# So what the fuck is (SX)?



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

Nicholasjh1 said:


> That sounds SX'ish actually. I didn't mean to make it sound like it's common to have an SX group. I was just trying to show that SX vs SO groups are possible. Honestly I've been working for 5 years on myself to be able to actually share fully in an SX group.


recently, I was in a group and people were sharing

I twisted in the chair, wrapped my arms around myself, I didn't say anything, just sat there and listened. I must have looked so awkward, but it's like I couldn't even control what I was doing, I could only watch myself react physically like I did.

today was the first day for one of my college courses, everyone introducing themselves

I just stared off, I was speechless, I could hardly say anything, all of the attention on me was so overwhelming - I was a nervous wreck, large groups are just not my thing lol


----------



## Nicholasjh1 (Feb 6, 2018)

The Penguin said:


> yep, that's what I mean
> 
> 
> *I'm very withdrawn in public settings, I hate crowds, I hardly say anything to anyone most of the time.*
> ...


The part in bold was very much me. Honestly I had a huge SX wound as well as an SO wound. Socially outside of the home I felt very unsafe... in this way my social wound was first... Then my dad started distancing himself from me because of his sleep apnea (health and brain issues) becoming more and more dispondent... my first break in partnership. Then my other partner my best friend since a month old with the same name as me (Nick) started distancing himself from me in order to be more social... in fact in some ways negging me to the social group he became attached to (negging is big in detroit) Destroying another SX for me. Having me retreat into my relatively safe and non-social home, taken care of physically, with house and food. In that way I had 2 very large instinctual wounds, the social one probably being greater. So from that perspective I don't think the "second" instinct is always "healthy", for me SO and SX were very important and in some ways unhealthy for me. SP I generally ignored because I could - home was safe at least physically. As far as knowing yourself and getting better - Find the wounds, share them with others, get mad and cry about them... start taking actions that push against them, share more, and eventually you heal your way out of them.


----------



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

Nicholasjh1 said:


> The part in bold was very much me. Honestly I had a huge SX wound as well as an SO wound. Socially outside of the home I felt very unsafe... in this way my social wound was first... Then my dad started distancing himself from me because of his sleep apnea (health and brain issues) becoming more and more dispondent... my first break in partnership. Then my other partner my best friend since a month old with the same name as me (Nick) started distancing himself from me in order to be more social... in fact in some ways negging me to the social group he became attached to (negging is big in detroit) Destroying another SX for me. Having me retreat into my relatively safe and non-social home, taken care of physically, with house and food. In that way I had 2 very large instinctual wounds, the social one probably being greater. So from that perspective I don't think the "second" instinct is always "healthy", for me SO and SX were very important and in some ways unhealthy for me. SP I generally ignored because I could - home was safe at least physically. As far as knowing yourself and getting better - Find the wounds, share them with others, get mad and cry about them... start taking actions that push against them, share more, and eventually you heal your way out of them.


all my life, I tried to have friends and they just ghosted me for other friends that were more "normal" or "socially acceptable" but all that really means, is that they conform to what society expects, which is what they want in friends, but they realized that I'm gonna be myself so screw society, they really didn't like that

to this day, I don't have any friends irl, and I still want friends, but I'm learning to live with it

the only problem is that it's hard to get a job and keep it when you're completely oblivious about "social cues" and you don't really care about them, you find them annoying to who you really are and maintaining that internally consistent integrity with what you believe


----------



## Nicholasjh1 (Feb 6, 2018)

The Penguin said:


> all my life, I tried to have friends and they just ghosted me for other friends that were more "normal" or "socially acceptable" but all that really means, is that they conform to what society expects, which is what they want in friends, but they realized that I'm gonna be myself so screw society, they really didn't like that
> 
> to this day, I don't have any friends irl, and I still want friends, but I'm learning to live with it
> 
> the only problem is that it's hard to get a job and keep it when you're completely oblivious about "social cues" and you don't really care about them, you find them annoying to who you really are and maintaining that internally consistent integrity with what you believe


Yes, I very much felt this way about sociality. It's only in the last year that I've been able to change that for myself. mostly because I wanted this girl I was dating so badly! and she wanted a non-socially wounded person. So falling deep in love with someone was the only thing that moved me past my social wound that caused me to act that way. the funny thing was I got even more triggered on the SX side from the thought of losing her, and when I finally did lose her I was constantly crying... I finally told myself.. this crying is not about her, which brought me to my SX wounds (dad, mom, and Best friend) from child hood. (my Mom wound is more complicated, involving trying to caretake her from her feelings) I believe I've mostly worked out my mom wounds(thought there's always more), but still need to work out my dad/best friend wound.


