# Instinct Sub Forum?



## sodden (Jul 20, 2009)

Has there ever been any discussion about there being an instinct sub forum, or sub forums? I think that could be cool.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

Good idea, I've been wondering about this too.


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

that'd be fun! they should get on that


----------



## Bluity (Nov 12, 2012)

A subforum might give a clearer distinction of the instincts. An Sp forum would reveal what SPs have in common, what differs, what depends on the type, etc.

At the same time, how can you tell what's part of your type and what's from your instinct?


----------



## sodden (Jul 20, 2009)

Bluity said:


> A subforum might give a clearer distinction of the instincts. An Sp forum would reveal what SPs have in common, what differs, what depends on the type, etc.
> 
> At the same time, how can you tell what's part of your type and what's from your instinct?


It's tricky, that's for sure... I've been trying to figure this out for the past few years, ha ha. But I would love it if this could be explored more deeply in a special little forum of its own


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Bluity said:


> A subforum might give a clearer distinction of the instincts. An Sp forum would reveal what SPs have in common, what differs, what depends on the type, etc.
> 
> At the same time, how can you tell what's part of your type and what's from your instinct?





sodden said:


> It's tricky, that's for sure... I've been trying to figure this out for the past few years, ha ha. But I would love it if this could be explored more deeply in a special little forum of its own


Because the descriptions of each type and its instinctual variants are crystal clear. If you're a type 2 sx - seductive, alluring , confident, pursuing...this this type does whatever it takes to win over a desired lover - how can you possibly mistake this for any other type? No way that this is a type 3 sx (model sex symbol) or 4 sx (the special lover)

The distinction between the types and instinctual variants is obvious as well when not intwined. It really takes one book about enneagram to know this.


----------



## Bluity (Nov 12, 2012)

The question was not whether a 2 sx would be confused with a 3 sx or a 4 sx. The question was how, for example, a Five might decide if his private, sanctuary-loving nature comes from either an SP instinct or simply being a Five. Some instincts reinforce a type's tendencies, especially self-preservation and the head types' issue of fear.

I'd be interested in an instinct subforum, not just to compare 2sx with 3sx and 4sx and the like, but also compare healthy instincts with unhealthy. Then again if one was unhealthy, they probably would type themselves sx-last instead of sx-first.


----------



## sodden (Jul 20, 2009)

Bluity said:


> The question was not whether a 2 sx would be confused with a 3 sx or a 4 sx. The question was how, for example, a Five might decide if his private, sanctuary-loving nature comes from either an SP instinct or simply being a Five. Some instincts reinforce a type's tendencies, especially self-preservation and the head types' issue of fear.
> 
> I'd be interested in an instinct subforum, not just to compare 2sx with 3sx and 4sx and the like, but also compare healthy instincts with unhealthy. Then again if one was unhealthy, they probably would type themselves sx-last instead of sx-first.



Yes, exactly. I'm still in the process of reaching the conclusion that I am quite likely a sp-last when I figured it just couldn't be possible. As a 4w5 there are so many things I relate to about self pres, especially what you call the 'private, sanctuary-loving nature', but I think that just has to do with being a double withdrawn type. Similarly, the social instinct has been difficult to recognize for this very reason.


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

I don't like the idea of separating the instinctual subtypes from core types. While there is of course some congruence in thought between different core types with the same instinctual variant subtype, I don't think it's valid to view them as a separate system, and as such I'm not sure how useful a separate subforum for them would be. That would only serve to separate understanding of type and subtype, while the two are inherently linked and should be integrated as much as possible.

Just my belief on the matter.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

sodden said:


> Yes, exactly. I'm still in the process of reaching the conclusion that I am quite likely a sp-last when I figured it just couldn't be possible. As a 4w5 there are so many things I relate to about self pres, especially what you call the 'private, sanctuary-loving nature', but I think that just has to do with being a double withdrawn type. Similarly, the social instinct has been difficult to recognize for this very reason.


Yes, for instance impression-management is likely an So instinct (status, acceptance), and the more unhealthy and fear of rejection or shame, probably the stronger the So instinct. However, the survival instinct may counter that shame in dauntless behavior as sort of a reactive response, which may result in holding up an Sx 'image' of 'attraction' or 'bravado' fighting spirit (but not really very brave, just a pose). It's pretty complex, and not easy to differentiate.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

RoSoDude said:


> I don't like the idea of separating the instinctual subtypes from core types. While there is of course some congruence in thought between different core types with the same instinctual variant subtype, I don't think it's valid to view them as a separate system, and as such I'm not sure how useful a separate subforum for them would be. That would only serve to separate understanding of type and subtype, while the two are inherently linked and should be integrated as much as possible.
> 
> Just my belief on the matter.


I kind of second this in a way. I mean, I just imagine how different sx 5 is to sx 9... Aside the whole intimate partner search, I doubt we got much else in common?


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

@RoSoDude @LeaT, I agree that they're not separate systems, and I'm really getting to like the 27 subtypes these days. I don't think it would be worth having separate sp, so and sx forums, but maybe if there was a forum for instincts/subtypes people would pay more attention to that part of the theory.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Instincts are not a sub system. They are profoundly deep psycho-emotional drives that - in part - find their way out in a type specific way. But sexual instinct is sexual instinct, etc. They serve certain purposes and are in some way hardcoded in our brain (probably). The biggest difference between types (how they ultimately emerge into behavior) will likely be on average level and smaller on top level ( and maybe also on lowest level/ disintegration ).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Instincts are not a sub system. They are profoundly deep psycho-emotional drives that - in part - find their way out in a type specific way. But sexual instinct is sexual instinct, etc. They serve certain purposes and are in some way hardcoded in our brain (probably). The biggest difference between types (how they ultimately emerge into behavior) will likely be on average level and smaller on top level ( and maybe also on lowest level/ disintegration ).


Well, I can agree with this but the real problem is that the way the instincts themselves are expressed depends on our core motivations. This means that the instincts will look very different between the types, depending on emphasis etc. Like I said, a sexual 5 is nothing like a sexual 9. The motivation for 9 stems from holy love and thus, a sexual 9 will attempt to recreate their need to reconnect with holy love through their sexual instinct, something often referred to as "merging". The 9 wishes to disappear, become one with a person. 

