[sx] How did we become Sx-first?

[windoverlake]

I've noticed in my smattering of friends who are sx-first, there was some kind of 'traumatic' event (or constellation of events) in their early childhoods that would leave the individual with a sense of not being seen/heard in a 'fundamental' way. Even in cases where the child will have bonded 'adequately' on some other level with a nurturing figure/parent(s), if the child's idiosyncratic, fingerprint-unique requirements were never met (whatever they may be, a very young child is unlikely to be able to articulate this, hence need goes unfulfilled), that 'lack' might be what develops the primary instinctual variant. The second place variant is the support and what I think of as the 'lifeline' to personal individuation. My theory there is that it's the key that unlocks both the first and last variants, so that there will be free and easy travel in all directions, and so forth until actualisation.

Tonally, I'd sketch it out like:

First instinct = lump in the throat, want to cry, can't breathe, feels like drowning
Second instinct = constantly full oxygen tank, invisible and weightless, source of renewal, heaven-sent but taken for granted (and it is); mechanism of survival; I chose the oxygen tank because I think it's important to see it as a tool, a mechanism that was developed and determined by environment
Last instinct = the air we breathe, basically in the background but when we lack 'fresh air' or are in a place where the 'air seems fresher', we become aware of it.

I had a very early experience where I realised I could not communicate with my parent(s) in the way I needed to communicate; that early experience was the birth of that need. I was young enough that it's possible that I didn't know how, but I'd also propose that I didn't want to communicate, because instinctually I knew they couldn't receive it because they simply were not built/developed that way. I didn't think that then; at the time I just realised I had to 'find a different way' to get across what I needed to get across, so I found an analogy that worked and was 'understood' sufficiently to reach a semblance of 'understanding'. But their understanding that didn't mean I felt understood; in fact, the opposite.

I don't begrudge my parents and we have a good relationship, insofar as the players' capacities deem possible. I was always well-cared for in other sp ways, and I'd say sp is how my parents show their love. It was certainly not enough in a holistic sense, though, but that's why as an sx/so my so-second has buttressed my sx-first needs. Even though I'm introverted, I remain aware of the 'standard' that never got met. I'm often mistaken for an extravert, though that was more in my younger days. Now that I've got a better handle on my boundaries I can enjoy people and know when I've enjoyed them enough.

As an sx/so my standards when it comes to a trusted lover/partner are unbreakably idealistic. I truly am someone that would rather live and die alone than be with someone that doesn't get me, and get my fully. The fully part is the unbreakable part. I fear being with someone that gets me, then one day doesn't. When similar things have happened, in even very 'light' and 'small' ways, in both romantic or platonic scenarios, I have to retreat and overhaul everything - it's that affecting to me. In this vein, it's not so much my heart will 'know' when I've found this right person for me, but my body will know (sp), because my sp needs have always been met. I won't even have to ask, nor will they. And in some ways, I really feel I'm searching for someone who knows this kind of experience just as well, just as thoroughly; someone with whom I can communicate without explanation. But, and a big but, I am not looking for someone to heal or balance me, as that's something each unto themselves; it's my job to better myself. Anyway, the hunch is that this person is simply the right person for me just because, and I'm the right person for them just because.

I think most of my sx-first friends are sp-second, because I don't know anyone else that fits into the sx/so stacking as I know it. And to illustrate further, my sx/sp friends also seek but they seek in sp-ways; the way I am with developing social relationships and friendships, sx/sp is with romantic partners. sx/sp (and sp/sx) are quick to move into a domestic situation with a romantic partner; I haven't noticed much deviation when factoring in MBTI. Also, sx/sp are decidedly, and significantly, more reticent when it comes to revealing personal information. It's taken time for me to discover that they had a 'trauma' early in their lives, is one example.

Continuing this sketch just a bit further, using myself:

INFJ sx/so

Early experience of 'trauma' = Ni / sx-first
Response & development to early 'trauma' = Fe / so-second

I'm not sure how this same experience would translate for, say, an ISFP sx/sp. I would imagine that the so was rejected, or perhaps the Se function naturally gravitated to sp, therefore that stacking took place.

(My usage of the word 'trauma' needs to be clarified, because trauma can take place even when there isn't outright, obvious, undeniable abuse. Though it's not always determined by culture, in certain cultures emotional and psychological abuse is not considered abuse; only physical, bodily harm would be 'legitimate' abuse: a beatdown, say, but not name-calling or taunting. Point being, these cultures would not consider 'not being seen/heard in a way fundamentally vital to that child' indicative of trauma. Just wanted to point out why I put quotation marks around trauma, and some other words/phrases.)

 

[Luv Deluxe]

Hey! Thanks for chiming in! I wonder if you've checked out the 7 specific instinctual descriptions before (Naranjo)? I did a write up of them here, if you'd like to check them out-- first image is general, second is 7-specific. I hear you about the co-dependancy card for Sx, but I do think craving one-on-one interaction/relationships is core to Sx, in addition to the intensity thing (which is part of the draw to intimacy). I do think there can be a ping pong effect sometimes for Sx-first though, when we get burned from someone thinking we want too much intimacy-- and that's to feel bad that we need it. I say that b/c I express similar sentiments about co-dependancy, but because I once was (and never want to be again).