----------



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

Nicholasjh1 said:


> Yes, I very much felt this way about sociality. It's only in the last year that I've been able to change that for myself. mostly because I wanted this girl I was dating so badly! and she wanted a non-socially wounded person. So falling deep in love with someone was the only thing that moved me past my social wound that caused me to act that way. the funny thing was I got even more triggered on the SX side from the thought of losing her, and when I finally did lose her I was constantly crying... I finally told myself.. this crying is not about her, which brought me to my SX wounds (dad, mom, and Best friend) from child hood. (my Mom wound is more complicated, involving trying to caretake her from her feelings) I believe I've mostly worked out my mom wounds(thought there's always more), but still need to work out my dad/best friend wound.


so this whole thing is making me rethink my variant, maybe Sx/Sp like you

and . . . that makes me rethink my Enneagram and mbti, too

cause I just don't see any of this working with ESFJ or 2w3

none of it feels right anymore, considering IxFP for starters


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

The Penguin said:


> ohh
> 
> I'm afraid of opening up about anything in group situations. I'm a lot more willing to take that chance with just one person, just the two of us. It's not really that I care about my status in the group, I just don't know if I can trust all of those people, so it's a lot easier for me to figure that out with each person individually.


 (SO) does not care about 'confidentiality' or "allowed to do X". It is an awareness of "impact" among the group. There are different types of (SO). The Other for SO is whomever is listening. (SO) can cover SX in breadth by simply condensing oneself down to it. Since there is no sense of 'confidentiality' or 'sacred box of secrets' - whether I am intimate with the person or not is irrelevant to what I choose share, whereas, based off the various "SX" definitions, they must be "merged" to discuss anything. Without this "merge" it is a no-go getting anything out of them. I know a specimen like this; very blushy-and bugged eyed when I talk about anything with a disconnection to it or "lack of one-on-one merge" if that's what the SX-specimens what to subjectively classify it as. (SO) lacks this sense of 'making people uncomfortable'. This is why you see many flamboyant SO-people throwing it all out there (e.g., celebs) for the big screen. Nonetheless, _very selective_- low-grade superficial pictures/defintions of SO - such as "keeping up with make-up trends". Of course, most will choose 'SX'.

SO is the protection, preservation, freedom and maintenance of all "groups" en masse. (Ex; including all SX-groups and all relationships/dynamics between people - including 'one-on-one'). Many military officers, police, etc., are SO. They also have very SX-like traits. This is why SO can be "SX" as well, and many "SO's" can relate to SX, than vice versa.

There is no difference in depth or content of discussion. This is why SO and SX make no interesting differences for myself. Seeing as I am Enne. 8, there are certainly no interesting distinctions between SO-loyalty and SX, thus I just render them simply of no interesting usage for myself. 

This could also just be a symptom of SP for yourself - the group/unfamiliarity is perceived as threat; thus you close-off. It is a very common self-preservation thing. I think this is another way in which the "SX"-instinct is so vague, as SP and SO can quite efficiently cover it. As someone with SP in my stack, I get it quite well.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

ewdenore said:


> Archimedes was known for becoming completely engrossed in what he was working on.
> 
> Newton had a similar reputation.
> 
> ...


Newton is a low-Se INTJ guy; doing what we INTX do best. Forgetting to eat. Analysis-paralysis. Engrossing themselves on a "mission/vision". This does not make any interesting distinction for myself.


