# Soc instinct and social atmosphere



## Lunar Light (Jun 6, 2013)

Making this thread to give soc types, dominant or secondary, a place to write about their experiences with social atmosphere and to clear up possible misconceptions. 

What is it to you? What do you look for? 

How have you grown with it? How has it changed or shifted with you, if it has at all?

Basically... whatever you might want to write.

EDIT: Er, definitely not discouraging soc-last types from posting. Post too if you'd like!
_____

After moving to a different state and feeling like a complete stranger in a new environment, I have come to realize how much social atmosphere affects me, more than I had even thought (given that I am soc-dom and would especially consider this sort of thing).

In the past, when I thought "social atmosphere," I thought something pretty specific... a group of people, an event, which I think is pretty common. I feel like this is discussed often enough, though I'll be the first to say that I still believe there are a lot of misconceptions about what this may signify or how it may manifest, which I've tried to point out where I could. One idea which I'd like to reiterate is that the sort of "social atmosphere" soc-dom seeks may not be traditional.

I could go on about that, and will in the next post to avoid cluttering the OP, but currently I'm surprised at how my social atmosphere on a *broad* level has affected me. Every interaction means so much more because I don't "belong" anywhere, as I'm not currently going to school and have only recently gotten a job. There was no immediate "social atmosphere," something that had almost always been there in the past for me through the physical school itself and us students going there every day.

I underestimated its significance because I don't and didn't particularly identify with my school. However, I see now that to get to a more specific "social atmosphere," the basic structure has to be there. And I lost that. 

I see myself as a pretty sx-heavy soc-dom under decent circumstances, and I feel like I have a strong enough sense of self for the most part (much as I struggle). I thought it'd be no big deal, but I find myself deeply affected by the loss. Which is still strange to say, but then again, I have to remind myself it is a loss of foundation. 

I lost not just the school, but the friend groups I had, and the ability to create new friend groups with ease. I think social atmosphere, regardless of size, gives a sense of normalcy of what to expect, based on its dynamics and components. It's been strange to go without, because those dynamics affect how I act as well.

Even with the broader focus I thought I had, I didn't expect this, and I feel like it's a good representation of how deep instincts can go, much as it's easy to dismiss them at their most basic level. And I say most basic, but I guess even this isn't the "most" basic. There are even broader contexts, and it feels easy to under-appreciate the next most immediate one.


----------



## Lunar Light (Jun 6, 2013)

When soc instinct is brought up, it seems the subject of parties, cliques, drama, and how much they, and apparently soc instinct by association, suck inevitably follows soon enough.

It feels like it should be needless to say, but soc types don't necessarily like or even desire these things any more than soc-last types. As is with the case with all instincts, I think, there exists paradoxes in how they manifest, especially for the dominant instinct as it tends to be a neurotic focus. 

All this said, this forum feels sx-heavy at least in the sense that it's the most discussed and "interesting" instinct. No doubt, there are lots of misconceptions there too, but at least it feels like there are more people to come in and explain / generally promote "intelligent" discussion.

For example, I feel like it's been made clear by this point that sx types especially would want a special, personal connection. No reason it shouldn't apply to the other instincts, though, with how they seek to fulfill their instinctual needs. Much as it'd be ridiculous to think that sx instinct would want to attach itself to any old person, ideology, or hobby, I think it needs to be said that it's equally preposterous to think soc instinct would want to attach itself to any old group, party, event, etc. *Especially* given that it's such a major need, one would expect there to be more nuance than that to the desire, and following that, more nuance to how one goes about fulfilling that desire.

It really gives insight into how one's blindspot can affect and possibly skew one's perception. I appreciate that I'm currently saying this coming from the perspective of the side that potentially "knows better" and how much easier it is to say that from that end. That said, I know I've made my own fair share of biased judgments about sp instinct (my blindspot). So yeah, not trying to be high and mighty. It's an easy mistake and I think something to be aware of, regardless of which "side" you're on.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Lunar Light said:


> I feel like it's been made clear by this point that sx types especially would want a special, personal connection. No reason it shouldn't apply to the other instincts, though, with how they seek to fulfill their instinctual needs. Much as it'd be ridiculous to think that sx instinct would want to attach itself to any old person, ideology, or hobby, I think it needs to be said that it's equally preposterous to think soc instinct would want to attach itself to any old group, party, event, etc. *Especially* given that it's such a major need, one would expect there to be more nuance than that to the desire, and following that, more nuance to how one goes about fulfilling that desire.


I think this is a good point to raise. I've tried raising it before but it got lost in some tangent the discussion took.

SX doesn't want *just any *person or special interest.
SO doesn't want *just any* group or community.
SP doesn't want *just any* environment or need taken care of.

I think the dominant instinct is about seeking something. It might be interesting to explore more specifically what's being sought rather than the usual generalizations (e.g., sx seeks intensity, so seeks social connections or status, sp seeks money or health).


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

As a SO second, all I really want is in terms of a group is a place where I feel like I am accepted and I don't feel out of place. A small, cozy group of friends is better than a large party or social gathering any day.


----------



## Lunar Light (Jun 6, 2013)

NOT GONNA LIE, it saddens me that my thread has gotten far less replies than that pretty basic thread a little while ago that was complaining about soc cliques.

@_Angelic Gardevoir_ , heh, you know I was thinking that honestly it feels hard to really enjoy social gatherings because they have a tendency to have a lot going on without necessarily having much going for "personal" substance/value. At work today, I was literally thinking, "Thank fuck no one's really talking around me," when I was doing solo shit... because keeping up with everything is exhausting, more than I realize most of the time. There's so much to process, and with parties it can be that times 10.

That said, I was thinking of how social gatherings might be nice for, say, the so/sp instinct, which I think may get the brunt of shit that soc gets in general and for parties, something I think is further magnified with sx-last (OMG ONE-ON-ONE DISCUSSION IS JUST SO MUCH MORE INTENSE AND AWESOME!!!!).

And anyway, so I thought of my on experience with a party. I was at one, and I didn't feel really satisfied (other than food, yay!). What didn't work for me was that it was too impersonal and unspecific. I have no connection really to the party itself and how it was run, or to the people, or the purpose. But even so, I could appreciate just blending in and both existing and not at the same time. Being a part of something, and though small, still contributing to a greater whole. Possibly some 9 in how it manifests, but ultimately getting into the vibes of a gathering and its people and sort of "becoming one" with a bigger, broader thing seems soc. At least to me, because I experience soc that way to some extent.

Anyway bye because my self-pres sucks ass and I'm going to get like 5 hours of sleep, doing 13 hours of work FML 

Someone else pls post. Virtual love for all who answer.


----------



## o0india0o (Mar 17, 2015)

@Lunar Light

I apologize in advance if this is sloppy or incoherent - - I'm working off of very little sleep today.

However, I just wanted to mention that I found this forum thread *highly* intriguing; & interesting food for thought*!*

Being Soc-last, I have such a hard time wrapping my head around the SO-dom experience. So, it's really, really, interesting to hear an SO-dom perspective, and get the inside scoop*!* :smile-new:
I would be very interested in hearing from more SO-dom's on the Personality Cafe forum & their experiences;; & get a bit "inside their heads".

I _do_ think there are less SO-dom's on the Personality Cafe forums;; & that they are a bit more SX-dom saturated (for better or worse). I think that's the biggest reason there are less responses on this thread (though I could be mistaken).

Also, I wanted to make this clear a while back - - as I have posted a post or two with a bit of aggression about SO-dom's. I want to apologize, and want you, and other SO-dom's on the forum to know that I don't dislike SO-dom individuals, & have a lot of respect for those with that particular instinct.

I think as an SO-last, (for me) there is a lot of frustration and struggle with the world at large and belonging in it. I have a lot of good friends that are SO-dom (usually SO/SX) - - but it's hard to find places to vent this particular frustration;; sometimes it feels like society does not value the SX instinct. I don't really have a place for those frustrations besides PerC - - it's the one area that I feel others have experienced similar issues & feel understood.
But, I recognize that could hurt others, so I wanted to apologize for that bit.

Anyways, super interesting forum thread;; & I'm glad you started it*!* :star:


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Honestly, I think you'd get better results just observing types that exert or seek with their social instinct in other contexts. Oddly enough, I don't think that I've ever seen much bonding _about_ the social instinct on this site. I see more bonding _via _the instinct by types with it in their stacking talking about something else, be it other instincts, core types, theories, whatever.

Also there's the minor point that 'social atmosphere' may also be related to other elements of type and there may be people out there with soc 1st or 2nd who don't really base their instinctual response on it that specifically, but eh.

Curious to see if this thread ends up getting any more response.


----------



## Lunar Light (Jun 6, 2013)

o0india0o said:


> @_Lunar Light_
> 
> I apologize in advance if this is sloppy or incoherent - - I'm working off of very little sleep today.


Ugh, I know what that's like . 



> However, I just wanted to mention that I found this forum thread *highly* intriguing; & interesting food for thought*!*
> 
> Being Soc-last, I have such a hard time wrapping my head around the SO-dom experience. So, it's really, really, interesting to hear an SO-dom perspective, and get the inside scoop*!* :smile-new:
> I would be very interested in hearing from more SO-dom's on the Personality Cafe forum & their experiences;; & get a bit "inside their heads".


Yeah, dunno where all the soc types went though. Didn't expect there to be so few responses X_X.



> I _do_ think there are less SO-dom's on the Personality Cafe forums;; & that they are a bit more SX-dom saturated (for better or worse). I think that's the biggest reason there are less responses on this thread (though I could be mistaken).


Well, I'm not exactly sure there are fewer so-dom types on PerC, but I _think_ that there are quite a few who either don't know about ennea or hang out elsewhere, possibly _because_ the ennea forum is more interested in sx. *

EDIT:*Didn't convey that last part that well. That might be a bit of a stretch; mainly I think it might be because the ennea forum may not particularly suit the tastes of a lot of soc types. 

The funny thing that @_Distortions_ and I were talking about is how "social" it actually is in the sx threads because there's such a large following and people seem to support each other because they face the same sort of thing. But as @_Flatlander_ said, I don't really think people bond over soc around here.



> Also, I wanted to make this clear a while back - - as I have posted a post or two with a bit of aggression about SO-dom's. I want to apologize, and want you, and other SO-dom's on the forum to know that I don't dislike SO-dom individuals, & have a lot of respect for those with that particular instinct.


I mean, I think the blindspot can be easy to get frustrated about. I've had some bad experiences being aggressive about sp back when @_enneathusiast_ had a lot of instinct threads going (which I think were much more successful than this thread, hah, and are quite interesting if you want to take a look at those). Some sp types defended themselves well and that was helpful in letting me step back from my bad experiences and whatnot. I think it's cool that you're trying to be open-minded.