I personally believe instincts to be more nurture than nature, in that everyone does have all three instincts. I believe we were born with them equally, as needs to survive, but only in contact with other humans do we begin to prioritize (or be taught some are less important than others, whether by example or experience).

From there, I believe core type might play a role in whether we go against, or with our parental model (or what they value). Across the board, so far, Sx-first people seem to go against the grain (as reflected 20/26 in this poll, and described above).

Haha, I can't argue with your reasoning here about nurture over nature, really. It makes a lot of sense that way, and my own experiences match up. Fair enough.

When it comes to sx-dom approaches to intimacy, then - would you say that you're also independent, but in a rejection of/reaction to codependence?

I guess I should clarify that I crave one-on-one interaction, but I can't identify with a need for romantic relationships. Some of my friends have tended to be more that way than myself, sort of like they couldn't be single, couldn't live alone, etc. I never related to that. I remember, growing up, that I liked having crushes for the sheer rush of it - that if I actually closed the deal, the drive and desire might disappear. Sometimes I would go for it anyway, but I always felt a deep sort of searching for some kind of high, regardless of what happened.

Now that I'm finally in a really good relationship, I can't imagine life without the guy. Still, I'm not really a romantic type. I don't know, maybe I would be, or maybe I am...but maybe something got distorted along the way. I've had a number of really bad things happen in that department. I think I wanted love, but out of a need for survival after all that I went through, I decided sex was better. Get off and get out of there, that sort of thing.

And yes! I've read about Naranjo's sx-dom 7. The dreamy, headspace-y nature of it is very relatable, and "enthusiastic mania" is perfect, but I would consider myself a fairly literally sexual person. As seen above, though, maybe that was distorted.

I'm curious how the development of the sexual instinct's dominance in a 7 might occur as compared to a 4, for example, and whether it's different in ways distinct from the development of the core type itself. The Enneagram is, on its own, a reflection of desires we subconsciously feel that we were lacking at some point, so in sx-doms, was this lacking magnified?

This is such an interesting thread.

 

[windoverlake]

When it comes to sx-dom approaches to intimacy, then - would you say that you're also independent, but in a rejection of/reaction to codependence?

I guess I should clarify that I crave one-on-one interaction, but I can't identify with a need for romantic relationships. Some of my friends have tended to be more that way than myself, sort of like they couldn't be single, couldn't live alone, etc. I never related to that. I remember, growing up, that I liked having crushes for the sheer rush of it - that if I actually closed the deal, the drive and desire might disappear. Sometimes I would go for it anyway, but I always felt a deep sort of searching for some kind of high, regardless of what happened.

Now that I'm finally in a really good relationship, I can't imagine life without the guy. Still, I'm not really a romantic type. I don't know, maybe I would be, or maybe I am...but maybe something got distorted along the way. I've had a number of really bad things happen in that department. I think I wanted love, but out of a need for survival after all that I went through, I decided sex was better. Get off and get out of there, that sort of thing.

And yes! I've read about Naranjo's sx-dom 7. The dreamy, headspace-y nature of it is very relatable, and "enthusiastic mania" is perfect, but I would consider myself a fairly literally sexual person. As seen above, though, maybe that was distorted.

I'm curious how the development of the sexual instinct's dominance in a 7 might occur as compared to a 4, for example, and whether it's different in ways distinct from the development of the core type itself. The Enneagram is, on its own, a reflection of desires we subconsciously feel that we were lacking at some point, so in sx-doms, was this lacking magnified?

This is such an interesting thread.

sx-firsts will never relinquish their independence. I've seen sp/sx do things that sort of indicate (to me) that they're kind of okay with giving up some freedoms (things like their partners expressing a bit of jealousy or concern or even a bit of possessiveness), but even in sx/sp types who do get into relationships or move in with their partners, they will still affirm their sense of independence if it's brought into question or debate. As an sx/so, I will visibly bristle at the first whiff of my independence and freedom being encroached upon, even though it's not possible for someone to do so. What drives me to crack my whip at the whiff of codependency/dependency/possession is that not only is my freedom at stake, but the freedom of the other person. 'Forever' is my least favourite word.

I'm not anti-permanence, though. I seek it insofar as an ideal or principle (create things that can last and withstand time, say, in architecture or design), but I seek it knowing that impermanence trumps all; I like impermanence.

You make a great distinction about seeking highs regardless of consequences. The regardless part is what I think makes someone sx-first. I've also seen sx/sp follow a source of high regardless of consequence, so I wonder if we could say this applies to sx-doms.

