# SX and SP relationships



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

An interesting read on PsychologyToday regarding the needs in a relationship, very similar to the difference between the interaction between SX-dom and SP-dom partners. The Faurves found a similar findings that 2 people with similar instinctual subtypes are more compatible with each other.

1. Warmth/loyalty—kind, trustworthy, supportive, mature, and understanding. (SP-dom)
2. Vitality/status/passion—physically attractive, successful, exciting, interesting, funny, and outgoing. (SX/SO-dom)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...ookPost&utm_medium=FBPost&utm_campaign=FBPost


----------



## babblingbrook (Aug 10, 2009)

No. This is not about the difference between instinctual types. Who says an sx dom can't be kind or an so dom can't be supportive. Ridiculous.

The traits on the _warmth/loyalty_ dimension are likely to be more important for relationship satisfaction because they are intrinsically valuable to relationships

Traits in the _vitality/status/passion_ category are often high on people’s lists of desired traits in a partner, but they _don’t_ make people better at the day-to-day behaviors that make relationships successful. That is, those _vitality/status/passion_ traits are more extrinsically, rather than intrinsically, valuable for our relationships.

This is about instinctual stackings:
Socionics - the16types.info - Instinctual Stackings


----------



## o0india0o (Mar 17, 2015)

Thanks for sharing; very intriguing! Almost all of my relationships have been SP/SX or SX/SP; I find I just don't get what I need from other instinctual variant stackings.

I found this blog post interesting a while back, and similar to what you're discussing:

http://pstypes.blogspot.com/2009/04/enneagram-compatibility-instinctual.html

Instinctual variant tends to matter a little less in my friendships. While most of my friends are still SX/SP or SP/SX, I do have a few SO/SX, and SP/SO.


----------



## ScientiaOmnisEst (Oct 2, 2013)

Relationships between an sp-lead and an sx-lead don't really work. Friendships, sure. But romantic stuff probably won't go very far. One partner can't give the other the passion they want/need, and one partner's intensity is exhausting to the other.


----------



## o0india0o (Mar 17, 2015)

ScientiaOmnisEst said:


> Relationships between an sp-lead and an sx-lead don't really work. Friendships, sure. But romantic stuff probably won't go very far. One partner can't give the other the passion they want/need, and one partner's intensity is exhausting to the other.


This has not been my experience. Unless I'm mistyping myself (instinctual variant wise); although, my SP and SX variants have always been pretty closely developed.


----------



## ScientiaOmnisEst (Oct 2, 2013)

o0india0o said:


> This has not been my experience. Unless I'm mistyping myself (instinctual variant wise); although, my SP and SX variants have always been pretty closely developed.


Perhaps I over-generalized. I admit, this post was based almost solely on my own experience.


----------



## o0india0o (Mar 17, 2015)

Although, I will say, that most of of the people I have dated have been SX/SP. & a consistent dynamic of the SX/SP's with me (SP/SX) was that I could not seem to keep the level of intensity they wanted. I still wanted intense, passionate, intimacy, but I recognized that there is a natural "honeymoon" phase to relationships, and once that wore off, I was ready to continue on to a more "nested" phase (not dull; just not as intense as the "honeymoon" phase). I'm not sure if it's maturity or health level or what, but a lot of the SX/SP's just wanted to breakup and start new relationship after new relationship, recreating that new-and-exciting feeling again, and again.

It really broke my heart. Because, SX/SP's (in my experience) are really amazing at making you feel like the center of the world, and very special and loved. But their passion seems to burn out just as quickly as it started. I didn't find them exhausting, but sometimes I felt like they wanted something I couldn't give them (or frankly, just isn't possible if you ever want to settle down and get married). I for sure don't want a dull life, but it's just true that if you listen to the same song enough times, it's not necessarily going to feel the same way it did the first time you heard it (not bad; just different). The SX/SP's I dated couldn't seem to accept this.

Now, I'm married, and ironically feeling the same way they probably felt about me. My husband is a type 9 with a strong SP-first instinct (after dating all those SX-first's I was ready for someone serious about settling down and relaxing), but he is either a SO second, or has an underdeveloped/non-existent second instinctual variant. Either way, he does not know how to create that intense intimacy, and I really struggle with that. I'm hoping it's something he can learn (especially if it is his second instinctual variant; but I'm not sure how that works when it seems that someone has not developed a second instinct).


