# How do SX blindspots appear to others?



## Merisela (Oct 7, 2016)

Pretty self explanatory ^


----------



## psyche (Jan 5, 2011)

Hm, not sure I understand... Do you mean, how does sx appear in sx-last people, or what do sx-doms not realize about their behavior?


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

psyche said:


> Hm, not sure I understand... Do you mean, how does sx appear in sx-last people, or what do sx-doms not realize about their behavior?


I imagine it's "how do non-SX-lasts perceive SX-lasts?"

To me, there's nothing special about being SX-mid or -first, so I guess I shouldn't be posting :tongue: 

Both of my parents are SX-lasts and they're great. Very homey, welcoming people. Most of my complaints aren't of their stacking, maybe my dad is a bit of a busybody SO/SP - but my mom's not, as an SP/SO.

A lot of people complain SX-lasts are "boring" or something, which I think is a huge misunderstanding of the system / instincts.


----------



## karmachameleon (Nov 1, 2015)

As an sx first, sx lasts come off kind of mean to me, not that they try to be, but they just do. And detached, cold. Except for 9s usually, in particular 9w1s.
Like if I told them about my sx worries, they would not take it as seriously as I would like, because they don't understand the drug problem to a person.


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

I like them but I wouldn't date them. 

In general. 

I really don't have any particular view it is just that there is little connectivity between us so there is less interest and this limit our relation it won't ever go very deep. 

Probably. Who knows? 

So/sp can be interesting.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

i think they can be endearing actually. reserved, modest bordering on shy, sometimes kind of humble as in "there's more at stake than just me here", etc. 

i know other Sx-firsts, and sometimes they are the most annoying fucking people on the planet. everything is "hey! look at me", or "why are you not giving me all of your undivided attention!?!"--which kind of makes me want to kill them. 
and there are times when their method of "bonding" falls really flat--like invading your personal space when you're stressed, but they think since it's "them" it's okay and you should just like it (fighting ensuing instead and it always ends up far more dramatic than it should). 

really depends on the person.


----------



## psyche (Jan 5, 2011)

The stacks themselves actually tend to come across very differently to me. And also I have known way more so/sp people than sp/so. So/sp comes across to me like someone you will never get a hold of completely, but who is very reliable, someone you would trust without thinking twice really. Most of the so/sp's I've known (actually possibly even all of them) have been second-born children in their families...natural peacemakers, like the rock or the glue of the family, but secretly tortured by that responsibility. They tend to have a distinctive facial expression by default to me, like a closed-mouth smile and fairly wide-open eyes as if they want to let you know they're nice people. They tend to be really attractive, honestly.

I have not known many sp/so people...but when I think of them the first person to come into my head is Jemima Kirke, the girl in my avatar (I think she is sp/so)... They come across really different from so/sp to me in that this is someone you absolutely can get a hold of, completely, and who will hold onto you for dear life (think of when Jay-Z's bodyguard had to drag her away from him). They just make me think of a super homey, earthy person, a true earth mother who seems somehow effortlessly comfortable in their own skin or maybe just _comfortable_, period. Some other examples I can think of (if I'm not mistaken) are Bob from Bob's Burgers and Jim Gaffigan. You could just sit by a fire and crack jokes with them and eat with them and hug them lol, they're just not going to judge you for being clingy. So/sp always feels to me like they don't want you to get too clingy; they're very kind but they need their space.


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

psyche said:


> So/sp comes across to me like someone you will never get a hold of completely, but who is very reliable, someone you would trust without thinking twice really. Most of the so/sp's I've known (actually possibly even all of them) have been second-born children in their families...natural peacemakers, like the rock or the glue of the family, but secretly tortured by that responsibility. They tend to have a distinctive facial expression by default to me, like a closed-mouth smile and fairly wide-open eyes as if they want to let you know they're nice people.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

I think it comes across as a lack of willingness to let go and have fun, a desire to follow too many rules all the time... I think most Sx-firsts are really rebels at heart, and can't quite wrap their minds around SP's rule-following and SO's positivity/ sincerity.
...Painted as a very broad stroke of course.


And I'm sorry but-- I really don't mean this personally-- it's just that this is an example of something I see all the time--
But when I see people say things like this,


psyche said:


> I have not known many sp/so people...


I can't help thinking, how the **** do you know? It's like you look around and type the vast majority of people you come in contact with? I don't think people should even be typing most friends/family/acquaintances at the level of MBTI -- much less Enneatype w/ instinct _down to the level of the middle instinct. _
I mean, first instinct, sure. But _middle instinct_? Come on. 
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a valid system, and I know for sure my middle instinct is Social, but I don't pretend to know that about anybody else.
Is there some short cut you're thinking of, some easy way to recognize sp/so or whatever it was that I'm not aware of? How the **** is a sp/so different from a sp/sx in a way that is easily recognizable-- and to the point where you'd be able to generalize about most people you know and say "I don't know many of them..."

SORRY THIS IS DERAILING THE THREAD  maybe just PM me if you want to respond.