----------



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

Catwalk said:


> Newton is a low-Se INTJ guy; doing what we INTX do best. Forgetting to eat. Analysis-paralysis. Engrossing themselves on a "mission/vision". This does not make any interesting distinction for myself.


I relate with analysis-paralysis, but I love food lol


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Nicholasjh1 said:


> This is coming close to it "group vs one on one" but it's not quite it. You can be "socially" intimate with someone, sharing etc. or "sexually" intimate (not meaning sex). Sexual intimacy is more like a partnership, IE with my best friend with whom I have an SX relationship with I have a partnership. We are writing a book together, he shares what he is developing in his therapy practice, If we are mad at each other we share it and expect the other to listen. There is no concern for "if I do this I may hurt my social standing in the larger group" because it is understood that are social circles are completely unimportant to the relationship.


What you are describing here (i.e., partnership), is simply platonic friendship - capable of any SOC-individual; I have done this plenty times without issue. The claim is so extraordinarily vast. The difference, if any at all, between "SOC" and "SX" is *not* partnership. This is where I get confused by the definitions; because there is no "lack of anything". Only different pre-conditions.

Condensing various claims about the differences between "SX" and "SOC" - I notice an emphasis (although it is not directly said the vague hyperbolic definitions I suspect that are designed in such a way to cause a hard invisible "line" between SO and SX.



> For an SO sharing that hard stuff may create a lower intimacy because they are looking at group power dynamics and ability, and if you look less powerful in a "social" or group setting then that's more of an issue then not sharing something that may "bring you closer". SX is more concerned with intimacy and partnership, SO is more concerned with group dynamics, power and standing with in a group, how to connect to the group as a whole [...]


Not "lower level of intimacy" (which I think many SX-types), misunderstand about SOC.

A more_ interesting distinction_ is perhaps the hinting to ("romantic love without friendship"), to distinguish between SOC and "SX". Which I am inclined to think is _a prerequisite _for "SX" but not for SOC beforehand - not that such bonds cannot occur via SOC-relations; but rather 'romance' can occur without any need of "being _best friends_" per se, thus making "SX"-relations appear more 'deep', drawing the "difference" between the two, which simply does not work. It appears we have a 'correlation' problem here.

It is not that SOC intimacy is 'lesser' it is rather that SOC intimacy does not require the same prerequisites to begin - not that any such traits/capacity is "lacked" and does not develop. As I understand it, the 'pre-conditions' for "SX" is a best friend before intimacy - while for SOC-"intimacy can occur" regardless, which makes no implication that "SOCs" lack SX-based intimacy.

(Post #2) about the instinctual invariants saying that "_having a best friend_" = SX, I am not sure how someone could simply absorb that information as anything informative regarding typing oneself, as it commits no noticable difference.


----------



## Nicholasjh1 (Feb 6, 2018)

Catwalk said:


> (SO) does not care about 'confidentiality' or "allowed to do X". It is an awareness of "impact" among the group. There are different types of (SO). The Other for SO is whomever is listening. (SO) can cover SX in breadth by simply condensing oneself down to it. Since there is no sense of 'confidentiality' or 'sacred box of secrets' - whether I am intimate with the person or not is irrelevant to what I choose share, whereas, based off the various "SX" definitions, they must be "merged" to discuss anything. Without this "merge" it is a no-go getting anything out of them. I know a specimen like this; very blushy-and bugged eyed when I talk about anything with a disconnection to it or "lack of one-on-one merge" if that's what the SX-specimens what to subjectively classify it as. (SO) lacks this sense of 'making people uncomfortable'. This is why you see many flamboyant SO-people throwing it all out there (e.g., celebs) for the big screen. Nonetheless, _very selective_- low-grade superficial pictures/defintions of SO - such as "keeping up with make-up trends". Of course, most will choose 'SX'.
> 
> SO is the protection, preservation, freedom and maintenance of all "groups" en masse. (Ex; including all SX-groups and all relationships/dynamics between people - including 'one-on-one'). Many military officers, police, etc., are SO. They also have very SX-like traits. This is why SO can be "SX" as well, and many "SO's" can relate to SX, than vice versa.
> 
> ...


