Hey [MENTION=17131]Chanaynay[/MENTION], thank you for the mention!
I really apologize for taking so long to reply. I wanted to write something good for you and I felt anxious about it, so I procrastinated.
Chanaynay said:
I do relate to the bubbly, energetic, playful descriptions of so/sx [...] the whole "people love you or hate you" aspect that comes with being sx/so I just didn't understand. [...] I mean, I think that if you want to make connections, you should at least try to keep them in a happy mood so they won't get annoyed by you. If you annoy them, to me, the effort and energy used to meet people was wasted. I want to make sure all that energy was put to good use and I can say that I made meaningful connections afterward.
I absolutely, 110% am on board with you here. I do think your energy comes across as somewhat gentle, though still bright and assertive and playful. I don't relate to the aspect of being "loved or hated", either, or having a strong enough presentation to potentially quickly drive others away. My personal preference is to be at least neutral to everyone, to be liked by as many as possible, and to be hated by no one. To me, it is generally not worth alienating some people to have a better chance of obtaining the affections of others.
My only exception would be in the case of a romantic interest; I have lost myself to that trade-off before. I regretted it. In retrospect, I should never have subverted my own value system to gain affection, because later on my romantic interest was offensive to someone very important to me, and then I was left with the realization that not only had I lost the affection of quite a few people who I very may well have had good relationships with, were it not for me kowtowing to this other person, but I also no longer cared to have the affection of that person after discovering that they weren't going to reciprocate for me the prioritization I gave them. It was a lose-lose situation, but I did learn a very valuable lesson.
Chanaynay said:
Stepping out of my comfort zone really made me reevaluate what kind of person I am. I was under this whimsical childlike wonder that I would always be with people I was close to, but when college started I was a little freaked out. I missed my best friend, I cried to her on the phone for a good hour. Then I cried to another one of my friends over a Skype call. It sucked because all the people I knew and loved with all my heart were so far away, and all I wanted to do was share my new experiences with them. In fact, typing this now is making me tear up. I don't know if it's just me, but saying what I'm feeling or putting it out to the world just makes the emotions so much more real to me. Yeah, I feel things internally all the time, but when I vocalize it to the rest of the world that accentuates the intensity and impact of those emotions for me.
I understand this. Me too. Voicing it makes it more real, somehow.
I also feel that sadness with people that I thought would be close friends forever and haven't been. I thought it of my friends in elementary... then middle... then high school... then college. It's been interesting to see who's stayed and who's moved on. I'm not close to anyone from my elementary or middle schools anymore. I have a handful of lasting high school friends, most of whom I don't see often but I am so happy to have. And then I have the same with my college friends - again, not as many have stayed close as I hoped but I'm discovering the nature of long-term friendships as opposed to the short-term ones. They're not as consistently close as I would have chosen, for the most part, but they're good. It's like you just pick up where you left off.
Chanaynay said:
I think one reason (albeit a stupid one) I typed as sx/so was because of how much this forum talks about sx-dominance and it's rarity. I love being special and unique, and some posts by sx-doms actually resonated with me but I realize now that it was probably just speaking to my secondary sx. I enjoy being talked about and getting attention and to be honest so or sp never really gets talked about as much here.
It's true. For me I don't know if it was even the rarity, but it just
sounds so much better than the other instincts. It's exciting, thrilling, captivating, magnetic, risky, deep, raw, electric. As suits the instinct proper, it's an
attractive notion to be a Sexual dominant. It seems that often Social is regarded as a superficial, cliquey instinct, and Self-Pres is stereotyped as boring.
However, I
love this content from runningfather.wordpress.com regarding the instincts and Social dominance -
lee said:
The dominant variant is the one given top priority. What gets conscious attention, what causes those sleepless nights. Where your buttons get pushed and you start decompensating. Thus taking an elevator trip to a lower level of health. A lot of this behavior is unconscious. Self-growth happens if you can be present to when you act out of the instincts.
The secondary variant provides support to the first or is where you go on vacation from neurotic stuff. [...]
Social – is not the same as socializing. There’s concern about the well-being of the other, caretaking, adaptation. This instinct is aimed towards species survival and evolved with mammals and some insect species. Species where society is organized to protect the vulnerability of mother and child. Organisms with more complex nervous systems take longer to be viable. The social instinct provides a holding environment.
