# Instinctual stacking breakdown



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

*edited as per suggestions (especially self-pres section) @enneathusiast


Your feedback wanted! This is my basic understanding (in a very condensed way) of what each of these things mean. But I need help because I don't know very much about it (aside from the -firsts). 

*Social-firsts:*
*are always thinking, in one way or another, about their position in society; very aware of social information/ expectations
*tend to have lots of friends but not very many close friends
*can over-think social interactions and become very self-conscious
*like to be part of groups
*can be loners,(because of the high stress/importance of socializing) OR very socially competent

*Social-middles:*
*are good at socializing without over-thinking it
*have the right amount of friends, but it's not the focus of life

*Social-lasts:*
*the kind of people who just disappear- they're hard to keep in touch with, no one ever knows where they are, you realize you don't have their phone number, and they don't have a facebook account...
*they never organize social events, or they forget to participate in them (where are you, i thought you were coming to my party??)
*are liable to make social blunders, but not think its a big deal, even when someone points it out-- or may be very aware of their social ineptitude
*may forget to think about social expectations/ not pick up on social information

*Sexual-firsts:*
*intimate relationships are the focus of their lives
*they want to have only intense, intimate relationships, not trivial ones
*can have intense emotions 
*value intense sensual/sensory experiences
*will always be in a relationship, or may avoid them/ruin them through over-thinking

*Sexual-middles:*
*have workable relationships without obsessing over it
*can value moments of release/intensity, but its not a focus

*Sexual-lasts:*
*have trouble forming attachments-- can seem cold and distant in intimate relationships, have trouble with intimacy
*seem "stuck up", retentive, unemotional
*may never seem to get into relationships, despite lots of opportunity
*may forget to think about the need for intimate relationships or a lasting partnership

*Self-pres firsts:*
*overthink all kinds of self-care issues: which shampoo should I buy???? etc
*naturally pick up on self-pres issues, can get obsessed with them
*can't tolerate unpleasant physical feelings (food that tastes bad, being cold/hot, bad smells etc)
*are always prepared
*likes to maintain independent self, space- not be influenced by others

*Self-pres middles:*
*take care of self-pres issues competently without obsessing over it

*Self-pres lasts:*
*can easily ignore and forget about self-pres issues - I can't smell anything, can you?
*take a long time to learn basic self-pres skills - didn't learn to cook until I was 15... 
*routinely forget basic items like umbrellas, coats, utensils/napkins, tissues, sunglasses etc
*can endure (through ignoring) bad self-pres situations - the college student who doesn't do laundry for two months
*can overstep the boundaries of others, because independent space doesn't seem important


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

It's an interesting summary of tendencies pertaining to the instincts. According to this, I'm _everything_-last, though... Not that this is particularly surprising.

This in particular would tend to overlap with Si-inferior, at least how_ I_ experience Si-inf.


charlie.elliot said:


> *Self-pres lasts:*
> *can easily ignore and forget about self-pres issues - I can't smell anything, can you?
> *take a long time to learn basic self-pres skills - didn't learn to cook until I was 15...
> *routinely forget basic items like umbrellas, coats, utensils/napkins, tissues, sunglasses etc
> *can endure (through ignoring) bad self-pres situations - the college student who doesn't do laundry for two months


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

I have some ideas for tweaks.



charlie.elliot said:


> *Social-firsts:*
> *tend to have lots of friends but not very many close friends- *have trouble with intimacy*


In the bolded part, I think having trouble with SX is not a quality of SO-first but of SX-last (i.e., I don't know that the bolded above would apply to SO/SX). In general, I'd say that the first two instincts (e.g., SO/SX or SO/SP) need to be considered before saying what the individual might have trouble with (it's usually the last instinct that indicates where the trouble would be).



charlie.elliot said:


> *Social-lasts:*
> *maybe are liable to make social blunders, but not think its a big deal, even when someone points it out?


Social-lasts may generally not care about the social realm but they may be very aware of their ineptitude in that realm and be affected negatively when they experience it again. This may contribute to their aversion to the social realm. I think ineptitude in any last instinct contributes to an aversion to it.



charlie.elliot said:


> *Sexual-lasts:*
> *just never seem to get into relationships, despite lots of opportunity


I don't think it's that they don't get into relationships but rather that the relationships have a different quality. In fact, SX-first can have great difficulty getting into relationships (i.e., too picky looking for that spark with someone, freezing because they place too much importance on it, overwhelming others with the depth of connection they're after, etc.).



charlie.elliot said:


> *Self-pres lasts:*
> *can endure (through ignoring) bad self-pres situations - the college student who *doesn't do laundry for two months*


In the bolded part, I don't think an SO-first or SO-second would let that happen because of social implications. This is indicative of the problem I see with the popular interpretation of SP. Self-preservation can also be seen as preservation of an independent self (independent from relationships and groups). SP-last would mean that's not important. It's more important to be part of something with a significant other or group of others. One side effect is that it creates a tendency to be intrusive upon the personal space of others because there's very little importance placed upon it. One blind-spot may be not seeing or respecting when other people have that need.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

enneathusiast said:


> Self-preservation can also be seen as preservation of an independent self (independent from relationships and groups). SP-last would mean that's not important. It's more important to be part of something with a significant other or group of others. One side effect is that it creates a tendency to be intrusive upon the personal space of others because there's very little importance placed upon it. One blind-spot may be not seeing or respecting when other people have that need.


Ahh thank you! That was a hole in my understanding of self-pres. I didn't think of it as having something to do with the independent self- but that makes total sense, because the other two variants have something to do with your relationship with other people, so self-pres needs an equivalent.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Here is an updated version I just did-- (I will edit the original and delete this one after 24 hours)


*edited as per suggestions (especially self-pres section) @enneathusiast


Your feedback wanted! This is my basic understanding (in a very condensed way) of what each of these things mean. But I need help because I don't know very much about it (aside from the -firsts). 

