# so-last rants



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

enneathusiast said:


> Thought provoking article.
> 
> I can see how the social instinct can be tied in closely with social status but I think the article may only be emphasizing one aspect of it.
> 
> ...


i wonder if those motives would match to people playing for low-status vs high-status.
high-status is more powerful but also triggers more aggressive reactions.
low-status bids get responded to comfortingly.
(see keith johnstone's impro, quote:


> "[when judith gradually switched from low status to high status movements] I couldn't define the change in her movements and yet for some reason my attitude changed towards her. When she touched her head I tried to be more helpful, reassuring, whereas once she stopped i felt more distance and businesslike- also a bit more challenged- whereas previously I'd felt nothing but sympathy"


it's possible that certain types could be correlated to their preferred status stance?


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Pelopra said:


> i wonder if those motives would match to people playing for low-status vs high-status.
> high-status is more powerful but also triggers more aggressive reactions.
> low-status bids get responded to comfortingly.
> 
> it's possible that certain types could be correlated to their preferred status stance?


I remember hearing or reading something about type 6 that they could be afraid of success because it puts the spotlight on them, getting them noticed by others who may want to harm them in some way. This may go along with what you're saying about more aggressive reactions when status is raised.

I've also heard on a nine panel where someone said he doesn't want to be too high above the crowd or too low.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

From my understanding of things so far, it seems like 

Sp is about me relating to the environment.
Sx is about me relating to other individuals.
So is about me relating to groups and societies.

From my own dealings so far, I'm high on connecting with individuals.
Medium on connecting with my environment.
Low on connecting with groups.

Seems to me that *I'm always trying to size individuals up*.
I have a good grasp of how I interact with my environment and how to leverage it.
I have a poor grasp of how I stand in different groups I happen to enter or leave.

It is a real persistent blindspot.
There have been powerstruggles going on around me all the time on social levels.
And all I take into account is, well he didn't do anything bad to me so I don't want any part of that.
It isn't that I don't intellectually understand the issues at hand.
When my So friend tell me about what is going on between so and so.
I can analyze it and even conclude what the problem is.
However as soon as the topic is dropped, my attention usually leaves it.
The only staying power is when I consider, how does this affect me or my relation to person X.
If the answer is it doesn't, I can't really see why I should bother with it.

When So people starts to talk about So stuff it really depends how I react.
When my Gamma So's start to discuss it, it is bearable.
Cause they give me a lot of info I can use to understand the people involved.
Unless they discuss people I don't know, 
then I ask questions that focus on some typology aspect I struggle with to gather data.
Beta's are bearable up to a point I guess.
Delta and Alpha usually kill my interest with Si/So very quickly.
Unless there is some Sx there to wake me up I almost go to sleep.
Si/Sp also don't make my day, but I can muster enough interest to give affirmative statments whenever they
empahize something I agree with. And share shallow statments about my own Sp situation.
Like when my ISFJ Sp/So mother calls, I'll start commenting that, 
"Yeah I just emptied my water bottle, I need to refill it."
Much better to keep it at that level than start risking her starting to detail trivia about the So stuff in her life. :bored:


----------



## Mostly Harmless (Oct 16, 2011)

Today, I learned that the fact that my boyfriend 'likes' nearly everything I post on facebook while I barely 'like' anything he posts means that I'm a cold bitch who's got her man whipped and leads him around everywhere on a leash.

roud:


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Mostly Harmless said:


> Today, I learned that the fact that my boyfriend 'likes' nearly everything I post on facebook while I barely 'like' anything he posts means that I'm a cold bitch who's got her man whipped and leads him around everywhere on a leash.
> 
> roud:


Good to have the facts straight I guess.


----------



## WardRhiannon (Feb 1, 2012)

Promethea said:


> I have even known an intj/5 social who "participated in some of those behaviours" due to his social variant. Maybe its a personal preference for you, but yes even in my experience an introverted social is still a social.
> 
> "_Social Variant
> 
> ...