In bold reminds me a bit of X who was also an 8, She grew up in a social situation that was a religious retreat/commune, and so SX was intertwined with everything, making them very tied together for her. Of course social groups can be quite different. I think the main issue is the model of "1st/2nd/last" Everyone has these instincts. How they operate within them depends on the larger "family/social dynamics" + wounds.


----------



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

if this works, I'll edit to something more appropriate

trying to see page 8

*edit - okay this is weird, page 8 existed before I posted this


----------



## Nicholasjh1 (Feb 6, 2018)

Catwalk said:


> What you are describing here (i.e., partnership), is simply platonic friendship - capable of any SOC-individual; I have done this plenty times without issue. The claim is so extraordinarily vast. The difference, if any at all, between "SOC" and "SX" is *not* partnership. This is where I get confused by the definitions; because there is no "lack of anything". Only different pre-conditions.
> 
> Condensing various claims about the differences between "SX" and "SOC" - I notice an emphasis (although it is not directly said the vague hyperbolic definitions I suspect that are designed in such a way to cause a hard invisible "line" between SO and SX.
> 
> ...


I disagree. SX is purely intimacy/sharing of any type (that isn't surface) SO is dynamics and rules impacts group etc. The problem is in the idea that an SO person would ever operate without SX or and SX person without any SO. the SX first/SO first simply describes where the important "wounds" that drive decisions lie more than anything else. In my opinion the 1st/2nd/3rd placement is false, it's simply a way to put things in boxes so that people can more understand base drives based on the more "important" wounds (if any) and how a particular specimen tends to behave. It's like saying all 5's garner knowledge in order to get ready to get out in the world. as an 5 with deep SO and SX wounds I read novels to try and get out in the world... hoping the social and intimate descriptions would somehow transfer and that one day I'd impress everyone with my social sophistication.


----------



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

Nicholasjh1 said:


> I disagree. SX is purely intimacy/sharing of any type (that isn't surface) SO is dynamics and rules impacts group etc. The problem is in the idea that an SO person would ever operate without SX or and SX person without any SO. the SX first/SO first simply describes where the important "wounds" that drive decisions lie more than anything else. In my opinion the 1st/2nd/3rd placement is false, it's simply a way to put things in boxes so that people can more understand base drives based on the more "important" wounds (if any) and how a particular specimen tends to behave. It's like saying all 5's garner knowledge in order to get ready to get out in the world. as an 5 with deep SO and SX wounds I read novels to try and get out in the world... hoping the social and intimate descriptions would somehow transfer and that one day I'd impress everyone with my social sophistication.


ooh, my wounds are from one-on-one relationships that hurt

I value those individual deep bonds way more than anything superficial with a group


----------



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

lol 5 members browsing here but Nicholasjh1 is the only visible username

I'm going to try going visible again, see how I feel about it.

well, so far so good


----------



## Nicholasjh1 (Feb 6, 2018)

(edit) So I don't think of SO people as "not intimate" or not having a deeper intimacy. SO has nothing to do with intimacy whatsoever. that doesn't mean an "SO first" specimen can't have intimacy of a very deep nature however. So it doesn't make one better than the or one not capable of the other. It depends on where the wound lies and how it drives the specimen.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Nicholasjh1 said:


> In bold reminds me a bit of X who was also an 8, She grew up in a social situation that was a religious retreat/commune, and so SX was intertwined with everything, making them very tied together for her. Of course social groups can be quite different. I think the main issue is the model of "1st/2nd/last" Everyone has these instincts. How they operate within them depends on the larger "family/social dynamics" + wounds.


To hint on the model, I am inclined to think "SX" does not even exist. Rather what we are seeing are (side-effects of extreme SP/self-protection or breadth of SOC). And these "SX/SP" "SO/SX" combos do not exist like we think they do. 

'Release of boundaries' into another being for a sense of 'self-protection' via another. (Stemming from high-functioning desire to perserve oneself. The only way to "save one self" is to indulge within another). Without this, the self will languish.