*Social-firsts:*
*are always thinking, in one way or another, about their position in society; very aware of social information/ expectations
*tend to have lots of friends but not very many close friends
*can over-think social interactions and become very self-conscious
*like to be part of groups
*can be loners,(because of the high stress/importance of socializing) OR very socially competent

*Social-middles:*
*are good at socializing without over-thinking it
*have the right amount of friends, but it's not the focus of life

*Social-lasts:*
*the kind of people who just disappear- they're hard to keep in touch with, no one ever knows where they are, you realize you don't have their phone number, and they don't have a facebook account...
*they never organize social events, or they forget to participate in them (where are you, i thought you were coming to my party??)
*are liable to make social blunders, but not think its a big deal, even when someone points it out-- or may be very aware of their social ineptitude
*may forget to think about social expectations/ not pick up on social information

*Sexual-firsts:*
*intimate relationships are the focus of their lives
*they want to have only intense, intimate relationships, not trivial ones
*can have intense emotions 
*value intense sensual/sensory experiences
*will always be in a relationship, or may avoid them/ruin them through over-thinking

*Sexual-middles:*
*have workable relationships without obsessing over it
*can value moments of release/intensity, but its not a focus

*Sexual-lasts:*
*have trouble forming attachments-- can seem cold and distant in intimate relationships, have trouble with intimacy
*seem "stuck up", retentive, unemotional
*may never seem to get into relationships, despite lots of opportunity
*may forget to think about the need for intimate relationships or a lasting partnership

*Self-pres firsts:*
*likes to maintain independent self, space- not be influenced by others
*overthink all kinds of self-care issues: which shampoo should I buy???? etc
*naturally pick up on self-pres issues, can get obsessed with them
*can't tolerate unpleasant physical feelings (food that tastes bad, being cold/hot, bad smells etc)
*are always prepared; have a strong sense of their physical vulnerability

*Self-pres middles:*
*take care of self-pres issues competently without obsessing over it
*typical/healthy sense of independent space

*Self-pres lasts:*
*can overstep the boundaries of others, because independent space doesn't seem important
*can easily ignore and forget about self-pres issues - I can't smell anything, can you?
*take a long time to learn basic self-pres skills - didn't learn to cook until I was 15... 
*routinely forget basic items like umbrellas, coats, utensils/napkins, tissues, sunglasses etc
*can endure (through ignoring) bad self-pres situations - the college student who doesn't do laundry for two months


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

> Social-lasts:
> *the kind of people who just disappear- they're hard to keep in touch with, no one ever knows where they are, you realize you don't have their phone number, and they don't have a facebook account...
> *they never organize social events, or they forget to participate in them (where are you, i thought you were coming to my party??)
> *are liable to make social blunders, but not think its a big deal, even when someone points it out-- or may be very aware of their social ineptitude
> *may forget to think about social expectations/ not pick up on social information


This sounds much more like me than social second, but seeing how Amaterasu is sp second and I don't share her concerns regarding health, home, hearth etc., I'm pretty sure I'm sp last. 

How would you distinguish this apart from say, type 5 privacy?


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> Here is an updated version I just did-- (I will edit the original and delete this one after 24 hours)
> 
> *Social-firsts:*
> *are always thinking, in one way or another, about their position in society; very aware of social information/ expectations - *Couldn't care less. May be anti-social on this point. I tried so hard to "fit in" when I was younger and was rejected, so I kind of developed a "...Do my own thing/be myself" kind of attitude. I actually started getting more social respect for doing so. *
> ...


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

tanstaafl28 said:


> *Social-firsts:*
> *are always thinking, in one way or another, about their position in society; very aware of social information/ expectations - *Couldn't care less. May be anti-social on this point. I tried so hard to "fit in" when I was younger and was rejected, so I kind of developed a "...Do my own thing/be myself" kind of attitude. I actually started getting more social respect for doing so. *


Yeah, that's a super typical SO thing, and fits in with what I was saying... You USED to care so much about fitting in, but then you ended up going the other way instead.

@Entropic well if you were a type 5, no idea. If you weren't a type 5 or wing 5 then it wouldnt be an issue


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

tanstaafl28 said:


> *take a long time to learn basic self-pres skills - didn't learn to cook until I was 15... *I was cooking my own eggs by age 4, was doing my own laundry at 10. *
> 
> *routinely forget basic items like umbrellas, coats, utensils/napkins, tissues, sunglasses etc. *Hardly ever. I developed a system. *
> 
> *can endure (through ignoring) bad self-pres situations - the college student who doesn't do laundry for two months. *I can procrastinate domestic duties, but I don't usually wait that long. *


Address the overall issue, not the specific examples  

And the "developed a system" part could be a reaction to your SP-last-- you're usually really bad at those things, so you HAD to develop a system, whereas other people would just remember them naturally. I can relate to that (also SP-last).


----------



## piscesfish (Nov 30, 2013)

LOVE this list. Thanks for making it!!



> Self-pres firsts:
> *overthink all kinds of self-care issues: which shampoo should I buy???? etc
> *naturally pick up on self-pres issues, can get obsessed with them
> **can't tolerate unpleasant physical feelings (food that tastes bad, being cold/hot, bad smells etc)
> ...


Everything bolded is 100% accurate.

If you'd like some constructive criticism (I'm a 1; it's what I do ^^), I have this:
- "self-pres issues" (2nd bullet) seems a bit vague. When I read that, I immediately thought of obsessing over comfort, etc., so basically what the third bullet states. If you meant something different, perhaps elaborate.
- Maybe have something in the Sx-last list about not being "intense" people? That's one of the points that I identify most with being sx-last; I'm not a "love me or hate me" person, I'm not jealous, adventurous, passionate, etc.


----------



## periwinklepromise (Jan 26, 2015)

I have got to say, it is so refreshing to see the social instinct described by a social-first person instead of social-last [I'm sure you know what I mean - the descriptions make the social instinct sound like they're "sheeple"]


----------



## knife (Jul 10, 2013)

charlie.elliot said:


> *Sexual-firsts:*
> **intimate relationships are the focus of their lives*
> **they want to have only intense, intimate relationships, not trivial ones*
> *can *have intense emotions*
> ...