----------



## Rose for a Heart (Nov 14, 2011)

I have a suspicion that people impatient with me obsessing over boys and relationships, might be SX-last lol.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

charlie.elliot said:


> And I'm sorry but-- I really don't mean this personally-- it's just that this is an example of something I see all the time--
> But when I see people say things like this,
> 
> 
> ...


Chill out :/

I say that stuff without the presumption that I'm correct. If I don't think I know what's most likely, I'll say so. You have no idea what people she's referring to, either - maybe it's friends and family who are interested, or who she feels comfortable typing. My dad is relatively easy to type, but my mom wasn't, and I'm sure my post history reflects my changing her type frequently. Trying to type others isn't really a bad thing unless you're the type of person who would discriminate on something so dumb, or can't accept being wrong. After all, half of the self-typings here aren't much better than guesses, and that's what I perceive typing others to be as well.

You're in the wrong thread to bring this up anyway. The topic itself implies knowing the second instinct, so why bring this up here?


----------



## psyche (Jan 5, 2011)

charlie.elliot said:


> And I'm sorry but-- I really don't mean this personally-- it's just that this is an example of something I see all the time--
> But when I see people say things like this,
> 
> I can't help thinking, how the **** do you know? It's like you look around and type the vast majority of people you come in contact with? I don't think people should even be typing most friends/family/acquaintances at the level of MBTI -- much less Enneatype w/ instinct _down to the level of the middle instinct. _
> ...


Well, I'm pretty obsessed lol. I can't deny that. I do try really hard to type people even down to the middle instinct, but the thing is...the way I see it, you're not really getting the whole subtype package if you're not factoring in the stack as a whole. I definitely see a distinction between sp/sx and sp/so, yes, a big one. I could go on and on, honestly. But eh...maybe different people are comfortable with different degrees of typing others and I personally...go off the deep end a bit. I genuinely don't mean to cause any trouble, though.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

Sx-lasts baffle and frustrate me, and I can think of VERY few people sx-lasts I've ever been particularly close to. I have some family members on my dad's side (including my dad) who are sx-last and while I haven't always been able to avoid them, I am seriously at odds with them. They have definitely contributed (unintentionally, but significantly) to my overall sense of being misunderstood and rejected while growing up. I think there's possibly some correlation there. 

Why? Maybe because I am hypersensitive, and disinterested in anything I perceive as impersonal (even if that's just my biased perception). I'm not even sx-first but it's hard to build a connection based on shared self-preservation, aaaand "so stuff" goes over my head -- therefore I feel out of sorts with people who try to relate to others in "so ways". I like a certain degree of what I perceive as vulnerability, even if it's just a certain type of intensity found more commonly in sx-firsts or seconds - to me it feels more "honest" and natural (maybe because I can show more of myself one-on-one, but completely freeze up in groups or situations focused on assessing... positions/places/how people (especially me) "fit" into the "bigger picture").


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

psyche said:


> Well, I'm pretty obsessed lol. I can't deny that. I do try really hard to type people even down to the middle instinct, but the thing is...the way I see it, you're not really getting the whole subtype package if you're not factoring in the stack as a whole. I definitely see a distinction between sp/sx and sp/so, yes, a big one. I could go on and on, honestly. But eh...maybe different people are comfortable with different degrees of typing others and I personally...go off the deep end a bit. I genuinely don't mean to cause any trouble, though.


I think it's fine, as long as we don't start behaving in discriminatory ways based on typology. Nothing overt even, just, "Oh, that person wouldn't be interested in this because they're whateverwhatever so I won't even try to include them or open up to them". I like to be more reflective/retrospective about type. I think people can get pretty defensive about whether or not others can "determine" what their type is, and that's understandable to an extent, because its annoying to get boxed in with stereotypes based on someone else's misunderstanding. So I try to pin down specific things, but remain flexible to changing my understanding if I gain enough new insight and information. And I definitely let others be the ultimate authority on what their type is, even if I heavily suspect they're wrong, because contradicting someone who isn't open to it will not really help them until they're ready. (On the other hand, I will readily offer opinions to those who want them... and occasionally, people who frustrate me because they're typing based on negative and clearly mistaken interpretations of other types in general).

I think there are very clear distinctions based on instinctual variant stacking, personally. To the point it is one of the easier things to determine, with regards to typology, after you've spent a bit of time with/talking to someone. It's called instinctual for a reason. It's more reflexive, immediate, apparent. Expressions might be influenced by something like cognitive function or enneatype (and certain stackings can even make certain enneagram mistypings more likely), but any stacking can be encompassed by anyone. It's less easily convoluted by personal preference, or damaged psyche, or more complicated motivations, or past experiences. I could be wrong but this has been my observation thus far.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

charlie.elliot said:


> I can't help thinking, how the **** do you know? It's like you look around and type the vast majority of people you come in contact with? I don't think people should even be typing most friends/family/acquaintances at the level of MBTI -- much less Enneatype w/ instinct _down to the level of the middle instinct. _
> I mean, first instinct, sure. But _middle instinct_? Come on.
> Don't get me wrong, I think it's a valid system, and I know for sure my middle instinct is Social, but I don't pretend to know that about anybody else.
> Is there some short cut you're thinking of, some easy way to recognize sp/so or whatever it was that I'm not aware of? How the **** is a sp/so different from a sp/sx in a way that is easily recognizable-- and to the point where you'd be able to generalize about most people you know and say "I don't know many of them..."