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

babblingbrook said:


> No. This is not about the difference between instinctual types. Who says an sx dom can't be kind or an so dom can't be supportive. Ridiculous.
> 
> The traits on the _warmth/loyalty_ dimension are likely to be more important for relationship satisfaction because they are intrinsically valuable to relationships
> 
> ...


Agree. The article in and of itself is fine, but doesn't serve as an example of SX-SP relationships or the relationship values/priorities of said instincts.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

ScientiaOmnisEst said:


> Perhaps I over-generalized. I admit, this post was based almost solely on my own experience.


I think that has more to do with you being Sx blind spot than Sp dom


----------



## hip priest1 (Jan 11, 2015)

Quang said:


> An interesting read on PsychologyToday regarding the needs in a relationship, very similar to the difference between the interaction between SX-dom and SP-dom partners. The Faurves found a similar findings that 2 people with similar instinctual subtypes are more compatible with each other.
> 
> 1. Warmth/loyalty—kind, trustworthy, supportive, mature, and understanding. (SP-dom)
> 2. Vitality/status/passion—physically attractive, successful, exciting, interesting, funny, and outgoing. (SX/SO-dom)


Lol, since when are SX doms necessarily successful? Some of them are, but most of the ones i know work dead end jobs in hospitality with (sometimes hopeless) aspirations as actors/musicians/artist.

SP doms seem to be more successful and practical, generally.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

E newbie and I'm not big into this but . . . . . .

Some of what is described as SX can be explained as part of ENTP type. What if you know you present yourself well, influence people through sales and enthusiasm, high energy approach - but this is not about sex, not even about relationships, and not about power, money, or grabbing the goodies of life either?

The only thing that has ever seemed really real to me in life, has been creative work. ( Have been self employed most of my life but still working on tech related transition). If I have to pick on those (either or) tests- SP and SO near tie and SX might be slightly higher. 

But getting back to OP, forgive the generalizations, but I think I see this in real life; you do see roughly three different kinds of emphasis. You have people who put how caring they are right out front, rainbows and hugs, and sweetness or cause involvement. I think ex SO was SO and always guilt tripping me - not about any specific doing or not doing, I just wasn't sweet enough?

I don't think I dress inappropriately or anything and I'm sorta flat chested, but could it be that energy or enthusiasm and color coordinated, and making good eye contact, handshake, alert to asking questions - Freudian idea of libido investment automatically interpreted as sexual?


in the article link - social status? I like being involved with projects, that can help make something happen in the world - but social status? Like saying the right buzz words to be part of the church club kind of thing?


----------



## hip priest1 (Jan 11, 2015)

o0india0o said:


> Although, I will say, that most of of the people I have dated have been SX/SP. & a consistent dynamic of the SX/SP's with me (SP/SX) was that I could not seem to keep the level of intensity they wanted. I still wanted intense, passionate, intimacy, but I recognized that there is a natural "honeymoon" phase to relationships, and once that wore off, I was ready to continue on to a more "nested" phase (not dull; just not as intense as the "honeymoon" phase). I'm not sure if it's maturity or health level or what, but a lot of the SX/SP's just wanted to breakup and start new relationship after new relationship, recreating that new-and-exciting feeling again, and again.
> 
> It really broke my heart. Because, SX/SP's (in my experience) are really amazing at making you feel like the center of the world, and very special and loved. But their passion seems to burn out just as quickly as it started. I didn't find them exhausting, but sometimes I felt like they wanted something I couldn't give them (or frankly, just isn't possible if you ever want to settle down and get married). I for sure don't want a dull life, but it's just true that if you listen to the same song enough times, it's not necessarily going to feel the same way it did the first time you heard it (not bad; just different). The SX/SP's I dated couldn't seem to accept this.
> 
> Now, I'm married, and ironically feeling the same way they probably felt about me. My husband is a type 9 with a strong SP-first instinct (after dating all those SX-first's I was ready for someone serious about settling down and relaxing), but he is either a SO second, or has an underdeveloped/non-existent second instinctual variant. Either way, he does not know how to create that intense intimacy, and I really struggle with that. I'm hoping it's something he can learn (especially if it is his second instinctual variant; but I'm not sure how that works when it seems that someone has not developed a second instinct).