Romance and what is/is not romantic is probably individualistic, but I think I agree with you on the whole: I'm also not romantic and do not enjoy conventional romantic gestures, often they will turn me off; conventional in general is boring. If I had to define romantic I'd say it's more of a person's spirit and approach to life in general. For example, if someone is romantic they have to be generous, but generosity as a trait doesn't get turned off once they leave the bedroom, you know? I'm someone that's totally okay with other people hitting on my partner, because if my partner is the right person for me they make a daily choice to be with me; so they'll deal with being hit on and propositioned as they see fit. And if they feel a deeper zing with someone else, then that's where they will choose to go, with my blessing, because all of that is my freedom as well.

I'm sort of coming to the idea that I might only be able to sustain a long-term relationship with a fellow sx/so, because many find these very thoughts disturbing or they mistake me for poly-, which I am almost sure I am not.

 

[windoverlake]

I'm curious how the development of the sexual instinct's dominance in a 7 might occur as compared to a 4, for example, and whether it's different in ways distinct from the development of the core type itself. The Enneagram is, on its own, a reflection of desires we subconsciously feel that we were lacking at some point, so in sx-doms, was this lacking magnified?

I don't know enough about Enneagram to really understand what you mean by, "whether it's different in ways distinct from the development of the core type itself."

As an 8w7 INFJ I feel the 7-wing is my so-second, and my sx is linked with the 8. The 7-wing diffuses and spreads out my sx focus somewhat, maybe even externalises it, so that it spends more time being external than internal, scanning 'out there' for a 'fix'. Following that, Type 4's sx focus might be more internal, more singular. If it does any scanning, it would be done internally. I sometimes get the feeling from Fours that they're seeking within themselves what they want, and once they've decided on what it is they want they go out and look for it.

I wonder if sx-doms lacked sufficient depth. With anything I get the feeling they all want to be 'drowned' just so they can swim up to the surface. There's always a touch of spite or attitude with sx-doms, no?

 

[small.wonder]

I had a very early experience where I realised I could not communicate with my parent(s) in the way I needed to communicate; that early experience was the birth of that need. I was young enough that it's possible that I didn't know how, but I'd also propose that I didn't want to communicate, because instinctually I knew they couldn't receive it because they simply were not built/developed that way. I didn't think that then; at the time I just realised I had to 'find a different way' to get across what I needed to get across, so I found an analogy that worked and was 'understood' sufficiently to reach a semblance of 'understanding'. But their understanding that didn't mean I felt understood; in fact, the opposite.

I don't begrudge my parents and we have a good relationship, insofar as the players' capacities deem possible. I was always well-cared for in other sp ways, and I'd say sp is how my parents show their love. It was certainly not enough in a holistic sense, though, but that's why as an sx/so my so-second has buttressed my sx-first needs. Even though I'm introverted, I remain aware of the 'standard' that never got met. I'm often mistaken for an extravert, though that was more in my younger days. Now that I've got a better handle on my boundaries I can enjoy people and know when I've enjoyed them enough.

^Yikes, yes. This is total confirmation for me, thanks for posting! The only difference for me was that I never gave my parents an out for not wanting to communicate intimately, or acknowledge my needs-- I just kept pressing forward (out of pure hearted confusion at first, like, "wait, you didn't hear me. Perhaps I should say it again?". Over time though, that became more and more intense as I tried to engage, and they tried to evade. It's why I think they've percieved me as anatagonistic before, because I want what they can't give. Realizing and accepting (mourning) that has been hard for me, but I know I must. They just can't connect with me, or see my needs the way I'd expect parents to.

As an sx/so my standards when it comes to a trusted lover/partner are unbreakably idealistic. I truly am someone that would rather live and die alone than be with someone that doesn't get me, and get my fully. The fully part is the unbreakable part. I fear being with someone that gets me, then one day doesn't. When similar things have happened, in even very 'light' and 'small' ways, in both romantic or platonic scenarios, I have to retreat and overhaul everything - it's that affecting to me. In this vein, it's not so much my heart will 'know' when I've found this right person for me, but my body will know (sp), because my sp needs have always been met. I won't even have to ask, nor will they. And in some ways, I really feel I'm searching for someone who knows this kind of experience just as well, just as thoroughly; someone with whom I can communicate without explanation. But, and a big but, I am not looking for someone to heal or balance me, as that's something each unto themselves; it's my job to better myself. Anyway, the hunch is that this person is simply the right person for me just because, and I'm the right person for them just because.

I can very much relate to the bolded. I've actually been single for six years for that very reason, I'd rather be alone than be misunderstood-- and I completely agree with your sentiment about self development. The worst I have been hurt, is when close friends or family have proven that they don't understand or truly know me. I find your thoughts on Sp knowing when you meet the right person, really interesting-- I've never thought it in those terms before, but definitely in physical chemistry terms, which I suppose applies. I don't know that I really believe in "soul mates" in that there's only one on the planet for each person, but I do believe there are a handful of individuals we will encounter in life that we were designed for in that way-- which of them we end up with is more a matter of free will (on both sides). Sadly, there have been a couple people in my life like that (I knew, they knew, totally void of words. Very heavy chemistry, even across a room.) already, but timing was just very off. That said, I know there will be more, if few and far between.

