambler said:


> Because if there were just as many sx-first females as there are males, then there would be just as many females getting themselves into serious physical or social trouble as there are males. On average, males sustain more injuries and lifestyle-induced diseases (low self-preservation instinct), and get more school expulsions, sackings for gross misconduct, evictions for conflict with family or landlords, and commit more serious crimes (low social instinct).
> 
> And if our average female ancestor had not placed at least somewhat higher priority on a) physical comfort and safety, and b) social awareness and belonging, than the average male seems to place on them, then they'd not have managed to keep the tribe's children alive and community together while the menfolk were chasing mammoths of cliffs and mishandling "human resources" issues. We'd be extinct.
> 
> But as I said, in most human populations the evolutionary pressures to have such sex differences are now absent, so I'm sure by now the genetics have already started to drift so there are more sp-last and so-last females, and more sx-last males, than there were among our nomadic pre-agricultural ancestors. But looking at different rates of the behaviours I listed above, it's clearly still nowhere near a 50:50 split.


Sx =/= testosterone


----------



## compulsiverambler (Jan 7, 2010)

Daeva said:


> Sx =/= testosterone


When did I say anything about testosterone? How does that have anything to do with anything I said? Did you reply to the wrong post by mistake? 

What are the facts I presented, or interpretations of the facts, that you believe are false? You don't believe the statistics that men commit more crime, or you don't believe that criminals in general have a weak social instinct? You don't believe men and boys have more physical accidents due to more physical risk-taking, or you don't believe that people who take more physical risks in general have a weak self preservation instinct? At the moment I don't know which parts you disagree with because your post offers no indication, sorry.


----------



## Aerari (Jun 27, 2018)

compulsiverambler said:


> When did I say anything about testosterone? How does that have anything to do with anything I said? Did you reply to the wrong post by mistake?
> 
> What are the facts I presented, or interpretations of the facts, that you believe are false? You don't believe the statistics that men commit more crime, or you don't believe that criminals in general have a weak social instinct? You don't believe men and boys have more physical accidents due to more physical risk-taking, or you don't believe that people who take more physical risks in general have a weak self preservation instinct? At the moment I don't know which parts you disagree with because your post offers no indication, sorry.


Simple. Crimes can be commited for self-preservation reasons (money). For social reasons (terrorism and stuff). And more.

Impulsivity is not a SX thing. It is a personality thing. There are impulsive SO people, too. Desire is a SX thing. It is modified by all other desires of a SX, which kind of means, that you are not going to have a tunnel vision.

And btw, SO people seem to be prone to commiting hate crimes.

SP people seem to simply have more inhibitions, not less testosterone. I know several extremely hairy men with animalistic magnetism and powerful testosteroney smell, who are SP. Most men who have no SO I meet are SP/SX. For women it is mostly SX/SP.

These are my observations.

Also, observations are not facts. Be careful.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Daeva said:


> Sx =/= testosterone


This is a gross oversimplification. Sx is also known as "one-to-one," and such people seek out intense one-to-one relationships that may, or may not, be sexual in nature. They can also be completely platonic.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

In my personal experience, the people I run into and as far as I can guess - 

sp/so ≈ so/sx > sp/sx ≈ so/sp ≈ sx/sp > sx/so

Ish, anyway. As always, disclaimer that I don't believe in "true" type; IMO type is ultimately a subjective determination that cannot be fully divorced from an individual's personal perception of themself and others, and is therefore essentially impossible to quantify demographically.


----------



## richard nixon (Sep 14, 2017)

In the world, I'd guess so/sp is the most common and sx/so is the least; however, sx/so is much more common in japan and among whites in virginia.

Chimpanzees are obviously mostly or all so/sp (they join groups to meet their material interests and have relatively little one on one interaction).


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

I'd think the sx-last types are the most common and the sx-first types are the least common.

sp/so = 25%
so/sp = 20%
sp/sx = 17%
so/sx = 17%
sx/sp = 12%
sx/so - 9%


----------



## amongfirstslugs (Jun 23, 2012)

so/sp
so/sx
sp/so
sp/sx
sx/sp
sx/so


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

richard nixon said:


> In the world, I'd guess so/sp is the most common and sx/so is the least; however, sx/so is much more common in japan and among whites in virginia.
> 
> *Chimpanzees are obviously mostly or all so/sp* (they join groups to meet their material interests and have relatively little one on one interaction).


This sudden statement got more and more funny the more I looked at it


----------