----------



## Nicholasjh1 (Feb 6, 2018)

Catwalk said:


> To hint on the model, I am inclined to think "SX" does not even exist. Rather what we are seeing are (side-effects of extreme SP or breadth of SOC). And these "SX/SP" "SO/SX" combos do not exist like we think they do.


Perhaps, however this is the model I'm working with now : (edit) So I don't think of SO people as "not intimate" or not having a deeper intimacy. SO has nothing to do with intimacy whatsoever. that doesn't mean an "SO first" specimen can't have intimacy of a very deep nature however. So it doesn't make one better than the or one not capable of the other. It depends on where the wound lies and how it drives the specimen.


----------



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

Nicholasjh1 said:


> (edit) So I don't think of SO people as "not intimate" or not having a deeper intimacy. SO has nothing to do with intimacy whatsoever. that doesn't mean an "SO first" specimen can't have intimacy of a very deep nature however. So it doesn't make one better than the or one not capable of the other. It depends on where the wound lies and how it drives the specimen.


I mean, my intimate wounds always hold me back from trying harder to make friends and connect with people, they make me very shy and nervous and withdrawn. But part of me thinks that really strong Sx wounds make the person angry towards everyone, no matter how hard you try there's just always a lot of aggression.


----------



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

The Penguin said:


> I mean, my intimate wounds always hold me back from trying harder to make friends and connect with people, they make me very shy and nervous and withdrawn. But part of me thinks that really strong Sx wounds make the person angry towards everyone, no matter how hard you try there's just always a lot of aggression.


^ but maybe I've just had a lot of bad experiences with Sx/So people -shrug-


----------



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

@Nicholasjh1

I gotta go for several hours but I'm looking forward to any input you could give.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Nicholasjh1 said:


> Perhaps, however this is the model I'm working with now : (edit) So I don't think of SO people as "not intimate" or not having a deeper intimacy. SO has nothing to do with intimacy whatsoever. that doesn't mean an "SO first" specimen can't have intimacy of a very deep nature however. So it doesn't make one better than the or one not capable of the other. It depends on where the wound lies and how it drives the specimen.


Either way, it is inconsistent with your original claim(s); now you have switched the differences between "SO and SX" being 'wounds' - rather adhering to the original claim that the distinction is "lower levels of intimacy" - which you now acknowledge is simply bogus and/or not the case - yet, the supposedly the main difference between the two. I am inclined the switching up is due to the fact that the existence of 'SX' is being challenged. 

Penguin made interesting 'SX-claims' that mysteriously fall under self-preservation. (E.g., protection of self from group-dynamics - thus "seeks" out a more comfortable environment which could be either '1 person' or 8). Although I agree, the "1st/2nd/last" model is shady at best. Although, I spoke on this earlier - that "SOC" can be "SX" (evolve into the newest instinct), but not vice versa (devolve backward into SOC), by this model.


----------



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

Catwalk said:


> Penguin made interesting 'SX-claims' that mysteriously fall under self-preservation.


I don't think I claimed anything as evidence of Sx for myself, I was just relating to what was said.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

The Penguin said:


> I don't think I claimed anything as evidence of Sx for myself, I was just relating to what was said.


Well either way, this thread has_ run it's course_ for me. Enjoy it boys.


----------



## Nicholasjh1 (Feb 6, 2018)

So based on @Catwalk 's input and what We've been talking about and what I've been thinking about is that SO is Implicit/Explicit rules & Impacts, SX is Sharing/Intimacy. By nature they are intertwined, but their domain is unique as well as their wounds, as well as the "gold" in them and they have unique impacts and drivers for people.


----------



## TheDarknessInTheSnow (May 28, 2016)

It reminds me of a child annoyingly obsessed with something (a toy, a person, etc)


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Looks like the OP has settled on an answer for herself. SO subsumes SX from her point of view.

I'd venture to guess her stacking is SO/SX which would explain to me why that's her experience of the two instincts. Her experience isn't of SO or SX but SO/SX.