Continuing this sketch just a bit further, using myself:

INFJ sx/so

Early experience of 'trauma' = Ni / sx-first
Response & development to early 'trauma' = Fe / so-second

Really fascinating thoughts, I can definitely see the correlation! Thanks again for sharing.

--------

When it comes to sx-dom approaches to intimacy, then - would you say that you're also independent, but in a rejection of/reaction to codependence?

I guess I should clarify that I crave one-on-one interaction, but I can't identify with a need for romantic relationships. Some of my friends have tended to be more that way than myself, sort of like they couldn't be single, couldn't live alone, etc. I never related to that. I remember, growing up, that I liked having crushes for the sheer rush of it - that if I actually closed the deal, the drive and desire might disappear. Sometimes I would go for it anyway, but I always felt a deep sort of searching for some kind of high, regardless of what happened.

Haha, you hit the nail on the head! Independant is a word I apply alot in regards to myself, sometimes I used the term "cowboy" too. But yes, I am completely saddened by co-dependance and the general theme in our culture of cereal monogomy-- I find it to be just another empty addiction people have, trying to fill themselves (without developing themselves). As I actually just mentioned above to windoverlake, I've been single for a little over six years now. This has been beneficial from the perspective of personal growth, but (also as aforementioned above) I'm not looking for just some guy. I'm looking for mutual understanding, to feel known, and met. Until I find that, be it in 7 days, 30 years, or never, I'm better off being single. That's not to say without intimate relationships though, as I have plenty of close friendships that fill that for me as well. I do think when it happens, I'll be all in though. It just hasn't yet.

Now that I'm finally in a really good relationship, I can't imagine life without the guy. Still, I'm not really a romantic type. I don't know, maybe I would be, or maybe I am...but maybe something got distorted along the way. I've had a number of really bad things happen in that department. I think I wanted love, but out of a need for survival after all that I went through, I decided sex was better. Get off and get out of there, that sort of thing.

Yeah, I don't know. If I found the right person (sounds like you have), I'd probably be very romantic but not in a stereotypical way-- in a share every corner of my heart and mind type of way. Naranjo said it best really, when he talks about Sx-5 (which is a big part of me) and their "passion to confide", that they muse and keep tucked away years and years of hidden world, to share with very select individuals. That's my brand of romantic. But you, I don't know. I do think things always get distorted along the way, and sometimes we have to examine them and our hearts to figure out if we are lying to ourselves (or believing lies others have told us about ourselves). I do think sex without intimacy is usually damaging, whether we know it or not-- that's even based in my own experience. I had to work through that stuff a bit to free my heart up again.

And yes! I've read about Naranjo's sx-dom 7. The dreamy, headspace-y nature of it is very relatable, and "enthusiastic mania" is perfect, but I would consider myself a fairly literally sexual person. As seen above, though, maybe that was distorted.

Cool! Sorry I totally didn't see this before I PMed you (I was a little redundant).

I'm curious how the development of the sexual instinct's dominance in a 7 might occur as compared to a 4, for example, and whether it's different in ways distinct from the development of the core type itself. The Enneagram is, on its own, a reflection of desires we subconsciously feel that we were lacking at some point, so in sx-doms, was this lacking magnified?

I think some component of core type (unlike instinct preference) is nature, so there's that. The main difference between Sx firsts of differing core types are core passions and issues. I do find reading though Naranjo's instinctual varieties really interesting though (and part of the reason I made images out of them), to see how Sx flavors Anger, Pride, Envy, etc. I'm not sure if I understand the above bolded question, could you expand on it a bit?

 

[Luv Deluxe]

Independant is a word I apply alot in regards to myself, sometimes I used the term "cowboy" too. But yes, I am completely saddened by co-dependance and the general theme in our culture of cereal monogomy-- I find it to be just another empty addiction people have, trying to fill themselves (without developing themselves). As I actually just mentioned above to windoverlake, I've been single for a little over six years now. This has been beneficial from the perspective of personal growth, but (also as aforementioned above) I'm not looking for just some guy. I'm looking for mutual understanding, to feel known, and met. Until I find that, be it in 7 days, 30 years, or never, I'm better off being single. That's not to say without intimate relationships though, as I have plenty of close friendships that fill that for me as well. I do think when it happens, I'll be all in though. It just hasn't yet.

I think a lot of people engage in serial monogamy because they think they're supposed to have a partner. I've got a distant friend who is actually sp/so, and she's prone to that behavior; she thinks there's something wrong with her, physically, if she doesn't have a partner or she worries that our culture will judge and devalue her if she can't even find a boyfriend. So she struggles with low self-esteem and pursues men who aren't the best matches, chemically or otherwise, and the cycle repeats itself.