Emphasis on cooperation and roles aimed at mutual survival. A need to be involved and contribute. A desire to be wanted and accepted. This is an instinct—hardwired. Need a group viability for a sense of well-being. Reciprocity. Attunement to hierarchy, political awareness. Ability to read people. A recognition of when behavior is damaging to group survival. Formation of unconscious clusters where mutual support is an issue. Can manipulate the environment. Has an understanding of what groups can accomplish. [...]
Dominant and blind spot expression of the instincts
Social instinct
Dominant—neglect other things in favor of focus on contributions—workaholic. Being included is important. A need to be plugged in to something. Finding a place in the world. One can manipulate people to get this need met. Can be a narcissistic need. Focus on politics, jockeying for position and role. This can be pathological. Issue of willingness to pay the price of admission. Danger of over- accomodating. You may not want to join in but are aware of the issue—do I participate or not? A focus on “what will I get out of this?†“Is this worth my while?†One is dancing with the issue of one’s place in life. Likes gossip. Want to know what’s going on with people—this is a way to uncover the hierarchy. Talk is currency. (Sp and Sx don’t care so much.) Discourse is a social instinct thing. Exploring—how can we bond? Are we on the same team? Who can I trust? Healthy expression—how can this help everyone? Unhealthy expression—what’s in it for me? Issues can turn into warfare—the darker side of politics.
Russ said that the life script of a self-pres dominant tends to emphasize continuity, organic development. Sexuals tend to have chapters, and have sometimes “gone down in flames’ with what they’re attracted to. Socials tend to have “pods of affiliationâ€, that is different groups or activities they’re involved with.
I think I've posted this one elsewhere, but this is my absolute favorite-ever explanation of variant-type thinking and the stackings. It's from the same site. I condensed the paragraphs to be more forum-friendly; I've also bolded a few things.
DigitalCrash said:
I’ve said this before in other topics, but the way I see it, the variants represent your needs and priorities. The types are more like your internal issues. Your own problems. The internal problems you focus on (the conflict between ego, superego and id). The variants, by contrast, focus on the outside world. The outside problems you focus on.
Therefore, the social type focuses on society as a whole, and… well… social problems. That is – your job, your school, whether you have homework to do, whether you don’t have homework to do, how well are you doing in life, how well are other people doing in life, how well are you doing in life compared to how other people are doing in life, your role, etc. It compells you to desire to interact with others, and focus on the interactions between you and others, as well as the interaction between you and… things even. It’s a thought that’s very… gear-like. Very… mechanic. There’s always movement. They are aware of also the interactions between others and others, and others and the environment as well as themselves and others and themselves and the environment. It’s being aware of interactions in general. How everything interacts with each other. That’s what makes it very gear-like. One gear affects another, and their aware of how they can harm and help this whole entire process (of interacting with others and stuff). When they lose someone, they feel that a gear was just lost. They can’t interact with it anymore, and it’s gone. That something’s missing (and they know what it is).
Sx-firsts, on the other hand, aren’t as aware of the interactions between them and others and the environment, rather… their more aware of the chemistry. So while the so-firsts are more “mechanicalâ€, the sx-firsts are more “chemicalâ€. Focusing on sx-first issues involve: Am I close to my gf/bf? Am I close to my family? How much in common do we all have? Do I really like this thing? Am I attracted to it? Is that person attracted to that other person? etc. They’re more aware of the bonds and the chemistry between them and people, as well as environment, and other people and other people, as well as other people and the environment. They really like being close to their intimates, and are generally passionate about things. Likewise, they fear that those chemical bonds could be broken, and when they are, they are emotionally hurt. They feel literally separated, and ripped away from the other person or object.
Finally, sp-first issues revolve around: Am I healthy? Do I look good? How are my financial issues? How is that person’s financial issues? Am I hungry? etc. In other words, sp-firsts worry more about fitness. Fitness in general, of course, not necessarily just body fitness. Therefore, they worry more about how fit they are in their environment, as well as how fit other people are in their environment. They want to be fit. I guess this represents more of… potential energy, rather than mechanical and chemical energy. When someone leaves them… I guess perhaps they feel more unfit, since I’m sure they may rely on others to keep them fit. Though, its still more important for they themselves to be fit on their own.