I think there is a difference between saying "I don't know many of them" vs something like "I have not been close to many of them". I am more inclined to say the latter because I know that the better I know someone, the more accurate my typing will be, and often times I talk to people about it anyway. 

That said, I think stacking can become clear pretty quickly (or at least, which variants one's primary and secondary might include, even if not sure about order), if you have to be around them somewhat consistently -- even if you don't share a deep, personal connection (like some family members or some coworkers). 

This is all relevant because if you're interested in dismantling or challenging stereotypes or misinformation about certain typology things, examples make it easiest to confront those biases. Dancing around the fact that there are (often) clear distinctions doesn't help, in my opinion, but we should be open to re-evaluating how we understand them. So I like threads like this because it helps me remember, okay, sx-lasts aren't actually cold or impersonal, necessarily - I'm just perceiving it that way based on my own needs and insecurities.


----------



## psyche (Jan 5, 2011)

Quernus said:


> I think there is a difference between saying "I don't know many of them" vs something like "I have not been close to many of them". I am more inclined to say the latter because I know that the better I know someone, the more accurate my typing will be, and often times I talk to people about it anyway.


You're right, that would have been a better choice of words and I will try to remember to use them from now on. And yes, that's what I meant - people I've been close to or just worked in close proximity with, not, say, a cashier I happened to speak with once in my whole life. (In that case I highly doubt I would know what their stack was lol.)

And yes, you made very good points otherwise...



> I think people can get pretty defensive about whether or not others can "determine" what their type is, and that's understandable to an extent, because its annoying to get boxed in with stereotypes based on someone else's misunderstanding. So I try to pin down specific things, but remain flexible to changing my understanding if I gain enough new insight and information. And I definitely let others be the ultimate authority on what their type is, even if I heavily suspect they're wrong, because contradicting someone who isn't open to it will not really help them until they're ready.


Yeah, I definitely strive to be this way. I don't want to be a typing nazi... I do sometimes have strong opinions because I've read so much and typed so many people and developed a feel for many aspects of types, instincts, etc. over time, but ultimately it's the other person's choice, I don't live in their body, I don't know everything about them and otherwise, it's their journey.



> I think there are very clear distinctions based on instinctual variant stacking, personally. To the point it is one of the easier things to determine, with regards to typology, after you've spent a bit of time with/talking to someone. It's called instinctual for a reason. It's more reflexive, immediate, apparent. Expressions might be influenced by something like cognitive function or enneatype (and certain stackings can even make certain enneagram mistypings more likely), but any stacking can be encompassed by anyone.


This has been my directly personal experience... For many years I typed as a 4, and in all that time I would only post on this forum sporadically. But, eventually as I became more open to different type options overall...eh, don't know how to phrase that exactly, hopefully it made sense...I realized I was a 9 and I had seen myself as a 4 because sx/sp is, well, pretty stereotypically 4-ish. Just like many sx/so people are mistyped as 7 at some point or other, and maybe so/sp as 9. And sx 9s in particular are very easily mistyped as 4 for their romanticism (Jeff Buckley would be a perfect example of that, if I'm not mistaken).


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

_(broadly)_ Fearful, uncomfortable, private (in terms of personal space, especially with sx-like interactions in those cases), embarrassed (in a way), restrained, anxious, paranoid, shy, serious.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

_Deep, interesting, smart, curious, open-minded, assertive people.

Shallow, boring, dumb, afraid, close-minded, timid people._


Both lists apply to various people who I've typed at Sx-last. In fact, they apply to *all *people I've encountered, *regardless *of the place in their stack of the _holy grail of instincts_ (puke) that is Sx.


What I mostly see in this thread is glorification of Sx combined with what I'm assuming is people mistyping others horribly. Count me not surprised.


----------



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

I would say they feel pretty unattainable, though that's not necessarily true of just Sx-lasts.


----------



## Neokortex (May 22, 2015)

But both types actually are quite good at doing service. They can be helpful, cooperative. On the hindsight, though, their Sx last, what this topic is about, has not fallen asleep. Which means that at times it's just pretense how much they are for the group and would submit themselves for the whole and are the most able team players, like ever... But when nobody sees, they can do nasty things. When nobody sees, they don't actually care that much. Take up the role, the suit, the smile, be uniform and up-to-date with the day's standards only to be left in piece when gone home. To be able to carve out that protected nieche. Play all the roles only to get the monthly wage. They can be two-faced, yes. Kissing up to someone in one moment then trash talking about him in the other. More (ethical) compromise. Their Sx becomes the mob mentality when they form alliances against me if I'm pressing, say, just one member to open up and be honest outside of his role. They defend him with lashing out at me in ways that it goes against the ethical standards they had been displaying when doing service. So their Sx is who they really are behind their social personas. Behind all the roles and niceties. I've met both cynical, snarky, ironic, sarcastic, "cool" and both more compliant (E6), playful (ENFP), warm (E9) social types.