From an outsider's perspective, she probably has what looks like sx-dom tendencies, but I'm 95% sure this isn't the case. She wants a partner, a nest, and the social tag of "taken." Probably wouldn't say no to an engagement ring relatively early in the relationship.

Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if there were many people out there with this general approach - the checklist of adulthood. I think, by contrast, there are actually quite a few sx-doms who do wait and remain single, because anything less than the right intensity or the right chemistry won't cut it. It's like small talk. Why have that when you can have something deeper? More interesting?

sx-firsts will never relinquish their independence. I've seen sp/sx do things that sort of indicate (to me) that they're kind of okay with giving up some freedoms (things like their partners expressing a bit of jealousy or concern or even a bit of possessiveness), but even in sx/sp types who do get into relationships or move in with their partners, they will still affirm their sense of independence if it's brought into question or debate. As an sx/so, I will visibly bristle at the first whiff of my independence and freedom being encroached upon, even though it's not possible for someone to do so. What drives me to crack my whip at the whiff of codependency/dependency/possession is that not only is my freedom at stake, but the freedom of the other person. 'Forever' is my least favourite word.

I'm not anti-permanence, though. I seek it insofar as an ideal or principle (create things that can last and withstand time, say, in architecture or design), but I seek it knowing that impermanence trumps all; I like impermanence.

I find it very interesting that you experience independence along with a preference for impermanence. I kind of relate to that, actually. I will happily stay with my boyfriend as long as we both choose to be together, but we have no desire to get married or start a family. I think we like being what we are to each other. There's something unnaturally oppressive about "forever," but then, I also panic when I hear the words "contract" and "commitment."

There's something about impermanence that rings a bell for me.

I kind of have a thing for the apocalypse. I know that seems out of left field, but something inside of me is fatalistic and attracted to the idea of impermanence on an enormous scale. I know that everything has to die, so my reaction is to get as emotionally high as possible, to find the beauty in as much as possible because in the back of my mind, I acknowledge that it's not going to last forever. I don't mean that in a tragic, brooding way at all; I get a little bit of a buzz off the idea. This may well be completely unrelated, and I don't wish to derail anything.

I think it might have to do with a number of experiences I had when I was a kid. They were frightening experiences, and I tried to make sense of them by accepting them and then sort of forgetting them, on a conscious level. I've compartmentalized it so well that I can talk about it briefly without rekindling the feelings I had at the time. In fact, I'm not sure how to feel about, or what I felt about it. And that's enough.

In one of these experiences, 12-year-old me was in attendance at an anniversary party with much of my extended family. I was an observer who almost never initiated conversation with anyone, but something inside of me told me to visit one table in particular and say hello to everyone there. I talked with the people there for a little bit, decided I'd achieved whatever it was I was meant to have achieved, and then excused myself. As I was walking away, one of the table's occupants collapsed. I heard the screams, and instead of going back, I locked myself in a bathroom. The man died later that night, when he'd been otherwise healthy.

My childhood was marked by things like that. I guess the concept of impermanence was one way to accept it without having to think about it too much. Sx-dom development, maybe? Or a pretty normal childhood experience? I'm not sure. It seems like everyone has an unsettling story.

Yeah, I don't know. If I found the right person (sounds like you have), I'd probably be very romantic but not in a stereotypical way-- in a share every corner of my heart and mind type of way. Naranjo said it best really, when he talks about Sx-5 (which is a big part of me) and their "passion to confide", that they muse and keep tucked away years and years of hidden world, to share with very select individuals. That's my brand of romantic. But you, I don't know. I do think things always get distorted along the way, and sometimes we have to examine them and our hearts to figure out if we are lying to ourselves (or believing lies others have told us about ourselves). I do think sex without intimacy is usually damaging, whether we know it or not-- that's even based in my own experience. I had to work through that stuff a bit to free my heart up again.

That sounds like a perfectly good kind of romance to me! The sharing of heart and mind, I mean. Shared experiences are wonderful, too.

Not sure how damaging the sex without intimacy may have been in my case, because I think something was already a bit off before I started doing it. It was a distraction, I guess.

Romance and what is/is not romantic is probably individualistic, but I think I agree with you on the whole: I'm also not romantic and do not enjoy conventional romantic gestures, often they will turn me off; conventional in general is boring. If I had to define romantic I'd say it's more of a person's spirit and approach to life in general. For example, if someone is romantic they have to be generous, but generosity as a trait doesn't get turned off once they leave the bedroom, you know? I'm someone that's totally okay with other people hitting on my partner, because if my partner is the right person for me they make a daily choice to be with me; so they'll deal with being hit on and propositioned as they see fit. And if they feel a deeper zing with someone else, then that's where they will choose to go, with my blessing, because all of that is my freedom as well.

I'm sort of coming to the idea that I might only be able to sustain a long-term relationship with a fellow sx/so, because many find these very thoughts disturbing or they mistake me for poly-, which I am almost sure I am not.