For me, the sexual instinct is expressed in how I want to share myself. I want to tell and open to an intimate partner, I want to show them everything and I want them to accept me non-judgementally. It's almost entirely opposite of how the 9 wishes to disappear in someone else and I want to fully express myself. So even if both desires/behaviors are motivated by the sexual instinct to intimately connect, I think it would be difficult or nigh useless for people when trying to find out their type to do it this way since what motivates us could be for a myriad of different reasons not always discernable unless you have a good idea of the big picture.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Well, I can agree with this but the real problem is that the way the instincts themselves are expressed depends on our core motivations. This means that the instincts will look very different between the types, depending on emphasis etc. Like I said, a sexual 5 is nothing like a sexual 9. The motivation for 9 stems from holy love and thus, a sexual 9 will attempt to recreate their need to reconnect with holy love through their sexual instinct, something often referred to as "merging". The 9 wishes to disappear, become one with a person.
> 
> For me, the sexual instinct is expressed in how I want to share myself. I want to tell and open to an intimate partner, I want to show them everything and I want them to accept me non-judgementally. It's almost entirely opposite of how the 9 wishes to disappear in someone else and I want to fully express myself. So even if both desires/behaviors are motivated by the sexual instinct to intimately connect, I think it would be difficult or nigh useless for people when trying to find out their type to do it this way since what motivates us could be for a myriad of different reasons not always discernable unless you have a good idea of the big picture.


Well, I get what you want to say, but I don't think instinct comes after 'holy idea' or whatever you want to call it. It is rather shaped by it. 

And I can't think of anyone who doesn't want to be accepted unconditionally. Although that sounds to me more like a social (acceptance) instinct rather than a sexual instinct (attraction), I believe there is no such thing as unconditional attraction. (although that's a nice thing to think over... ) And So, on a rather profound level, where 'social' meets 'self-preservation' (security) you need to feel in order to give yourself. 

Of course I can see this in the context of a 5 with it's somewhat detached /schizotypical tendencies. But this is why I think a subforum makes sense because it's good to be able to differentiate the 'raw' instincts, and then see how they find their way out. Because again I want to be accepted unconditionally too, this is an So instinct that stretches out over almost any aspect of my life, but this isn't as much a (problematic) issue for me as it used to be. This is as much an issue for a 9, because on an unhealthy level it may surpress this instinct at the favor of another So instinct, which is to avoid conflict. On a higher level it will be able to find a better balance and sustainable peace. But a 5 also has the instinct to avoid conflict (even fear of being overwhelmed is essentially fear of conflict), that's what I believe avarice is all about. You can spend a dollar only one time.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Well, I get what you want to say, but I don't think instinct comes after 'holy idea' or whatever you want to call it. It is rather shaped by it.
> 
> And I can't think of anyone who doesn't want to be accepted unconditionally. Although that sounds to me more like a social (acceptance) instinct rather than a sexual instinct (attraction), I believe there is no such thing as unconditional attraction. (although that's a nice thing to think over... ) And So, on a rather profound level, where 'social' meets 'self-preservation' (security) you need to feel in order to give yourself.
> 
> Of course I can see this in the context of a 5 with it's somewhat detached /schizotypical tendencies. But this is why I think a subforum makes sense because it's good to be able to differentiate the 'raw' instincts, and then see how they find their way out. Because again I want to be accepted unconditionally too, but it's not really an issue because this is an So instinct that stretches out over almost any aspect of my life. This is as much an issue for a 9, because on an unhealthy level it may surpress this instinct at the favor of another So instinct, which is to avoid conflict. On a higher level it will be able to find a better balance and sustainable peace. But a 5 also has the instinct to avoid conflict (even fear of being overwhelmed is essentially fear of conflict), that's what I believe avarice is all about. You can spend a dollar only one time.


I think it's a difference if we had a general instinctual subforum and a subforum for each enneatype, though. And I think there is a great difference seeking acceptance from one person (sx) and from the community (so). If it was community acceptance that I sought (or if I was so-counter so I wanted to be obviously against the community), I think it would be more apparent in my mindset and how I approach this forum for example instead of just idea-vomitting. As a difference between the two. Soc 5s tend to want to be in a specific social position where people seek out their knowledge whereas sx 5s tend to rather approach it the opposite by sharing knowledge, which is why sx 5 is considered counter-passion.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I think it's a difference if we had a general instinctual subforum and a subforum for each enneatype, though. And I think there is a great difference seeking acceptance from one person (sx) and from the community (so). If it was community acceptance that I sought (or if I was so-counter so I wanted to be obviously against the community), I think it would be more apparent in my mindset and how I approach this forum for example instead of just idea-vomitting. As a difference between the two. Soc 5s tend to want to be in a specific social position where people seek out their knowledge whereas sx 5s tend to rather approach it the opposite by sharing knowledge, which is why sx 5 is considered counter-passion.


When I think of sexual I don't think in terms of acceptance. Sexual instinct is energetic, and measures intensity, vibration. So you can have an intense attraction (appeal, like sex-appeal), and I cannot imagine 'intense' acceptance. Sexual connection is more about fusion, resonance, like ideas can resonate, rather than 'accept' someone's ideas which to me has a more political connotation than a 'sexy' one.  -and this I mean metaphorically.

From a purely sexual point of view, and female position I can see some relation with 'acceptance', but then again, I would rather call it 'receptive', just like an 'open mind' can be receptive of ideas. On a higher level I believe sexual instinct also relates to spirituality. 

But it's good to have these discussions because the instincts are on such a deep level, where our behavior often is not just one action with one motivation, but a series of actions, or an attitude alltogether, which are usually the result of a complex interplay of intincts.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> When I think of sexual I don't think in terms of acceptance. Sexual instinct is energetic, and measures intensity, vibration. So you can have an intense attraction (appeal, like sex-appeal), and I cannot imagine 'intense' acceptance. Sexual connection is more about fusion, resonance, like ideas can resonate, rather than 'accept' someone's ideas which to me has a more political connotation than a 'sexy' one.  -and this I mean metaphorically.
> 
> From a purely sexual point of view, and female position I can see some relation with 'acceptance', but then again, I would rather call it 'receptive', just like an 'open mind' can be receptive of ideas. On a higher level I believe sexual instinct also relates to spirituality.
> 
> But it's good to have these discussions because the instincts are on such a deep level, where our behavior often is not just one action with one motivation, but a series of actions, or an attitude alltogether, which are usually the result of a complex interplay of intincts.


Well, Naranjo disagrees with you as he says himself that sexual 5s seek acceptance. I think it's important to understand why I think acceptance is important for example in this context, because if you do not accept another person's mind, how can you share minds?


----------



## Kitfool (Oct 24, 2012)

I have also considered this, but still not sure. I think it would be nifty to have a subforum for people to specifically discuss insticts, but I don't necessarily think there should be subforums for each instinct. Maybe though...If so I would want one for each stack, eg, so/sx, sp/so, sp/sx.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Well, Naranjo disagrees with you as he says himself that sexual 5s seek acceptance. I think it's important to understand why I think acceptance is important for example in this context, because if you do not accept another person's mind, how can you share minds?