The bolded (well duh) definitely fit me. Strike the "can": it isn't just about possibility. If I'm not committing to something with the fullest intensity possible, I can tell. _Everything_ is about that intensity -- because without it, I just feel dead.


> *Social-lasts:*
> *the kind of people who just disappear- they're hard to keep in touch with, no one ever knows where they are, you realize you don't have their phone number, and they don't have a facebook account...
> *they never organize social events, or they forget to participate in them (where are you, i thought you were coming to my party??)
> *are liable to make social blunders, but not think its a big deal, even when someone points it out-- or may be very aware of their social ineptitude
> *may forget to think about social expectations/ not pick up on social information





> *Self-pres lasts:*
> *can overstep the boundaries of others, because independent space doesn't seem important
> *can easily ignore and forget about self-pres issues - I can't smell anything, can you?
> *take a long time to learn basic self-pres skills - didn't learn to cook until I was 15...
> ...


See now, here's where the hard part comes in. I identify with both of these. This is an irony for me -- I don't care much for dealing with either So _or_ Sp issues. Is it because I'm Sp-last in a very Sp-heavy enneatype? Perhaps ... or could it be because I'm an So-last Pe-dom? Either way I slice it, it's clear that there's friction in my So and Sp, that both are dragged down, that the only instinctual variant I feel like I can actually _trust_ is my Sx, because -- even though shit hits the fan plenty of times -- I am still insanely uncomfortable in meatspace social situations and my Sp endeavors tend to backfire on me. Horribly.

The weird thing is, I still feel as if I _understand_ Sp much, much better than So. I feel as if I flail when I try to guess how So responds in a given situation.


> *Social-middles:*
> *are good at socializing without over-thinking it
> *have the right amount of friends, but it's not the focus of life





> *Self-pres middles:*
> *take care of self-pres issues competently without obsessing over it
> *typical/healthy sense of independent space


This ... isn't very helpful.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

charlie.elliot said:


> Social-firsts:
> *are always thinking, in one way or another, about their position in society; very aware of social information/ expectations *when I was in elementary school *
> 
> 
> ...


What is in the quote are the sections I relate to more or less. 

Based on the available options, 
In sx: definitely first 
In so: Almost certainly middle. 

When I was young I was much more concerned with social status. I then lost interest. I have a solid group of friends and I work to maintain said group. I don't care very much about social norms but can play along if necessary. 

In sp: simultaneously first and last. 

Here's the thing about sp- I am Si last, which comes with "forgets to eat food". As I retreat to bed because I have a headache it occurs to me I didn't drink in over a day. That sort of thing. And I'm not highly prepared and do forget stuff. 

That said. I have a strong nesting instinct. I need to have my own personal safe space and make it my own and retreat there and without that I do badly. I have a strong sense of Independence and need for my own, literal, space- work partners learn to maintain a foot distance at all times even working on same computer because I get really twitchy and irritable otherwise. I don't like bad smells or bad temperature or annoying noises. 

There are things I can endure and block out and things I just can't. Not much middle ground. 

I'm much more worried about safety than friends who strike me as more Sp last. I might forget to bring water, but if so I will refuse to go on the hike. Financial stability is important to me. I worry about my health, but intermittently, a week of daily exercise, a week of just not bothering. I plan ahead how to survive in dangerous situations. I know that peanut butter is a good high calorie food in case of societal collapse and food shortages. 

Interesting thread, thanks for creating.


----------



## star tripper (Sep 1, 2013)

charlie.elliot said:


> *Social-middles:*
> *are good at socializing without over-thinking it
> *have the right amount of friends, but it's not the focus of life
> 
> ...


Soc-middles can exhibit the behaviors of soc-last. The social instinct is only valued insofar as to get what the dominant instinct wants, and it does not necessarily feel the obligation to keep up with groups if they no longer serve a purpose. Soc-middles use their awareness of group dynamics to achieve either an sx or an sp end. Once that end cannot be achieved with the group any longer, the group is dropped. 



charlie.elliot said:


> *Sexual-firsts:*
> *intimate relationships are the focus of their lives
> *they want to have only intense, intimate relationships, not trivial ones
> *can have intense emotions
> ...


This is pretty good. Sx-doms constantly feel as though they have to be "consuming" something. They're constantly searching for something to fulfill them. Some take the bulldoze indiscriminately approach -- "if I try everyone out, I'll stumble upon the right one eventually. In the meantime, here's some fun." Others opt for the perfectionist route -- they won't hop into just any old relationship; it has to be _the one_. They have to be excited by someone in order to consider jumping in.



charlie.elliot said:


> *Sexual-lasts:*
> *may never seem to get into relationships, despite lots of opportunity
> *may forget to think about the need for intimate relationships or a lasting partnership


I don't know about these. Sx-lasts, imo, get into relationships just as often as any other type. The distinction is in the nature of the relationship. They're not doing it because they're chasing an intense romance, and the way they treat the relationship reflects that.

Also, I'd imagine sp/so would pursue a lasting partnership since it would give the sp/so stability.



charlie.elliot said:


> *Self-pres firsts:*
> *likes to maintain independent self, space- not be influenced by others
> *overthink all kinds of self-care issues: which shampoo should I buy???? etc
> *naturally pick up on self-pres issues, can get obsessed with them
> ...


This lines up with my observations. Sp-doms want to take care of themselves first for the sake of taking care of themselves (which is an important distinction). I'm sp-last and I do take care of myself, but I do only the bare minimum in order to get by socially. I make an extra effort if there's someone special I wanna impress, but even then it's not a priority.


----------



## galactic collision (May 1, 2014)

charlie.elliot said:


> *Social-firsts:*
> *tend to have lots of friends but not very many close friends


I have a several close friends in addition to having lots of not-close friends/friendly acquaintances. I cannot function without having close friends to talk to about life, the universe, and everything.