> I think as an SO-last, (for me) there is a lot of frustration and struggle with the world at large and belonging in it. I have a lot of good friends that are SO-dom (usually SO/SX) - - but it's hard to find places to vent this particular frustration;; sometimes it feels like society does not value the SX instinct. I don't really have a place for those frustrations besides PerC - - it's the one area that I feel others have experienced similar issues & feel understood.
> But, I recognize that could hurt others, so I wanted to apologize for that bit.


Yeah, that's true. I've been being mean about the sx instinct for a change of pace, but really I'm just exaggerating and I know it. 

I used to get pissed off at all the YA books I read when I was younger which generally already suck, but the "romance" is somehow even worse. Society does seem to value "love" but honestly, given my strong sx myself, how it generally works for people doesn't cut it for me. I know love is definitely not necessarily sx, which I'm pretty sure @_Animal_ has clarified a few times. 

But for me, I want them to come together, love and a real connection / fiery intensity. There is a need for love to come with that. Whether it's friendship or more, I want a connection, and I used to feel so isolated and angry at everyone around me because neither soc nor sx was fulfilled for me. Even when I finally made some friends later on, it just wasn't the same. This is why I can understand how some people here thought I might be sx because there are times where I'm obsessive about this and get frustrated about it more than soc.



> Anyways, super interesting forum thread;; & I'm glad you started it*!* :star:


I'll try to get it going, dude. If anything, I'll try to post some stuff myself. 



Flatlander said:


> Honestly, I think you'd get better results just observing types that exert or seek with their social instinct in other contexts.


, does this not have the bias of 5 detachment though?! (Don't take that too seriously.) Yeah, I do generally emphasize observation and ultimately pay attention to the combination of perspectives I try to consider, but I wanted and hoped that people here would talk about their social instinct because it doesn't happen too often.



> Oddly enough, I don't think that I've ever seen much bonding _about_ the social instinct on this site. I see more bonding _via _the instinct by types with it in their stacking talking about something else, be it other instincts, core types, theories, whatever.


Yeah, it's weird because at least at face value, one would expect that to happen given the nature of the social instinct :|.



> Also there's the minor point that 'social atmosphere' may also be related to other elements of type and there may be people out there with soc 1st or 2nd who don't really base their instinctual response on it that specifically, but eh.


Yeah true.
*
EDIT: *Thought it is worth adding that really, I'm just trying to create a thread where people can give some character to how their soc instinct manifests. It is more specific, which does come with unfortunate consequences (omg barely anyone was posting), but I was hoping that those who would post could shed light on soc.



> Curious to see if this thread ends up getting any more response.


I hope so!


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

@Lunar Light
I love this idea. Subscribing.

I recently retyped as Sx/So - I know you see me as Sx/Sp, and I'm always open to suggestions. But either way - when I have a minute I'll write out my thoughts about this. I'll pass it on as well - love this topic.


----------



## Dyslexicon (Mar 9, 2013)

@Lunar Light, This is a very interesting topic, and I will have to come back to it at a later point. It just got me thinking about how frustrating it really is to be a social instict 9, a frustration I feel inclined to bury with a half smile and a nap. (No, but I'm tired for reals, been up a long time, but I just wanted to say I found a lot of interesting perspectives in this thread and wanted to commit to:








^extra hugs and roses to anyone who gets this.)


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

I love this thread. I love your second post so much. Thank you so much for saying all that, @Lunar Light. 

There _is_ a strong Sx majority presence here and there is much negative stereotyping of the Social instinct. The first and perhaps most challenging misunderstanding is the idea that Social dominants even really understand how their instinct operates or how to consciously wield it. I certainly don't, nor have I encountered anyone else who does. And yet Sx threads and individual Sx dominants will sometimes revile Soc dominants as if there is a Soc dom hegemony, as if we are the Plastics from Mean Girls, intentionally using whatever "advantage" we may have to others' detriment. As if we stand for all that frustrates Sx doms in the world and live to oppress. I think we are used as a scapegoat, unfortunately, in many instances. Perhaps we would shy away from public discussion less if it didn't already feel like a losing battle. 

Moreover, I think the Social instinct is hard to understand, hard to see, hard to talk about. It's big, and complex, and invisible in a lot of ways. It's hard to remove environment from self from specific influences, and I feel that the Soc instinct mediates all of that to some degree. And just in the general world there is not much information that I have found on the Social instinct beyond basic descriptions - so much so that I'm still learning what exactly it means to be a Social dominant, too. I think the most illuminating description I have heard so far is that it is a "herd" instinct. Evolved to help protect and sustain the health and existence of the biological herd. 

I can identify to some extent that I am a Social dominant because I have a sort of "group-oriented" awareness that others don't always seem to focus on, but it's hard to pinpoint beyond that. There is some "status" awareness, but it's not as simple or crass as just "social class". There are many, many, many different layers and complexity in status. There is money status, tax bracket status, intra-career status, business world status, family status, racial/ethnic status... layers within layers within layers. It's almost as if each individual within themselves has an individual set of statuses they could apply. I think the Social instinct helps see which kind of layers people and groups are operating on and how they interact. But that's just one small facet of it. There's a lot to do with interpersonal interaction, too, and how one thing impacts the others. 

Where to even start? 

Maybe by noting I'm Soc/Sx - that might impact much of this. Like @Lunar Light, I feel that I have moderately dominant Soc, strong secondary Sx, and very weak Sp. 

What I have known since birth is a feeling of family. I've always felt strongly and deeply linked to the six-person unit that is my mom, dad, me, my brother, and my maternal grandparents. We feel like a set. I try to keep up with everyone. If anyone is unhealthy or upset, it's hard for me to feel at peace. It's a sort of group-consciousnesss, I guess. It's changed slightly over time. My doctor, who took care of me when I was a very sick young child, is sort of part of that group, though I rarely see her more than once a year any more. I still care for her deeply even though I don't know how she's doing on a daily or even monthly basis. But I have to see at my checkup that she is happy and healthy. It feels essential to my wellbeing. And now I include my boyfriend, too. He's part of my "fundamental unit". I try to make sure I spend time with everyone, try to make sure everyone knows I care about them. Try to help when anyone is down. Try to balance when there is a conflict within the group.

I'm strongly affected by my environment, too. I really deeply identify with it. I grew up in the Southeastern US, in a fairly liberal midsize city. My parents are from NY. My family is culturally fairly Northern, and that's been a tangible issue in my life. I've felt sort of stuck between cultures, the one I'm native to and the one I grew up in. I've felt alienated from both, and at home in both. I wrote a creative writing piece once in college discussing this, because my very Southern suitemates told me I didn't belong, and that was deeply hurtful to me. I feel attached with other groups, too. Like I'm not Catholic by belief but I went to Catholic school and went through CCD and feel affiliated with Catholicism. I feel a strong affiliation with my university. It's not a feeling of disliking or not supporting other groups. It's just some kind of familiarity/affinity, I guess. I don't know. Hard to explain. 

I'm really interested in genealogy. I want to know where my family roots are from, what cultures my ancestors belonged to. I don't really care if they were poor or nobility. I just want to know the kinds of music they listened to, food they ate, clothes they wore, what sort of places they lived in, whether they were in hot deserts or wet moorlands or icy arctic tundra. I know everyone eventually traces back to the same family tree. But I think it's interesting to look at the patterns of how people mixed and travelled and what their cultural milieux were/are.

At work I really tend to see "roles". I always seek out knowledge about roles people play and what the hierarchy - who my boss is, who my boss's boss is, and so on. I think this is impacted by being a 6, also - like who I should listen to when my boss tells me one thing and my boss's boss tells me another. I don't see the roles or hierarchy as a reason to treat anyone poorly; those above have responsibility to protect and represent those below. I just see things in terms of who does what. And I assess personalities and interpersonal compatibility. I juxtapose my understandings of both of those things to reach judgment calls in hard situations. Also I'm surprised sometimes when individuals breach conduct in ways that seem obviously inappropriate to me. Yesterday a fairly new employee said he gave an "executive order" to a very new coworker in a different department who'd asked him a question. Not only should he not be telling an employee in a different department what to do... but he's just beginning to be competent at his own role. I can't imagine what possessed him to think that it would be ok to give this poor new guy instructions...?

The last thing I can think of just off the top of my head right now is of non-groups. I feel some kind of vague bonding with people in general in terms of all being humanity, all being women, or so on. I guess that's sort of Fi-influenced for me, as well. I even feel it with all life on Earth, maybe even all existence, some kind of core resonance and responsibility and belonging and protectiveness, with/for the wellbeing of everything, I guess.

Oh - and being a Soc-dom introvert - is... interesting. It ends up being a lot more about perceiving all of this than interacting in it, I think. 

But I still feel like all these mentions haven't really gotten to the essences of what Soc-dom is. I know it has to do a bit with segmentation and collectives, affinity and affiliation, belonging and including. Sorry this is all kind of jilted and note-like. It's a lot to process. Looking forward to others' thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Lunar Light (Jun 6, 2013)

Animal said:


> @_Lunar Light_
> I love this idea. Subscribing.
> 
> I recently retyped as Sx/So - I know you see me as Sx/Sp, and I'm always open to suggestions. But either way - when I have a minute I'll write out my thoughts about this. I'll pass it on as well - love this topic.


Whether or not you are sx/so, it is interesting to hear how people experience an instinct, so yeah I have no problems with you posting (naturally). I do indeed see you as sx/sp because of your attitude toward groups and how you seem to function in them too. But yeah it would be great to hear from you or @_Sun Daeva_ too.



Dyslexicon said:


> @_Lunar Light_ , This is a very interesting topic, and I will have to come back to it at a later point. It just got me thinking about how frustrating it really is to be a social instict 9, a frustration I feel inclined to bury with a half smile and a nap.


Hi Dizzy! Nice to see you around these parts. I actually thought of you and some other mafia players when I was posting. It would be great to hear about your experience.



> (No, but I'm tired for reals, been up a long time, but I just wanted to say I found a lot of interesting perspectives in this thread and wanted to commit to:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Omg, who couldn't get that? COME ON IT'S MULAN. Anyway, hope you get some more sleep.



angelfish said:


> I love this thread. I love your second post so much. Thank you so much for saying all that, @_Lunar Light_ .


Oh yay, thanks for posting! I like what you've written a lot as well ^_^.



> There _is_ a strong Sx majority presence here and there is much negative stereotyping of the Social instinct. The first and perhaps most challenging misunderstanding is the idea that Social dominants even really understand how their instinct operates or how to consciously wield it. I certainly don't, nor have I encountered anyone else who does. And yet Sx threads and individual Sx dominants will sometimes revile Soc dominants as if there is a Soc dom hegemony, as if we are the Plastics from Mean Girls, intentionally using whatever "advantage" we may have to others' detriment. As if we stand for all that frustrates Sx doms in the world and live to oppress. I think we are used as a scapegoat, unfortunately, in many instances. Perhaps we would shy away from public discussion less if it didn't already feel like a losing battle.