Well, I beg to differ with Naranjo on a few other nuances too. 
Explain me how to understand unconditional acceptance of one's ideas? Well perhaps you would like that. 

But I think any Sexual in general would understand that you cannot expect unconditional attraction. That sort of spoils the whole game and excitement. Or do you think I have to unconditionally accept Naranjo too, and all the others, to unconditionally accept you? 

I think it has more to do with confidence. Like you use external aguments (like Naranjo) to appear more confident (like competency) in hopes that ideas will resonate. It's still about attraction.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Well, I beg to differ with Naranjo on a few other nuances too.
> Explain me how to understand unconditional acceptance of one's ideas? Well perhaps you would like that.
> 
> But I think any Sexual in general would understand that you cannot expect unconditional attraction. That sort of spoils the whole game and excitement. Or do you think I have to unconditionally accept Naranjo too, and all the others, to unconditionally accept you?


I think there's a fine line to draw here between what I desire and what is actually realistic. Do I realize that my desire is unrealistic? Yes. Does it mean I desire it any less? No. I think most people at some level desire a person to love them in a way that is unrealistic but it doesn't mean the desire is any less real or unrealistic in itself. But if you disagree with how Naranjo defines the subtypes, then there's not much to discuss because I think again, I am just going to refer to Naranjo and how he says that the sexual 5 longs after a person that does not exist. It is Naranjo that made me rethink my subtype orientation because I could not relate to other sources explaining the sexual 5 until I listened to Naranjo and I realized what he is saying rings far more true than sp. 


> I think it has more to do with confidence. Like you use external aguments (like Naranjo) to appear more confident (like competency) in hopes that ideas will resonate. It's still about attraction.


I don't see why this argument is revelant in whether I cite sources or not? I explained my reasoning, you still question it. I back it up by a reliable source, you question the source that I use to derive my thinking from. Then we simply agree to disagree because we clearly understand subtypes very differently.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Well, Naranjo disagrees with you as he says himself that sexual 5s seek acceptance. *I think it's important to understand why I think* acceptance is important for example in this context, because if you do not accept another person's mind, how can you share minds?


This is actually a line, which often pops up in your debates. You say things like 'You don't get what I try to say'. or 'You don't get it' period. While I understand your desire to be understood (like anyone would), it just doesn't sound 'appealing' (well, not to me). 

You may even achieve the opposite response, and I have seen some instances of that too. Then sometimes you react to that like you don't care. That's fine I guess, but the other people don't need to understand you if they don't want to either. Making someone want to, is in this case, attraction, or seduction, encitement, and 'sexy' or 'sexual'.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I think there's a fine line to draw here between what I desire and what is actually realistic. Do I realize that my desire is unrealistic? Yes. Does it mean I desire it any less? No. I think most people at some level desire a person to love them in a way that is unrealistic but it doesn't mean the desire is any less real or unrealistic in itself. But if you disagree with how Naranjo defines the subtypes, then there's not much to discuss because I think again, I am just going to refer to Naranjo and how he says that the sexual 5 longs after a person that does not exist. It is Naranjo that made me rethink my subtype orientation because I could not relate to other sources explaining the sexual 5 until I listened to Naranjo and I realized what he is saying rings far more true than sp.


Then I am happy for you. But why would that be an argument or relevant to me? Not everyone agrees with Naranjo. But cleaving to a 'totem' still is considered So. 



LeaT said:


> I don't see why this argument is revelant in whether I cite sources or not? I explained my reasoning, you still question it. I back it up by a reliable source, you question the source that I use to derive my thinking from. Then we simply agree to disagree because we clearly understand subtypes very differently.


Because it is called namedropping.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Then I am happy for you. But why would that be an argument or relevant to me? Not everyone agrees with Naranjo. But cleaving to a 'totem' still is considered So.


You have to prove how this is "cleaving a totem" though. 


> Because it is called namedropping.


I fail to see how it's name dropping in order to validate my own reasoning and where I am coming from? I never asked you to agree with Naranjo or my reasoning, although I do think it's flawed. Also, you definitely have no idea how intense I am and how much I seek it if you think the examples I provided for me personally are an example of soc, despite me making it very clear that this is about an intimate one-on-one relationship I'm talking about.

You did not once refute anti-community or community approval that is an important aspect of the soc instinct for example. I still fail to see how seeking acceptance from one person an intimate relationship is an example of the soc instinct since we speak of one person, not a community. 

I also laid out the differences between how the soc and sexual instinct play out in how soc 5s seek to hold a special position within their community where people seek them out for their knowledge they possess whereas sexual 5s want to share knowledge in order to connect to people in intimate relationships. 

For me specifically, I can't say I'm overly interested in the former although people sometimes seek me out in this regard but I can't say it really tingles my fancy. The latter though? @Maybe just pointed out to me yesterday that I am very prone doing this when I wish to get to know someone. What I do is either is a complete information dump hoping they will share the passion for the ideas I present as I do or I ask them tons and tons of questions about a subject I am again passionate about in order to learn their point of view.

In both examples it's an example of me trying to connect through the sharing of knowledge and information with another person.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

LeaT said:


> I think it's a difference if we had a general instinctual subforum and a subforum for each enneatype, though. And I think there is a great difference seeking acceptance from one person (sx) and from the community (so). If it was community acceptance that I sought (or if I was so-counter so I wanted to be obviously against the community), I think it would be more apparent in my mindset and how I approach this forum for example instead of just idea-vomitting. As a difference between the two. Soc 5s tend to want to be in a specific social position where people seek out their knowledge whereas sx 5s tend to rather approach it the opposite by sharing knowledge, which is why sx 5 is considered counter-passion.





LeaT said:


> You did not once refute anti-community or community approval that is an important aspect of the soc instinct for example. I still fail to see how seeking acceptance from one person an intimate relationship is an example of the soc instinct since we speak of one person, not a community.
> 
> I also laid out the differences between how the soc and sexual instinct play out in how soc 5s seek to hold a special position within their community where people seek them out for their knowledge they possess whereas sexual 5s want to share knowledge in order to connect to people in intimate relationships.


It really depends if PerC or other forums such is this is where you get SO-fulfillment. Many people seem obviously to get their fulfillment from here, which is why they take it so seriously, and why I believe there are more SO people on here than is reported. While I enjoy the intellectual discussions and such on these forums, I have other outlets for my SO. So I don't seek acceptance from PerC, although my primary instinct inevitably leaks through in my interactions. 

It's an interesting distinction. But I'm curious, why do you think that SX 5 is interested in sharing knowledge, and SO 5 isn't?