I eschew social gatherings when I'm not comfortable or don't know anyone there. I need some kind of context to go to a party or social gathering, like an interest or hobby or a friend's party. I've found that I need that I need a steady stream of social events or even just hanging out with individual friends to keep me happy.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Mostly Harmless said:


> Today, I learned that the fact that my boyfriend 'likes' nearly everything I post on facebook while I barely 'like' anything he posts means that I'm a cold bitch who's got her man whipped and leads him around everywhere on a leash.
> 
> roud:


I dated an ENFJ who always used smilies in his texts and I started using them as well, because I felt guilty that I was giving off a cold impression... I personally thought it was a bit silly but I felt like I should accommodate the communication needs of an Fe - dom. 

Different people have different liking habits. For example here on PerC some people give likes to any post they didn't dislike. Others (*cough* me *cough*) are much more stingy... It doesn't mean anything.


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

What's the point of social interaction when it is boring, pointless, and unmemorable?
Take some risks. Make your lives with other people more exciting!
I love social interaction but only when it piques my interests, gets my Ne going.

What hierarchy? What others perceive me as doesn't change who I am or what I am going to do with my life..being awesome and becoming super rich! I'll achieve my goals on my own merits, wouldn't want to achieve them any other way.

I have to make the decision on what a group does because everyone else is trying to figure out the most "socially acceptable" response.


----------



## Exquis (Mar 9, 2014)

I guess it's pretty safe to assume I'm a so-last, then.
Not that I didn't know it already. But sometimes I have doubts.


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

I guess some social-firsts are awesome.. E.g., Pinkie Pie (my current avatar, a so/sx).


----------



## Flaming Bassoon (Feb 15, 2013)

As a so first, I think this is mentioned but not emphasized enough: social variants, especially my fellow so/sx's are often those who have the strongest opinions about social change. I desire connectivity with people but really dislike the vapidity that accompanies a variety of human interaction. I crave genuine emotional connections with the ones I care about and want to always be there for them. True, many unhealthy or young social firsts will indulge in meaningless partying and whatnot in an attempt to get close to people, but many see the errors of their ways.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Promethea said:


> An so first who did this, explained to me that he wanted me to become friends with all of those people as well, so that we would then be able to mingle in the group comfortably and have them in common. I just wasn't interested in all the fast, fleeting, superficial information being exchanged, or the little shows people were putting on for each other. Its a completely different kind of communication. It feels more like a performance the ego needs, instead of any deep meaningful exchange.
> 
> Its also a way to interact without getting 'too' close. I have noticed something else about at least -some- so firsts; psychological distance. One of my female cousins for example is an so first, and she would prefer to talk to several people at once. One on one, she will not really get into -anything- even her topics of interest, very deep. She'd rather stand in a crowd and say a few words at a time than ever get too deep. Shes also Fe dom, so you'd think she would connect one on one at least to some extent but not really.


I don't think social-first is necessarily related to superficiality or always needing to be attached to a group. This sounds more like a distortion of the instinct, rather than a healthy manifestation of it. The social instinct is an awareness of the interconnectedness of things, how X affects Y and how Y in turn affects Z. Everything has a consequence and repercussions on a larger scale, nothing is isolated. There's a focus on hierarchy, power, dynamics between people and how to use those (in some types) to reach a certain goal. I have a close So/Sx friend IRL, and I was discussing this with her a while back. She told me that if she had the charisma/social 'smoothness' to do it, she could very much manipulate a situation to her advantage because she can see those interpersonal dynamics so clearly in any social setting and knows how to use them. 

In a way, it's a sort of zoomed out perspective; if Sx notices the nodes, SO focuses on the links between the nodes, and how those come together into a whole. That doesn't necessarily make those individuals unwilling or unlikely to form close relationships with others. I've known plenty of SO/SX types - in fact it's pretty much my favorite stacking - and plenty also feel the urge to dig deep into people and get to know them intensely. When described that way, there's nothing superficial about it, it's just a matter of different focus. It doesn't mean that SOC people don't long for closeness, don't have intimate relationships, or anything of that sort.