Therefore… now… stackings:
So/Sx- Mechanical energy -> Chemical energy(-> = then)
Focus on the interaction of things, and how their “chemical energy†influences these interactions. They use their “chemical energy†to help them interact better. They seek a bond with everything they interact with.
Sx/So- Chemical energy -> Mechanical energy
Focus on the chemistry of things, and how their “mechanical energy†influences the chemistry between them and others. They may rely on interactions to help their “chemical bonds†remain stable (such as asking a friend for advice on the relationship, as well as interacting with the right objects to help the relationship remain stable).
So/Sp- Mechanical energy -> Potential energy
Focus on the interaction of things again, but then they also focus on their fitness, and how fit those interactions are. Use their fitness as a away of reinforcing the strength of the interactions as well (“I will do better at work if I am well-suitedâ€).
Sp/So- Potential energy -> Mechanical energy
Focus on their fitness, while also focusing on the interaction of things. How those interactions affect their fitness. They may, for this reason, seem more business oriented. (“If I take that offer, it might help me moreâ€).
Sp/Sx- Potential energy -> Chemical energy
Focus on their fitness, as well as the chemical bonds they’ve developed with people. They also focus on how those chemical bonds affect their fitness.
Sx/Sp- Chemical energy -> Potential energy
Focus on their chemical bonds, as well as fitness. Basically, the fitness of those chemical bonds, and what they can do to make them “fitterâ€.
Like I said, this REALLY hit home with me. It became SO clear that I am a "where does it fit" thinker before a "how well does it fit" thinker. It was always my impression that thinking about how well-matched my partner and I are was a very Sexual sort of thought process - ha. Turns out, at least in this interpretation, that's more of a Social thought. Sexual, on the other hand, would be checking in on how well we're interfacing at all times, and while I do that some, it's not anywhere near as much. I'm far more concerned with our overall, lasting fit, and I assume that for the most part, if I get our fit right, the quality of interfacing will work itself out - and that is totally Social first.
It also suddenly becomes clear to me, realizing this, why many Sexual dominants tend to have shorter, more intense romantic involvements: I assume that the bond is foundational to the chemistry. Sure, you have to start out with a certain degree of chemistry, but I also feel like I have chemistry with a lot of people and it takes a heck of a lot more than good chemistry to make a good relationship, and more chemistry is
created through the existence of that bond. Whereas someone who is Sexual might see things more in the light of the chemistry being what allows you to make the bond in the first place, and if you don't have good chemistry, there's no real point in keeping the bond. I now understand, I think, the So/Sx and Sx/So prioritization difference, and why the16type.info mindset descriptions are, respectively:
Sx/Sp - "I can have merging/intensity without having to leave my orderly & pleasing lifestyle."
Sx/So - "If I can maintain position and inclusion in the group/world, I can keep up and escalate all this merging/intensity."
So/Sx - "If I can get close to people with merging/intensity, I can make sure of and keep improving my position and inclusion in the group/world."
So/Sp - "If I can establish an orderly and pleasing lifestyle, I can make sure of and keep improving my position and inclusion in the group/world."
The So/Sx one put me off at first; I don't value my "position" in the world more than I value my close relationships. But that was looking at it through the lens of not understanding that
bonding is more Social than Sexual, and
close relationships are not Sexual. Close relationships are human, really, just like sex is human, and none the instincts have a monopoly on either.
To put in wording I personally understand better:
Sx/Sp - If I take care of myself and my resources, I can obtain the maximum intensity and stimulation possible.
Sx/So - If I attend to my social connections, I can obtain the maximum intensity and stimulation possible.
So/Sx - If I create intense stimulation, I can retain and improve my bonds and connections.
So/Sp - If I take care of myself and my resources, I can retain and improve my bonds and connections.