It's also a good distinction is the community vs. anti-community. But also, I would like to a third parameter, which is that of the neutral critic of societal constructs. I often take this stance moreso than the extremes of the community/anti-community spectrum.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

madhatter said:


> It really depends if PerC or other forums such is this is where you get SO-fulfillment. Many people seem obviously to get their fulfillment from here, which is why they take it so seriously, and why I believe there are more SO people on here than is reported. While I enjoy the intellectual discussions and such on these forums, I have other outlets for my SO. So I don't seek acceptance from PerC, although my primary instinct inevitably leaks through in my interactions.


Yes, that's a fair point to make. Honestly though, I part use PersC more as an sx outlet than soc overall because the reason why I'm here is not for soc reasons, I think, anyway. Then of course it happened to be a forum so there are more people involved in a topic but I quickly tend to zone in on the one or few people I enjoy talking to and move away when it happens. That, or everyone else leaves and it's just me and maybe one or two people left still talking. That they leave largely unconcerns me. 

It's more like I mentioned before; I do an information dump about a topic, idea or something else I've been thinking about intently and I'm very interested in discussing. Because I knew few people outside the forum who are interested in the things I'm interested in I tend to be forced doing it on a forum who share my passions. It has happened that I have joined a forum, made a thread where I dumped some of my ideas but never responded again, especially if I find that no one responds to me in the way I want them to respond. It's more just an extreme need to express my ideas and I'm not understating that when I feel that way, it's actually more akin to a compulsion. An inability to express them leads to a lot of frustration to fulfill my instinctual desires.

I suppose though if I am going to be honest, I probably do fulfill my soc need on a forum too (I still got soc needs even if it's a blind spot), but it's become clear to me that it is sx I have the greatest troubles satisfying and I'm always on the look-out for. Even when I'm on a forum, the information dumps I tend to do are done as a means to attract a one-on-one discussion eventually. It usually tends to be that someone responds whose thoughts or ideas I find interesting and then I simply move away from the initial thread to PM or similar. 



> It's an interesting distinction. But I'm curious, why do you think that SX 5 is interested in sharing knowledge, and SO 5 isn't?


No, I just think the way we do it is different. I think a soc 5, from the way I understand it (I still understand soc and soc 5 terribly) is that a soc 5 wishes that people seek them out for knowledge so they can share. It's more like people come to you. With sx 5, it's the other way around. I'm the one reaching out and sharing even if no one asked, ergo counter-passion. Wth soc 5, there's still retentiveness, you are the one holding back until someone asks you and then you make the judgement to decide whether it is worth sharing or not. Or that's how I understand it works.


> It's also a good distinction is the community vs. anti-community. But also, I would like to a third parameter, which is that of the neutral critic of societal constructs. I often take this stance moreso than the extremes of the community/anti-community spectrum.


Fair enough. How does this manifest for you?


----------



## Bluity (Nov 12, 2012)

LeaT said:


> a soc 5 wishes that people seek them out for knowledge so they can share.


That sounds more like the expert role that most Fives find themselves in anyway. I would think that social Fives are more keen on dynamics within a group. What they do with that awareness (join it, criticize it, watch it passively) is up to them.

Self Pres Fives use knowledge for their own benefit. Social Fives offer knowledge to better the group. Sexual Fives might use knowledge as a lure to attract certain people. 

What I find interesting is that, when I see "information dumps" I just assume someone is really excited about something and wants to share. It's the equivalent of saying "Hey guys, there's a new taco place down the street, it's really good! Check it out!" As in, I assumed they didn't really expect anyone to respond, they're just letting it out in case someone was interested. It did not occur to me that they might be looking for a connection. Which explains why some of them feel embarrassed and delete their post when they don't get responses. I always wondered why they felt the need to do that.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

I think a big misunderstanding happening over and over again, is that Sx is considered to be the _only _instinct that thrives on one-on-one communication, when that can also be very much a social instinct kind of thing, especially So/Sx.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Bluity said:


> That sounds more like the expert role that most Fives find themselves in anyway. I would think that social Fives are more keen on dynamics within a group. What they do with that awareness (join it, criticize it, watch it passively) is up to them.
> 
> Self Pres Fives use knowledge for their own benefit. Social Fives offer knowledge to better the group. Sexual Fives might use knowledge as a lure to attract certain people.
> 
> What I find interesting is that, when I see "information dumps" I just assume someone is really excited about something and wants to share. It's the equivalent of saying "Hey guys, there's a new taco place down the street, it's really good! Check it out!" As in, I assumed they didn't really expect anyone to respond, they're just letting it out in case someone was interested. It did not occur to me that they might be looking for a connection. Which explains why some of them feel embarrassed and delete their post when they don't get responses. I always wondered why they felt the need to do that.


Hehe yeah, I remember you were sx last? Makes sense why you understand it like that. To be honest, I didn't quite see it like a way of connecting, or I rather prefer putting it like this, *fishing for people*, until I started to read more into instincts and I realize this is exactly what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. 

If no one paid me attention in that scenario yes, I would feel *so* embarrassed and I would pull out entirely as lack of interest surely indicates a lack of interest in me as a person. I want people to pay attention to me in this scenario and I also want people in this scenario in the case of a new taco place to say, "yeah, let's go eat there" and the people who say yes, they are the ones who matter intimately because then I can say, exchange their numbers and say, "I think I'm kind of hungry, are you guys up for eating now or later?". I can build closer bonds with them because interest in the taco place connotes an _interest in me_, if that makes sense. It's more like the information dumping is simply an excuse to start a conversation with people. 

So the people who agree coming along are all potential partners/close friends. I managed to reduce a group of people to those who really matter, ergo why I call it "fishing". I lure people out with information I think is attractive (to me at least).

And I guess it's a good point you're raising about soc 5s offering better knowledge to the group and being more attentive to group dynamics. You're also absolutely right that participation in a group probably says very little whether a person is soc first or not since soc people have the skill and knowledge to tell when it's beneficial for them to be active or not. I mean, as a whole, I'm quite active on PersC but I am because I'm "fishing". I am largely oblivious to the group dynamics on this site until it kind of hits me in the face and then I feel like "I'm so smart for figuring this out" /flex. 

I also wonder how much conversation topics matter as a whole. There was some post somewhere that different subtypes gravitate towards different kinds of conversation topics which makes sense. The example you mentioned of a new taco place struck me mostly as sp for example. If it's a subject that doesn't interest me I won't participate personally.