Wow. Again, much of this really resonates with me. Pretty much all of it. I even have a fellow sx/sp, and I'm pretty sure it's one of the reasons my relationship works so well.

I've actually been single for six years for that very reason, I'd rather be alone than be misunderstood-- and I completely agree with your sentiment about self development. The worst I have been hurt, is when close friends or family have proven that they don't understand or truly know me. I find your thoughts on Sp knowing when you meet the right person, really interesting-- I've never thought it in those terms before, but definitely in physical chemistry terms, which I suppose applies. I don't know that I really believe in "soul mates" in that there's only one on the planet for each person, but I do believe there are a handful of individuals we will encounter in life that we were designed for in that way-- which of them we end up with is more a matter of free will (on both sides). Sadly, there have been a couple people in my life like that (I knew, they knew, totally void of words. Very heavy chemistry, even across a room.) already, but timing was just very off. That said, I know there will be more, if few and far between.

This is very wise. I think you're right, and you'll know when the timing is, too.

I don't know enough about Enneagram to really understand what you mean by, "whether it's different in ways distinct from the development of the core type itself."

I think some component of core type (unlike instinct preference) is nature, so there's that. The main difference between Sx firsts of differing core types are core passions and issues. I do find reading though Naranjo's instinctual varieties really interesting though (and part of the reason I made images out of them), to see how Sx flavors Anger, Pride, Envy, etc. I'm not sure if I understand the above bolded question, could you expand on it a bit?

Yeah, sorry. I think I was a bit tired when trying to articulate that last question. I also feel that the Enneagram itself (core types, aside from instincts) can be nature, but I suspect that some of it is nurture, too. Perhaps the core fix is inborn (heart, head, or gut), and the individual's response to it - the coping strategy they develop - ends up being the fingerprint of an Enneagram type. I was probably born into the anxiety department, and my methods of dealing with that led me to where I am now.

My interest was in what developing sx-first might look like or feel like, as it's happening, within different core types. That's what I was trying to get at - whether there's a slightly different stimulus sparking sx-dominance in a Four versus a Seven, in a Five versus a Three, or whether it makes no difference at all because types and personality aren't really solidified until a certain age.

As an 8w7 INFJ I feel the 7-wing is my so-second, and my sx is linked with the 8. The 7-wing diffuses and spreads out my sx focus somewhat, maybe even externalises it, so that it spends more time being external than internal, scanning 'out there' for a 'fix'. Following that, Type 4's sx focus might be more internal, more singular. If it does any scanning, it would be done internally. I sometimes get the feeling from Fours that they're seeking within themselves what they want, and once they've decided on what it is they want they go out and look for it.

This is really interesting. I guess I've never stopped to think about my 6-wing manifesting as my self-preservation unit, but it does. It's the brave, teeth-gritting, "trust no one to look out for you!" element that steps up and becomes proactive when my needs are threatened or in flux.

Also like the idea of sx energy flowing differently between different types. Maybe withdrawn types in general tend to pull inward with this instinct, instead of throwing themselves into more external kinds of highs.

I wonder if sx-doms lacked sufficient depth. With anything I get the feeling they all want to be 'drowned' just so they can swim up to the surface. There's always a touch of spite or attitude with sx-doms, no?

Hahaha, agreed.

 

[windoverlake]

^Yikes, yes. This is total confirmation for me, thanks for posting! The only difference for me was that I never gave my parents an out for not wanting to communicate intimately, or acknowledge my needs-- I just kept pressing forward (out of pure hearted confusion at first, like, "wait, you didn't hear me. Perhaps I should say it again?". Over time though, that became more and more intense as I tried to engage, and they tried to evade. It's why I think they've percieved me as anatagonistic before, because I want what they can't give. Realizing and accepting (mourning) that has been hard for me, but I know I must. They just can't connect with me, or see my needs the way I'd expect parents to.

Really fascinating thoughts, I can definitely see the correlation! Thanks again for sharing.

Thank you for starting this thread. Like Lux said, it's so interesting!

Re the bolded+underlined: This seems very much to do with the Enneagram. I'm very familiar with the sentiments, particularly the connection to mourning, and acceptance of that mourning, what that means for the E4. The E4 or 4-wings I know are INFP, ENFP, ISFP, and possibly an ISTP. As an INFJ I can relate to E4's orientation really well, and I fully understand the value and importance of mourning. It is something I admire in those that are able to fully give themselves to it (in my experience, E4s and strong Fi types). As an E8 I'm rather business-like when it comes to mourning and I need complete privacy, to the point of shunning people out if they approach me when I've already requested to be left alone; I will give myself to the process but I don't know that I've ever done so 100%, or in the way I've seen E4s/Fi do. Honestly, I just marvel when I see it; I think, emotional warriors.