Yeah, I feel you. In general, I don't get people who are rude about a certain type, and label that group as terrible, as if they are all going to be the same. I do feel sympathetic to sx-doms in the real world because I would agree with @_o0india0o_ that it's not really well understood, but at the same time they tend to dominate around here. Based on some of the popular threads and the questions, both soc and sp feel unimportant in comparison. 

This will probably be an unpopular opinion or controversial, but there does seem to be a certain self-absorption to sx types by default because of the nature of sx. And I feel uncomfortable saying that because I have a lot of great sx friends, but sx is at its foundation a ravenous desire for intensity and excitement... and thus, things or people that fulfill that. The other instincts are also looking out for themselves, obviously, but with sx it feels like there are these heightened expectations, a way of saying like "entertain me." It can be invasive, and yet at the same time, flippant and flaky. If you're "boring," you can be easily cast aside and forgotten. I say this, again, as a sx-heavy soc-dom because I'm starting to realize what it can seem like to other people who don't naturally follow sx, and how I myself have been like that.

I don't like to just rip on an instinct, because there are downsides to all, but that has been on my mind and what you wrote reminded me of that, about how it seems like soc types are used as a scapegoat for all that stands in the way of sx types. Honestly, I was telling @_Distortions_ (sorry I keep mentioning you haha) that I was thinking of starting a "stop taking yourself (and type) so seriously" thread, half for jokes, but also because I think it's worth stepping back and considering other perspectives. Like, I'm someone who sees value in people who know how to make fun of themselves. I don't know how to explain, but yeah.



> Moreover, I think the Social instinct is hard to understand, hard to see, hard to talk about. It's big, and complex, and invisible in a lot of ways. It's hard to remove environment from self from specific influences, and I feel that the Soc instinct mediates all of that to some degree.


I agree with this so much. The nature of social instinct makes it big in a way that sx and sp aren't. Like, I relate a lot to how you talk about how there are layers upon layers upon layers, etc., and that was what I was trying to get at too with my first post. I was experiencing the broader contexts of soc in a way I hadn't before because the smaller context had been lost.



> And just in the general world there is not much information that I have found on the Social instinct beyond basic descriptions - so much so that I'm still learning what exactly it means to be a Social dominant, too. I think the most illuminating description I have heard so far is that it is a "herd" instinct. Evolved to help protect and sustain the health and existence of the biological herd.


I'm learning too, and I like to remind myself how much there always is to learn. I've been refining my understanding of soc since I started learning ennea, and I like the knowledge it's given me on a personal level. It made me stop and consider, what do people really mean to me? It was a little difficult to see myself as social at first, but it meant a lot to see that when I did. I made a thread talking about how I felt too sucked into enneagram, and that was true, but I actually do appreciate the initial enlightenment it provided. 

For me, I know I've told @_Animal_ that I experience social instinct, not as just one big circle of people, but as a giant web, with small individual connections, but also larger sections that build up to that whole. My problem with complaints about soc is that it seemed to be about that largest connection, how it's "weak" because it's so broad. In a way it is, but it's about the whole picture for me. It's why individuals matter to me as much as groups... obviously. Strength in both types of connections is important to maintain a good balance. I like giving back to it, but I also appreciate the security it lends to me. Whether a connection is "on" or "off" I appreciate how it all comes together.



> I can identify to some extent that I am a Social dominant because I have a sort of "group-oriented" awareness that others don't always seem to focus on, but it's hard to pinpoint beyond that. There is some "status" awareness, but it's not as simple or crass as just "social class". There are many, many, many different layers and complexity in status. There is money status, tax bracket status, intra-career status, business world status, family status, racial/ethnic status... layers within layers within layers. It's almost as if each individual within themselves has an individual set of statuses they could apply. I think the Social instinct helps see which kind of layers people and groups are operating on and how they interact. But that's just one small facet of it. There's a lot to do with interpersonal interaction, too, and how one thing impacts the others.


Omg, this is great. I know status is one of the things that comes up with social instinct, but it is more complex than that. Paying attention to "status" sounds shallow, but it doesn't necessarily mean you treat anyone differently. It's an understanding of the hierarchy, even if you don't "follow" it, as in believe that there are ways you should treat someone based upon it.



> [snip]I try to make sure I spend time with everyone, try to make sure everyone knows I care about them. Try to help when anyone is down. Try to balance when there is a conflict within the group.


I do this too, even if people aren't particularly close to me... because even if there isn't something specific tying us together, people are still people. It's easy to see a broad connection as weak, as I said earlier, but in some instances it can be really strong. We are all human, and that's basic, but I don't know. I get really moved by humanity sometimes, just as this huge abstract concept. Like any other animal, we're struggling to survive. And taking care of each other in times of struggle, well, how could that be shallow? Obviously in some instances, it's understandable that it's not a big deal. But sometimes it is. Sometimes the most basic things are some of the most influential.



> Where to even start?
> 
> Maybe by noting I'm Soc/Sx - that might impact much of this. Like @_Lunar Light_ , I feel that I have moderately dominant Soc, strong secondary Sx, and very weak Sp.


, if I had to make a pie chart, I'd say my soc is 55, sx is 44.9, and my sp is 0.1% if not less. I have really poor sp. @_Dyslexicon_ could probably join us in the pretty strong sx but poor sp group, heh. 



> [snip]It's not a feeling of disliking or not supporting other groups. It's just some kind of familiarity/affinity, I guess. I don't know. Hard to explain.


I think this is another good point. Like, whatever, the "Plastics" from Mean Girls. They're super exclusive, but soc doesn't have to be. I understand because I hated that in groups. You can pay special attention to people in your group, but still be free to add people to that one... or others. It can be loose.



> I'm really interested in genealogy. I want to know where my family roots are from, what cultures my ancestors belonged to. I don't really care if they were poor or nobility. I just want to know the kinds of music they listened to, food they ate, clothes they wore, what sort of places they lived in, whether they were in hot deserts or wet moorlands or icy arctic tundra. I know everyone eventually traces back to the same family tree. But I think it's interesting to look at the patterns of how people mixed and travelled and what their cultural milieux were/are.


Haha, I used to be interested in this too. I haven't thought about it in a while, but I think I understand. Honestly, Ive always been really, really interested in the human race, starting from the very beginning. Where we started, where we've gone, where we are now, where we're going. There are so many stories out there, and they're so interesting, because in a way lives don't really start or end. They continue with all those affected, who live on, and the others who live on in them. I feel weird saying that, but yeah.



> The last thing I can think of just off the top of my head right now is of non-groups. I feel some kind of vague bonding with people in general in terms of all being humanity, all being women, or so on. I guess that's sort of Fi-influenced for me, as well. I even feel it with all life on Earth, maybe even all existence, some kind of core resonance and responsibility and belonging and protectiveness, with/for the wellbeing of everything, I guess.


Yeah I think I get this, and as I've mentiond here it feels almost ridiculous to identify with something so huge because it's so beyond me, this one person. I'm interested in why you say it's sort of Fi-influenced though.



> Oh - and being a Soc-dom introvert - is... interesting. It ends up being a lot more about perceiving all of this than interacting in it, I think.


Yeah, another good thing to bring up. Soc tends to be associated a lot with Fe, but it is also thought to be more extroverted, which isn't necessarily true. 



> But I still feel like all these mentions haven't really gotten to the essences of what Soc-dom is. I know it has to do a bit with segmentation and collectives, affinity and affiliation, belonging and including. Sorry this is all kind of jilted and note-like. It's a lot to process. Looking forward to others' thoughts on the matter.


I totally empathize with how you feel, but I do think what you wrote was great. I was so excited to respond when I saw your post ^_^


----------



## Dyslexicon (Mar 9, 2013)

@_Lunar Light_, First of all, I find it interesting to read about your experience with "breaking up" with a familiar social atmosphere/environment. You're pointing to something I haven't really payed a whole lot of attention to personally, but when I think about it I can see how much it affects me. I've had the same experience (well, many such experiences naturally) with a certain enovironment dissolving (or me leaving it). Most recently my university class (I studied theatre), a group of people who I particularly enjoyed and identified with (although they were all very different, and probably felt "different" in general). I feel like being part of that environment gave me room to breathe so to speak. To develop my ideas and grow in general. It felt like a very healthy thing for me. Now I don't have this environment anymore, and I've felt pretty lost since. Of course, this is probably due to various factors, but I have articulated for myself that what I really need is starting some sort of collective (can take many forms) of more or less likeminded people (not people who are all alike, but people who work together to a goal (the goal would for me ideally being mostly explorative)). I have sensed my need for some sort of structure, but I haven't had the chance to think of it in the light of my social instinct. So thank you for pointing that link out to me.

@_o0india0o_, I think it's very natural there would be frustrations related to the blindspot. I know for myself that I have a lot of frustration regarding "typical sp-instinct stuff", mostly frustration about how I can't seem to function in this area. It is such a hassle to me even paying attention to basic needs like that, which again can be very impractical in the actual world. 

---

There's also frustrations relating to the dominant fix, but these takes a different form. More over focusing than ignoring, I guess. 

To elaborate on some of the perspectives I see, and what is part of my experience being a soc instinct, I can start with saying that I have just as much of a focus on how I see groups as potentially harmful, if not more focus on this. I'm also very sensitive to people going with a group or a majority just because it is the normal thing to do. I don't know how much of this is related to my instinct, but it could be seen in that light. For example, I'm worried about friends settling down, marrying and starting a family, when I'm not convinced they do this because they want to or because society wants them to, or just without any mindful consideration. The pressure to make families and this being hierarchically "better" is confusing to me, and pushes people who don't choose to live in this way down. 

I saw the use of the terms (can't remember where) "lightside" and "darkside" in regards to the social instinct, where (from memory) lightside pertains to reinforcing norms that is seen as valuable and strengthening groups by supporting and going with it, and darkside pertaining to being more uprooting and challanging.

I've always seen myself as more on the "lightside", but I think this is a misattribution from my side because of my type 9 tendency to avoid conflict. The focus I have on the social realm is more that of challanging and uproot. I like to do things that aren't necessarily accepted (dress differently, ignore gender stereotypes, state more controversial thoughts or perspectives etc). Not to destroy a social atmosphere, but to get to the bottom of what _really _connects us. I don't think one _should_ have to dress a particular way to be accepted for example, so if I challange that, what happens to the social atmosphere? Maybe we discover something? If I can't get a job because my hair is bright red, then I think that is a problem. I actually wish I had the balls to be even more challanging than I am, but my god damn type 9 conflict avoidance, politeness and merging gets the better of me most of the time. :tongue:

I actually don't have the focus on my own family that @_angelfish_ seems to describe. I have more of a network of structures that in the end constitutes what I see as my family, but the unity is limited to "the special bond" that we have just because we are family, there are many more groups within groups and different relations within it. Maybe this is a manifistation of my 9 fix and the various different perspective I take on. I think @_Lunar Light_ said it well here:


Lunar Light said:


> For me, I know I've told @_Animal_ that I experience social instinct, not as just one big circle of people, but as a giant web, with small individual connections, but also larger sections that build up to that whole.