----------



## Bluity (Nov 12, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Hehe yeah, I remember you were sx last? Makes sense why you understand it like that. To be honest, I didn't quite see it like a way of connecting, or I rather prefer putting it like this, fishing for people, until I started to read more into instincts and I realize this is exactly what I'm doing and why I'm doing it.
> 
> If no one paid me attention in that scenario yes, I would feel so embarrassed and I would pull out entirely as lack of interest surely indicates a lack of interest in me as a person. I want people to pay attention to me in this scenario and I also want people in this scenario in the case of a new taco place to say, "yeah, let's go eat there" and the people who say yes, they are the ones who matter intimately because then I can say, exchange their numbers and say, "I think I'm kind of hungry, are you guys up for eating now or later?". I can build closer bonds with them because interest in the taco place connotes an interest in me, if that makes sense. It's more like the information dumping is simply an excuse to start a conversation with people.
> 
> So the people who agree coming along are all potential partners/close friends. I managed to reduce a group of people to those who really matter, ergo why I call it "fishing". I lure people out with information I think is attractive (to me at least).


That's hilarious, because I would be very confused in that scenario. Me: "There's a new taco place at the corner of X and Y." People: "You want to go?" Me: "No, I just wanted to let you know there's a new taco place." People: "Have you tried it?" Me: "No..." People: "Then why are you recommending it?" Me: "I'm not recommending it, I'm just saying there is a new taco place." People: "If you've never gone, why don't you come with us? "Me: "Jesus, I'm just saying there's a new taco place! Go there if you want. I'll go there later, I'm not even that hungry!"

When I drop random information I don't expect people to use it as an invite for more personal info. I can get a bit annoyed with that in fact. If I told you that cats have two sets of vocal chords, I'd like you to say if you find that interesting, or give another interesting fact, or go into a conversation about the co-evolution of cats and humans. I wouldn't want you to ask me if I like cats, because that's not the point.

Even on personality forum, I use my personal experience as just a manifestation of the Five experience. I'm a data point in a pattern. Likewise, I'm interested in you as a Five, not you as a person. If this were a discussion of CogFuncs I suppose this would be an instance of TI-dom, framing every particular instance in a general framework.

Speaking of which, I'm using you in the general plural way. Some people think when I say you, I mean THEM personally.



> I also wonder how much conversation topics matter as a whole. There was some post somewhere that different subtypes gravitate towards different kinds of conversation topics which makes sense. The example you mentioned of a new taco place struck me mostly as sp for example. If it's a subject that doesn't interest me I won't participate personally.


I think most Fives stay silent when they have nothing to add. We are Observers, after all. :tongue:

As an aside, I wonder if instincts also influence how we use the internet. I use google the same way I use this forum, to answer question for my own benefit. Dating sites confuse me, because I can't imagine using a public platform for something so intimate. I remember seeing the first Match.com commercial and rolling my eyes. "Pff, that's totally going to flop! Who the hell goes online for a friggin love connection!?"


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Bluity said:


> That's hilarious, because I would be very confused in that scenario. Me: "There's a new taco place at the corner of X and Y." People: "You want to go?" Me: "No, I just wanted to let you know there's a new taco place." People: "Have you tried it?" Me: "No..." People: "Then why are you recommending it?" Me: "I'm not recommending it, I'm just saying there is a new taco place." People: "If you've never gone, why don't you come with us? "Me: "Jesus, I'm just saying there's a new taco place! Go there if you want. I'll go there later, I'm not even that hungry!"


LOL that is utterly hilarious and almost the opposite of how I'd see it then. I can imagine a conversation being like this:

Me: Hey guys, I just tried this new taco place. The food's really nice.
Them: Oh?
Me: [Rambles on why it was nice.]
Them: Yeah, maybe we should go eat there.
Me: Totally. Come to think of it, I'm rather hungry. (I mean, I'm still sp second and I kind of figured this is part how I use sp to feed sx.)
Them: True, me too. Maybe we should go try to the new taco place?
Me: Yeah, I know all these dishes you should try. /cue ramble on about dishes, price range I don't know what else. 

--> Going to new taco place. 

Me internally thinking: mission accomplished! And at the taco place I'd probably use the opportunity based on the conversation topics that occur to size up and reduce the number to even fewer people that I find interesting. It's common for me when I'm at a party to just talk to one person like a good friend and screw the rest over. Their presence doesn't really concern me. They are just "there" as background noise.


> When I drop random information I don't expect people to use it as an invite for more personal info. I can get a bit annoyed with that in fact. If I told you that cats have two sets of vocal chords, I'd like you to say if you find that interesting, or give another interesting fact, or go into a conversation about the co-evolution of cats and humans. I wouldn't want you to ask me if I like cats, because that's not the point.


Haha, that's interesting because that's exactly opposite how I'd look at it in that scenario. I would be very surprised if you told me you didn't care or like about cats. I think in this scenario if you told me like:

You: Did you know cats have two sets of vocal chords?
Me: No, I didn't. So that's why my cats always sound so funny when they talk to me. 

And I suppose at that point you'd already be annoyed because I moved the conversation more about how much I like cats (most specifically my cats) than just talking about cats in general?


> Even on personality forum, I use my personal experience as just a manifestation of the Five experience. I'm a data point in a pattern. Likewise, I'm interested in you as a Five, not you as a person. If this were a discussion of CogFuncs I suppose this would be an instance of TI-dom, framing every particular instance in a general framework.


I think that's how all 5s operate to a degree, though.


> I think most Fives stay silent when they have nothing to add. We are Observers, after all. :tongue:


True.


> As an aside, I wonder if instincts also influence how we use the internet. I use google the same way I use this forum, to answer question for my own benefit. Dating sites confuse me, because I can't imagine using a public platform for something so intimate. I remember seeing the first Match.com commercial and rolling my eyes. "Pff, that's totally going to flop! Who the hell goes online for a friggin love connection!?"


Yeah, that's interesting. I'm kind of addicted to wikipedia. Speaking of dating sites, they kind of repulse me myself, mostly because I'm sx counter-culture so I think it's just a superficial way of connecting with people and finding partners. Anyway, as an act of desperation (let's not get into why) I did sign up for a dating site anyway because I guess maybe it _is_ worth a try. Well, I closed my account after like a week because I realized this is so far removed from how I actually want to connect with people. I was left wondering how I even should contact them. I can't share ideas! How do I know this person likes what I like?!


----------



## Bluity (Nov 12, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Haha, that's interesting because that's exactly opposite how I'd look at it in that scenario. I would be very surprised if you told me you didn't care or like about cats. I think in this scenario if you told me like:
> 
> You: Did you know cats have two sets of vocal chords?
> Me: No, I didn't. So that's why my cats always sound so funny when they talk to me.
> ...


Actually no. I'd be interested in you talking to your cats, because that's hilarious. Maybe I should clarify: I have no problem with people talking about their own likes and dislikes. We could talk about your cats all day. It's when you ask me about MY tastes that it becomes uncomfortable.