Its interesting that you say this. I often SX-second encounter women in long term relationships or even marriages, where the partner is clearly some type of sx-last, who are looking for a fling with a guy with stronger sx, even if the guy is an unemployed, single loser type. Sometimes these women just flirt or fool around, sometimes more.

Have you been unable to find another SP/SX? Perhaps they would meet the balance of intensity and nesting that seems missing to you.


----------



## o0india0o (Mar 17, 2015)

hip priest1 said:


> Its interesting that you say this. I often SX-second encounter women in long term relationships or even marriages, where the partner is clearly some type of sx-last, who are looking for a fling with a guy with stronger sx, even if the guy is an unemployed, single loser type. Sometimes these women just flirt or fool around, sometimes more.
> 
> Have you been unable to find another SP/SX? Perhaps they would meet the balance of intensity and nesting that seems missing to you.


Well, I can understand how people in that position would struggle with those urges; it can be hard. But, I know how completely broken I would feel if my husband did that to me, so I would never do that to him (mess around on the side). We're both pretty committed and loyal, I just definitely crave that SX spark in my life. Whenever I dated SX/SP (as I mentioned prior), they always made me feel special and loved, but seemed a bit too commitment-phobic for my tastes. My husband is the exact opposite of that, and on paper, we have a lot in common (it's really just that darn spark). I kind of just assumed that the spark would grow overtime (unlike with SX-first, where it's a quick burn and extinguish; blazing fire).

To be honest, I don't know what his second instinctual variant is; he's a bit of an under-developed type 9 due to his dysfunctional family background (which I also have a dysfunctional family). So, for various reasons, both of our pasts and present, are complicated. We've made a lot of mistakes, but we're both committed to growing and trying to make things work.

I think my husband was probably the first SP/SX I ever dated (almost everyone else was SX/SP). I think because my SP and SX instinctual variants are so close, I struggle with that balance. I think I want to be a bit more grounded than many of the SX's I've dated, but a bit more "on fire" than my husband seems to prefer (or at least knows how to offer). But marriage is a commitment, so as individuals as well as our marriage, it's all a work in progress.


----------



## hip priest1 (Jan 11, 2015)

o0india0o said:


> I think my husband was probably the first SP/SX I ever dated (almost everyone else was SX/SP). I think because my SP and SX instinctual variants are so close, I struggle with that balance. I think I want to be a bit more grounded than many of the SX's I've dated, but a bit more "on fire" than my husband seems to prefer (or at least knows how to offer). But marriage is a commitment, so as individuals as well as our marriage, it's all a work in progress.


I've always wondered what exactly is this grounded-ness that SP types talk about. I used to think it was something to with finding a stable, decent paid job, nice place to live, savings etc. But these seem to be only whats its about on the surface. I think being an SP-last makes it hard for me comprehend this mythical grounded-ness!


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

ScientiaOmnisEst said:


> Relationships between an sp-lead and an sx-lead don't really work. Friendships, sure. But romantic stuff probably won't go very far. One partner can't give the other the passion they want/need, and one partner's intensity is exhausting to the other.


I have to disagree as well. My parents are sp-lead and sx-lead. They have to give each other space, and work stuff out, but they actually go together really well. The sx had to learn to tone down the energy at times, took fifteen years but it happened.


----------



## ScientiaOmnisEst (Oct 2, 2013)

BlackCoffee said:


> I have to disagree as well. My parents are sp-lead and sx-lead. They have to give each other space, and work stuff out, but they actually go together really well. The sx had to learn to tone down the energy at times, took fifteen years but it happened.


Yeah, SOM kind of nailed it in that this view may be the result of me and this other person being sx-last (me) and sp-last (him), than of my being sp-lead and he, sx-lead. Shared so-middle was not enough.

Nice to see that it can work out, though.