So in sum, I wonder if 8w7 realises immediately, 'these people don't get it', makes a calculation that it's not worth pursuing, and so then goes out and pursues its sx-first needs elsewhere, in this case with the help and aid of w7. An 8w9 sx/so (don't know any, so hypothetical), on the other hand, might be more inclined to just accept the 'trauma' on the spot, not really tie it to any emotional/core experience that they relive and remember, so they simply just go about carrying around their sx-first needs with more equanimity and patience. Again, don't know an 8w9 sx in real life, so just guesses.

4w5 sx/so seems an intense combination because both E4 and E5 are rather inner-oriented and very concentrated in nature. 4w3, OTOH, would have the extraversion of w3 to dissipate some of that energy externally, through breadth of expression. Then factor in sx/so, which I personally think is the moodiest of the stackings (very steely-edgy), and yeah, your parents weren't going to get off scot-free. Whenever I observe or meet someone who puts 'emotional responsibility' at the top of the list they are usually Fi-dom or E4. E1 and E2 sometimes has it, but it's not as intense and they connect to 'responsibility', then add in the 'emotional'. For E4, 'emotional-responsibility' is one word (hence the hypen).

 

[windoverlake]

I think a lot of people engage in serial monogamy because they think they're supposed to have a partner. I've got a distant friend who is actually sp/so, and she's prone to that behavior; she thinks there's something wrong with her, physically, if she doesn't have a partner or she worries that our culture will judge and devalue her if she can't even find a boyfriend. So she struggles with low self-esteem and pursues men who aren't the best matches, chemically or otherwise, and the cycle repeats itself.

How do you suppose it would play out if your distant friend weren't struggling with low self-esteem. Better choices? Do you know her MBTI type? Based on sp/so I'd wager she's an SJ?

From an outsider's perspective, she probably has what looks like sx-dom tendencies, but I'm 95% sure this isn't the case. She wants a partner, a nest, and the social tag of "taken." Probably wouldn't say no to an engagement ring relatively early in the relationship.

I'll have to eat my hat if she's an sx-first of any stacking. Partner, nest, social tag, with no mention of intimacy, deep connection, or passion indicates sx-last. sp/so over so/sp sort of points to introversion, but I could be wrong.

I find it very interesting that you experience independence along with a preference for impermanence. I kind of relate to that, actually. I will happily stay with my boyfriend as long as we both choose to be together, but we have no desire to get married or start a family. I think we like being what we are to each other. There's something unnaturally oppressive about "forever," but then, I also panic when I hear the words "contract" and "commitment."

There's something about impermanence that rings a bell for me.

I think the sx-first's independence is about intuition and knowing, but never as a shared, divisible thing. That's what makes an sx-first an sx-first: it cannot be separated from them; it's what they're made of. If you try and remove that part of them, they kill you.

For example, the sp/so could have an independent spirit and greatly value independence, but it's probably not as dyed in the wool as it is for the sx-first.

sx-first sees independence as truth and they make it their path. An ideal relationship might or might not be a part of it. Impermanence is just what you need when you're seeking truth, because sx-first likes/wants/craves things to fall away and turn to dust. It wants to see what's left standing. Then they walk towards it. It is somewhat apocalyptic, isn't it?

I kind of have a thing for the apocalypse. I know that seems out of left field, but something inside of me is fatalistic and attracted to the idea of impermanence on an enormous scale. I know that everything has to die, so my reaction is to get as emotionally high as possible, to find the beauty in as much as possible because in the back of my mind, I acknowledge that it's not going to last forever. I don't mean that in a tragic, brooding way at all; I get a little bit of a buzz off the idea. This may well be completely unrelated, and I don't wish to derail anything.

So true. I know what you mean, especially about the buzz from the idea. The all or nothing, bring on the destruction because I want to survive part of it could be sx-dom catnip.

I think it might have to do with a number of experiences I had when I was a kid. They were frightening experiences, and I tried to make sense of them by accepting them and then sort of forgetting them, on a conscious level. I've compartmentalized it so well that I can talk about it briefly without rekindling the feelings I had at the time. In fact, I'm not sure how to feel about, or what I felt about it. And that's enough.

In one of these experiences, 12-year-old me was in attendance at an anniversary party with much of my extended family. I was an observer who almost never initiated conversation with anyone, but something inside of me told me to visit one table in particular and say hello to everyone there. I talked with the people there for a little bit, decided I'd achieved whatever it was I was meant to have achieved, and then excused myself. As I was walking away, one of the table's occupants collapsed. I heard the screams, and instead of going back, I locked myself in a bathroom. The man died later that night, when he'd been otherwise healthy.

My childhood was marked by things like that. I guess the concept of impermanence was one way to accept it without having to think about it too much. Sx-dom development, maybe? Or a pretty normal childhood experience? I'm not sure. It seems like everyone has an unsettling story.

Woah, this is interesting. The bolded is very poignant and mysterious, particularly in the way you described it. What were you feeling when you locked yourself in the bathroom? Did you choose to not go back, or was your instinct to lock yourself in a room? Did anyone speak to you about this event afterwards?