Me: Did you know cats have two sets of vocal chords?
You: No, I didn't. So that's why my cats always sound so funny when they talk to me.
Me: What do they say?
You: [talk about what they say, how you got them, what's their breeds, how you picked out their names, random cat videos on youtube]
Me: 
[listening intently, genuinely fascinated by this]
You: And that's why I named him Pumpernickel ScratchNSniff. But I must be boring you--
Me: No, I don't mind, this is interesting.
You: Really? You like cats?
Me: ....
[awkward silence]
Me: Hey, did you hear about the new taco place?

When I listen to people's conversations, I enjoy learning about their personal quirks. It makes them colorful characters. An So-Dom on another thread said she makes a database on all the people she meets. For me, it's more like disorganized cue cards: I mentally jot down things I find funny and novel about people, but may forget the person's name or where we met. So I might remember that someone I know likes cats and talks to them, but may forget it was you. 

This is why I believe I am SO-second, because I do this for fun. I don't do it automatically like a dom, and I don't dismiss it like a last. And I don't do it for intensity like an sx. If we left after that conversation I'd be perfectly satisfied. You might not, though, because I haven't revealed anything about myself. That is how most convos with me work: I listen and ask questions, but I don't reciprocate.


----------



## Sonny (Oct 14, 2008)

Bluity said:


> When I listen to people's conversations, I enjoy learning about their personal quirks. It makes them colorful characters. An So-Dom on another thread said she makes a database on all the people she meets. For me, it's more like disorganized cue cards: I mentally jot down things I find funny and novel about people, but may forget the person's name or where we met. So I might remember that someone I know likes cats and talks to them, but may forget it was you.
> 
> This is why I believe I am SO-second, because I do this for fun. I don't do it automatically like a dom, and I don't dismiss it like a last.


I've been at my place of work for over a year, and I still don't call most people by their name because most never really sank in, there would probably be less than 40 people in my immediate vicinity. And there is an intranet with everyone's name/picture which also attaches to emails. I'm bad with names. Sx is more inclined to make that personal connection matter. Just saying.

/So dom


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Bluity said:


> Actually no. I'd be interested in you talking to your cats, because that's hilarious. Maybe I should clarify: I have no problem with people talking about their own likes and dislikes. We could talk about your cats all day. It's when you ask me about MY tastes that it becomes uncomfortable.
> 
> Me: Did you know cats have two sets of vocal chords?
> You: No, I didn't. So that's why my cats always sound so funny when they talk to me.
> ...


lulz.


> When I listen to people's conversations, I enjoy learning about their personal quirks. It makes them colorful characters. An So-Dom on another thread said she makes a database on all the people she meets. For me, it's more like disorganized cue cards: I mentally jot down things I find funny and novel about people, but may forget the person's name or where we met. So I might remember that someone I know likes cats and talks to them, but may forget it was you.


Interesting because this is so... foreign to me. I can barely remember people's names and faces after I meet them. There are some people I greet at my work whose names I don't know even though I hear them repeating their names whenever they make a call and we work in the same office... Is that bad lol?

I strangely remember if I liked speaking to them or not though, or what things they like talking about. 


> This is why I believe I am SO-second, because I do this for fun. I don't do it automatically like a dom, and I don't dismiss it like a last. And I don't do it for intensity like an sx. If we left after that conversation I'd be perfectly satisfied. You might not, though, because I haven't revealed anything about myself. That is how most convos with me work: I listen and ask questions, *but I don't reciprocate.*


Oh my god, as is the case with the cat example, that'd drive me up the walls. There's this guy on another forum who often contacts me about some theory or idea he wants me to explain so I do it but instead of telling me what he thinks of the theory he just stops responding to me! It's so frustrating because I essentially love on reciprociation. When I give I expect something in return.


----------



## sodden (Jul 20, 2009)

Sonny said:


> I've been at my place of work for over a year, and I still don't call most people by their name because most never really sank in, there would probably be less than 40 people in my immediate vicinity. And there is an intranet with everyone's name/picture which also attaches to emails. I'm bad with names. Sx is more inclined to make that personal connection matter. Just saying.
> 
> /So dom


I'm horrible with people's names unless I want to get to know them better... or if I hate them. If it's disinterest/neutrality, then I could care less what that person's name is and I will probably never remember it. My husband is a social dom and he is also bad with names- unless it's someone who is interesting to him/has something in common with him.

I hear a lot of talk about social types knowing/understanding social hierarchy and being good at working the system. As a 4w5, I am clueless about this and could care less. When I am in social situations, however, I do like to observe how the whole thing works. For example, I went to a professional basketball game the other night and it was pretty interesting watching the whole ritual, and what different roles different people had- all the way down to the guy who mopped the side of the court while the teams were playing on the other side. 

I have never felt a part of any of this stuff. I am a total social outsider- I am a social observer and a social critic. I think what makes me different than a social dom four is that I don't care that I'm an outsider, and it's not what I pay the most attention to, but I notice it when I'm in it. I don't want to belong, I don't want a group, but I find the whole spectacle fascinating/interesting- for a short period of time. Every time I'm in a social situation I feel like a cultural anthropologist studying a non-native country, and I haven't even learned the language yet, but I think it's kind of fun to try and figure it out. 

More importantly, though, the social I care about is with intimates. I am relatively good (for a 4w5) at maintaining bonds with people who matter to me. I am fairly polite and I am empathetic. I don't want to be jerk and I pay attention to my loved one's reactions to me. A social group can be as small as one's immediate family and closest friends. And those are the only social connections that really matter to me.


----------



## Bluity (Nov 12, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Interesting because this is so... foreign to me. I can barely remember people's names and faces after I meet them. There are some people I greet at my work whose names I don't know even though I hear them repeating their names whenever they make a call and we work in the same office... Is that bad lol?


I think it's safe to say that members of all instincts can have trouble with names. Like I said, I'll most likely forget a person's name. But I will remember details that I thought were interesting: remembering one coworker knew how to speak in Hebrew, or another that was obsessed with Twilight, or another who always wore summery dresses even in winter. Vague atmospheric details. It seems you would forget about the context and remember the person if they strike your fancy, but I'd remember the context and forget the person.

For example, I remember spending time with a small volunteering group after hours. We sat at a small cafe with orange wallpaper with dreampop playing in the background. Five of us, one Asian, two white, two black; three females and two males; two with glasses. I drank hot chocolate, another drank chocolate mocha that he had returned because it tasted bad, another nibbled on cookies that she offered us, another spilled his drink. We laughed most of the time. I've never met them before and I haven't seen them since. This was in 2010. I have other memories like these, forgetting people's names but remembering the general mood. This might not have anything to do with instinct though.



> Oh my god, as is the case with the cat example, that'd drive me up the walls. There's this guy on another forum who often contacts me about some theory or idea he wants me to explain so I do it but instead of telling me what he thinks of the theory he just stops responding to me! It's so frustrating because I essentially love on reciprociation. When I give I expect something in return.


