# Instincts, connections and intimacy



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

I've been thinking about how instinct descriptions are usually worded in a way that is likely to confuse people, particularly the way that sexual types are described as wanting "intimacy" and "depth" in their connections with people. The problem I have with it is that people of different stackings are going to define those words in different ways. No one is going to say they want shallow connections.

In my case, for instance, (sp/so) I would say a deep and intimate connection is one where both people feel comfortable with each other, whereas sx as I understand it is about passion and intensity. I rejected sp/so as a typing for myself though because I'm more interested in developing one-to-one connections like that than networking with everyone.

So, what's your stacking? 
What kinds of connections with people do you look for? Did you find the instinct descriptions confusing or misleading when typing yourself?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> I've been thinking about how instinct descriptions are usually worded in a way that is likely to confuse people, particularly the way that sexual types are described as wanting "intimacy" and "depth" in their connections with people. The problem I have with it is that people of different stackings are going to define those words in different ways. No one is going to say they want shallow connections.
> 
> In my case, for instance, (sp/so) I would say a deep and intimate connection is one where both people feel comfortable with each other, whereas sx as I understand it is about passion and intensity. I rejected sp/so as a typing for myself though because I'm more interested in developing one-to-one connections like that than networking with everyone.
> 
> ...


sp/sx and I look for deep relationships with a lot of intimacy. I find though that the way so is intimate is not the way sx is intimate. so feels rather cold in comparison to me, so to say that sx is more about passion is probably about right. It's like you just really want to invest yourself into something or someone.


----------



## Muser (Jul 17, 2011)

I'm probably sx/sp, (feel free to correct me) but at the other end of the spectrum. I'm far from intimacy-seeking when it comes to *people*. Intimacy and anything sexual makes me anxious. I think and fantasize about such relationships...but in the real world, I avoid it. I make sure to keep my connections with people light. Someone telling me that I am her closest friend "by far" and someone expressing interest in me - both scenarios result in discomfort. 
Don't get me wrong. Relationships and intimacy fascinate me and much of my time is spent researching/thinking about this stuff.
At times, in my interactions with a selected few, I seem to almost dare myself to forge a closer connection...but that's as far as it goes.

My second instinct (self-preservation) eases this anxiety and serves as a soft pillow to fall back on. "It's OK. Strive for independence. I only should/can depend on myself at the end of the day."


----------



## Sonny (Oct 14, 2008)

So/Sx, I seek deep connections with lots of openness, sharing and knowledge. I want to know who people truly are and connect with who they are at their core.

There is good information on instincts out there in amongst a lot of crap, not all resources are created equal. Like many others I mistyped my instincts for a while, I have never confused myself for a Sx dom though, intimacy comes after comfort, trust and openness for me.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

LeaT said:


> sp/sx and I look for deep relationships with a lot of intimacy. I find though that the way so is intimate is not the way sx is intimate. so feels rather cold in comparison to me, so to say that sx is more about passion is probably about right. It's like you just really want to invest yourself into something or someone.


In what way do you see so as "cold"?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> In what way do you see so as "cold"?


so tends to keep a distance where it won't tread. sx is all about passing that threshold.


----------



## MissyMaroon (Feb 24, 2010)

LeaT said:


> so tends to keep a distance where it won't tread. sx is all about passing that threshold.


I've found that more to be the case with Sp than So. I've known several So-doms in my life, and a lot of them tread where ever they want to xD. Probably not in the way Sx does, of course, but they tread to more places. Sx treads deeper and smelts the ground before it to get to where i wants to be.

---

I'm an Sp/Sx and I have strong Sx longings/cravings/concerns, but I am an Sp first and, god, do I have boundaries, and am I aware of others', usually. Damn. Sp tends to be more hesitant about the actual act of going passed the gates and letting others permeate theirs. There are walls. They are there to protect me. I really do want intense connections, chemistry, deep bonding, etc. It's just hard to come by. Does this mean I never try to make an attempt at bringing down the walls? No, I seek it quite a bit. I'm just not going to head straight in. There's too much fear I make myself too vulnerable, or I offend them in some way, or scare them off. I don't know it's hard to explain. I can be outwardly quite forward and visibly engaged, but I always have at the back of my mind the little floor plan of my being, my mind, my heart; the gates that surround it. I so badly want to make the leap with someone/something, but I'm always drawn back by my _need_ to sustain my independence, to protect what's been tinkered with, damaged, adjusted, exposed, so many times already. It sounds like a complex xD I swear it's not THIS dramatic most of the time. I just give it more thought on how to proceed. I've been carried away on countless occasions, don't get me wrong, but that self-preservation instinct is ever present.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

MissyMaroon said:


> I've found that more to be the case with Sp than So. I've known several So-doms in my life, and a lot of them tread where ever they want to xD. Probably not in the way Sx does, of course, but they tread to more places. Sx treads deeper and smelts the ground before it to get to where i wants to be.
> .