Regarding "status" I feel I'm accutely aware of different hierarchical structures within different groups. I can predict who's seen as the ones with the better ideas, who's seen as the leaders etc. How one would acts upon this awareness can vary greatly. 

The last perspective I want to touch on is that of "fitting in". I haven't payed close attention to "soc instinct stereotypes", but I definitely don't think it's accurate to view them as naturally in tune with "most people" or being able to fit in better. Personally I have huge problems feeling like I ever fit in anywhere (maybe hightened by my other typings). On the contrary I think it can be a huge frustration if you are accutely aware of social structures that you don't agree with or don't fit in with, but you still want a sense of belonging. I tend to seek belonging in groups (losely organised or more structured) that has some sort of commonality in regards to ideals and ideas, or intellectual or artistic common interests. 




Flatlander said:


> Oddly enough, I don't think that I've ever seen much bonding _about_ the social instinct on this site.


This is interesting. I don't know if I have any well developed thoughts on this, but that is an interesting observation. I can imagine that a hypothetical group of all social instincts on this forum would be a group with a pretty high disparity in how they relate to (or don't relate to) different groups, society and where their focus lies. And since this is something that is felt strongly for the types, that would be a chaotic and potentially uncomfortable situation. So, paradoxically (but not really), maybe the social instinct "group" would be the least unified of them all. :kitteh:



> , if I had to make a pie chart, I'd say my soc is 55, sx is 44.9, and my sp is 0.1% if not less. I have really poor sp. @_Dyslexicon_ could probably join us in the pretty strong sx but poor sp group, heh.


Oh yes. Strong soc and sx, and virtually no sp. Add my other typings, and I would expect a round of applause for not yet living on the streets. :laughing:



> I think this is another good point. Like, whatever, the "Plastics" from Mean Girls. They're super exclusive, but soc doesn't have to be. I understand because I hated that in groups. You can pay special attention to people in your group, but still be free to add people to that one... or others. It can be loose.












(Random edit: Taking "Mean Girls" as an example (cause it's obviously the best movie reference to illustrate any point :3) I could see Janis as just as much of a social instinct as the mean girls. And the mean girls could want to attain the social status because of other drives, like Gretchen's could be argued in a sx attachment to Regina, and Regina herself could be sp driven to cover her bases and be safe, get what she wants etc. Who knows, it's the interior that counts. It's hard to say how it would look.)


----------



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

Lunar Light said:


> Honestly, I was telling @_Distortions_ (sorry I keep mentioning you haha) that I was thinking of starting a "stop taking yourself (and type) so seriously" thread, half for jokes, but also because I think it's worth stepping back and considering other perspectives.


No problem. I've been thinking of responding to the thread, but it's taking effort to formulate my thoughts properly.

And yeah, such a thread could be fun. =P


----------



## Parrot (Feb 22, 2015)

@Lunar Light I am social first and I have trouble understanding it, right now. In some ways it seems Fe or extroverted. Also, social dom seems to be the least common behind sp first and sx second. I guess to understand it I'll consider what I perceived as a child.

I've always paid attention to labeling and categorizing. In kindergarten, I remember running around with a group of boys and thinking about each of our roles. One kid, Steven, was the leader and we all followed him. I see black people and categorize them as black people. I don't judge them, but socially they are black and in the black community. In high school, I labeled people based on their cliques. If someone was a "theatre kid" or "jock" I'd still talk to them, but I differentiated them on those labels. I remember noticing that if a popular kid made the same joke as me, they'd get more laughs. In college, I joined a fraternity. I internally viewed people through their affiliation "I'm talking to an ADPi" or "This guy is a Sigma Chi".

I guess social first pays attention to affiliation and group identity. I remember being fascinated by Social Identity Theory and favored sociology over psychology. My attraction to typology was often so that I could label others and group them. From there, I observe traits and behavior such as "This ENFP says this because of this". The ENFP label is important to me which is why I try and label everyone I meet. I'd surmise the people who'd say things like "Why does it matter what my label is, don't put people into boxes" are probably sp/sx or sx/sp. I enjoy categorizing people and I don't see why that is a problem.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Right now, I'm struggling with identifying the Social instinct for myself, since I might actually be Social last instead of Social second, which is how I previously typed.

I can, however, try to explain how my mother's Social instinct works.
She's a Social/Sexual 2. ESFP, if that matters.

My mother *loves* the Italian culture, because they're family-focused, with _"La Mama"_ as the center of the "clan", sort of speak. Everyone gathers around to tell stories and share food, but "_La Mama"_ is untouchable, she is in control; everybody listens to her (that's Social 2 for you).
She loves thinking about her family, and seeing us all be together. She often talks about, that when her parents were still alive, how the whole family would come together once a week and share their lives with one another. It's one of her biggest griefs that this doesn't happen anymore.

One of her favorite animals is the elephant. Can you guess why? 

* *





*Social organisation*


A family of African elephants: note the protected position of the calves in the middle of the group​


A family of elephants bathing, a behaviour which reinforces social bonding​

Female elephants spend their entire lives in tight-knit matrilineal family groups, some of which are made up of more than ten members, including three pairs of mothers with offspring, and are led by the matriarch which is often the eldest female.[SUP][107][/SUP] She remains leader of the group until death[SUP][17][/SUP] or if she no longer has the energy for the role;[SUP][108][/SUP] a study on zoo elephants showed that when the matriarch died, the levels of faecal corticosterone ('stress hormone') dramatically increased in the surviving elephants.[SUP][109][/SUP] When her tenure is over, the matriarch's eldest daughter takes her place; this occurs even if her sister is present.[SUP][17][/SUP] The older matriarchs tend to be more effective decision-makers.[SUP][110][/SUP]
The social circle of the female elephant does not necessarily end with the small family unit. In the case of elephants in Amboseli National Park, Kenya, a female's life involves interaction with other families, clans, and subpopulations. Families may associate and bond with each other, forming what are known as bond groups. These are typically made of two family groups. During the dry season, elephant families may cluster together and form another level of social organisation known as the clan. Groups within these clans do not form strong bonds, but they defend their dry-season ranges against other clans. There are typically nine groups in a clan. The Amboseli elephant population is further divided into the "central" and "peripheral" subpopulations.[SUP][107][/SUP]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant#Behaviour_and_life_history

Yeah, the social is strong in this one.. 

When I was trying to figure out the instinctual stackings of my family members, I asked my mother one simple question; "Do you perceive social groups?"
Her answer was golden; "Oh yes, I see our family as a group, which in turn is a smaller group of the larger family-unit. And with friends, I see the connections between them, as in, separate groups that I can choose to mix or keep separate."

The biggest frustration she has with both me and my father, is that we both seem to not care at all about any sense of 'cohesive family' or keeping in touch. Well.. she's not wrong. My father is Sp/Sx, and I am Sx/Sp. She must feel so alone with this. Then again, she has the rest of the family to 'indulge'.
I do often wonder how she and my father work. Social first + Social last makes my brain hurt.

So yeah, I see the Social instinct as quite a complex system, through which one can navigate groups and other ways of relating to people (unconsciously most of the time, just like the other instincts.) Very layered and 'insider-outsider'-oriented. *Bonding *is a strong theme too, which might be confused for the Sexual instinct.


----------



## Philathea (Feb 16, 2015)

Drunk Parrot said:


> [MENTION=63644] I'd surmise the people who'd say things like "Why does it matter what my label is, don't put people into boxes" are probably sp/sx or sx/sp. I enjoy categorizing people and I don't see why that is a problem.


I am a social dom and I don't do this. Not that there is really anything wrong with it, but I feel as though the categorizing comes with assumptions about the person that may not be true.

I'm a type 4 so/sp. I've been wanting to respond to this thread to put in my two cents but the more I think about it, the more confused I am by my own instinct!

Social cues come naturally to me. Even as an awkward withdrawn type (haha). I can tell when someone is feeling offended or getting uncomfortable or wants to leave and doesn't know how to say it. It is something _obvious_- it feels like this innate awareness but I know that it comes from years of being a social-dom and having an intense awareness of other people. We've probably all been in the position when someone around us just has no idea how much they should stop talking.. so cringe-worthy.

I get second-hand embarrassment. It's hard for me to even watch _tv-shows_ when someone does something so painfully embarrassing. Even watching plays can be hard, because if any of the performers mess up it's like I get embarrassed _for_ them.. yeah I know I have a problem :laughing:

I do not associate myself with groups very much, that I'm aware of. Maybe some types are more prone to do this than others. As a 4, I can easily associate myself with humanity in a vague sense (and I do feel this special connection to humanity in a way I think others may not), but when it comes to actual specific groups I am reluctant to see myself as anything but my own person, separate from anything else.. I tend to feel as though I'm drifting along with a group, but not actually a part of them. However, the intense awareness of others is always there. I know everyones names, everyones faces, what they do, etc.

EDIT: just remembered something. I don't think most so-lasters do this, but my sp/sx friend will talk about very personal things without really caring that there are people nearby. Recently we were talking and she was saying the raunchiest things and there were all these sweet little old people nearby and it was just.. :shocked:!!


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Drunk Parrot said:


> I guess social first pays attention to affiliation and group identity. I remember being fascinated by Social Identity Theory and favored sociology over psychology. My attraction to typology was often so that I could label others and group them. From there, I observe traits and behavior such as "This ENFP says this because of this". The ENFP label is important to me which is why I try and label everyone I meet. I'd surmise the people who'd say things like "Why does it matter what my label is, don't put people into boxes" are probably sp/sx or sx/sp. I enjoy categorizing people and I don't see why that is a problem.





Philathea said:


> I am a social dom and I don't do this. Not that there is really anything wrong with it, but I feel as though the categorizing comes with assumptions about the person that may not be true.


Might this be the difference between Ti and Fi instead?
Because, I'm likely Social last, yet still find myself categorizing and labeling people in a similar fashion. Though I'm not as concerned about social identity, and instead focus more on the archetypal patterns that connects and separates individuals, based on character and personality, rather than role.
And I have often heard from people with Fi as their leading function, that they find this too limiting of individual expression, and that indeed, it assumes too much.

So this might not be related to the Social instinct.


----------



## Gilly (Apr 22, 2012)

Zomg. Gonna go with tl;dr.
I read some, will read more later.
I have no idea if I'm sx/so or so/sx. I feel like they tie for me.

I do not understand any negative stereotype.. 

I think where *so* may come off badly to someone with *sp*, the opposite is also true.
*so* = mindless drones then *sp* = selfish assholes?

Not saying I think this is true, but I think if people want to hate, and merely skim the surface then an sx/so(so/sx) combo against a sp/sx(sx/sp) combo may just rub each other the wrong way?