Oh, then you'd hate me. Then again, I would never PM anyone here, I'd just ask a question in a thread and wait for responses. Unless it's for RPing, where I contact people for storytelling purposes.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Bluity said:


> I think it's safe to say that members of all instincts can have trouble with names. Like I said, I'll most likely forget a person's name. But I will remember details that I thought were interesting: remembering one coworker knew how to speak in Hebrew, or another that was obsessed with Twilight, or another who always wore summery dresses even in winter. Vague atmospheric details. It seems you would forget about the context and remember the person if they strike your fancy, but I'd remember the context and forget the person.
> 
> For example, I remember spending time with a small volunteering group after hours. We sat at a small cafe with orange wallpaper with dreampop playing in the background. Five of us, one Asian, two white, two black; three females and two males; two with glasses. I drank hot chocolate, another drank chocolate mocha that he had returned because it tasted bad, another nibbled on cookies that she offered us, another spilled his drink. We laughed most of the time. I've never met them before and I haven't seen them since. This was in 2010. I have other memories like these, forgetting people's names but remembering the general mood. This might not have anything to do with instinct though.


If anything I think what this is is Si. Noticing mood, atmosphere etc. is an Si kind of thing.


> Oh, then you'd hate me. Then again, I would never PM anyone here, I'd just ask a question in a thread and wait for responses. Unless it's for RPing, where I contact people for storytelling purposes.


Yes, but those that do and don't give me any ideas back frustrate me to no end, especially if I ask them questions and they don't even bother answering more than perhaps in a very general and vague manner. Maybe the guy who keeps asking me questions is sx last?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I don't see why this argument is revelant in whether I cite sources or not? I explained my reasoning, you still question it. I back it up by a reliable source, you question the source that I use to derive my thinking from. Then we simply agree to disagree because we clearly understand subtypes very differently.


To be clear, I do not disapprove of have those personal wishes. I question whether that is within the realm of sexual instinct. I think I gave pretty common sense arguments for that. 



LeaT said:


> I fail to see how it's name dropping in order to validate my own reasoning and where I am coming from?


Because you said this, and I don't see what this is adding to what you had already said, except for saying that Naranjo disagrees with me, and that it is important to understand why it is important to you. 



LeaT said:


> Well, *Naranjo disagrees with you as he says himself that sexual 5s seek acceptance. *I think it's important to understand why I think acceptance is important for example in this context, because if you do not accept another person's mind, how can you share minds?


I'll come back to your last question at the end of this post. 
Also, you only said something about accepting you unconditionally, but nothing about accepting the other, so that makes me wonder what you mean with 'sharing' and 'intimacy'. 



LeaT said:


> For me, the sexual instinct is expressed in how I want to share myself. I want to tell and open to an intimate partner, I want to show them everything and I want them to accept me non-judgementally.


I don't see avarice in terms of not wanting to share knowledge or ideas, (I think 5s are very keen on expressing them) but rather in terms of sharing time and focus. 

Again, I don't criticize your desire, but I think sexual instinct is *essentially judgement.* Why? Well, because for instance we judge physical appearance, and there seem to be 'universal' physical facial attributes where men and women have a preference for, like symetry. We are not hardcoded to accept our mating-partner unconditionally. We are even hardcoded not to take it for granted. We even appear to be hardcoded that if what we desired was too easily within reach or gratified, we may shift our desire to something more challenging. 



> The thing with dopamine, though, is that it's a little...temperamental.If you overindulge in the reward in question, for instance, less dopamine might be released when you obtain it: it's as if the body has subconsciously learnt that the prize is a dead certainty, and there’s no need for biochemical meddling to promote reward-seeking behavior.
> Bad Boys, Bad Brains | Psychology Today





LeaT said:


> You have to prove how this is "cleaving a totem" though.


I mean this: 


LeaT said:


> I think there's a fine line to draw here between what I desire and what is actually realistic. Do I realize that my desire is unrealistic? Yes. Does it mean I desire it any less? No. I think most people at some level desire a person to love them in a way that is unrealistic but it doesn't mean the desire is any less real or unrealistic in itself. *But if you disagree with how Naranjo defines the subtypes, then there's not much to discuss because I think again, I am just going to refer to Naranjo *and how he says that the sexual 5 longs after a person that does not exist. It is Naranjo that made me rethink my subtype orientation because I could not relate to other sources explaining the sexual 5 until I listened to Naranjo and I realized what he is saying rings far more true than sp.


If that's all there is to it, why even debate here? I just want to discuss instincts, with common sense arguments. And I won't say I totally disagree with him, Some of his ideas resonate with me and are inspiring, but I don't accept anything he says unconditionally and uncritically. 



LeaT said:


> You did not once *refute anti-community or community approval that is an important aspect of the soc* instinct for example. I still fail to see how seeking acceptance from one person an intimate relationship is an example of the soc instinct since we speak of one person, not a community.


It is tempting to see the So instinct within the context of modern society, but for the most part of the last 100,000 years we lived in relatively small communities, probably not more than 150 people - at most. So to understand instincts, I think it's good to also look at where we _all _came from.

I think it's a bit simplistic to say Sx is one-on-one and So is community, not a distinction that is to be taken too literally. 

I mean, is that the entire community? Like 'me vs the rest'? I don't think so. There are 'communities' within 'communities'. You have family for instance. You have friends. Young people, old people. Men and women. People who like sport, or like art. Social instincts in my view focuses on relations on different levels and within different framing. Your relation with 'the community' can be seen as coalitions/ groups, power structures (hierarchy), status/image, consensus, conventions, norms, rules, roles, forms, expectations, privacy, intimacy, social exchange, acceptance/ rejection. This is important because we have survived by living as a group. But within the group, we need to survive too. So establishing a bond/coalition, I see as So instinct and not sexual. 

A sexual engagement can be intimate and you can share, but it's more based on energetic connection, like inspiration, fascination, resonance, vibration, excitation, exaltation, activation, chemistry, catalysis, fusion, flow, creativity, etc. It lasts untill the thrill is gone. What you ask is like expecting someone to unconditonally get a hard-on from what you share (disclose or reveil), and I don't think you yourself can guarantee anyone to be excited either. 

And if you compare it with close one-on-one non-sexual relations, like intellectual or creative (like Lennon/McCarthy), I doubt whether these are non-judgemental and don't allow judgements or critical thinking. It's maybe even the opposite, that those people have engaged because of their judging skills, and they may even be the only ones who they can take criticism from. And likely the criticism is considered as 'constructive' or 'challenging'. I also don't think it's necessarily person-to-person, but it can be engagement with ideas, art, objects, experiences, etc.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> To be clear, I do not disapprove of have those personal wishes. I question whether that is within the realm of sexual instinct. I think I gave pretty common sense arguments for that.