> *can over-think social interactions and become very self-conscious


rarely. I tend to over-think sx matters more



> *Social-middles:*
> *have the right amount of friends, but it's not the focus of life


what is the "right" amount of friends? lol 



> *Sexual-middles:*
> *have workable relationships without obsessing over it
> *can value moments of release/intensity, but its not a focus


right now in my life, close relationships are a priority, and it's been very frustrating for me in the last year or two coming close to the amount of intensity i need and never letting it release, explode, or be what it needs to be. but i would say i might not be in a very healthy state of mind right now, especially when it comes to relationships.



> *Self-pres lasts:*
> *take a long time to learn basic self-pres skills - didn't learn to cook until I was 15...


i'm 20 and i can still only cook like 5 things...



> *routinely forget basic items like umbrellas, coats, utensils/napkins, tissues, sunglasses etc


i lose everything, so yeah



> *can overstep the boundaries of others, because independent space doesn't seem important


this one in particular i have to argue against. at least as a social first, i am very aware of the boundaries of others bc i can read people well and pick up on their cues. when i see someone doesn't want to hang, i will maintain my distance.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

justforthespark said:


> I have a several close friends in addition to having lots of not-close friends/friendly acquaintances. I cannot function without having close friends to talk to about life, the universe, and everything.
> 
> 
> rarely. I tend to over-think sx matters more


Are you sure you aren't a Sx-dom, then? Over-thinking is what characterizes your first instinct, as I understand it.



> what is the "right" amount of friends? lol


Whatever would be right _for you._ Social-firsts tend to either have too few or too many, (because of the overthinking aspect). "too few" meaning you habitually wish you had more, "too many" meaning you habitually feel overwhelmed. 




> right now in my life, close relationships are a priority, and it's been very frustrating for me in the last year or two coming close to the amount of intensity i need and never letting it release, explode, or be what it needs to be. but i would say i might not be in a very healthy state of mind right now, especially when it comes to relationships.


Again, you sound like an SX-dom! the word "frustrating" paired with "the amount of intensity I need" "never letting it release"... sounds like things an SX would say. 






> this one in particular i have to argue against. at least as a social first, i am very aware of the boundaries of others bc i can read people well and pick up on their cues. when i see someone doesn't want to hang, i will maintain my distance.


Yeah, fair enough. Your maintaining space is coming from a different place though... a social consideration of "whats the right amount of space to give?" The SP-maintaining space would be more like an instinctual respect for the inherent separateness of the individual... and they would then probably have trouble getting closer, even if they wanted to. Whereas, as an SO-dom, I give space if I sense the other person wants space, but if the other person signals that its okay for me to come closer, I rush towards them lol


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

knife said:


> This ... isn't very helpful.



Its hard to say much about the middles, because that's where you're healthiest 
Being healthy is boring apparently!


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

star tripper said:


> Soc-middles can exhibit the behaviors of soc-last. The social instinct is only valued insofar as to get what the dominant instinct wants, and it does not necessarily feel the obligation to keep up with groups if they no longer serve a purpose. Soc-middles use their awareness of group dynamics to achieve either an sx or an sp end. Once that end cannot be achieved with the group any longer, the group is dropped.


Yeah, very interesting. I guess with your middle instinct you can easily choose whether you're going to follow the instinct, or drop it? You have flexibility. That's precisely what makes you so healthy in that area. I can see that with my SX-dom (my middle)-- I can either be in a relationship, or not, either way is fine, either way has pros and cons that I can see and appreciate. 
Also, good to point out that the middle instinct is often used_ in the service of the first instinct_. (because the first instinct is the one you want desperately to fulfill). 





> Sx-doms constantly feel as though they have to be "consuming" something. They're constantly searching for something to fulfill them. Some take the bulldoze indiscriminately approach -- "if I try everyone out, I'll stumble upon the right one eventually. In the meantime, here's some fun." Others opt for the perfectionist route -- they won't hop into just any old relationship; it has to be _the one_. They have to be excited by someone in order to consider jumping in.


Yes! nice.




> I don't know about these. Sx-lasts, imo, get into relationships just as often as any other type. The distinction is in the nature of the relationship. They're not doing it because they're chasing an intense romance, and the way they treat the relationship reflects that.
> 
> Also, I'd imagine sp/so would pursue a lasting partnership since it would give the sp/so stability.


Right, in the service of the first instinct. good point. 




> I'm sp-last and I do take care of myself, but I do only the bare minimum in order to get by socially.


LOL! me too.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

star tripper said:


> Soc-middles can exhibit the behaviors of soc-last. The social instinct is only valued insofar as to get what the dominant instinct wants, and it does not necessarily feel the obligation to keep up with groups if they no longer serve a purpose. Soc-middles use their awareness of group dynamics to achieve either an sx or an sp end. Once that end cannot be achieved with the group any longer, the group is dropped.


This might be a good observation across the board. 






> I don't know about these. Sx-lasts, imo, get into relationships just as often as any other type. The distinction is in the nature of the relationship. They're not doing it because they're chasing an intense romance, and the way they treat the relationship reflects that.


I'm going to object very mildly to your choice of language here. 
(This is on the assumption that I'm correct on the extent to which I have sx) - basically, "intense romance" could mean a few things. It could mean infatuation, passion, deliriousness... This is not what I'm chasing. What I want is a very close and fun relationship. I need laughter more than I need swooning. 

On the other hand, if wanting passionate delirious infatuation is the criteria for being high on sx then maybe I just am not. (even though otherwise I relate to the intensity and the over thinking of all close relationships and the constant drive to be more deeply closer and closer)


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Just some extra randoms thoughts.

SX seems intense in everything it does, it doesn't have to be intense in just relationships although relationships prove to be a fertile ground to project it's intensity hence why relationships are a focus because it's a safe area where they can be intense. 

Soc seems the most adaptable and outer orientated, if say dominant, these people have a grasp on the connectedness between people, who knows who, heirarchies, the ability to manipulate social dynamics. Might be involved in social sciences, politics, media/advertising for example. 

And SP I notice a sense of autonomy and boundaries.


----------



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

mushr00m said:


> SX seems intense in everything it does, it doesn't have to be intense in just relationships although relationships prove to be a fertile ground to project it's intensity hence why relationships are a focus because it's a safe area where they can be intense.