----------



## o0india0o (Mar 17, 2015)

hip priest1 said:


> I've always wondered what exactly is this grounded-ness that SP types talk about. I used to think it was something to with finding a stable, decent paid job, nice place to live, savings etc. But these seem to be only whats its about on the surface. I think being an SP-last makes it hard for me comprehend this mythical grounded-ness!


Ha Ha! You know, I was just trying to find the words for and describe my experience, I was not aware that other SP's have utilized the word "grounded". XD

So, that's kind of interesting. . .

For me, and disclaimer: this could have been the specific people I dated, the health levels of both them or me, or the age (we were in our early 20's, now I'm in my late 20's). So, for me, what I appreciated about SX/SP's is their intensity, merging, romantic streak, intimacy, long deep conversations, fun, excitement, immediate connection, the fact that the relationship moved quickly, etc. . .

What I struggled with, is that it felt like anything less than the above was pure and utter garbage to them, (lol). When they wanted to go out to eat, or have a picnic, sometimes I wanted to stay in and get delivery, and have a Netflix marathon in our pajamas. All of the SX/SP's I dated had a wandering eye (no matter how beautiful I, or the other women they dated were); I do not have this issue with my SP husband. There is just more breathing room, not every Birthday celebration, or conversation must be like the very first day we met (& frankly, I have a hard time believing this is even possible). I wanted to settle down, have a family and get married, they struggled more with that idea (unless we were just being intimate and discussing the romanticized "future").

Basically, I wanted a man who could fix things, pay the bills, get a job, be "grounded". As a Type 7, I already run the risk of being un-grounded (even for an SP-first), so I deeply desired someone who could be game for any sort of plan or exciting activity, but also knew how to reign us in (and was willing to have pajama nights more often than salsa dancing lessons XD). 

I want intensity and excitement, but I want it interspersed in our relationship mix. I want intimate and intense conversation and physical relation 85% of the time, and exciting activities and adventures 30-40% of the time. I just want a particular balance that seems to be hard to find (SX's never want the fun to stop, and SP's seem to have trouble having fun sometimes).

I'm not really sure if that explains "grounded-ness", but that was my best go at attempting to give it a description.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

hip priest1 said:


> I've always wondered what exactly is this grounded-ness that SP types talk about. I used to think it was something to with finding a stable, decent paid job, nice place to live, savings etc. But these seem to be only whats its about on the surface. I think being an SP-last makes it hard for me comprehend this mythical grounded-ness!


Those items you listed (stable job, nice place to live, savings, etc.) can be manifestations of an SP-dom stacking, but you are right-- they are surface level descriptors that apply more on a case by case basis than as a flat standard for all SP-dom types.


Personally, I wouldn't so much call it grounded as "self-contained." 

As I understand the SP instinct, it's about never over-extending one's self beyond one's ability to recover and carry on alone. There must always be some "reserve" left over in case a situation arises where there is no one else to rely upon.

Reserve is not bound to materialistic goods such as food/shelter/clothing. It can also include physical, mental, and emotional areas as well. The idea is that the SP-dom does not "give it all away" for fear that a time might come when they need it and it's no longer available. 

So an SP-dom who is physically "self-contained" might never give up material comforts (such as a soft bed, good food, etc.). Or an SP-dom who is emotionally "self-contained" might never completely reveal their range of emotions to anyone else. 

An example of something that has always seemed very SP to me is the swimming scene in _Gattica_ (1997), where Vincent, the protagonist with genetically inferior genes, challenges his genetically superior brother Anton to a swimming contest. 

The two brothers swim out into the ocean a ways, until Anton stops while Vincent pulls ahead. In between gasps, Anton asks Vincent how he can keep going. Vincent replies because he "never saved anything for the swim back."

In this case, Anton is the SP. Even though he swam hard and put his best forward, he didn't put EVERYTHING he had into the race like Vincent did. He subconsciously saved some of his energy in expectation of the swim back. 

SP works kind of like that.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

o0india0o said:


> It really broke my heart. Because, SX/SP's (in my experience) are really amazing at making you feel like the center of the world, and very special and loved. But their passion seems to burn out just as quickly as it started.