Lately I realized that the distantiation I had been noticing with my cousin is owed to his stabilizing (maturing?) into an So/Sp orientation. But luckily, since he's a 2w1 so/sp, I was able to learn how respect his boundaries and eehm, make it a fruitful relationship. He's very helpful, even self-sacrificing, believes in some form of ethical authority which is odd considering that none in the immediate family is religious at all. Sometimes I worry about it since his willingness to submit himself for the greater whole and doing the service with the smile may not be always what the little man really needs under the facade. The real "he" feels uncannily removed from the service.

Sp/Sos... well at least we have Sp common. They're not much more easier to get close to on the level acquaintance but at least we share some of those comfort values. I had a "friend" INTP for a while but when he invited me to drink with his other INTP friend, then I was completely and utterly disgusted. I didn't know that face of his. The "Monty Python-" take on life. The intellectual superiority attitude on just ridiculing things but not doing anything about. They do self-imitation to pass the responsibility off their shoulders (shifting from one social status to the other, social climbing).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

star tripper said:


> I'm picky about dating too. I actually don't "date." Not in the traditional sense. I don't give people test runs to see if we're compatible because I already know if we're compatible. I have sx-last friends who find dates on Tinder and I don't think I could ever do that. I've got no qualms about breaking dating traditions, but that whole thing just strikes me as forced. We should be magnetized to one another. In my Abnormal Psychology class last semester, my professor asked us to pick one item that describes us. I apparently totally misunderstood the question. Everyone said, "My soccer ball because I love soccer" or "My iPod because I'm always listening to it." What did my pretentious ass write? "A moth because I'm like a moth to a flame." Suffice it to say I stuck out like a sore thumb, but I also think the metaphor will always be among the most apt for sx-doms.


Yeah, that happens to me all the time, especially after I changed departments at work and I try to fit in with the people I work with and be friends with them or whatever. I type as sx/so so I use groups and group identities in order to find someone else to single out that I find interesting, and I work at a place that's very heavily dominated by the social instinct and one thing I find is that I really want to go deeper than everyone else. So I totally relate to your example.

I for example went to an afterwork some months ago and there was a drinking game where you were free to ask the person supposed to take a drink any question you wanted, essentially. Everyone else asked imo boring questions about sex etc., (what is it about non-sx doms obsession with sex and dating without the chemistry component? I think how they approach sex is very social dom more as a form of generic social bonding rather than as something necessarily very emotionally and physically intimate) but I went straight for the juice: I wanted to know what made people tick and click, what interests they have, what their names meant etc. One girl with a foreign name actually professed to not knowing what her name meant and she had never thought of the question before. She's lived her entire life with this name but she never not once considered to ask herself what her name meant. I find it so strange.

Or when I asked another person why she wanted to study psych because she mentioned it earlier, people reacted with how they thought question was so "deep", even though the purpose of the game was for us to get to know each other, and in my world, how do you get to know each other if the only thing you talk about are what guy you think is sexy or what girl you fucked? Like I have no interest in that, I just don't, because it says so little about you as a person. All it tells me is that I get an idea what people you find sexy but since I don't want to fuck you in the first place, I want to know you at a more intimate level, that knowledge becomes rather irrelevant to me.

It also doesn't help that I am not a regular sexual but fall on the asexual spectrum, I think, so in that regard physical attraction is even less relevant to me as opposed to emotional, which means I must know what people are interested in etc. or I won't know what kind of people they really are like.

It's honestly so frustrating.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

Just to warn you, I'm wading into a very murky topic I'm not good at expressing my thoughts on. Please be patient if I make no sense.



soft.cynosure said:


> This is interesting.
> 
> With me, SX/SP, surface level relationships are kind of seen as a waste of time. If I see no potential for a deep and fulfilling relationship with another person, I don't try that much to cultivate a friendship. My relationships are either moving closer or drawing apart, never static.


Interesting! I've never thought about relationships that way (dynamic vs static). On reflection, I view relationships entirely as static. They either exist or they don't. 

I am very, very disconnected from closeness/distance. I don't know how to guage those in any natural way, so I largely ignore them. Someone might discuss a topic where I think "ah, this isn't something they would discuss to someone who is just an acquaintance. We were acquaintances but now they're talking about X. So they must not think of this relationship as an acquaintance anymore," but it doesn't go beyond the observational stage. It doesn't even mean we have a closer relationship. It just means they are acting in a way that suggests a new possible relationship context. They have felt development between us, whereas I was completely oblivious to it.

Essentially, I don't have an idea of what closeness or distance really is in relationships, so I keep relationships on a pretty binary scale: yes or no. Eventually in every relationship I will ask someone directly if they like me: if they say yes, we have a relationship. Not because I feel closeness or connection, but because they affirmed it.