Safe? That depends.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Shame Spiral said:


> Safe? That depends.


Apologies if I didn't explain it very well or doesn't make sense, things sound better in my head than do in black and white sometimes, lol. It was meant that relationships are a place to freely express your most intimate self without boundaries which is one domain SX people feel drawn to.


----------



## star tripper (Sep 1, 2013)

charlie.elliot said:


> Yeah, fair enough. Your maintaining space is coming from a different place though... a social consideration of "whats the right amount of space to give?" The SP-maintaining space would be more like an instinctual respect for the inherent separateness of the individual... and they would then probably have trouble getting closer, even if they wanted to. Whereas, as an SO-dom, I give space if I sense the other person wants space, but if the other person signals that its okay for me to come closer, I rush towards them lol


Yeah, a lot of behavior mimics the behavior you'd observe in other stackings, but for different reasons. Personally, I do have the boundary problem with people (one of my best friends is an ISFP sp/so and I've been struggling with respecting her boundaries since grade 8). I've seen so/sx's find alternate routes around the boundaries that make everyone mutually comfortable. It's astonishing.



Pelopra said:


> I'm going to object very mildly to your choice of language here.
> (This is on the assumption that I'm correct on the extent to which I have sx) - basically, "intense romance" could mean a few things. It could mean infatuation, passion, deliriousness... This is not what I'm chasing. What I want is a very close and fun relationship. I need laughter more than I need swooning.
> 
> On the other hand, if wanting passionate delirious infatuation is the criteria for being high on sx then maybe I just am not. (even though otherwise I relate to the intensity and the over thinking of all close relationships and the constant drive to be more deeply closer and closer)


Sx seeks intensity, a "high" of sorts. You're correct in that it doesn't have to be the romance itself that achieves this, but there has to be some high the sx is getting out of the relationship, otherwise there's no point.



mushr00m said:


> SX seems intense in everything it does, it doesn't have to be intense in just relationships


Yes, a prime example of that would be my avatar (Edward Elric was intensely into alchemy). I suspect many priests are sx-doms, too, as they seek experiences so intense they're deemed "holy."


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

mushr00m said:


> Might be involved in social sciences, politics, media/advertising for example.


I wanted to not address career choices for the three instincts, because personally I highly doubt there is much of a correlation, in a lot of fields. Could be wrong... but in my field (special education), I notice all three of the instincts around me all the time- definitely not heavily centered on one or the other. 
A lot of people say "I think I'm a social instinct because I'm interesting in things like anthropology or sociology" and that to me makes no sense. I think that would have much more to do with your MBTI. I really dont think being a social instinct predisposes you to be interested in certain fields..... I guess that's because I know people of all three instincts, maybe of whom are NFs, who are super perceptive, super socially-oriented, super empathetic (all typical NF traits)... but they're not _all _social instinct. Being a social instinct is something different from all that .


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

charlie.elliot said:


> I wanted to not address career choices for the three instincts, because personally I highly doubt there is much of a correlation, in a lot of fields. Could be wrong... but in my field (special education), I notice all three of the instincts around me all the time- definitely not heavily centered on one or the other.
> A lot of people say "I think I'm a social instinct because I'm interesting in things like anthropology or sociology" and that to me makes no sense. I think that would have much more to do with your MBTI. I really dont think being a social instinct predisposes you to be interested in certain fields..... I guess that's because I know people of all three instincts, maybe of whom are NFs, who are super perceptive, super socially-oriented, super empathetic (all typical NF traits)... but they're not _all _social instinct. Being a social instinct is something different from all that .


Im sorry for drifting off into careers, it was just a helpful thing to use to describe examples of Soc in the real world. My apologies, im not having a great day today  I do see your point and that say somebody say an SX dom can just easily work in a social orientated career but that a Soc dom would be attracted to such environments, even say have an eye within their own social circle, there's something about the Soc dom though that thrives in certain environments that stimulate this interest with social dynamics other than extroversion(explained a bit more below). I've had some observations with my own type(nf) and notice a more contained, insular, condensed kind of energy with the Soc lasts, as if their whole focus is on you at that particular moment, it's hard to describe that 'thing' that is ignored with these types. I just wanted to mention that in your original SP and Soc descriptions, they appeared to have overlaps with things extraverts also have in common and it's been a bit difficult to assertain what things are anymore. I wander if it's just a coincidence or something else. It looks like perhaps i've misunderstood the Soc instinct for a long time though so thanks for the correction.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> I wanted to not address career choices for the three instincts, because personally I highly doubt there is much of a correlation, in a lot of fields.


I've taught adults off and on for most of my adult life and I found that career choice/field of study fits more with Enneagram types than instincts (e.g., type 2 attending to the emotional cues and needs of others, type 5 observation and analysis, type 8 taking charge, etc.).

However, what I saw in classroom learning or study styles had more to do with the instincts than the types. Some students just wanted to work through the material on their own, others preferred a partner that they connected with, and still others preferred group study. There was generally a preference for one or two of these and a dislike for the third - it seemed a pretty good indicator of instinctual stacking.


----------



## galactic collision (May 1, 2014)

charlie.elliot said:


> Are you sure you aren't a Sx-dom, then? Over-thinking is what characterizes your first instinct, as I understand it.
> 
> Whatever would be right _for you._ Social-firsts tend to either have too few or too many, (because of the overthinking aspect). "too few" meaning you habitually wish you had more, "too many" meaning you habitually feel overwhelmed.
> 
> Again, you sound like an SX-dom! the word "frustrating" paired with "the amount of intensity I need" "never letting it release"... sounds like things an SX would say. l


I'm fairly certain I'm SO-first but I'm always open to hearing others' thoughts about it. I've had times where I've suspected I'm SX-first but it seems like lots of people on here agree that I'm a SO 7. I also stress out about SP matters, but it's because my mother is SP and always makes me feel guilty and irresponsible, so I've learned how to do things like save my money (even though I save it less than she probably wants me to, I save enough to keep her off my back. I buy one thing, and she's like "remember to save your money!" okay, I'm remembering, but also, I did need a new pair of shoes? also she thinks $20 for nice cute sandals is expensive and I just...sigh. sorry, I'm really frustrated with an interaction I had with her recently. clearly)

But I know I'm SP-last because even though I do think about SP matters, it doesn't feel natural - it's like I'm just thinking about them because I feel like my mom would pop up out of thin air and give me a lecture if I don't. All my SP feelings are full of guilt and anxiety. Not comfortable, not something I like to think about.