Edit: Your signature for example, is pretty social instinct, in a way.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Flaming Bassoon said:


> As a so first, I think this is mentioned but not emphasized enough: social variants, especially my fellow so/sx's are often those who have the strongest opinions about social change. I desire connectivity with people but really dislike the vapidity that accompanies a variety of human interaction. I crave genuine emotional connections with the ones I care about and want to always be there for them. True, many unhealthy or young social firsts will indulge in meaningless partying and whatnot in an attempt to get close to people, but many see the errors of their ways.



I think the entire stereotype of so-first as vapid and shallow is a complete misunderstanding of the instinct. 

SO is an awareness of and (neurotic) fixation with status in a social structure - - "status" in a broad sense, not just "who is head cheerleader". All it means is that when the brain is allocating awareness and attention, the so-first gives more attention to social-significant input than to sx or sp input, because that's where their fixation is located.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> It's not that I don't understand how shit social relationships and structures work, I do very well. It's more that I don't see much purpose in them, and think they are overvalued and overly important. I work with a few SO firsts, and they are great at networking, have a large circle of friends and acquaintances, but I find them utterly dull and boring.
> 
> I've said it before, if people want me to spend time with them, they have to be more interesting than the alternatives, which include the internet, books and videogames.
> 
> ...


I can absolutely see a social-first or second saying all of this, since the _awareness _of social networks and dynamics is still there, as you mention in the first few lines of your post and all throughout. There's a difference between noticing and rejecting because pointless/retarded/messed up, and not even being aware of them in the first place. I don't think social-firsts are necessarily into the things you mention and can very much be vehement critics of them. What matters is where the focus is, not the attitude towards these social structures.

This is my favorite description of SO-last:



> The key for social lasts is not that they have to create or pretend there's a connection, but *to find the connections that are already there*. the so-last will think it's up to them to make the social happen, so they won't do it at all, but that's the projection by so-lasts on the social sphere.


That's what I mean by noticing and rejecting vs lack of awareness. SOC-last does not notice and has a hard time finding those connections, even though they are there at all times.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Flaming Bassoon said:


> *As a so first, I think this is mentioned but not emphasized enough: social variants, especially my fellow so/sx's are often those who have the strongest opinions about social change. *I desire connectivity with people but really dislike the vapidity that accompanies a variety of human interaction. I crave genuine emotional connections with the ones I care about and want to always be there for them. True, many unhealthy or young social firsts will indulge in meaningless partying and whatnot in an attempt to get close to people, but many see the errors of their ways.


tbh, i couldn't see that working with all soc firsts, i think that's where fixes and instincts combined are particularly useful to consider, for example 9's or 9 fixers i have found to be less concerned than other types about instilling social change, those who i have tentatively typed as 9 with a strong social instinct have tended to merge more with the social environment than consistent ally seek to change it the way more frustrated and reactive types have generally speaking.


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

kaleidoscope said:


> She told me that if she had the charisma/social 'smoothness' to do it, she could very much manipulate a situation to her advantage because she can see those interpersonal dynamics so clearly in any social setting and knows how to use them.


It's not that I'm unaware of those interpersonal dynamics, but I suppose I don't have a very deep understanding of these types of systems, to the point that my ability to navigate those realms feels clumsy and like I'm playing a chess game and 5 moves behind everyone else. Like I am a slow learner to some extent and simply inadequate to play the game at everyone else's level (so I often try to get away with not playing the game at all).



kaleidoscope said:


> In a way, it's a sort of zoomed out perspective; if Sx notices the nodes, SO focuses on the links between the nodes, and how those come together into a whole. That doesn't necessarily make those individuals unwilling or unlikely to form close relationships with others.


So would Sp instinct _*be *_the nodes? As in... the nodes themselves are Sp (individual people) whereas Sx notices other nodes (interpersonal), and Soc instinct recognizes the "web" of nodes and the interconnected relationships between many, many people (i.e., as in a network)?