My brain is mush. I should not be posting anything today.
./sob


----------



## Parrot (Feb 22, 2015)

Philathea said:


> Social cues come naturally to me. Even as an awkward withdrawn type (haha). I can tell when someone is feeling offended or getting uncomfortable or wants to leave and doesn't know how to say it. It is something _obvious_- it feels like this innate awareness but I know that it comes from years of being a social-dom and having an intense awareness of other people. We've probably all been in the position when someone around us just has no idea how much they should stop talking.. so cringe-worthy.


That's funny. I'm not exactly the empathetic type but it's like I instinctively hate watching someone embarrass themselves. If I'm out in public, and I see a girl with a great ass, I'll double take but I'll do it discreetly in order to be polite. After all, dat ass demands a look, but I don't want to be perceived as a creeper. 



> EDIT: just remembered something. I don't think most so-lasters do this, but my sp/sx friend will talk about very personal things without really caring that there are people nearby. Recently we were talking and she was saying the raunchiest things and there were all these sweet little old people nearby and it was just.. !!


I might act like your friend, sometimes, but it's always deliberate. I'm fully aware of the environment and I'm trying to shake it up. I guess being social first doesn't guarantee that we'd always follow societal rules, but we'd certainly be aware of them. With Ne dom, I can create hypothetical scenarios of how a group might respond and with type 7, I can definitely entertain a crowd.

@Sun Daeva categorization is very much a thinker trait. Ti is much more objective while Te judges the category. I guess Ti w/so means my categories are all about lumping into societal roles. I'm more likely to "box" people into a group rather than into their own individual label.


----------



## Lunar Light (Jun 6, 2013)

Dyslexicon said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Omg hi, your post is great. Yeah, I really identify with what you've added. I agree that there are probably other factors involved, and the same is definitely true for me, but yeah, I have felt lost without structure. 



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, this is really good to bring up. This is the funny thing; sometimes there have been times where people complain about social stuff, and like, I fucking _understand_, man. I hate that shit too. But, I think what may be different is that for me, it may be because I have higher standards (because I care), whereas the others are just dissatisfied because it's something they wouldn't really want to be a part of their lives, regardless of how it manifests.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's really interesting. I'm not sure I experience that in the exact same way, but I think I understand it. TBH, I think part of being sensitive to people going with a group is Fi vs Fe for me. I used to have a strong, strong aversion to Fe and I think actually considering and caring about the value of commonly followed standards is more Fe than soc. I think I realized when I was trying to explain to @_o0india0o_ something at some point that I think one of the main differences I've found between Fe and soc is that Fe generally seems to feel an obligation to these social expectations, whereas social types may just observe and perceive them. Because I know I follow stuff that's happening, but I remain obsessively individualistic at times. The line can be fine at times though, but from how you're talking about it, it does seem pretty soc, though I'm not sure how Fe factors in.



> I saw the use of the terms (can't remember where) "lightside" and "darkside" in regards to the social instinct, where (from memory) lightside pertains to reinforcing norms that is seen as valuable and strengthening groups by supporting and going with it, and darkside pertaining to being more uprooting and challanging.


Oh cool. I have seen lightside and darkside used to describe social instinct, but specifically so/sx and the level of "sx" that those so/sx types identified with, darkside being sx-heavy so/sx types. 



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, again that's really interesting, and it does sound pretty soc to me.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't have such a focus on my family either. I do think it's a possible manifestation of soc, but at the same time I have to admit when I read it, the way @_angelfish_ seemed to take care of her family seemed pretty sp, though it did seem like it was quite possible that it stemmed from a soc concern. Also yay, I was quoted.



> The last perspective I want to touch on is that of "fitting in". I haven't payed close attention to "soc instinct stereotypes", but I definitely don't think it's accurate to view them as naturally in tune with "most people" or being able to fit in better.


I feel weird about this, because I feel like I do tune into people and identify with a lot, and yet feel like an outcast at the same time. I understand a lot of perspectives and sometimes strongly relate, and yet oftentimes these structures don't genuinely fit _me_. I'm still an alien, even when I get on with so many people and so many "groups." I had this problem in high school, where I was sort of part of every "group" but I didn't have one to truly call my own. I was everywhere and nowhere at the same time, with the floating.



> Oh yes. Strong soc and sx, and virtually no sp. Add my other typings, and I would expect a round of applause for not yet living on the streets. :laughing:


Omg, you'd think I'd do better, but I'm actually so shit. Like, I'm a 6... like, I should have anxiety over threats to my survival and security. BUT I DON'T. Not really at all. I basically have most of the disadvantages of being 6 (high strung and anxious) with barely any of the benefits. Even if it did bother me, I would just end up crying and flailing which actually wouldn't solve anything, but just make me more incapable and useless. Or maybe I wouldn't cry, but like, I'd forget about it at the end of the day because I'd be like "WELL IT WASN'T THAT BAD!!" because I would end up brushing off the discomfort if it weren't REALLY major. Poor Si also helps with not really committing bad experiences to memory. And my 1 is busy getting super pissed off at abstract concepts and trends, not about perfecting my living standards. SO, yeah.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't even respond to this because I watched Mean Girls, and maybe the clique-y shit was meant ironically, but I refused to take it that way and I just got super mad at that movie and barely remember anything except for being annoyed by the BS. SO... :|



Drunk Parrot said:


> @_Lunar Light_ I am social first and I have trouble understanding it, right now. In some ways it seems Fe or extroverted. Also, social dom seems to be the least common behind sp first and sx second. I guess to understand it I'll consider what I perceived as a child.


I won't deny that it can seem and actually be that way sometimes, but I just wouldn't say it necessarily is. Again, not sure that social dom seems to be least common overall, but it kind of seems like that on the ennea forum.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The thing is, I *can* see this as a manifestation of social instinct, but I don't follow that at all personally. Like, I do the opposite. I HATE labels, because I feel like it takes away the complexity of people. It reduces them to that label, and just to use it as a placeholder seems to in principle feel demeaning because of how it takes away the little details that make people people. I have to say that it is interesting how you argue for categorization because I just haven't considered that, and I do think @_Sun Daeva_ could be right in how it ties into Ti. Honestly, it could be Fi for me, but at the same time I feel like it's because I'm soc that I care about group labeling. Instincts are funny like that.




Sun Daeva said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Probably will respond later but I'm currently losing out on sleep trying to respond faster than I did last week. I didn't even really think of bringing up how social instinct manifests in family, but to write something brief:

My mother is very clearly sp-dom, with secondary soc instinct. I think what I wrote earlier about how so/sp may just appreciate the feel of people around and the vibes can also apply to sp/so, because that works with my mother. She never likes really getting close to people because she seriously thinks closeness brings about unnecessary problems and stresses because of how you have to keep up with these people, which is hard because she wants to devote a lot of attention to sustaining herself as sp-dom, and she doesn't feel like she adequately does that already. She does want to interact, but mainly in a way that's very loose and doesn't take her attention away from herself or family. My mom definitely has weak sx, but yeah.



Philathea said:


> I am a social dom and I don't do this. Not that there is really anything wrong with it, but I feel as though the categorizing comes with assumptions about the person that may not be true.


This basically ^^^



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Omg no, this is me too. I get embarrassed for everyone. I feel bad for them too. I have friends who have no problem just laughing at people, but I just feel awful most of the time.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, from what you've said, that does seem social. Keeping up, even just with people's names, faces. I had a long socially "introverted" phase, and I was just coming out of that when I was looking into ennea, so seeing social was a little weird when considering my past, but then I remembered how I always kept up with almost _everyone_, even if I barely interacted with them. I remembered the little details and how they fit in with the whole, and people especially didn't expect this of me, but yeah, I did.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gonna be honest here, I do this on purpose sometimes because I think it's hilarious to be inappropriate. Even though I know so well that it's so wrong. Like, half the time I feel like I just rebel against my own standards, and I don't know how to explain that. It's why I can appreciate some so-last and also Fe-weak types.

Anyway I need to go, so more responses later


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

Philathea said:


> I get second-hand embarrassment. It's hard for me to even watch _tv-shows_ when someone does something so painfully embarrassing. Even watching plays can be hard, because if any of the performers mess up it's like I get embarrassed _for_ them.. yeah I know I have a problem :laughing:


LOL ME TOO. I never could watch TV shows with embarrassing moments because I felt it so intensely! I would bury my head in the couch when I was watching with other family members. 



> I don't think most so-lasters do this, but my sp/sx friend will talk about very personal things without really caring that there are people nearby. Recently we were talking and she was saying the raunchiest things and there were all these sweet little old people nearby and it was just.. :shocked:!!


Haaaaa. If I'm not mistaken this is often a sx-first thing! My brother's sx/so girlfriend and my good sx/sp friend are both totally notorious for this. The other day I was at work when aforementioned sx/sp friend was visiting and told me - quite loudly - about her sexual exploits in front of a customer. I was off my shift at that point so I didn't worry about it but it did make me laugh quite a bit. My sx/sp brother himself also was just telling me yesterday about how he went to a local burger restaurant and said "asshole" loudly in front of the young kids at a nearby table. The waitress snapped at him and asked him to move to a different table - to which he responded, "Sure, I'll move, maybe there will be less jerky staff in this section!" :laughing:

(My own perspective on it is that while I typically avoid "provocative" public discussion myself, for my own personal comfort, I don't think people should have to censor themselves beyond basic courtesy for others' sakes. And of course context matters. The burger restaurant isn't exactly a place that caters to children, so I found the waitress a bit ridiculous. Whereas it would be different at an explicitly family-oriented restaurant.)



Sun Daeva said:


> Might this be the difference between Ti and Fi instead? [...]
> And I have often heard from people with Fi as their leading function, that they find this too limiting of individual expression, and that indeed, it assumes too much.


Well, my ISFJ boyfriend dislikes the categorizations and my INFP self loves to categorize (with the understood assumption that categorization can never adequately describe all nuances of an individual or group). My ISTP brother is moderately interested. My INTP dad and ESFJ mom aren't into it. My ENFJ friend is. 

This one is seeming more and more like a personal, not-personality type-correlated thing.



Lunar Light said:


> I don't have such a focus on my family either. I do think it's a possible manifestation of soc, but at the same time I have to admit when I read it, the way @angelfish seemed to take care of her family seemed pretty sp, though it did seem like it was quite possible that it stemmed from a soc concern. Also yay, I was quoted.


In general it seems that my nuclear family is much more close-knit than many, as far as I can tell from just life. My parents are both sp-dom: Mom is ESFJ 2w1 sp/so and Dad is INTP 5w6 sp/sx. My brother is ISTP 9w8 sx/sp. And me, INFP 6w7 so/sx. I have not figured out how or why we have bonded so closely - when I was little, I thought every family was like this. For a while I thought it was my soc/sxness, but that doesn't seem to explain it, either, though of course the way I perceive caring for my family is through a soc/sx lens.