I don't know if I'm SX because I don't think I'm a very "intense" person. I can be intense if I get excited about something, and over the years I have learned how to tone myself down quite a bit, but I've never been _intense_. I seek intensity but I myself am not a magnet that either attracts or repels, the way I see other SX-doms here. My energy is more far-reaching than it is electric. I'm air and water, not fire. There's a little bit of fire in my gut, but in general I feel more gentle than jagged. 

If you want, we can move this discussion over to the gently honest mistype revelation thread. Instinct variants have always baffled me a little bit. First learning about enneagram, I was sure I was SO/SX. Then, maybe SX/SO? Then SO/SP? I've probably considered every stacking possible at this point, though some combination of SO and SX has been pretty constant. 

I don't understand the idea that your dominant instinct is an unhealthy one? I thought it was supposed to be one you're comfortable in. I haven't always been comfortable socially, I used to always think about where I fit in (and thought I was a 4w3 partially because of it) but I also know that I _do_ fit in, wherever I go. And if I don't, then I stand out, which also works for me. So I'm fairly comfortable, socially speaking. Is that not what a SO-dom experiences?


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

justforthespark said:


> I don't understand the idea that your dominant instinct is an unhealthy one? I thought it was supposed to be one you're comfortable in. I haven't always been comfortable socially, I used to always think about where I fit in (and thought I was a 4w3 partially because of it) but I also know that I _do_ fit in, wherever I go. And if I don't, then I stand out, which also works for me. So I'm fairly comfortable, socially speaking. Is that not what a SO-dom experiences?


You have the potential to be very healthy OR very unhealthy in your dominant function. That may sound confusing, but it makes sense because your dominant instinct is the one that is very, very, very important to you. You just can't stop thinking about it, no matter how hard you try. So sometimes that's a good thing, and sometimes it's a bad thing. 

By contrast, your last function is one that you don't think about hardly at all. Again, that is sometimes a good thing and sometimes a bad thing. 

Here are some examples from my life- (being SO-first and SP-last):

I'm* socially healthy* when I pay so much attention to people around me, that I'm the only one who notices that my coworker is upset and needs help. 
I'm *socially unhealthy *when I freak out so much about a certain social interaction (i.e. being shy and self-conscious), that I never talk to the person at all.... 

Both result from overthinking, one good, one bad.

I'm *self-pres healthy* when I don't worry at all about what to bring along, I just go out and have a good time, while my self-pres-first friend worries so much about what kind of things she should have with her, that she doesn't go out at all, or takes too long getting ready and misses something...
I'm *self-pres unhealthy* when I fail to bring a raincoat and end up soaking wet and miserable, while my self-pres-friend happily brought one with her and had a great time..


----------



## galactic collision (May 1, 2014)

charlie.elliot said:


> You have the potential to be very healthy OR very unhealthy in your dominant function. That may sound confusing, but it makes sense because your dominant instinct is the one that is very, very, very important to you. You just can't stop thinking about it, no matter how hard you try. So sometimes that's a good thing, and sometimes it's a bad thing.
> 
> By contrast, your last function is one that you don't think about hardly at all. Again, that is sometimes a good thing and sometimes a bad thing.
> 
> ...


Makes sense to me. It's just hard to evaluate what I spend more time thinking about. I made a video questionnaire though that I might post since this thread has me thinking again about what the heck I really am. haha 

I think one thing that could make me socially (or sexually?) unhealthy is that I don't like spending a lot of time by myself. I'd prefer to have a friend or a group of friends with me, even if we're just sitting together, not even talking. 

You would think your dominant instinct would be strong and that be a good thing in general (like if you're Ne-dom, that means your Ne is your superpower). It seems like instinct variants are not powers, but weaknesses that _can_ be used for good. Very interesting.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> *Social-lasts:*
> *the kind of people who just disappear- they're hard to keep in touch with, no one ever knows where they are, you realize you don't have their phone number, and they don't have a facebook account...
> *they never organize social events, or they forget to participate in them (where are you, i thought you were coming to my party??)
> *are liable to make social blunders, but not think its a big deal, even when someone points it out-- or may be very aware of their social ineptitude
> *may forget to think about social expectations/ not pick up on social information


WOW. This is so me! No one ever really knows what I'm up to and I often conveniently forget to reply to friends on time, which means friendships can fizzle out and a couple of months later I'll notice and be sad. I've never organized a party except I think once, and that was along with several friends, and I'm pathetic at attending hangouts and stuff. It's all just exacerbated by my 5 wing which makes me closed off and very selective about how expressive I am to people.

Sometimes I feel like I should do something about this but it requires so much energy that I'd much rather spend on taking care of myself >_>


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

enneathusiast said:


> I've taught adults off and on for most of my adult life and I found that career choice/field of study fits more with Enneagram types than instincts (e.g., type 2 attending to the emotional cues and needs of others, type 5 observation and analysis, type 8 taking charge, etc.).
> 
> However, what I saw in classroom learning or study styles had more to do with the instincts than the types. Some students just wanted to work through the material on their own, others preferred a partner that they connected with, and still others preferred group study. There was generally a preference for one or two of these and a dislike for the third - it seemed a pretty good indicator of instinctual stacking.


Huh. 