IMO, the 1st instinct tends to subsume the 2nd instinct. The experience of that will take different forms for different people, different types, and different instincts. Perhaps much of the confusion regarding instinctual stacking has to do with attempting to isolate and describe each instinct instead of looking at how the 1st and 2nd instincts actually combine into some dynamic. Maybe it would be better to explore the dynamics instead of the individual instincts. In the OP's case, SO/SX vs. SX/SO (which I think came up when I posted about John Lennon here).


----------



## Nicholasjh1 (Feb 6, 2018)

TheDarknessInTheSnow said:


> It reminds me of a child annoyingly obsessed with something (a toy, a person, etc)


Yes, that would be an SX wound that put SX first, desperation for personal connection.


----------



## Nicholasjh1 (Feb 6, 2018)

enneathusiast said:


> Looks like the OP has settled on an answer for herself. SO subsumes SX from her point of view.
> 
> I'd venture to guess her stacking is SO/SX which would explain to me why that's her experience of the two instincts. Her experience isn't of SO or SX but SO/SX.
> 
> IMO, the 1st instinct tends to subsume the 2nd instinct. The experience of that will take different forms for different people, different types, and different instincts. Perhaps much of the confusion regarding instinctual stacking has to do with attempting to isolate and describe each instinct instead of looking at how the 1st and 2nd instincts actually combine into some dynamic. Maybe it would be better to explore the dynamics instead of the individual instincts. In the OPs case, SO/SX vs. SX/SO (which I think came up when I posted about John Lennon here).


I would agree, as in my case I used to tend to ignore social cues in favor of socializing through an SX instinct. (Either because I was SO last or SO first, not really clear on that, not that it really matters) Socially Detroit felt very dangerous, so I tried to Hide (SP even in plan sight) But also had a strong SX instinct to connect. It's possible that I used to be SP first, but having addressed that Have moved more towards an SX/SO dichotomy.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

I find it extremely easy to distinguish between my 1st and last instinct (sx and so). There's a much sharper contrast between those two instincts than any other two. Earlier in life, the distinction was easy because the preference was so extreme (sx vs. so). Later in life, it was because I had to develop some facility in dealing with my last instinct so I had to become much more aware of the intricacies of it (so-last was a disadvantage in both starting and advancing my career as well as in various other circles of people). 

My solution to dealing with my so-last preference outside of the work environment was self-medicating through heavy alcohol consumption. It didn't work all the time but it worked well enough that I kept doing it until I couldn't or needn't any more (I didn't have any good alternatives available early in my life). Nowadays, it's just staying in my comfort zone for the most part (sx/sp) and dipping my toe into the social once in a while when it's to advantage (though I still don't feel very interested or capable in that area unless I have a specific role that I know how to play).


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Catwalk said:


> Can you be “intense” without SX (?)


no


----------



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

I'm still just trying to answer a simple question. What's my variant? I see the Sx, but I'm not sure how it fits in the bigger picture.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

The Penguin said:


> I'm still just trying to answer a simple question. What's my variant? I see the Sx, but I'm not sure how it fits in the bigger picture.


SP/SO I'd guess, but up to you of course. SO isn't about "big groups" or "being sociable," and you seem to be most vulnerable in SX, which would fit the blindspot profile. You seem to fit the SP gestalt of protecting yourself from intrusion, most of all.

I don't agree with what feels like half of the self-typings in this thread, though, so you may feel differently.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

The Penguin said:


> I'm still just trying to answer a simple question. What's my variant? I see the Sx, but I'm not sure how it fits in the bigger picture.


Here's _*one way*_ to make that determination.


----------



## ewdenore (Nov 16, 2017)

Here's an interesting description.



> The Romantic type values depth and intensity. Their goal is that their own quest will set them apart and make them stand out from the crowd. They hope to have unique and intense and deep experiences. They show a passionate side in most things they do, their actions are coloured by a romantic tendency.


There's one for social instinct.



> The Person is a type that strives after personhood, to be someone to other people, to have a role and a place in the community.





> This feeling of togetherness helps them thrive in communities, helping them relate to and build bridges with other people. The social type needs to feel included and heard. To feel invisible or weird is difficult for the person.


There's self preservation.