----------



## Gorgon (Feb 16, 2015)

So-doms have this interpersonal and transpersonal intelligence that the other instincts lack. I liken them to chessmasters: they know the intra- and interrelational dynamics betweens systems (people, groups, politics, or any complex body). They understand the implications of adding or substracting elements within a system, as well as how the manipulation of a variable will effect the ecosystem. So-doms are inherently systems thinkers whether they realize that or not. I also think they're good at juggling multiple perspectives or at least have an inclination towards that. Of course, the level of finesse of these abilities differs from person to person. 

I'm sx/so so I do track the social realm but not to the extent to which so-doms do. I've always been interested in philosophy, radical politics, feminism, and to a smaller degree, religion and spirituality. While so-doms try to adapt, change, or rebel against the social realm, I want to imprint on it or leave a mark. I'm less interested in group affiliation than I am about making a personal statement about the way things are and challenging the status quo. I'm extremely critical and belligerent towards the predominate cultural paradigm; I have an antisocial streak and a passion for protest and rebellion (very contraflow). I want to be a therapist and a professor as a way to both connect with others and to overturn current modes of thought. A revolution in consciousness must first be set in motion and then everything will precipitate from there. 

In group settings, it's easy for me dominate the scene. While i'm very rarely the leader, I am the energetic center of the group. But most of the time I keep to myself. I'm very much a loner which is why I thought I was so-last all these years.


----------



## Sonny (Oct 14, 2008)

In general, I find people speaking about their blind spot have a warped perspective of what that instinct is all about, because the traits they retain or value are not seen as part of the instinct, only the superficial or "visual" aspects of what they dislike or do not value are assigned to the instinct, and motivations, etc. are ignored. I consider this least visible with Sx as it seems to be idealised, average with Sp, and worst with So. But no matter how many times it's explained what So means from the perspective of a So dom there remains people who insist that they dislike So because of the need to party, gossip, and [whatever other shallow trait they erroneously associate with So].

It's simply about the passion of the type mixing with the preoccupation of the instinct, for me as a 9 is the Holy Love - not feeling accepted to be myself - mixed with a preoccupation to belong or focus on groups. No matter what 'group' environment I am drawn to, I will invariably pull away at some stage because it's super hard to remain in an environment where you want to feel as though you belong, yet do not. I'm always checking my place in the group and how valued/wanted I feel, often the absence of positive signs is taken as a negative sign, and sometimes even positive signs are not easy for me to accept. The initial stages of a new group are the best, that's when there's the most potential to meet my (likely un-meetable) need. The groups I seek are ones where the mutual connections feel authentic, deep and contain a camaraderie that overcomes difficulties, the easiest ways to seek out these groups are through common interests. I do have an instinctive preference for more than 1 other person here, to spread myself around multiple peoples in a group, spending time one-on-one is either shallow and unfulfilling, feels as though I'm missing out on other connections, or it triggers my Sx needs to burrow inside their heads and know them intimately.

One of the ways I have grown to deal with that push-pull desire to be with people and withdraw from people is by keeping groups at arms length, going when I want the social interaction yet not investing much, and seeking to have a number of different groups I can socialise with so if I'm feeling unwanted with one I can go somewhere else and so that I don't burn out with overinvestment. I also try to use the Sx instinct to connect to individuals who can be consistent as opposed to groups that will change.

When I was younger, in true E9 So style, my approach was to work to 'buy' my position in a community, by joining committees, putting in more than anyone else in order to feel as though I was valued, to be known as someone who was working for the group goals, yet not wanting any accolades for it. I was someone who would have something different on pretty much every night of the week, my main thing was sports, I played 7 different team sports over a summer/winter period, and volunteered my time on a number of committees. After sports it was professional groups. I prefer my current way of dealing with the So stuff, less time consuming!

I think the most visible way that I'm So dom is with my understanding of etiquette, not as in how to behave in a gentlemanly manner, but as in instinctively understanding how the words/behaviour of one can impact on the community, I dislike when people disregard the community around them in ways that can damage it. I am also a Fe type so it links in with that some. It's not that the group is more important than an individual, however as the group is made up of other individuals, I do not think it is less important as harming the group will likely cause harm to the individuals in it.


----------



## .17485 (Jan 12, 2011)

I'm a SO/SP. For a while I felt I was sexual first. 

I never related to being a Social first because I didn't seem social. Einstein was a Social first and was an Introvert. Reading the descriptions I seem like a Social first. I don't seem as intimate if I was Sexual first. 

Sexual would be my blindspot. I read Sexual-lasts tend to have some issues with addiction to something because Sexual is last.


----------



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

Tega1 said:


> Sexual would be my blindspot. I read Sexual-lasts tend to have some issues with addiction to something because Sexual is last.


Issues in what way?


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Philathea said:


> *I get second-hand embarrassment. It's hard for me to even watch tv-shows when someone does something so painfully embarrassing. Even watching plays can be hard, because if any of the performers mess up it's like I get embarrassed for them.. yeah I know I have a problem* :laughing:


 @_angelfish_

ACK! I do this too! I thought this was one of those personal idiosyncrasies nobody else would possibly understand. How does one express an anxiety one has for characters and situations one sees on shows and movies? I feel so much better now knowing I'm not alone! :kitteh:


----------



## .17485 (Jan 12, 2011)

Distortions said:


> Issues in what way?


Workaholism, gambling, betting, sports addictions, hobby addictions, food addictions, consumerism, joining secret or priviledged clubs or societies (ie. Knights of Columbus), collecting (ie. car collectors), amassing, playing the stock market...anything that has a 'pay off' high and sexual like thrill to it. 

It can also take the form of hidden sexual addictions like visiting strip clubs, prostitutes etc.


----------



## ScientiaOmnisEst (Oct 2, 2013)

I think I'm a social-dom, probably so/sp. 

First, I experience a kind of second-hand embarrassment too. Mine is a little more selective, but I have a hard time understanding how people can just laugh at someone. 

Something @Sonny brought up that resonated with me: etiquette. As in proper behavior. This was actually something that made me type as a Feeler in MBTI, I basically intuit manners and social norms. As a child I was almost archaically polite, a combination of social intuition, parental guidance, and reading old books. I've loosened up considerably since, but there are still some modern informalities I'm not totally comfortable with - ubiquitous use of first names being the most common. That aside, blatant disrespect and insensitivity to another person or group for no reason ticks me off. It is possible to be truthful without bing an asshole.

I've never been a joiner, or much one for paying my way into a group. Actually, I've never been very involved in groups at all - just watching on the side and evaluating that I'm not a for for the group. For me, I think my So manifests heavily in a kind of hierarchical thinking: who's on top, who dominates, who and what are better or worse, and how to cope with that if you're in a less ideal position. It can get insane and unhealthy, as some of PerC has seen. Basically I look at a lot of things in terms of better/worse, constant comparing.


----------



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

@Tega1
Oh, I meant in what way. Like they can be prone to addiction?


----------



## Gorgon (Feb 16, 2015)

I think there are more so-doms and so-secondaries on this forum than others care to realize. There's a hesitation in typing oneself as such because of the misconceptions and misunderstandings as everyone has mentioned. There's a lot of overindentification with the sx instinct because of it's overglamorization by others and even by the literature. Even the downsides of the sx instinct are seen as sexy and edgy.

IMO I think the best way to determine your instinct is to first find your core type, and then see what triggers you the most in ways that pertain to your type. The second instinct is typically the instinct that gives you the least trouble. That said, we utilize all the instincts and sometimes our blindspot might not even look like a blindspot depending on how well integrated our instincts are.


----------



## Gorgon (Feb 16, 2015)

Overall, there's a lot of misconceptions about all the instincts (but especially the social instinct). There's a tendency to look at the instincts too concretely and one-dimensionally, i.e

You're a conformist and care about what others think about you, therefore you're so-dom
You care about comfort and security, therefore you're sp-dom
You're "intense" therefore you're sx-dom


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

Thanatesque said:


> So-doms have this interpersonal and transpersonal intelligence that the other instincts lack. I liken them to chessmasters: they know the intra- and interrelational dynamics betweens systems (people, groups, politics, or any complex body). They understand the implications of adding or substracting elements within a system, as well as how the manipulation of a variable will effect the ecosystem. So-doms are inherently systems thinkers whether they realize that or not. I also think they're good at juggling multiple perspectives or at least have an inclination towards that. Of course, the level of finesse of these abilities differs from person to person.


I find it interesting to read this perspective from another 5w4 with so in their stacking because it's close to the way I experience the instinct in myself. It's quite simply an innate analytical orientation toward and sensitivity to social systems, and a drive to fulfill a useful (in my case very knowledge-contingent and self-determined) role within a large-scale social system. 

You can attribute it to my being a 5, to my being an introvert, an NT or an INTJ, but my actual engagement with such systems is primarily and for large spans of time can entirely be removed/theoretic. The "group" I'm ultimately driven to fulfill a role in/for is essentially All Humanity (sounds far-falutin', I know) because so many of the internal distinctions we make are not valid to me. In terms of my day-to-day behavior I probably appear far _less_ tribal than most people do - including the sx and sp folks I know - although I can be more disdainful than many NTs are of what I see as socially destructive behavior. I actually have an ironic memory of an sx acquaintance exclaiming "God, baitedcrow, can't you group think just for once?" at me when I was putting the kibosh on some dogpiling people were doing, and in general I can't even say I actually find the so people I've known any more likely to play "Mean Girl" than the sx and sp people. The big difference is whether the person is able to readily see the dynamics at play: what they do with what they see is up to them, and being insensitive or naive to social dynamics does not make you immune to being influenced by them.

Anyway, for me, the so drive to be useful socially has resulted in my operating philosophically and practically on humanistic/utilitarian values by default, despite the fact that I have no illusions about their objectivity. (I have no illusions about the objectivity of operant values that are mostly self-serving, either, though - unfortunately I find that many people do.) My sensitivity to social dynamics combined with my predictably not-effortlessly-good social skills have tended to result in my being, in many ways, even more reclusive than most 5s are. I see all of the petty and not-so-petty, rational and not-so-rational politics of whatever social situation I'm in, but doubt my ability to handle them gracefully on the fly and also have a certain removed distaste for many of them, so I am extraordinarily socially selective and avoidant. They even make me self-conscious in a way that is at odds with the rest of my personality, which causes its own discomfort. It really emphasizes the 5 tendency toward being vulnerable to social overload - I'd probably be more participative if I were more socially knuckleheaded.

But on the bright side, my ability and inclination to read and analyze social dynamics in what is furthermore a rather abstract, detached an unemotional way is very often the basis of the contributions I'm able to make to the groups I believe I should contribute to.


----------



## .17485 (Jan 12, 2011)

Distortions said:


> @Tega1
> Oh, I meant in what way. Like they can be prone to addiction?


I think they can Social firsts. I read John F Kennedy was So/sp and psychologists consider him a Sex addict.