I get to this further down this post.


> Because you said this, and I don't see what this is adding to what you had already said, except for saying that Naranjo disagrees with me, and that it is important to understand why it is important to you.


Because Naranjo is the foundation of my knowledge of the instincts? I already pointed this out to you.


> I'll come back to your last question at the end of this post.
> Also, you only said something about accepting you unconditionally, but nothing about accepting the other, so that makes me wonder what you mean with 'sharing' and 'intimacy'.


You're correct, I said nothing about accepting others. Kind of shows the avarice of my mind that I always want something in return.


> I don't see avarice in terms of not wanting to share knowledge or ideas, (I think 5s are very keen on expressing them) but rather in terms of sharing time and focus.


I think avarice can be expressed in all these things.


> Again, I don't criticize your desire, but I think sexual instinct is *essentially judgement.* Why? Well, because for instance we judge physical appearance, and there seem to be 'universal' physical facial attributes where men and women have a preference for, like symetry. We are not hardcoded to accept our mating-partner unconditionally. We are even hardcoded not to take it for granted. We even appear to be hardcoded that if what we desired was too easily within reach or gratified, we may shift our desire to something more challenging.


So to return to the first portion of this post in relation to this one: you are not describing the sexual instinct. You are describing physical attraction and desire. You are understanding it in a concrete manner which is akin to saying that all sp types must desire a roof of their head. This is correct but only to a degree. I personally for example find that physical attraction is a minor aspect of desire and I even find such a requirement vain. Why? Why am I even concerned about making these kind of judgements. Because my sexual instinct is counter-culture which is not the same as saying it is my blind spot if that's what you are suggesting. Just read some of Bluity's posts in response to me to realize how the blind spot appears as.


> If that's all there is to it, why even debate here? I just want to discuss instincts, with common sense arguments. And I won't say I totally disagree with him, Some of his ideas resonate with me and are inspiring, but I don't accept anything he says unconditionally and uncritically.


I never said I did either. I do however think that his descriptions of the stackings are pretty accurate and I would still be left in the dark without his descriptions of sx 5. Unless you are going to say that his entire description of sx 5 is false which you have yet to provide an argument for why this is the case, I don't see how this invalidates any of my points.


> It is tempting to see the So instinct within the context of modern society, but for the most part of the last 100,000 years we lived in relatively small communities, probably not more than 150 people - at most. So to understand instincts, I think it's good to also look at where we _all _came from.


I think this is largely irrelevant to this discussion unless you are interested in looking at where the instincts originated from in terms of human evolution. 



> I think it's a bit simplistic to say Sx is one-on-one and So is community, not a distinction that is to be taken too literally.


I never once suggested that sx is only one-on-one or soc only community. Sx first types do however gravitate towards intense relationships one-on-one or smaller groups of people because it fits them better since they can focus their energy. And soc is not so much community as it is a concern for the community in relation to the self. Soc types can for example very well choose to be alone and loners, be anti-community, just like sx first types can be anti-sx by thinking dressing in a promiscuous manner or having lots of sex is repulsive just like soc first types can think that simply going with the flow is repulsive.


> I mean, is that the entire community? Like 'me vs the rest'? I don't think so. There are 'communities' within 'communities'. You have family for instance. You have friends. Young people, old people. Men and women. Social instincts in my view focuses on relations on different levels and within different framing. Your relation with 'the community' can be seen as coalitions/ groups, power structures (hierarchy), status/image, consensus, conventions, rules, control, privacy, intimacy, social exchange, acceptance/ rejection. This is important because we have survived by living as a group. But within the group, we need to survive too. So establishing a bond/coalition, I see as So instinct and not sexual.


I think you're entirely missing the point with the instincts as shown in this paragraph here. It's what we as individuals identify as community. It can be family, it can be the work place. You're trying to confuse the discussion by bringing up points that are irrelevant.


> A sexual engagement can be intimate and you can share, but it's more based on energetic connection, like inspiration, fascination, resonance, vibration, excitation, exaltation, activation, chemistry, catalysis, fusion, flow, creativity, etc. It lasts untill the thrill is gone. What you ask is like expecting someone to unconditonally get a hard-on from what you share (disclose or reveil), and I don't think you yourself can guarantee anyone to be excited either.


Who mentioned anything about hard-ons lol? Again, you're interpreting it too literary. The sexual instinct is that, intimacy. Intimacy can occur in many ways. Discussing a subject two people find fascinating is a perfect example of this and a perfect example of how I think a sexual 5 is interested in connecting to people. 

Retentiveness is more than simply refusing to share time and space. It occurs in all arenas.


> And if you compare it with close one-on-one non-sexual relations, like intellectual or creative (like Lennon/McCarthy), I doubt whether these are non-judgemental and don't allow judgements or critical thinking. It's maybe even the opposite, that those people have engaged because of their judging skills, and they may even be the only ones who they can take criticism from. And likely the criticism is considered as 'constructive' or 'challenging'. I also don't think it's necessarily person-to-person, but it can be engagement with ideas, art, objects, experiences, etc.


I think this is a terrible example of what the sexual instinct is about and shows how poorly you understand it. The sexual instinct is simply that, intimacy-seeking. The nature of the relationship actually matters little. You can have intense connections to your friends. It doesn't need to be romantic in nature, or platonic. When I'm talking to Maybe on Skype we can talk for hours endlessly about seemingly nothing in particular but yet we don't want to pull away. Why? Because the connection is so intimate pulling away feels like a betrayal, a sense of rejection.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I get to this further down this post.
> 
> Because Naranjo is the foundation of my knowledge of the instincts? I already pointed this out to you.
> You're correct, I said nothing about accepting others. Kind of shows the avarice of my mind that I always want something in return.
> ...


Okay, you can say again and again that I don't understand it, that's fine. I find it remarkable for someone who says to instinctively desire secured non-judgemental and unconditional acception. 

To say that it's not equal to physical attraction is a bit of a cheap shot, because I gave other examples of non-sexual attraction. That doesn't mean you can't use it as an example, and so to translate it to other situations. I mean, do you see why it is called sexual instinct? 

I think my terrible example is a very good example, because it is focused on creative energy or creativity and inspiration, and just an example of a more long term relation by sharing competency and exchange insight and ideas. But I don't think there needs to be a secured or safe (long term) bond. It's not even required to know eachother personally, or to be one-on-one. It can be a one time event, and still be 'intimate'. Think of the connection of a dj with an ectatic crowd on the dancefloor. Many djs would compare the climactic interaction with the audience with sex or chemistry. There is no non-judgemental unconditional acceptance, or no 'betrayal' when people leave the dancefloor.


----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

wtb Instinctual Stacking/Variants board


----------