True & not true. The nature of sx / sp is really conflicting a lot but when we are not responded the same way, as in if we don't feel like we are the center of the world for the other as well, we feel rejected or out of passion. Even the idea of things getting mediocre kills me although I admit it is not achievable and not healthy but we don't care about healthy. I mean as sp second I do and I would find it difficult to date a person I wouldn't see myself with in the long run but I most definitely could never date a person I don't have that passion and burning for in the first place. The passion does not necessarily burn out but we need at least a shake once in a while. That is the other problem, the passion of an sx/sp is a fire that is never completely put out.

Random rambling 

One thing I know for sure, I can't stand soc firsts and sp lasts, I just can't trust them. Especially the Fe users.


----------



## o0india0o (Mar 17, 2015)

Pilot said:


> An example of something that has always seemed very SP to me is the swimming scene in _Gattica_ (1997), where Vincent, the protagonist with genetically inferior genes, challenges his genetically superior brother Anton to a swimming contest.
> 
> The two brothers swim out into the ocean a ways, until Anton stops while Vincent pulls ahead. In between gasps, Anton asks Vincent how he can keep going. Vincent replies because he "never saved anything for the swim back."
> 
> In this case, Anton is the SP. Even though he swam hard and put his best forward, he didn't put EVERYTHING he had into the race like Vincent did. He subconsciously saved some of his energy in expectation of the swim back.


I loved that movie as a kid! Good example.


----------



## o0india0o (Mar 17, 2015)

nichya said:


> True & not true. The nature of sx / sp is really conflicting a lot but when we are not responded the same way, as in if we don't feel like we are the center of the world for the other as well, we feel rejected or out of passion. Even the idea of things getting mediocre kills me although I admit it is not achievable and not healthy but we don't care about healthy. I mean as sp second I do and I would find it difficult to date a person I wouldn't see myself with in the long run but I most definitely could never date a person I don't have that passion and burning for in the first place. The passion does not necessarily burn out but we need at least a shake once in a while. That is the other problem, the passion of an sx/sp is a fire that is never completely put out.
> 
> Random rambling
> 
> One thing I know for sure, I can't stand soc firsts and sp lasts, I just can't trust them. Especially the Fe users.


Well, in my situation, I am definitely capable of bringing the "spark" or intensity. In my situation, it was specifically that they wanted to recreate that first-meeting, "honeymoon", type intensity. But I can understand how that might be different for you. Like I mentioned, it could have been our age, their health level, Enneagram type, or a whole number of other things. But I frequently score a tie for SP and SX (or sometimes SP will be a bit higher), so I don't think the intensity or "passion" was the issue.


----------



## galactic collision (May 1, 2014)

o0india0o said:


> Thanks for sharing; very intriguing! Almost all of my relationships have been SP/SX or SX/SP; I find I just don't get what I need from other instinctual variant stackings.
> 
> I found this blog post interesting a while back, and similar to what you're discussing:
> 
> ...


I know you didn't write that article, but I don't like the way it describes the SO instinct. Makes us sound so shallow and like "you have to find someone who shares your social status" ew ew ew yikes


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

Shallow article, shallow descriptions.

It discounts individual differences and, most important, enneatype variations.
A sexual 7 and a sexual 9 are nothing alike, a self preservation 5 and a self preservation 2 are worlds apart.

Why can't an sx-dom be understanding and trustworthy?
Why can't a sp-dom be passionate and romantic?
Why are soc-doms still stereotyped as vapid?
There isn't a "right" way to perceive a trait, the way feelings are experienced and manifested is subjective.

A triple id sp-dom might appear as 'more intense' than a triple withdrawn sx-dom. 
But appearances mean jack, the enneagram is a tool for _understanding_ although one can make whatever they want out of it. But generalizing and linking instincts to tired stereotypes is pointless.


----------



## o0india0o (Mar 17, 2015)

Maybe I should just put a disclaimer at the beginning of all my posts. . .

Disclaimer: I understand that there will be variations, and that everyone will be different. Now that we got that out of the way, can we (for crying out loud!) _please_ discuss something _else_ besides that repeated theme on Personality Cafe? 

(lol)


----------