Anyways, getting back to the topic: 

I suppose if one could see and appreciate the development of a relationship the way one appreciates the development of a skill, I would find more value in it. But I am blind to that. I don't see it and trying to see or understand development in relationships is stressful. I take no joy in it because I have no aptitude for it. I have only adapted by developing a loose scale by which to measure closeness: such as when they invite me to their house, when they tell me personal problems about their lives, when they begin to talk about their hopes or dreams. People step on certain topics I've marked as indicators of closeness, but I don't feel closeness the same way I think others do.



> With my friend, who is SX/SO, lets her relationships get to just where she wants them. Some people get closer than others, but she keeps them at whatever distance she wants. My acquaintance, who is SO/SP, makes friends with many people and considers them all at the same level. She kind of flits from relationship to relationship because of the no strings attached mindset. Her friendships tend to be rocky, because they are about enjoying each other, rather than having an emotional connection.


I can relate. I almost never view relationships as being focused on an emotional connection. Rather, they are often about fun and shared interests. I don't need to be close to someone to enjoy them, the same way I don't need to know how a beer is made to enjoy the taste.



> So is the choosing who you will grow close to something that comes with maturity (just as how, for me, learning to be satisfied with surface level friendships comes with maturity)? Or is it just that she's a picky SO/SP and has not found someone she deems worthy of getting to know?


I don't know her, so I can't write on her behalf. That said, I'm not sure it's so much maturity as preference. We all want different things from relationships. To that end, our approaches will be different.



> When I talk to her about it, she seems to truly be oblivious to the idea of friendship being about emotional connection. I'm not saying this to sound pretentious or anything. I just really don't get it. What is the point of a friendship if the two people involved are not striving to support each other through hardships and build each other up? What is the point of a friendship if it is solely based on enjoying the other person? How does that make one's friend any different from a pleasant stranger? What is the point of a friendship if you are not giving to one another constantly?


Sometimes that just isn't what makes a relationship enjoyable. Emotional connection comes with responsibilities. Sometimes those responsibilities far outweigh any value the relationship could offer. Sometimes it's just too much work or time taken away from elsewhere. 

Sometimes relationships are simply about momentary escapism and nothing else. And you don't need an emotional connection to do that.



> Also, in response to your edit, I've been told something similar to this before (by my SO/SP acquaintance actually), but when I asked for more explanation, she was not very helpful. Could you elaborate on this? I'm really curious about it.


Will be back in a bit to finish last part. Hold up.

EDIT: I think it's the focus. As an sx last, when I am listening to people talk and asking them questions, I am gathering info about them. I am focused on them via the information they provide. 

Sx-doms, particularly those I don't know well, who develop and interest in me, focus on me directly. The information only intensifies their focus, it doesn't draw attention away from me onto the information.

I'm trying to think of a visual example. Imagine being in an art gallery and looking at a painting. For me, I look at the painting, look at the plaque, look back at the painting. My focus is on the painting, but it shifts around.

Sx doms by contrast seem to just stare at the painting. Someone might read the plaque aloud and they'll process the information, but they never look away from the painting. They only use that information to stare even harder at it.

That sort of unrelenting focus can be very uncomfortable. It feels a bit like being the shiny new toy a kid is staring at through the shop window. What can make it more uncomfortable is that if this occurs in the early stages of getting to know an sx-dom, a person can be made to feel like an object rather than a person. Something to be deconstructed and figured out (and probably not put back together) for the other person's own selfish interest. The focus isn't on both parties-- it's on satisfying the sx-dom's curiosity, and nothing else.

Anyways, not to say all sx users are like that. Just ones I've met who are not really aware of their behavior.


----------



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

Entropic said:


> One girl with a foreign name actually professed to not knowing what her name meant and she had never thought of the question before. She's lived her entire life with this name but she never not once considered to ask herself what her name meant. I find it so strange.


Most people don't even chose their own name, so.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Distortions said:


> Most people don't even chose their own name, so.


You don't choose your names, but at least I think people would have some general interest to figure out what their names mean. This is a surname provided by her father who comes from Africa, so I find it strange that she has no interest in that regard to figure out that part of herself. I'm not saying that she should find her African roots or anything like that, but at least experience some sense of curiosity about her origin by knowing about what her family names mean. I mean, surely I can't have been the only person who was curious about it.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

As an aside, I can find it really uncomfortable when a relationship develops without my awareness. I hate it when someone moves to the next stage of closeness and I only figure it out later by piecing together the clues.

This usually puts me in a spot. I either have to step up to this new level of expectation or start scaling back to end the relationship because it became something more burdensome than I anticipated.

This is probably one of the major reasons why I end a lot of potential relationships.

I wonder if any non sx last people have experienced this from the other side. It may just be something only I do.


----------



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

@Entropic
Well, it gets me thinking of how names often says more about your family (or whoever named you) than yourself in a way, unless you go out of your way to change it later.


----------



## Neokortex (May 22, 2015)

Coburn said:


> As an aside, I can find it really uncomfortable when a relationship develops without my awareness. I hate it when someone moves to the next stage of closeness and I only figure it out later by piecing together the clues.
> 
> This usually puts me in a spot. I either have to step up to this new level of expectation or start scaling back to end the relationship because it became something more burdensome than I anticipated.
> 
> ...