So I think for myself, the crux of understanding my true stacking was to see that my overall goals are way more Social than Sexual - much more to hang onto lasting bonds and connections than to retain stimulation. My main problem had been associating "close relationships" with Sexual, and also mistaking my emphasis on the "fit" in relationships for Sexual. In reading about the instincts, the single word I identified with most was "immersion" - getting absorbed in something - a hot shower, for example, or the experience of listening to a concert. The term "immerse" comes from the Latin "to dip in", and the key element is the overwhelming
harmony of the experience. I thought this was Sexual because of the "energy" being right, but I was looking at it the wrong way again. Sexual wouldn't measure the harmony of the atmosphere, but the
intensity of the energy. Again, not Sexual.
There are a handful of other ways I see what I believe now to be my Social dominance show up:
Stereotypically, I got very involved in student organizations in college. I know I've mentioned before that one of those groups was a sorority, which I loved, but I didn't always get as attached to the people as I was to the idea of the group itself. Some people I did connect incredibly with and I know we will be lifelong friends; but to some extent I also really enjoyed my involvement because I believed in the cause of having a large stable social group working together to fulfill lots of goals - academic support, philanthropy events, social enjoyment, organized recreation, and emotional support. The synergy of a group is wonderful to me - that you can achieve more together than you can individually. This also means you can harm more, but in general, it can be used to great good. I do put a fair amount of attention into "roles" in life, and the duties that accompany them. I think this is a Social 6 thing, so it may well not apply to all Socials, but the underlying assumption is very Social, in that if all the roles are correctly fulfilled, then the whole group can act with maximal synergy, and it is each person's responsibility to fulfill the duties of the roles they choose (eg, parent, manager, political representative, etc.).
Thinking of those people, I occasionally will peruse Facebook and check in on my peers, old friends, current friends, etc. I like to see what they're doing, especially where they're working and who they're in relationships with. I like to see how people "fall in place". It's really neat to see, for example, a girl from middle school who was sort of snobby and in the popular clique, who is now a fun-loving and very compassionate bartender covered in colorful tattoos. She totally came into her own and has found a role where she can self-express and enjoy herself and provide a (relatively, lol) constructive service to society, too. I think that's really neat. I don't have any desire to pigeonhole anyone, but I like to see how people fit in the grand scheme - and certainly there is room for change and growth in that.
With my romantic relationships, like I mentioned before, I concentrate very much on the "fit" of things. I want us to be well-matched, and I assume that the perfect connection will grow out of that plus us working to make it so. I do have a strong desire for face-to-face direct interaction in the relationship - for looking "at" one another - but I have a stronger desire for us to do things together. Being companions is really my first priority. I think for a while I was under the impression that I wanted to completely lose myself in the other because I thought that would make for the best relationship quality, and to affirm that I have "The One". As it turns out, I don't really like completely losing myself in the other, for the reasons I described in that lose-lose situation earlier. I still have to retain
me. My desire, instead, is for him to
fit perfectly with me... for us to be perfect companions. I want us to be able to choose a mutually appealing living space, for us to do activities together we both enjoy, for us to complement each other in our strengths and weaknesses, for us to balance one another, for us to get along with each others' families and create a happy, stable unit. There is lots of stability here, more than intensity. Some of that comes from my 6, I think, while some comes from not Sx.
Relatedly, I think about when my life is over, what I really want is to have made happier and more fulfilling lives for the people I love - my parents, my brother, my future spouse, my future children, and to make the world better through whatever sort of work I do. I don't have major aspirations for becoming famous or leaving a lasting mark on the world because from a bird's eye view, we are all fairly insignificant in the passage of time. That doesn't bother me very much. It just says to me that the sphere of my window for spreading love is relatively small, and cozy, and right here right now. I feel like it will be more productive and lasting to do good in my small life and have that echo out in ripples affecting everyone I touch, rather than to aim for a big effect and go all-or-nothing, potentially wasting it all. I don't want to spend my life obsessed about one singular thing, though I have the tendency to do so sometimes. I want to be able to cherish everything.
Anyway, Chanaynay, I hope some of this can be helpful.
It's good to hear from another person who is on the same journey of reflecting and re-assessing priorities and definitions and it's flattering to be summoned.
Of course I do love to enjoy myself and surround myself with various pleasures of life, but I simply don't have the energy to keep it up and keep asking for more. Eventually I get drained, as I'm sure everyone - even sx-doms - does, but I never really tried to escalate or intensify anything.