I've been fond of dubbing type 2 as "the networking orientation" but after reading your post, networking in general seems to be more Soc instinct oriented, perhaps this is only applicable to Soc 2 (and to some extent Sx). To be more precise, I think the 2' s emphasis on repression of needs or the apparent belittling of the 2's self-importance lends itself well to fixating upon the network to the detriment of the 2's self-concept (i.e., hence, flattery, helping, seduction or generally subversive tactics for ensuring the 2's significance).


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

kaleidoscope said:


> I don't think social-first is necessarily related to superficiality or always needing to be attached to a group. This sounds more like a distortion of the instinct, rather than a healthy manifestation of it. The social instinct is an awareness of the interconnectedness of things, how X affects Y and how Y in turn affects Z. Everything has a consequence and repercussions on a larger scale, nothing is isolated. There's a focus on hierarchy, power, dynamics between people and how to use those (in some types) to reach a certain goal. I have a close So/Sx friend IRL, and I was discussing this with her a while back. She told me that if she had the charisma/social 'smoothness' to do it, she could very much manipulate a situation to her advantage because she can see those interpersonal dynamics so clearly in any social setting and knows how to use them.
> 
> In a way, it's a sort of zoomed out perspective; if Sx notices the nodes, SO focuses on the links between the nodes, and how those come together into a whole. That doesn't necessarily make those individuals unwilling or unlikely to form close relationships with others. I've known plenty of SO/SX types - in fact it's pretty much my favorite stacking - and plenty also feel the urge to dig deep into people and get to know them intensely. When described that way, there's nothing superficial about it, it's just a matter of different focus. It doesn't mean that SOC people don't long for closeness, don't have intimate relationships, or anything of that sort.
> 
> Edit: Your signature for example, is pretty social instinct, in a way.



This is making the instincts too much like cognition - they're not-- at least as best as I've understood the theory -- they're needs, fixations. SO is attuned to what other people think and cares about what they think, even when it doesn't want to. It doesn't have to do with big picture or connections or anything. It's just having more difficulty turning off awareness of other people's opinions than a non-so-first has. Just like sx can't escape this need to feel burned up, needing, needed, and sp knows a million ways they could die, so feels the opinions of others, or wants to feel them, or imagines feeling them, and craves them a certain way. Maybe fighting against this awareness, rebelling or becoming anti-social, maybe embracing it, always playing the part needed, but it's the awareness and the caring that marks So.



kaleidoscope said:


> I can absolutely see a social-first or second saying all of this, since the _awareness _of social networks and dynamics is still there, as you mention in the first few lines of your post and all throughout. There's a difference between noticing and rejecting because pointless/retarded/messed up, and not even being aware of them in the first place. I don't think social-firsts are necessarily into the things you mention and can very much be vehement critics of them. What matters is where the focus is, not the attitude towards these social structures.
> 
> This is my favorite description of SO-last:
> 
> ...


Again, it's not enough to just notice, there also needs to be some level of caring or need. 

I'm probably sp-first, although I suck at some stereotypical sp things, I'll do an Ne space out and forget to eat, but if I happen to remember that I haven't eaten all day then I will need to eat because I will be scared for my body, I won't be able to push that awareness of my health aside, doing risky physical activities, even very mildly ones, I'm always aware of it, how easily I could die or just get terribly injured. With sx, I'm not sure, what I see is wanting an intense connection but being terrified of the vulnerability that entails, and that might just be channeling a kind of abstracted sp. 


But with so... I can see relationships, I can be aware of them, and I suppose on some level I worry about losing them but it's very muted, I take it for granted. I know a lot of introverts who are probably so-first, because they're so constantly aware of and terrified of what other people will think of them, whereas I'm a good public speaker because I don't care, even when I know I should. I'm not saying I can't be humiliated or shamed, just that they rank so much lower in my awareness. 
And that's exactly the luxury so-first doesn't have, they can't turn off that awareness. It's there constantly just as much as my constant awareness of how close I am to losing every sp thing I hold dear. Of course, I'm fear-center, so in rage or shame it would manifest slightly differently, some other form of need, but the point stands.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

hal0hal0 said:


> It's not that I'm unaware of those interpersonal dynamics, but I suppose I don't have a very deep understanding of these types of systems, to the point that my ability to navigate those realms feels clumsy and like I'm playing a chess game and 5 moves behind everyone else. Like I am a slow learner to some extent and simply inadequate to play the game at everyone else's level (so I often try to get away with not playing the game at all).