Well, I hate group study with the loathing of a thousand fiery suns.... The reason I'm not sure this is the instinct is the reason I hate it is that groups never get anything done. Ever. Unless I am the one to take initiative and ride the group steadily towards the finish line, no finish line will be reached. Which is fine for hanging out. It is not fine for projects or exams. (with projects, there's also *always* the one freeloader who does nothing, but the other people in the group don't want to fail, so they just do that person's work for them.)



star tripper said:


> Sx seeks intensity, a "high" of sorts. You're correct in that it doesn't have to be the romance itself that achieves this, but there has to be some high the sx is getting out of the relationship, otherwise there's no point.



Then this doesn't seem to be accurate for me and I'm back to thinking my relationship reasons are somewhat sp-like, even if I obsess over the relationship with intensity, what I'm looking for in the relationship is definitely more to do with comfort and happiness than highs. Highs are nice but not nice enough to base what will hopefully be a decades long relationship on.


And now a quick observation followed by a question: it occurs to me that my relationship patterns can be adequately explained as follows:

Within the first few seconds of meeting someone I form an impression of if I'm interested in them. I then spend the next interval of relationship time (in different relationships this translates to different time spans) very carefully checking if we are indeed compatible. I then proceed to dig as hard and as furiously as I can to get to the core of their soul. (this is the point where I lose the people who describe me as "intense") 

And then I never let go, ever. I am still friends with my elementary school friends. I am still a little bit in love with every one of the very small handful of guys I let get to that stage (even though I broke up with them for practical reasons- uh, guys who break up with me, unless it's a mutual thing, get written off entirely.) 

If it's not coming from sx, where is it coming from?


----------



## star tripper (Sep 1, 2013)

Pelopra said:


> Huh.
> 
> Well, I hate group study with the loathing of a thousand fiery suns.... The reason I'm not sure this is the instinct is the reason I hate it is that groups never get anything done. Ever. Unless I am the one to take initiative and ride the group steadily towards the finish line, no finish line will be reached. Which is fine for hanging out. It is not fine for projects or exams. (with projects, there's also *always* the one freeloader who does nothing, but the other people in the group don't want to fail, so they just do that person's work for them.)
> 
> ...


Why can't you let go? Why are you still friends with your elementary school friends? What do you mean by "[digging] as hard and as furiously as [you] can get to the core of their soul?" 

Honestly, that does look like stereotypical sx behavior, but the motivations might not be the same. The ISFP sp/so friend I mentioned upthread is still friends with her kindergarten best friend even though her kindergarten best friend treats her like total shit. I ask her time and time again why she won't just ditch this girl and she answers the same thing. "I can't let go."

Now she's not a very forthcoming person (Fi-dom + sp-dom + sx-last = pretty freakishly private) so I've never been able to discern if it's instinct-related or not. I've theorized that if it is instinct-related, she and I get attached to people for different reasons.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

star tripper said:


> Why can't you let go? Why are you still friends with your elementary school friends? What do you mean by "[digging] as hard and as furiously as [you] can get to the core of their soul?"
> 
> Honestly, that does look like stereotypical sx behavior, but the motivations might not be the same. The ISFP sp/so friend I mentioned upthread is still friends with her kindergarten best friend even though her kindergarten best friend treats her like total shit. I ask her time and time again why she won't just ditch this girl and she answers the same thing. "I can't let go."
> 
> Now she's not a very forthcoming person (Fi-dom + sp-dom + sx-last = pretty freakishly private) so I've never been able to discern if it's instinct-related or not. I've theorized that if it is instinct-related, she and I get attached to people for different reasons.


Well, all my friends are pretty fabulous so it's not really unhealthy with me imo. I don't know why, it's just once I start liking a person a lot I don't really have a button marked stop? I wouldn't note it as a remarkable thing except it doesn't seem like other people do this. I moved to a different country and am still friends with people from decades ago. But that's not the same as not dropping someone who is a jerk. Jerks I drop like hot potatoes. Life is both too short and too full of really awesome people for them to be worth my time. (in seriousness, I have enough relationships to tend to without investing effort in anyone who isn't completely worth it. It's a bit harsh, but I don't really care) 

Eta: okay, as I was thinking about this the following thought popped into my head: relationships represent an enormous investment of time energy and resources including emotional energy and it's really annoying to throw that away. It is possible that is the underlying motivation. (this approach also works very well with my careful sifting out of who I bother investing in in the first place) 

As for dig to soul, I guess I'm referring to my tendency to make conversations highly personal and intimate very fast in a relationship. Without that I tend to lose interest. I need to know what you care about and what you want to change in the world and how do you relate to people you love and how do you feel about the experience we are sharing right now and what does it mean to the way you view yourself in relationship to the world and your place in it. People who don't like that tend to self-select themselves away from my social circle pretty quickly.

It often feels to me like my end goal is to so thoroughly get into a person's skin that I understand exactly what they think and feel. Although tbh if I actually succeeded at that perfectly I'd probably be bored as heck, so it's an end goal I don't want to actually achieve...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> Yeah, that's a super typical SO thing, and fits in with what I was saying... You USED to care so much about fitting in, but then you ended up going the other way instead.
> 
> @Entropic well if you were a type 5, no idea. If you weren't a type 5 or wing 5 then it wouldnt be an issue


lol. I type as it as a fix though and I definitely feel that I draw more energy from the 5 point than 2. I embody a lot of the superficial qualities I suppose, especially the loner-esque parts.