> Protectors can initially appear guarded and closed. They seem negative to new ideas and focus first on issues and problems with a new opportunity. When considering opportunities, experiences, and theories, the protectors think about risks and work to intercept problems first.





> Protectors formulate protocols and rules for themselves to help manage situations.


----------



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

Paradigm said:


> SP/SO I'd guess, but up to you of course. SO isn't about "big groups" or "being sociable," and you seem to be most vulnerable in SX, which would fit the blindspot profile. You seem to fit the SP gestalt of protecting yourself from intrusion, most of all.
> 
> I don't agree with what feels like half of the self-typings in this thread, though, so you may feel differently.


After reading all three posts, I agree with you.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

enneathusiast said:


> Looks like the OP has settled on an answer for herself. SO subsumes SX from her point of view.
> 
> I'd venture to guess her stacking is SO/SX which would explain to me why that's her experience of the two instincts. Her experience isn't of SO or SX but SO/SX.
> 
> . In the OP's case, SO/SX vs. SX/SO


As all my points above. It does _seem _that way -- doesn't it. Rather, it is just a side-effect of good friendships in childhood and a rich love-life history. 

Observe these questions here:



> _ My ideal is to have autonomy where I can do as I please without interference or expectations from others. Sometimes I feel like I'm losing myself to the demands of others.
> 
> My ideal is to find something or someone that I can have a deep connection and intimacy with. It's not just anything or anyone. There has to be some sort of spark or chemistry.
> 
> My ideal is to become part of something larger than myself where I can find my place. It can be an organization, a culture, or a circle of friends where I feel I belong._


I could quite easily pick all 3. For myself, there is no conscious "ideal" here. The "SX"-instinct is questionable in existence, at best. Another instance is Ewdenore failure to elaborate on Newton's "forgetting to eat during projects because he is so lost in it" is a symptom of SX and not just low-sensing axis via MBTI; to which many INTX, regardless of instinct, report.

Perhaps these vague descriptions are "informative" enough for most - but it tells me absolutely nothing. But that is my own issue to decipher.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Catwalk said:


> The "SX"-instinct is questionable in existence, at best.


You're speaking for yourself on that and I don't doubt that's your experience of it (at least how you're interpreting what SX is). Discovering what SX was and that it was my preferred instinct was the most important discovery of my life (and I'm not exaggerating when I say that). It was much more important to me than discovering Enneagram type or anything to do with Jung or MBTI or whatever other system I've run across.

The problem is that I only stumbled upon what SX was some 15 years after I started studying the Enneagram. I initially completely disregarded the instinctual subtypes because I saw myself in all three of them. What I found for myself wasn't what the books were saying nor is what they're still saying. At best those descriptions only hint at the experience. At worst they talk in vague generalizations, strange analogies and metaphors, or misleading descriptions. You have to find the experience of it to truly get it. I offered my hints in earlier posts but they didn't seem to help.



Catwalk said:


> Another instance is Ewdenore failure to elaborate on Newton's "forgetting to eat during projects because he is so lost in it" is a symptom of SX and not just low-sensing axis via MBTI; to which many INTX, regardless of instinct, report.


I personally wouldn't suggest that as an example of SX nor would I conflate it with MBTI. I don't see either being useful. Any instinct can get lost in what they're involved with to the point that they forget about eating.



Catwalk said:


> Perhaps these vague/inexplicit descriptions are "informative" enough for most - but it tells me absolutely nothing. But that is my own issue to decipher.


They're not meant to tell you anything. They're meant to force you into deciding which you prefer most. We have all three instincts but which is most preferred or important. When push comes to shove which would you choose? I'll give it one more attempt.

Would you be _most satisfied_ spending the day 
doing what you want by yourself doing your own thing? (sp)
sharing it with someone you share a deep common interest with? (sx)
hanging out with a group of friends who get together on a regular basis? (so)

The resulting activities and influences upon those activities will be quite different. It's not about doing each on a different day. You get one day and three choices, period. It's about when push comes to shove and you have to make a choice discovering which is most preferred (1st instinct) and which could you most easily do without (last instinct). The instinct left over would be your 2nd instinct. The why of the choices is how you can begin to explore what the instinct is about and your attitude towards it.