Then you misunderstood by what I meant with distance here. I meant that sx goes deeper than so does.


----------



## Chipps (Jun 1, 2011)

Im sp/sx and I look for very deep bonds that a slow to develop but last forever. Its like a small stream of water trying to cut through rock. Its something that is going to take time. I feel like the only way to build a true bond with someone, on any level, is to do so slowly and steadily. I guess its my like for consistency. I dated an sp/so once and there is just a lack of depth. I dont know how to explain it. it just doesnt work for me. Not for relationships or friendships. 

I find that as a sp/sx, i tend to look for very specific connections with people. I reach out to bond on a certain level and under certain conditions, but I rarely get it. Once no bond is established, i see no reason to carry on the relationship. I feel like relationships formed with so firsts, so/sp, and sp/so's are pointless. They've never satisfied me at all. For me its a waste of time. I just feel that strong bonds have to be built but working on them slowly but surely. Anything quick, and easy is "meh" to me.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

Chipps said:


> Im sp/sx and I look for very deep bonds that a slow to develop but last forever. Its like a small stream of water trying to cut through rock. Its something that is going to take time. I feel like the only way to build a true bond with someone, on any level, is to do so slowly and steadily. I guess its my like for consistency. I dated an sp/so once and there is just a lack of depth. I dont know how to explain it. it just doesnt work for me. Not for relationships or friendships.
> 
> I find that as a sp/sx, i tend to look for very specific connections with people. I reach out to bond on a certain level and under certain conditions, but I rarely get it. Once no bond is established, i see no reason to carry on the relationship. I feel like relationships formed with so firsts, so/sp, and sp/so's are pointless. They've never satisfied me at all. For me its a waste of time. I just feel that strong bonds have to be built but working on them slowly but surely. Anything quick, and easy is "meh" to me.


If you don't mind me asking, what is it that you think connections with those types lack? Do they not reveal enough of themselves? or is it something else? I'm just curious.


----------



## Chipps (Jun 1, 2011)

Octavarium said:


> If you don't mind me asking, what is it that you think connections with those types lack? Do they not reveal enough of themselves? or is it something else? I'm just curious.


Well this is going to sound very Sp first so bear with me. I think that people who are anything but So last waste, expend etc energy on things that I feel don't matter. They live in a way where the connects they form see superficial and shallow to me. Why do I say this? Because from my point of view and from what I see as "deep" would require a person to expend X amount of their time, energy, resources on the relationship. Its not possible to do that when you have multiple things you are juggling. This is not to say all non-so lasts have all the bffs in the world and they are these blindly overly social people, but from my point of view they are too damn social, outward, and unconstrained for me. Because Im not out wasting my energy on what I see as useless things I have time, i think, to build depth. To sit and think, experience and acknowledge who I am from the pit of my soul. Now, I think thats the 4 fix talking. :laughing: Anyway, i think sp/sx and sx/sps keep enough contained within them that when you try to connect with them there is still something left over for you. The so first or seconds i've known have always seemed to not have much to give because it is scattered among other people and other things. I want the people I keep close to know that they are special and one of a few. I dont get the feeling with so firsts or seconds. Any attempt share yourself with them seems to be met with some sense of anxiety on their part. The energy you possess is too much for them because they spend their time displacing and expending theirs. Its like trying to have a really deep emotional talk with someone. There are the people who, even if they havent experienced it personally, will just get it and there are the ones who will be made to feel uncomfortable not knowing what to do. Thats how I see so/sp and sp/so's.

So/sx and sx/so are another story. I primarily find them annoying as people period. Sp/so and so/sp are nice and boring, but so/sx and sx/so can just annoy my energy just by being in my presence. 


Im so dramatic. :laughing:


----------



## kolchi (Oct 12, 2012)

@Chipps why are we (sx/so) annoying you? don't you think that what you wrote is a generalization? Everyone is different. Sometimes it's hard to tell what are another people's instinctual variants. I think it's harder to guess than Enneagram type. For example if I don't know somebody well how can I tell if he values more his social status or his possesions/well being? I think you have to really know the person to find out.


----------



## Tater Tot (May 28, 2012)

This is why I don't pay much attention to the instinctual variants because its confusing and kind of vague and it doesn't seem that important to the formula anyway. :laughing:


----------



## Chipps (Jun 1, 2011)

kolchi said:


> @_Chipps_ why are we (sx/so) annoying you? don't you think that what you wrote is a generalization? Everyone is different. Sometimes it's hard to tell what are another people's instinctual variants. I think it's harder to guess than Enneagram type. For example if I don't know somebody well how can I tell if he values more his social status or his possesions/well being? I think you have to really know the person to find out.