You do? Do you know the instinctual orientation of your 8w9? I thought 8s are more this "go towards," "spit it out," "assert it" type of people. Don't know about social 8s. The truth and taking risks. Try out new foods. Conquer. I've never thought them as pushing away from quickly developing relationship, suddenly higher levels of intimacy. How do you explain that?


----------



## Neokortex (May 22, 2015)

Distortions said:


> @Entropic
> Well, it gets me thinking of how names often says more about your family (or whoever named you) than yourself in a way, unless you go out of your way to change it later.


Hey, your avatar's expression is like Helga from _Hey Arnold!_. You know, that girl who bullied Arnold just to hide the fact that she's in love with Arnold. Total INTJ.   xD )))) D


----------



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

Neokortex said:


> Hey, your avatar's expression is like Helga from _Hey Arnold!_. You know, that girl who bullied Arnold just to hide the fact that she's in love with Arnold. Total INTJ.   xD )))) D


Oh? I remember watching some of that show, but it's been a while and I don't really have an idea of what her type is.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

Neokortex said:


> You do? Do you know the instinctual orientation of your 8w9? I thought 8s are more this "go towards," "spit it out," "assert it" type of people. Don't know about social 8s. The truth and taking risks. Try out new foods. Conquer. I've never thought them as pushing away from quickly developing relationship, suddenly higher levels of intimacy. How do you explain that?


I'm sp/so, extra empahasis on the self preservation.

I could certainly be wrong, but as I understand it, an eight is going to be more aggressive about things that their instincts focus on. So an sp right will be more aggressive about say health or finances or whatever, whereas an sx will be more aggressive about relationships or intimacy or whatever.

Not that aggression won't extend in all areas, but I believe it's more focused in instinct areas.

Now as to explaining pushing away from new relationships or intimacy...that's a personal thing, not an eight thing. It's probably not something most eights deal with to the extreme I do. In general, I believe eights are probably more comfortable with emotional intimacy than I am.

Could be wrong. Thoughts, @Entropic?


----------



## Neokortex (May 22, 2015)

Coburn said:


> J
> EDIT: I think it's the focus. As an sx last, when I am listening to people talk and asking them questions, I am gathering info about them. I am focused on them via the information they provide.
> 
> Sx-doms, particularly those I don't know well, who develop and interest in me, focus on me directly. The information only intensifies their focus, it doesn't draw attention away from me onto the information.
> ...


I second that. Wow, you really got that tertiary Ne going, I think it's really well put into words, analogies.

We don't focus on metadata, like social trivia. "Who Bono cheated his wife with. "What inspired that song, etc." We do directly look at that person/object. And yes, "penetration" is close to "deconstruction," but which is only challenging for people who'd normally also be afraid of a psychologists' probing. Selfishness happens at the So blind spot types. We don't naturally take attention away from ourselves, it's just that the other party feels so much cornered usually that they won't dare asking back. When it comes to typology I see this hesitance of people to figure out each other, not prod too deeply, tactfully respecting boundaries, although if you really wanna know stuff, you can't just dip half finger. And thus, people mistype themselves and others. If you think deeper, calling ourselves "human" and our age "anthropocene" is just another self-delusion of the social animal, to find a purpose, to feel dignified, separated from the muck.


----------



## Neokortex (May 22, 2015)

Distortions said:


> Oh? I remember watching some of that show, but it's been a while and I don't really have an idea of what her type is.


Check it out. I think Arnold pretty much looked like a collected, E9? type of INFP. And there was an INTJ on YT w/ a vid "Chasing INFPs with Pitchforks" about how much she loooooved INFPs.  DD xD


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

Neokortex said:


> I second that. Wow, you really got that tertiary Ne going, I think it's really well put into words, analogies.


Thanks, I indulge my Ne frequently.



> We don't focus on metadata, like social trivia. "Who Bono cheated his wife with. "What inspired that song, etc." We do directly look at that person/object. And yes, "penetration" is close to "deconstruction," but which is only challenging for people who'd normally also be afraid of a psychologists' probing.


Not necessarily. I'm sure there are some people who dislike sx relationship styles because they feel like they are being dissected, and are not necessarily comfortable with that level of inward gazing.

There are also people who just don't like it as a method of interaction. Reasons why vary from person to person, and probably fall along instinct lines as well. I suppose people with sx blindspots would be less thrilled to be stuck in an sx heavy conversation style because it doesn't allow them to bring what they offer to the table.



> Selfishness happens at the So blind spot types.


From experience, it's an sx thing. It's not necessarily true selfishness, but it comes across as selfish because ultimately the sx's behavior is never done with regard for the other person. It is done to satisfy the sx instinct.