----------



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

enneathusiast said:


> We have all three instincts but which is most preferred or important. When push comes to shove which would you choose? I'll give it one more attempt.
> 
> Would you be _most satisfied_ spending the day
> doing what you want by yourself doing your own thing? (sp)
> ...


I'll rank them for myself.
1. Sp
2. So
3. Sx

I like the idea of spending time with someone over one specific interest, but any time I do that, they don't like it and I don't like it either. We both want to do something else other than just the two of us watching tv or a movie. I have met a few people that could talk about a subject for a long time and that's when I run out of things to say.


----------



## Full_fathom_4 (Jan 23, 2018)

People speak of these mystical instincts as if they are somehow mutually exclusive unto themselves, nevermind the E core within. They're not. It's like you're hanging out on the front porch or somehting. I don't mean to 9-out here and get nebulous, but when you speak of an instinct, I want to scream inside..... within which context? 

A negative one? A compensatory one? A frustrated one, a reactive, idealistic, a positive reframing, phallic-ly, like a nun, one? An avoidance, a neurotic habit? With which type? Booze is legal, it's not legal in Saudi Arabia. The moon has precisely 1/8th the gravity of the Earth. 

See my point here? Why discuss these elements outside your "E problem"? 

Let me set a stage - (full disclosure) I'm a 4w3 sp/so/sx. 

What that translates to is that I'm pretty fucking special, if I was being base, banal, dis-honest, etc. What it really translates to is that I have an (insecure) attention toward my things being special. My physical being, my opinion, my well-being, my face, my objects, (they're mine, no?... someone say my things are special, please)

"Someone say.... " who is this? You? Some chick not returning my messages? It's all of you. My ego wants you to say I'm special for simply existing. Look out, here comes my pixie dust, soft-served. 

What I don't palpably have, is an ego-connection with my *animal*. It's there, trust me. But it's not an Ego modus, it's couched in all that Id stuff. And why should it otherwise? I'm pretty fucking special already, who needs to assert these things. See the Ego working here? My animal is there however; it's real stress-related material where I become caustic, self-destructive. I don't shut down, I suddenly become alive. Worst than ever! Full-on push pull nastiness. And at the end of day, I don't want to connect with any of you. My ego doesn't want to endear myself to you, only my 'things'. You'll read this and have nothing to say. I've offered no animal to mate with, my Ego doesn't do this. I'm celibate until you 'hunt' me down, and even then I might not find you attractive. I want the image of my mother, you see? I have a high Jung female energy. Imagine being this, and a somewhat attractive man? Welcome to my world. 

This is an example of the instincts in a Type. What purpose does discussing this serve? Ontological masturbation? False epistemologies? Admirable status on an internet message board? No. It's the reality. 

So let's get rid of (there's my 2nd IV Soc talking) these things, where people are disjointed, "going toward people" or "caring what others think" (I don't care what you think), or "merging".. puke. Merging what? Which type? Which ego problem? I want to merge my anger with your head. Bring the words already! 

Argghhh!! (that's my frustration type). I hate you all..... (because you won't find me special, with all the nice things that I... oops, starting to showing my sx slip now (and lines off into E2)... sp/so -> so/sx -> omg I did want to connect, but now I've ruined it -> sx/sp -> fuck you.. wait, I don't mean it. well, you know.. I have problems... I still hate you... oh wait, maybe it's myself I hate... nevermind. 


Now, flip this in your head with Sx, Soc, another type... different stacks.. (it's deep) . blah blah, rinse repeat.. 

There's your fucking instincts.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

enneathusiast said:


> They're not meant to tell you anything. They're meant to force you into deciding which you prefer most. We have all three instincts but which is most preferred or important. When push comes to shove which would you choose? I'll give it one more attempt.
> 
> Would you be _most satisfied_ spending the day
> doing what you want by yourself doing your own thing? (sp)
> ...


Not drunk enough for whatever the hell is going on in this thread with the spirit animals (&) certainly not enough to answer these question(s). We'll see.


----------