That makes sense. I guess I exaggerated with the lack of understanding part to draw a contrast between so-first/second and so-last. So-last is more about not being as attuned (rather than total lack of understanding) to the existing connections in the social realm. They may feel like it's up to them to create those connections from scratch, and therefore, they avoid the game like you say.



> So would Sp instinct _*be *_the nodes? As in... the nodes themselves are Sp (individual people) whereas Sx notices other nodes (interpersonal), and Soc instinct recognizes the "web" of nodes and the interconnected relationships between many, many people (i.e., as in a network)?


I'm honestly not really sure how Sp would play out in the node analogy.. But yes, Sx would be about zooming in one one node, a laser-like focus that has one object, whereas So would be about relating to things larger than the self, such as the overall network. Could you elaborate more on Sp *being *the node? How would that manifest itself in terms of social focus? If you have any examples in mind, that would be awesome.



> I've been fond of dubbing type 2 as "the networking orientation" but after reading your post, networking in general seems to be more Soc instinct oriented, perhaps this is only applicable to Soc 2 (and to some extent Sx). To be more precise, I think the 2' s emphasis on repression of needs or the apparent belittling of the 2's self-importance lends itself well to fixating upon the network to the detriment of the 2's self-concept (i.e., hence, flattery, helping, seduction or generally subversive tactics for ensuring the 2's significance).


I don't really think of 2s as being particularly linked to the social instinct except in the outer focus they both share, and that can be limited to a few select individuals for Sx 2s. The motivations also differ; the type 2 fixation is more about establishing an identity/image of being everything the other person needs, while maintaining a 'good' exterior (very heavy on the superego) which doesn't have to be the case in the social instinct. The latter reflects the need to belong, to become affiliated with something larger than yourself. The two become super intertwined in Soc 2s though, for sure. :3


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Pelopra said:


> SO is attuned to what other people think and cares about what they think, even when it doesn't want to. It doesn't have to do with big picture or connections or anything. It's just having more difficulty turning off awareness of other people's opinions than a non-so-first has.


Being concerned about people's opinions sounds more like an image type kind of thing, rather than a social instinct fixation. I did make it sound more like a matter of cognition, because I was emphasizing the details of where the focus is at for each instinct. It is very much a fixation and it's not something you can switch off at will, but maybe I have a hard time describing it as a compulsion or a need because I don't relate to it that way, being soc-second. 



> Maybe fighting against this awareness, rebelling or becoming anti-social, maybe embracing it, always playing the part needed, but it's the awareness and the caring that marks So.


Totally agree with this, and that was my point. Rejecting the social sphere is as much part of being soc-first as embracing it. Why? Because both are the consequence of a need to constantly evaluate the social realm and find your place in it.


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

kaleidoscope said:


> I'm honestly not really sure how Sp would play out in the node analogy.. But yes, Sx would be about zooming in one one node, a laser-like focus that has one object, whereas So would be about relating to things larger than the self, such as the overall network. Could you elaborate more on Sp *being *the node? How would that manifest itself in terms of social focus? If you have any examples in mind, that would be awesome.


I see _*people *_as the nodes to put it in the most basic form.

The way I interpreted the nodes were like a connect-the-dots puzzle. So, Sp views people as separate, distinct individuals. I am one node, you are another node, and we are separate. I often bring up Simon and Garfunkel's "I am a Rock" as a classic depiction of the Sp-instinct's desire for self-containment and maintaining that wholeness of self:

_*"I Am A Rock"*

A winter's day
In a deep and dark December;
I am alone,
Gazing from my window to the streets below
On a freshly fallen silent shroud of snow.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

I've built walls,
A fortress deep and mighty,
That none may penetrate.
*I have no need of friendship; friendship causes pain.
It's laughter and it's loving I disdain.*
I am a rock,
I am an island.