> We don't naturally take attention away from ourselves, it's just that the other party feels so much cornered usually that they won't dare asking back. When it comes to typology I see this hesitance of people to figure out each other, not prod too deeply, tactfully respecting boundaries, although if you really wanna know stuff, you can't just dip half finger. And thus, people mistype themselves and others. If you think deeper, calling ourselves "human" and our age "anthropocene" is just another self-delusion of the social animal, to find a purpose, to feel dignified, separated from the muck.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Coburn said:


> From experience, it's an sx thing. It's not necessarily true selfishness, but it comes across as selfish because ultimately the sx's behavior is never done with regard for the other person. It is done to satisfy the sx instinct.


 Agreed. Although that selfishness and need to satisfy one's own dominant instinct applies to all the instincts when the person is fixated.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Masterpiece said:


> As an Sp/So, I'll tell you how I view myself as.
> 
> I, for one, am the most pitifully boring piece of shit that has ever graced the earth. In fact, I am even worse than those _dreadful_ So/Sp's out there; at least _they_ pretend to have a personality. Me? I don't even try. The only times when I _do_ try is when I don't feel tired. And said "times" take up approximately...5.436 percent of my life based on my rough calculations.
> 
> ...


I'm dying of laughter here....  T_T

If this is any indication, I daresay I'm not an SP/SO XD

Seriously though, glad you had a blast writing that because I sure had a blast reading it. 



star tripper said:


> YES. ESPECIALLY @ "picky." Since we were kids, my mom used to tell people, "Sam [my sister] has always been a social butterfly. star tripper just picks one person every year. She's very particular." She also said picky instead of particular at times. On top of that, I used to instantly know whether or not I liked someone, and if I didn't like them, I disliked them so much that I couldn't physically stomach looking at them.
> 
> I'm picky about dating too. I actually don't "date." Not in the traditional sense. I don't give people test runs to see if we're compatible because I already know if we're compatible. I have sx-last friends who find dates on Tinder and I don't think I could ever do that. I've got no qualms about breaking dating traditions, but that whole thing just strikes me as forced. We should be magnetized to one another. In my Abnormal Psychology class last semester, my professor asked us to pick one item that describes us. I apparently totally misunderstood the question. Everyone said, "My soccer ball because I love soccer" or "My iPod because I'm always listening to it." What did my pretentious ass write? "A moth because I'm like a moth to a flame." Suffice it to say I stuck out like a sore thumb, but I also think the metaphor will always be among the most apt for sx-doms.


I know EXACTLY what you mean. I never sought out a relationship in High School, ever, because I didn't feel a special connection with any of the girls there. Tons of them were attractive enough, a couple vibed as maybe interested...but I felt nothing. When it came time for college, a girl finally got me to feel something...a spark...and lo and behold I took charge and we were dating two days later. It helps that she and I had been acquainted for a couple years. There was already a connection to build on, but with the spark of l'amour...aaaaah. I neeeeed it. I could have been in several DOZEN relationships by now, had I wanted to. I can tell when someone is interested. But I need a special something...MORE.

I used to think I was incapable of romance. Now I realize I am just very picky. I could never resort to Tinder. Tinder will never light my fire XD. But I've never been able to tell people why I can't do Tinder. I lacked the words for it entirely. Or I did...until you gave them to me just now. Thank you!


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Ivy said:


> *People describe me* as immediately easy to talk to, pretty open with my feelings and expressive (not in an sx way, my whole vibe is wholly different from that of someone who is an sx-dom). But eventually, many people describe me as distant. Or maybe I shouldn't say "many," but people who are much more in-tune with their sx than me. While nobody has labeled me as a superficial person, some begin to notice that I forge superficial relationships with people and keep things light. And I agree with them. I used to feel bad and deny it, but I've reflected enough to know the pros and cons of this style of communication and relating with the rest of the world. Plus my ego has been bruised enough to not feel like any part of me is sacred.


You know, that's interesting. I see this verbage a lot with the people that I would think are So first and Sx last. This description of the self based on how "People", as a general concept, describe them. It's like it is the social connections and personal experience that describes the self, and not their passions. Do you see what I mean?

Or, put another way, the very "distant" quality you are describing comes through from phrasing it this way. "People describe me as" is very different from "I am this kind of person and oh my gawd it can be inconvenient!" There is...a confidence, in a manner of speaking, a self confidence in the passions, which seems to be related to Sx. Bonding with others on the personal level by simply...being yourself, forging an energetic connection centered on what makes "Us" into "We".



ShuttleRun said:


> ^ Yeah, that pretty much describes me. I don't know if it's related to sx-last, but intimacy can really scare me. It really has to do with fear of rejection, though. There's also something really unnerving about intimacy. The idea that you can affect one another through intimacy, the fact that both people go through changes. That's really scary for some reason. You just kind of want to remain "yourself". Why am I changing so much? Why am I "merging" with this person? I think that's the kind of stuff that sx-firsts crave, but can be scary for sx-lasts. It feels like you're losing yourself, and they're losing themselves. I want people to remain who they are, even though I know that's not possible.


Huh. This is fascinating to talk about. I've never even considered that connecting with someone could be scary. Even when I asked out my ex-girlfriend, the scariness was mostly centered around "what do I say and where do we go if she says yes". Not so much "What if she says no, and worse...what if I get "stuck" in the relationship?" I mean, I always figure, if I don't like the relationship I'll just leave. *blinks*

The difference in perspective here is really something to think about.