----------



## Gorgon (Feb 16, 2015)

@Sonny's post got me wondering: do so-secondaries and so-lasters tend to look at the social instinct/realm in a more abstract and detached way than so-doms? I feel like so-doms feel more embedded in that arena (well yeah). It's more tangible and obvious to them. Compare my explanation to his: my explanation (the first paragraph of my first post) was more general and detached, while his was more tangible and showed greater embeddedness in the social instinct. I navigate and filter the world through the sexual instinct and my social instinct is also filtered through those lenses. Unlike him and other so-doms, I don't always pick up the things that they're attuned to since my primary instinct can lead to a myopic focus in that regard. 

I hope I'm making sense.


----------



## Sonny (Oct 14, 2008)

Thanatesque said:


> @Sonny's post got me wondering: do so-secondaries and so-lasters tend to look at the social instinct/realm in a more abstract and detached way than so-doms? I feel like so-doms feel more embedded in that arena (well yeah). It's more tangible and obvious to them. Compare my explanation to his: my explanation (the first paragraph of my first post) was more general and detached, while his was more tangible and showed greater embeddedness in the social instinct. I navigate and filter the world through the sexual instinct and my social instinct is also filtered through those lenses. Unlike him and other so-doms, I don't always pick up the things that they're attuned to since my primary instinct can lead to a myopic focus in that regard.
> 
> I hope I'm making sense.


I thought the below post articulated things quite well, so there was no need to add to it XD

The difference, as I see it, is that as my primary instinct it can be imbalanced, my Sx is much less problematic, having access to information about my type, and a desire for self improvement, this means my preoccupation is a conscious one. To put it simply; I've analysed the shit out of my reactions/motivations and can give a concrete perspective on things that would otherwise be more abstract.



Thanatesque said:


> So-doms have this interpersonal and transpersonal intelligence that the other instincts lack. I liken them to chessmasters: they know the intra- and interrelational dynamics betweens systems (people, groups, politics, or any complex body). They understand the implications of adding or substracting elements within a system, as well as how the manipulation of a variable will effect the ecosystem. So-doms are inherently systems thinkers whether they realize that or not. I also think they're good at juggling multiple perspectives or at least have an inclination towards that. Of course, the level of finesse of these abilities differs from person to person.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Sonny said:


> I think the most visible way that I'm So dom is with my understanding of etiquette, not as in how to behave in a gentlemanly manner, but as in instinctively understanding how the words/behaviour of one can impact on the community, *I dislike when people disregard the community around them in ways that can damage it*. I am also a Fe type so it links in with that some. It's not that the group is more important than an individual, however as the group is made up of other individuals, *I do not think it is less important as harming the group will likely cause harm to the individuals in it.*


I think because I'm a Fi user, my understanding of this is different. Yours make a great contrast.

I do not value the group over the individual, and I don't necessarily place the individual above the group -- it's just my experiences of group situations in my life means I'm very, very skeptical of them; groupthink, the tyranny of the majority, coercion, the banality of evil... just to name a few problems you can easily encounter in very toxic groups.

But having said all that, I'm definitely SO-dom; I'm preoccupied with group structures - who has the power, who is after the trappings of power, who has the most knowledge (and thus the most _true _power, even if they aren't publicly the most powerful), who is the most useful in the group, who is the weakest link, who is the most vulnerable, who is the most exploitable, etc. It's all very, very interesting to me - like a chess game, of course.

I think the SO-dom descriptions of 8 fits me perfectly, "the social antisocial". I couldn't have said it better myself. I see it as my duty to make sure the power dynamics of the group does not hinder the progress and development of any individual - least of all me. This is probably why I loathe any form of communism or socialism. To me, the inevitable end result of such structures is tyranny and there is no reason why any individual must suffer at the hands of the group. I would happily destroy any toxic group structure, I find fun in it. It's very easy because just like every individual has a secret, every group has one too. 

There's a very fine line between what's an acceptable sacrifice an individual should make for the sake of the group, and what isn't. Bet your bottom dollar I enforce this very strictly, because if you don't suddenly the group has completely taken over your autonomy.

Yet having said all that, I'm still human, and I still like groups because they offer a great sense of belonging, and camaraderie that you just can't get on your own. 

But my understanding of group etiquette simply put is this; it's the group's job to support me (and my goals), not hinder me.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

DAPHNE LXIV said:


> it's the group's job to support me (and my goals), not hinder me.


Sounds like a good definition of SP/SO to me. I see the 2nd instinct as a resource that supports pursuit of the 1st instinct.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> Sounds like a good definition of SP/SO to me. I see the 2nd instinct as a resource that supports pursuit of the 1st instinct.


Just no.

Sounds like you've just taken one sentence out of context to show off instinctual variant knowledge you clearly don't have. Nice try. 0 on effort though.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> Sounds like a good definition of SP/SO to me. I see the 2nd instinct as a resource that supports pursuit of the 1st instinct.


The thing is, the group awareness is where her focus lies. In a more pervasive way. 

As an Sx-first person .... deep down, I want my significant other, my Sx-focus... to give me EVERYTHING. To love my friends, to be part of my world, to join in financial issues, etc. I crave complete union and oneness, though because I am Sx-first and a 4, I habitually start finding things he can't fulfill or where someone else might understand me more. The focus is all on the "ideal Sx-target" - and to be ideal, he would fulfill all of these other needs. (I'm talking about my INSTINCTUAL reaction to things, not logic. Realistically, I'm a complex person with a lot of experience at life so I can sort out the difference between my instincts and desires, and people's realistic limits and so forth). 

Anyway, I think thats where @DAPHNE LXIV was coming from. I don't want to speak for her, but just my impression. That she has an idea of the 'ideal group' and that would include fulfilling other instincts. It doesn't even necessarily have to be her SECOND instinct (Sp) - sometimes people fantasize their primary target (The group for Soc's, the lover for SX, the personal stability for Sp) .. would fulfill their last instinct which is basically a "difficult spot" for them.


----------



## Philathea (Feb 16, 2015)

Animal said:


> Anyway, I think thats where @DAPHNE LXIV was coming from. I don't want to speak for her, but just my impression. That she has an idea of the 'ideal group' and that would include fulfilling other instincts. It doesn't even necessarily have to be her SECOND instinct (Sp) - sometimes people fantasize their primary target (The group for Soc's, the lover for SX, the personal stability for Sp) .. would fulfill their last instinct which is basically a "difficult spot" for them.


Just a quick thought I had after reading this post-

I'm either sx second or sx last, but I definitely consider a lover to be my "primary target" rather than an ideal group setting.. personally I never really imagine an ideal group at all, I'm always thinking of whoever my current target (lol) happens to be. But- and this is probably important- my ideal is always perceived well by others. I can find a guy attractive, but if I see that he isn't liked or respected by others it can be a real turn-off for me. (As an sx-dom I'm guessing this doesn't even enter consideration for you?) And like you said earlier about your primary focus, this is _instinct_ for me- it's stupid to let the opinions of others affect the way you see a person, and I am aware of this. But it still affects me even if I don't like it. I can't let go of the perceptions of others, they are always with me.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Philathea said:


> Just a quick thought I had after reading this post-
> 
> I'm either sx second or sx last, but I definitely consider a lover to be my "primary target" rather than an ideal group setting.. personally I never really imagine an ideal group at all, I'm always thinking of whoever my current target (lol) happens to be. But- and this is probably important- my ideal is always perceived well by others. I can find a guy attractive, but if I see that he isn't liked or respected by others it can be a real turn-off for me. (As an sx-dom I'm guessing this doesn't even enter consideration for you?) And like you said earlier about your primary focus, this is _instinct_ for me- it's stupid to let the opinions of others affect the way you see a person, and I am aware of this. But it still affects me even if I don't like it. I can't let go of the perceptions of others, they are always with me.


yeah.. I don't really care what others think about my decisions unless they have something worthwhile to say about it. There are people I respect and if they had a strong opinion about the person I would likely consider it, but I'd have to decide completely on my own whether that is true or not, and whether I care about it anyway.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

DAPHNE LXIV said:


> Sounds like you've just taken one sentence out of context to show off instinctual variant knowledge you clearly don't have. Nice try. 0 on effort though.


OK, I'll go through all the context. Before I do though, I need to offer my take on SP.
Self-Preservation first doesn't mean self-survival to me but means the preservation of the self in terms of environment and autonomy (i.e., not wanting to lose the self to the group or the other). With that in mind I'll highlight what said SP/SO to me where the social is used in support of the preservation of self.



DAPHNE LXIV said:


> I think because I'm a Fi user, my understanding of this is different. Yours make a great contrast.
> 
> *I do not value the group over the individual*, and I don't necessarily place the individual above the group -- it's just *my experiences of group situations in my life means I'm very, very skeptical of them*; *groupthink, the tyranny of the majority, coercion, the banality of evil... just to name a few problems you can easily encounter in very toxic groups.*
> 
> ...


I don't really want to debate this and I'm not here to "show off knowledge." I'm simply offering an observation as part of the discussion. Take it or leave it.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> OK, I'll go through all the context. Before I do though, I need to offer my take on SP.
> Self-Preservation first doesn't mean self-survival to me but means the preservation of the self in terms of environment and autonomy (i.e., not wanting to lose the self to the group or the other). With that in mind I'll highlight what said SP/SO to me where the social is used in support of the preservation of self.
> 
> 
> ...


I'll leave it.
Your analysis was rubbish. It was a post based as a contrast to Sonny's post. The whole point was to contrast Sonny's post. You've then taken that to show something you haven't actually shown.

The bit's where I value my individuality is Fi. You've also once again taken bits that sound SP/SO just because you want to shove it down my throat as opposed to seeing the entire post for what it is. You've ignored all bits that seem SO-dom, for what purpose?

Just stop.

Also read this and stop spreading your useless misinformation http://personalitycafe.com/type-8-f...ocial-eights-according-beatrice-chestnut.html.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

DAPHNE LXIV said:


> Also read this and stop spreading your useless misinformation http://personalitycafe.com/type-8-f...ocial-eights-according-beatrice-chestnut.html.


I'm not trying to shove anything down your throat. You know yourself better than I do. Just know that Beatrice Chestnut is writing about instinctual subtypes not instinctual variants or stacking. There is a major difference between the two that most people aren't aware of and lump the two together as if they are the same thing. Apparently, you've closed your mind to anything I might say so I'll leave you with a reference to the Riso/Hudson take on this distinction if it interests you or someone else.



> There is a short discussion of the Instinctual Variants as we call them (because they are not truly “subtypes”—but rather, independent variables) in the new edition of Personality Types (1996), and much more in The Wisdom of the Enneagram (Bantam, 1999).


The quote came from this page at the Enneagram Institute in case you or someone else would like to read it in context.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> I'm not trying to shove anything down your throat. You know yourself better than I do. Just know that Beatrice Chestnut is writing about instinctual subtypes not instinctual variants or stacking. There is a major difference between the two that most people aren't aware of and lump the two together as if they are the same thing. Apparently, you've closed your mind to anything I might say so I'll leave you with a reference to the Riso/Hudson take on this distinction if it interests you or someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> The quote came from this page at the Enneagram Institute in case you or someone else would like to read it in context.