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

*Social-firsts:*
**are always thinking, in one way or another, about their position in society; very aware of social information/ expectations*
*tend to have lots of friends but not very many close friends
**can over-think social interactions and become very self-conscious*
**like to be part of groups*
**can be loners,(because of the high stress*/importance of socializing) OR very socially competent

*Social-middles:*
*are good at socializing without over-thinking it
**have the right amount of friends, but it's not the focus of life*

*Social-lasts:*
*the kind of people who just disappear- *they're hard to keep in touch with*, no one ever knows where they are, you realize you don't have their phone number, and they don't have a facebook account...
**they never organize social events*, or they forget to participate in them (where are you, i thought you were coming to my party??)
*are liable to make social blunders, but not think its a big deal, even when someone points it out-- or may be very aware of their social ineptitude
*may forget to think about social expectations/ *not pick up on social information*

*Sexual-firsts:*
*intimate relationships are the focus of their lives
**they want to have only intense, intimate relationships, not trivial ones
*can have intense emotions *
*value intense sensual/sensory experiences
*will always be in a relationship, or may *avoid them/ruin them through over-thinking*

*Sexual-middles:*
*have workable relationships without obsessing over it
**can value moments of release/intensity, but its not a focus*

*Sexual-lasts:*
**have trouble forming attachments-- can seem cold and distant in intimate relationships, have trouble with intimacy*
*seem "stuck up", retentive, *unemotional*
**may never seem to get into relationships, despite lots of opportunity*
**may forget to think about the need for intimate relationships or a lasting partnership*

*Self-pres firsts:*
*overthink all kinds of self-care issues: which shampoo should I buy???? etc
**naturally pick up on self-pres issues*, can get obsessed with them
**can't tolerate unpleasant physical feelings (food that tastes bad, being cold/hot, bad smells etc)*
*are always prepared
**likes to maintain independent self, space- not be influenced by others*

*Self-pres middles:*
**take care of self-pres issues competently without obsessing over it*

*Self-pres lasts:*
**can easily ignore and forget about self-pres issue*s - I can't smell anything, can you?
*take a long time to learn basic self-pres skills - didn't learn to cook until I was 15... 
**routinely forget basic items like umbrellas, coats, utensils/napkins, tissues, sunglasses etc*
*can endure (through ignoring) bad self-pres situations - the college student who doesn't do laundry for two months
*can overstep the boundaries of others, because independent space doesn't seem important

I've bolded what applies to me. I suppose I'm more SO/SP/SX going by this? It's always between SP/SO/SX and SO/SP/SX for me.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

*self-pres despite inferior Si*



Pelopra said:


> In sp: simultaneously first and last.
> 
> Here's the thing about sp- I am Si last, which comes with "forgets to eat food". As I retreat to bed because I have a headache it occurs to me I didn't drink in over a day. That sort of thing. And I'm not highly prepared and do forget stuff.
> 
> ...


I have inferior Si as well and I can relate so much to all this. I think I'm sp-first, because of how sp concerns are a constant preoccupation for me, almost like an obsession at times. I just struggle because of my inferior Si. But the instinct is there nevertheless. Sometimes I wish I could forget about it, because of how stressful and exhausting it is for me to rely this much on Si, but I can't.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

ketchup said:


> I have inferior Si as well and I can relate so much to all this. I think I'm sp-first, because of how sp concerns are a constant preoccupation for me, almost like an obsession at times. I just struggle because of my inferior Si. But the instinct is there nevertheless. Sometimes I wish I could forget about it, because of how stressful and exhausting it is for me to rely this much on Si, but I can't.


I would imagine Self-pres dom makes being a 7 very challenging with the constant desire for experience and novelty. Probably as conflicting as being a Social dom 5! ;-)


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I would imagine Self-pres dom makes being a 7 very challenging with the constant desire for experience and novelty. Probably as conflicting as being a Social dom 5! ;-)


It can be challenging, yeah (although I still think inferior Si makes sp-dom more challenging lol). I tend to seek novelty in atypical ways, I think; there's a lot of free, safe fun to be had. I'm not really a thrill-seeker anyway (in terms of skydiving, bungee jumping type activities stereotypically associated with 7s). This article is a pretty good overview. Like it says, I'm a bit more 'serious' (for an EP 7 anyway) and probably have a stronger connection to 5 (and possibly also to aux. Ti, idk - I'm very much an 'introverted extravert'/ambivert).
Enneagram Central - Subtype Seven Self Preservation
A recent thread if you're interested: http://personalitycafe.com/type-7-forum-enthusiast/71761-self-preservation-7s.html


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

ketchup said:


> It can be challenging, yeah (although I still think inferior Si makes sp-dom more challenging lol). I tend to seek novelty in atypical ways, I think; there's a lot of free, safe fun to be had. I'm not really a thrill-seeker anyway (in terms of skydiving, bungee jumping type activities stereotypically associated with 7s). This article is a pretty good overview. Like it says, I'm a bit more 'serious' (for an EP 7 anyway) and probably have a stronger connection to 5 (and possibly also to aux. Ti, idk - I'm very much an 'introverted extravert'/ambivert).
> Enneagram Central - Subtype Seven Self Preservation
> A recent thread if you're interested: http://personalitycafe.com/type-7-forum-enthusiast/71761-self-preservation-7s.html



Thanks. I'm something of an extraverted/ambiverted 5 myself, (in point-of-fact I typed as a 7 a lot when I was younger, under the age of 25). I am far more obviously a Fivish ENTP (inferior Si too).


----------



## o0india0o (Mar 17, 2015)

enneathusiast said:


> "*Self-pres lasts:
> *can endure (through ignoring) bad self-pres situations - the college student who doesn't do laundry for two months*"
> 
> 
> In the bolded part, I don't think an SO-first or SO-second would let that happen because of social implications. This is indicative of the problem I see with the popular interpretation of SP. Self-preservation can also be seen as preservation of an independent self (independent from relationships and groups). SP-last would mean that's not important. It's more important to be part of something with a significant other or group of others. One side effect is that it creates a tendency to be intrusive upon the personal space of others because there's very little importance placed upon it. One blind-spot may be not seeing or respecting when other people have that need.


 @enneathusiast

I loved everything you said in this post*!* (most of which I deleted for space;; except for the one issue I wanted to address). It's not so much an issue, as it is possibly an exception to the rule*?*

But, I have a handful of SO/SX friends (thus - - SP-last) that really do neglect SP-dom things. For example, one of my SO/SX friends purchased a lot of underwear, because she hates doing laundry. :laughing:
Her house is a mess - - & she's not the best at making sure to brush her teeth.
You'd think it would effect her social status, but it really doesn't (maybe it's just because she's a Type 7 & can get away with those types of things, while seeming fun and funny;; not gross). (idk)

Anyways, you could be right - - but most of my SP-last friends houses are a mess & they really *do* embody that SP-last persona.


----------