Manuscript said:


> Might there be a correlation between SO/SP types and polyamory? I've gotten that vibe from polyamorous people on the internet, but I've not really looked into the subject.


I would think that this is more an SP-last thing. Sx/So in particular. Intense connection and also connect to everyone, less so trying to reserve the self. Indeed, as you mention that the community is very worried about safety...wouldn't that be all the So instinct trying to care for all the other people who are taking risks? Wouldn't it also be the result of mistakes made, personal experiences forming lessons for the future which is shared with the community, pulling them all closer?


----------



## Shadow Tag (Jan 11, 2014)

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> You know, that's interesting. I see this verbage a lot with the people that I would think are So first and Sx last. This description of the self based on how "People", as a general concept, describe them. It's like it is the social connections and personal experience that describes the self, and not their passions. Do you see what I mean?
> 
> Or, put another way, the very "distant" quality you are describing comes through from phrasing it this way. "People describe me as" is very different from "I am this kind of person and oh my gawd it can be inconvenient!" There is...a confidence, in a manner of speaking, a self confidence in the passions, which seems to be related to Sx. Bonding with others on the personal level by simply...being yourself, forging an energetic connection centered on what makes "Us" into "We".


That's a cool point you make, and I didn't even notice that phrasing myself, ha! 

My philosophy of typing reflects this, too. Personality is necessary reflected to the outer world, so I care more about how people perceive me than how I perceive myself. If I think that I'm "nice" but nobody else does, then I'm not nice. This is why I'm also up for anyone making typing suggestions to me. It doesn't make me feel hurt or bullied, and I only identify with a type insofar as other people see that type in me. If my personality classifications don't translate to reality, then they're useless.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Entropic said:


> You don't choose your names, but at least I think people would have some general interest to figure out what their names mean. This is a surname provided by her father who comes from Africa, so I find it strange that she has no interest in that regard to figure out that part of herself. I'm not saying that she should find her African roots or anything like that, but at least experience some sense of curiosity about her origin by knowing about what her family names mean. I mean, surely I can't have been the only person who was curious about it.


You are not! Trust me. Some people want to go deep, and others don't. It's honestly baffling at times. -_-


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Ivy said:


> That's a cool point you make, and I didn't even notice that phrasing myself, ha!
> 
> My philosophy of typing reflects this, too. Personality is necessary reflected to the outer world, so I care more about how people perceive me than how I perceive myself. *If I think that I'm "nice" but nobody else does, then I'm not nice. *This is why I'm also up for anyone making typing suggestions to me. It doesn't make me feel hurt or bullied, and I only identify with a type insofar as other people see that type in me. If my personality classifications don't translate to reality, then they're useless.


Hehe, you even did it more than once. I thought it noteworthy XD

Heh. I used to tell myself I felt the way you do about being typed. It took me awhile to realize...I don't. I give weight to other people's opinions and try to fuse it all together, but in the end my own perceptions matter a great deal too. I couldn't be so pragmatic about it, for sure. I try to stay out of that trap of denying everything that other people say, though, which I have seen many people do. XD

So you have no particular opinion on your own type at all other than what you have been told? Or your opinion is subject to immediate change if good evidence is presented? What exactly do you mean by "I only identify with a type insofar as other people see that type in me"?


----------



## Shadow Tag (Jan 11, 2014)

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Hehe, you even did it more than once. I thought it noteworthy XD


Oh, look at me go. Didn't realize it yet again. It's very natural for me to speak in that way. 



> Heh. I used to tell myself I felt the way you do about being typed. It took me awhile to realize...I don't. I give weight to other people's opinions and try to fuse it all together, but in the end my own perceptions matter a great deal too. I couldn't be so pragmatic about it, for sure. I try to stay out of that trap of denying everything that other people say, though, which I have seen many people do. XD


I do see the utility in that. And while high Fe people can feel that way, I see a lot of Fi (MBTI Fi, not Socionics) people think the way you do. Just an observation 



> So you have no particular opinion on your own type at all other than what you have been told? Or your opinion is subject to immediate change if good evidence is presented? What exactly do you mean by "I only identify with a type insofar as other people see that type in me"?


I mean, I think that I know typology theory as a whole pretty well, at least MBTI and Enneagram. I'm starting to get into Socionics, too. But anyway, I know things about functions and Enneagram types, but can have trouble seeing that in myself. So if people are like, "You seem X because A, B, and C" and A, B, and C are reasonable manifestations of X, then I take it seriously. You're not going to make me question my type if you suggest an Ni type because I accidentally predicted some things or 8 because I got mad at someone on PerC. If I get a sense that the person knows what they're talking about theory-wise, I talk it over with them and ask questions. And I also ask others I know who I already know are good at typology.

In addition, I'll talk to people outside of the typology sphere. It's not rare that I text some friends and ask them, "Am I like X?" Because they usually know me well enough to give me a definitive answer​ about certain traits/mannerisms.


----------