Don't talk of love,
But I've heard the words before;
It's sleeping in my memory.
I won't disturb the slumber of feelings that have died.
If I never loved I never would have cried.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

I have my books
And my poetry to protect me;
I am shielded in my armor,
Hiding in my room, safe within my womb.
I touch no one and no one touches me.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

And a rock feels no pain;
And an island never cries. _

^The song is like a textbook for Sp that rejects the interconnectedness of either Sx or Soc instincts. Thus, in the eyes of the Sp-instinct, we are all islands and we are separate from one another. In its most pronounced form, I think Sp can simply desire to reject connection altogether (whether the "intense" connection of Sx or the feeling inclusiveness/belonging of Soc, as you said).

Thus, Sp represents the conceptualization of the nodes as individual, separate and distinct entities. Sx attempts to break that bubble of separation or transgress those boundaries, and Soc looks at an even broader perspective, considering the whole network of connections.










So, taking our connect-the-dots (i.e., node = dot):

Sp = The dots themselves
Sx = The connection between dots
Soc = The network or "web" of dots

^I actuall think Soc has a clearer view of the "bigger picture" in this case (i.e., why Soc instinct is consider the "birthplace of altruism.").


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

hal0hal0 said:


> I see _*people *_as the nodes to put it in the most basic form.
> 
> The way I interpreted the nodes were like a connect-the-dots puzzle. So, Sp views people as separate, distinct individuals. I am one node, you are another node, and we are separate. I often bring up Simon and Garfunkel's "I am a Rock" as a classic depiction of the Sp-instinct's desire for self-containment and maintaining that wholeness of self:
> 
> ...


I love that song! I guess there's a bit of a confusion about what connection means in this analogy; I do agree that both Sx and So are more about connections/links whereas Sp emphasizes separateness. Perhaps connection in the Sx sense is more selective and limited to two nodes at a time, and So is about the whole? 



> So, taking our connect-the-dots (i.e., node = dot):
> 
> Sp = The dots themselves
> Sx = The connection between dots
> ...


That was awesome. I completely agree!


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

kaleidoscope said:


> Being concerned about people's opinions sounds more like an image type kind of thing, rather than a social instinct fixation. I did make it sound more like a matter of cognition, because I was emphasizing the details of where the focus is at for each instinct. It is very much a fixation and it's not something you can switch off at will, but maybe I have a hard time describing it as a compulsion or a need because I don't relate to it that way, being soc-second.


I've read somewhere about instincts being associated with centers, where so is shame, sp is fear, and sx is rage, so I guess the image-y overtones might be a tiny bit unavoidable. 

But I think the image center has a lot to do with identity and struggles with that. And although that's seemingly organically related to so there are other fear or rage ways of being fixated/aware of others. 
A 5 so-first, for example, will probably experience other people's perception of them as their main incompetence/over-planning area. 



> Totally agree with this, and that was my point. Rejecting the social sphere is as much part of being soc-first as embracing it. Why? Because both are the consequence of a need to constantly evaluate the social realm and find your place in it.


Right, I think we're reinforcing each other there. 

One abiding misconception of so is that it has something to do with sociableness/social comfort/extraversion which is not true, and another is that you have to like it as your primary instinct, but I think it's very easy to resent it.


--

Where we disagree is on the so=big picture etc thing. Which I feel a little hesitant to comment on, because I'm very possibly so-last and maybe that's why I'm disagreeing with your point. I'm not certain of this, and perhaps I have a weak but present so. 
But I think instinct is less about perception than feeling. The so-last can perceive the network but they _feel_ on a gut level somewhat Island-y. They can see the Mona Lisa but they care about the dot. Maybe. 

This is why I really dislike the example of instinct-oriented conversations, how so will talk about social change and sp will talk about mortgages. I think that's nonsense, because I don't think instinct has to do with one's intellectual interests.

---
Similarly I disagree with the Simon & Garfunkel song analogy. It's too _anti _social connection, any social connection. I don't think so-last cares about social connection, only about not wanting to pay the price for it if it's inconvenient for them because they don't care enough. 