Now I'm questioning whether you've read your own sources. (And cringing deeply because you haven't - I'm talking double facepalm style.)

According to your own source, this is what Self-Preservation is about:


> Thus, Self-Preservation types are concerned with money, food, housing, health, physical safety and comfort. Being safe and physically comfortable are priorities. These people are quick to notice any problems in a room such as poor lighting or uncomfortable chairs, or to be dissatisfied with the room temperature. They often have issues connected with food and drink, either overdoing it or having strict dietary requirements. In the healthy to average Levels, of the three Instinctual types, they are the most practical in the sense of taking care of basic life necessities—paying bills, maintaining the home and workplace, acquiring useful skills, and so forth. When these types deteriorate, they tend to distort the instinct to the degree that they are poor at taking care of themselves. Unhealthy Self-Preservation types eat and sleep poorly or become obsessed with health issues.


What does my post have to do with any of that?

Now, here is the social variant:


> *By learning to live and work together, our ancestors created the safety necessary for human beings not only to survive, but to thrive.* Within that social instinct, however, are many other implicit imperatives, and primary among them is the understanding of “place” within a hierarchical social structure ... Thus, the desire for attention, recognition, honor, success, fame, leadership, appreciation, and the safety of belonging can all be seen as manifestations of the Social instinct. Social types like to know what is going on around them, and want to make some kind of contribution to the human enterprise. There is often an interest in the events and activities of one’s own culture, or sometimes, of another culture. In general, Social types enjoy interacting with people, but they avoid intimacy. In their imbalanced, unhealthy forms, these types can become profoundly antisocial, detesting people and resenting their society, or having poorly developed social skills. *In a nutshell, Social types are focused on interacting with people in ways that will build their personal value, their sense of accomplishment, and their security of “place” with others.*


My first post spoke about my skepticism towards social groups that are curropted, because in them you cannot thrive - hence my argument that the individual should not sacrifice everything for the sake of the group.

From that, you got I was SP/SO, and even your own bloody source doesn't back up anything you've said.

So once again, just back down. You are being belligerent and looking more ignorant by the second. Nothing about the Social 8 description I posted contradicts your source either. *So triple fail.*


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

DAPHNE LXIV said:


> Now I'm questioning whether you've read your own sources. (And cringing deeply because you haven't - I'm talking double facepalm style.)


That source was to point out the difference between instinctual subtype and instinctual variant or stacking. I don't find their interpretations of the instincts themselves useful for me. 

Seems like you're taking this as a pissing contest. I'm really not interested in that. I'll stop the madness by bowing out here and let the thread get back on track.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> That source was to point out the difference between instinctual subtype and instinctual variant or stacking. I don't find their interpretations of the instincts themselves useful for me.
> 
> Seems like you're taking this as a pissing contest. I'm really not interested in that. I'll stop the madness by bowing out here and let the thread get back on track.


Nope I was just annoyed you were talking nonsense and are still talking nonsense. If you read your own sources and look back at what you've posted, all you've said so far is literally, nothing. Your use of your own source invalidates everything you've said, and the fact you don't care about the interpretations themselves suggests you should not be giving your two cents into anyone's type at all because you don't know what the hell you are talking about, and it clearly shows.

Me being abrupt with asinine responses isn't me wanting a pissing contest because your rubbish wasn't even a challenge to begin with. I literally don't understand how or why you've continued, yet you keep trucking along. Your over-explaining is cringeworthy.

And the explanation of the differences between instinctual subtype and instinctual variant literally bears no weight on this conversation. And has nothing to do with anything. Just because you lean towards one way of describing personality does nothing to show in any way shape or form I'm SP/SO. It just means you absolutely have no clue what you are talking about because on the website it says you're supposed to check how my type affects my variants. You didn't, in fact you did the opposite, you took a stupid ass variant guess and then decided it was me, with no regard to my type.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Philathea said:


> Just a quick thought I had after reading this post-
> 
> I'm either sx second or sx last, but I definitely consider a lover to be my "primary target" rather than an ideal group setting.. personally I never really imagine an ideal group at all, I'm always thinking of whoever my current target (lol) happens to be. But- and this is probably important- my ideal is always perceived well by others. I can find a guy attractive, but if I see that he isn't liked or respected by others it can be a real turn-off for me. (As an sx-dom I'm guessing this doesn't even enter consideration for you?) And like you said earlier about your primary focus, this is _instinct_ for me- it's stupid to let the opinions of others affect the way you see a person, and I am aware of this. But it still affects me even if I don't like it. I can't let go of the perceptions of others, they are always with me.


Sx involves seeking that rush, that excitement and stimulation, which can come in _any _form. In contrast to the SO-dom who is focused on the group and the dynamics, the connections, how the group members tie together, an SX-dom would zero in on the individual, on their unique essence rather than comparing them to other nodes within the network. I can see why in a group setting, it can be hypothesized that an Sx-dom would be drawn to a love interest first and foremost, and that definitely _can _be the case, however it doesn't have to be. 

I've seen this posted before and I've always loved thinking of it this way: if SO is about "zooming out" (I always picture a view from the top, that can clearly capture the commonalities, the differences, the patterns, the themes and the power dynamics between the different nodes of the network), Sx is like a magnifying glass, a laser focus that doesn't take in the outer picture and instead hones in on whatever provides the Sx-dom with the electricity, the rush, the juice. This can involve an individual and can be romantic, but it doesn't have to be. I can see why it's often incorporated as a comparison, but it just serves to perpetuate stereotypes like how an So-dom will want to hang out with groups of friends, whereas an Sx-dom will want to just connect with their partner. An So-dom can be equally preoccupied with and seeking to connect with a romantic partner, while still being very much aware of the bigger picture, of their and their significant other's standing within the group, etc..

For me personally, as an Sx/So, when coming into a group, my primary and immediate focus is on who I find myself clicking with, who I find myself drawn to. I'll often be solely consumed by wanting to know a few select individuals, and be pretty oblivious to whatever else is going on. It's like my mind immediately goes.. _THEM. I want to know them. *Yes*._ It's a struggle for me to "zoom out" and instead focus on finding my place within the group, or establishing a connection with everyone. I'm pretty bad at that. What often happens is that I'll establish an intense connection with one or two individuals, and generally ignore the others - until I realize much later that this leaves me out from the group as a whole, something I'll agonize over in true E4 fashion :laughing: It's like my place within the group is still within possible focus, but as an afterthought and as a result of my Sx focus rather than an immediate thing.


----------



## Philathea (Feb 16, 2015)

kaleidoscope said:


> I've seen this posted before and I've always loved thinking of it this way: if SO is about "zooming out" (I always picture a view from the top, that can clearly capture the commonalities, the differences, the patterns, the themes and the power dynamics between the different nodes of the network), Sx is like a magnifying glass, a laser focus that doesn't take in the outer picture and instead hones in on whatever provides the Sx-dom with the electricity, the rush, the juice. *This can involve an individual and can be romantic, but it doesn't have to be. I can see why it's often incorporated as a comparison, but it just serves to perpetuate stereotypes like how an So-dom will want to hang out with groups of friends, whereas an Sx-dom will want to just connect with their partner. An So-dom can be equally preoccupied with and seeking to connect with a romantic partner, while still being very much aware of the bigger picture, of their and their significant other's standing within the group, etc..*


Was this in direct response to my post by chance? Because I was trying to say that, even as as a SO dom, I can definitely hyper-focus on one individual, but the instinct still affects how I choose partners because I consider hierarchy and status and etc. I guess I was trying to say any instinct can be concerned with a romantic relationship, but their dominant instinct will affect that focus accordingly. Sorry, just trying to clear up that misunderstanding, if it was even there in the first place XD


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

I'm so last but I wonder how well social firsts relate to something I've noticed in them while interacting with somebody who has committed some social faux pas. There seems to be an expectation that the faux pas never should have happened unless the person was stupid or trying to be offensive. Translates to snobbery.


----------



## fair phantom (Mar 5, 2015)

screamofconscious said:


> I'm so last but I wonder how well social firsts relate to something I've noticed in them while interacting with somebody who has committed some social faux pas. There seems to be an expectation that the faux pas never should have happened unless the person was stupid or trying to be offensive. Translates to snobbery.


Usually, when I witness a faux pas, I try to cover it up, smooth things over, find some way to play it off. As a social 4, I am sensitive (at times overly so) to social shame, and so I try to protect others from the experience. 

It is usually different when I know the person making the faux pas was doing it deliberately or out of a lack of regard for others. In the case of the former, I might appreciate the challenge to social conventions and/or be amused—either way, I trust that they can handle themselves: in the latter case, I might feel censorious.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Philathea said:


> Was this in direct response to my post by chance? Because I was trying to say that, even as as a SO dom, I can definitely hyper-focus on one individual, but the instinct still affects how I choose partners because I consider hierarchy and status and etc. I guess I was trying to say any instinct can be concerned with a romantic relationship, but their dominant instinct will affect that focus accordingly. Sorry, just trying to clear up that misunderstanding, if it was even there in the first place XD


No misunderstanding ^^ Was just following up on the discussion.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

screamofconscious said:


> I'm so last but I wonder how well social firsts relate to something I've noticed in them while interacting with somebody who has committed some social faux pas. There seems to be an expectation that the faux pas never should have happened unless the person was stupid or trying to be offensive. Translates to snobbery.


Somewhat; not much.

Like @fair phantom, I, too, am no stranger to social shame - I'm a somewhat-clumsy, head-in-the-clouds INFP! Definitely no Emily Post here.  What I care about, personally, is that individuals demonstrate some degree of love and respect towards others - not that they're perfect at etiquette or that they are always smooth in relating. I've always been fond of "antihero" types, anyway; they're interesting. So typically if someone makes what I perceive to be a faux pas, I do my best to smooth it over or move past it quickly - or I just laugh and enjoy the break from the norm, depending. Plus, at least personally, I think that judging people more on how socially smooth they are than whether they are really respectful/loving is a worse misstep than overlooking etiquette.

That said, I do make judgment calls based on the best calculations that I can personally make, and it's entirely possible that sometimes I misjudge. Right now I am struggling with a family situation involving a lot of social judgment calls. Typically I would just give the person in question the benefit of the doubt, but we're at a crux point. Should she know better? Probably, as far as I can tell, but there's a chance that she could be misinterpreting due to mental health struggles. But she's also knowingly making major bad decisions right now in other areas of her life - I know because she has shared that. I genuinely do want her to be happy and healthy, but my brother is finally, finally pulling out of his own rut, and I can't see how it would help either of them if she were to pull him back down again. So I am trying to distance myself from her. Am I being snobby? I guess. But I'm not distancing myself because I don't like her. I'm distancing because I'm afraid she doesn't know how to stop herself from hurting my family, and I don't know how to fix that.


----------