Oh, I wasnt saying all of them. I just meant the ones I've known in my life. Also, I don't judge people I don't know well. I also dont make attempts to type people I don't know well. I usually meet sp/so or so/sp so after while of being around an so/sx or sx/so the contrast become apparent. I just dislike them. I dont like their energy. I'm sure culture, cognitive functions, personality etc works into it as well but from the ones I've met (which havent been too many), I havent liked them. I find them to be too much. Exhausting. I mean, I wouldnt mind a little too much if I was dating a person, but being that intense when I've just started to get to know you, or interact with you on a more professional level is annoying to me. Also, I find their energy to be quite intrusive. 

Though, don't take my word for much. Nearly everything goes in the "do not like" pile for me. Its just how I am.


----------



## sleeper (Aug 26, 2010)

My stacking is sx/sp. I look for deep bonds, but since I rarely find that, to a certain extent, I'll accept engagement in any form so long as it's honest and reveals something interesting about someone's character and experience. I had a very visceral reaction when I read the sx/sp description for the first time. I'll never forget that. It both gave me hope that I wasn't alone and crazy, and wiped away a lot of things people said in the past that made me feel alienated because of that aspect of my personality. The people in my life I consistently like the most have turned out to be sp/sx, sx/sp and sx/so, though I get along with and am drawn to all types for various reasons. So-firsts and I never get far though. They make nice acquaintances, provide different insights and can be invaluable for networking (which is unfortunately one of the most important things in most fields, even more so than talent), but unless I'm in the right mood, I can't be in a group of them for very long or I start feeling exhausted, fundamentally different and out of place which makes me want to act out, write everyone off and go live in the woods.


----------



## princessJAY (May 25, 2011)

kolchi said:


> @_Chipps_ why are we (sx/so) annoying you? don't you think that what you wrote is a generalization? Everyone is different.


What @Chipps describes is how it can feel when we are faced with someone whose upper stackings contain our weakest, neglected instinct. Our ego praise & inflate the skills & realm belonging to our dominant instinct; relies on the workhorse second; and is dismissive, even contemptuous, toward the last. At a pre-conscious level, of course -- in other words, at a wordless, "instinctual" level. We then attach the way we feel about our neglected instinct to those people who have it at their forefront.

I am sx/sp, and understand that feeling toward SO. So/sx felt like weightless butterfly (wants to be everyone's friend; suck up), sx/so felt like spoiled children (wants everyone's attention; selfish & melodramatic).

The more I work toward balance, the more I _viscerally _sense the benefits & positive qualities of SO. It has been vital for releasing previously-unbearable tension between SX and SP, as well an expanding social life. I've become very fond of so/sx, and can now appreciate the charisma of sx/so.

****
Re "lack of juice" in sx-last.. Remember, we each have all 3 instincts. It just takes longer to reach that level of intimacy for sp/so & so/sp. Sometimes, much longer than other types have patience for. Sp/sx speaks of having high gates behind which they connect. In that case, for sp/so, you would first have to convince them you are safe & trustworthy, then establish close social relationship -- length of acquaintance, family / friend /coworker etc -- and after all that, ding ding ding!  Both my mother and longest-term best friend are sp/so; neither of them feel "dry" or "unconnectable", to me. I've obviously known my mother for all my life & I am family. I've known my friend for 18 years, and have established mutual "best friend" status.

So/sp though, is difficult for me to comprehend at an instinctual level. Our focus is so different, we are more likely to pass as ships in the night & happily, than reach that point at which we connect..


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

Sx/So and I think the deep connection is necessary. I like people who excite me. Every so often you meet people and just 'click' with them and I love that. Often it's hard to bring me out of my shell but if I meet the right person they can become my best friend in an hour or so. I'd say my biggest reason - and possibly my only reason - for rejecting someone's romantic advances is the fact that they don't have that spark that I'm looking for. Normally the people I like are not Sx last and are often Sx first. The people I connect with are often those who I have similar tastes to and we can talk for hours about our favourite songs, films, books etc and get really passionate about them. I think the things that matter most to me are intensity and culture.

Intimacy tends to be an all or nothing thing with me. I often have crushes and fantasies of people but don't have any connection to them. The real ones are the ones I have the shared cultural interests with that allow me to get passionate. The shared passion then blossoms into the connection and then the intimacy becomes an 'all' rather than a 'nothing'.


----------