It's possible that I'm a lousy example of so-last. Maybe I'm not actually sp/sx in which case I shouldn't be offering an opinion on instinct order. If i am so-last, though, then I raise a few questions about what that means. Because my friends have described me as the person who keeps our social group together. 

And maybe that's the example. I kept my social group together, but when I moved to a different state it only slowly, beneath my awareness bothered me, the loss of the network very slowly felt. To an extent I snapped into Island mode, but I think it was because sp was not being met so I just didn't have attention to spare. 

(or maybe I'm not sp/sx. I concluded the secondary sx because of the descriptions of intensity, mostly.)


----------



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

Pelopra said:


> SO is attuned to what other people think and cares about what they think, even when it doesn't want to. It doesn't have to do with big picture or connections or anything. It's just having more difficulty turning off awareness of other people's opinions than a non-so-first has. Just like sx can't escape this need to feel burned up, needing, needed, and sp knows a million ways they could die, so feels the opinions of others, or wants to feel them, or imagines feeling them, and craves them a certain way. Maybe fighting against this awareness, rebelling or becoming anti-social, maybe embracing it, always playing the part needed, but it's the awareness and the caring that marks So.


Hrm, I keep wondering if I'm more So-last or -second. Me feeling rather self-conscious in social contexts doesn't help.  I do think it has to do with connections, though. A _focus _on how you and other people fit into a larger context, or whatever.



> Similarly I disagree with the Simon & Garfunkel song analogy. It's too _anti social connection, any social connection. I don't think so-last cares about social connection, only about not wanting to pay the price for it if it's inconvenient for them because they don't care enough. _


I thought it worked well enough. It's a bit exaggerated, but that helps drive the point home. It's not being anti-social in order to rebel/make a point to the world or another person or whatever, it just wants to withdraw from it all in order to protect itself.


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

kaleidoscope said:


> I love that song! I guess there's a bit of a confusion about what connection means in this analogy; I do agree that both Sx and So are more about connections/links whereas Sp emphasizes separateness. Perhaps connection in the Sx sense is more selective and limited to two nodes at a time, and So is about the whole?


Precisely. I think the difference between the instincts is where the energy is directed and with whom the individual is connecting. Sp connects with oneself (singular dots), Sx directs itself towards intimate connection (the line between 2 dots or few dots), whereas Soc connects with the whole group or broadest perspective (the whole damn network of dots).

If I were to give an example of Sp 4, I'd say Elliott Smith's "Bottle Up and Explode" fits the bill:





^Specifically, I see him as 4w3 Sp/Sx


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Kink said:


> Hrm, I keep wondering if I'm more So-last or -second. Me feeling rather self-conscious in social contexts doesn't help.  I do think it has to do with connections, though. A _focus _on how you and other people fit into a larger context, or whatever.
> 
> 
> I thought it worked well enough. It's a bit exaggerated, but that helps drive the point home. It's not being anti-social in order to rebel/make a point to the world or another person or whatever, it just wants to withdraw from it all in order to protect itself.


I guess the song is a matter of interpretation. I view his statement as very bitter and angry rather than matter-of-fact. But you're right, if it was matter of fact it would work.


----------



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

Pelopra said:


> I guess the song is a matter of interpretation. I view his statement as very bitter and angry rather than matter-of-fact. But you're right, if it was matter of fact it would work.


Well it's not like Sp-doms can't have feelings towards these things, haha. And when I read the lyrics they come across as more fearful and stubborn than anything. Didn't listen to the song so I'm not sure what impression the music would have on me, mind.

Edit: Of course you could interpret it differently, but the sentiment that is _expressed _works to get across the point, I think.


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

disguise said:


> As @_pepe_ well said, SO-first are not necessarily comfortable in the domain of a social environment. They are very aware of the social construct, and might have a harder time with insecurities related to the group atmosphere. _Do I fit? What is my position in this community?_ It is not easy; SO-first might very well be highly introverted, but just recognize how things go for them compared to how things for them compared to their peers. SO-first does not mean "at ease in a group setting". Please understand that.


Good post. I'm pretty sure i'm so last then.


----------