 

[Luv Deluxe]

How do you suppose it would play out if your distant friend weren't struggling with low self-esteem. Better choices? Do you know her MBTI type? Based on sp/so I'd wager she's an SJ?

I'll have to eat my hat if she's an sx-first of any stacking. Partner, nest, social tag, with no mention of intimacy, deep connection, or passion indicates sx-last. sp/so over so/sp sort of points to introversion, but I could be wrong.

Bingo. She's an ISFJ, 1w2. It's been an interesting friendship, to say the least. We kind of grew up together, so she feels like a sister, but I'd be lying if I said that our rather dramatic differences didn't cause friction from time to time. As it is, she's still not speaking to me for some grievance I seem to have committed back in June, though I don't really know what it was. I can guess, but it's nothing that breaks social mores or would ordinarily step on anyone's toes; the poor girl simply isn't healthy right now. When she gets that way, she starts resenting my sx-first behavior. Basically, I'm in the doghouse for being myself, and when she gets sick of looking at it, she goes from idealizing me to devaluing me.

(I know that sounds arrogant, but it's a cycle we've dealt with before; I'm confident and generally proactive in life, whereas she struggles with self-esteem and eventually becomes envious and/or condemning of me. I try to be supportive, but sometimes I have to step away, anyway - her negativity can be so palpable that it makes me nauseous, and then I can't deal with it.)

So, not the healthiest example of sp/so. I think she would make better choices if she could improve her emotional state, or at least be more comfortable breaking things off with men who weren't doing it for her. She's Ne-inferior, and it seems like a decidedly unused mental muscle, even for its position; when it comes to anticipating a guy's motivations or the general trajectory of a relationship, she's...pretty terrible. She throws knives in the dark and just points at the nearest one. "He texted after midnight! He loves me!" Sure he does.

Anyway, I think her behavior might outwardly look like sx to someone who didn't know her very well - the constant pursuit of a relationship, to the point where it pushes more obvious decisions onto the rear burner - but if you understand why she wants what she wants, it becomes rapidly apparent that she's sx-last.

She seems somewhat repulsed by sex itself, actually. I was driving the three of us (myself, my boyfriend, and this girl) into downtown Chicago one day to just walk around and have some fun, and I had "Bad Girls" by M.I.A. playing in my car. The lyrics ("live fast, die young / bad girls do it well...chain hits my chest / when I'm banging on the dashboard / my chain hits my chest / when I'm banging on the radio") threw her completely, generating a strange reaction for someone in her mid-twenties. She said something to the effect of, "'Banging on the dashboard'? Does she mean sex? Gross." Completely unironically. It reminds me of an adolescent struggling with sex as being some big, scary, impure thing, and then distorting everything accordingly, often missing the mark.

I think the sx-first's independence is about intuition and knowing, but never as a shared, divisible thing. That's what makes an sx-first an sx-first: it cannot be separated from them; it's what they're made of. If you try and remove that part of them, they kill you.

For example, the sp/so could have an independent spirit and greatly value independence, but it's probably not as dyed in the wool as it is for the sx-first.

sx-first sees independence as truth and they make it their path. An ideal relationship might or might not be a part of it. Impermanence is just what you need when you're seeking truth, because sx-first likes/wants/craves things to fall away and turn to dust. It wants to see what's left standing. Then they walk towards it. It is somewhat apocalyptic, isn't it?

I really like how you've phrased that. I find that especially when my own life feels up in the air, I tend to embrace it - if nothing else, change is novelty, and novelty is exciting. There's something intoxicating about the idea, that everything as I know it could shift into something else. I'm flexible, but I trust my ability to be decisive at the right moment, to know what I need to do - and if whatever lies ahead would kill me regardless of my actions, then I have the choice to accept it, to go out in a blaze of glory.

There is the sensation that what is meant to be there, will be there, and then yes - we walk toward it, magnetized and fascinated.

Maybe all of that sounds terribly manic, haha. What can I say? I live with my body in the present and my head in the future.

I do find that when it comes to keeping my energy independent, there are things that I fuse to. They just tend to be interests and ideas instead of romantic partners (though again, I'm immensely happy with my significant other; I don't mean to undermine what I feel for him, as it's very intense, very ideal). Perhaps more interestingly, though, is that I immerse myself in things that I already relate to, or have some kind of preexisting electric charge with.

It's not that I find myself drawn to a movie or a book because Character X is so badass, and I aspire to be like that character, etc. That's not it at all. If something draws me in enough to become a fan, it's going to become a part of me, yes, but generally due to the fact that somehow, it already was. The fusion, then, feels effortless and natural - maybe more like acquisition. Like I've found this thing outside of myself that channels all of the intensity I already feel, and for all of the right reasons...so I'm taking it with me. It's mine now.

That kind of thing.

Woah, this is interesting. The bolded is very poignant and mysterious, particularly in the way you described it. What were you feeling when you locked yourself in the bathroom? Did you choose to not go back, or was your instinct to lock yourself in a room? Did anyone speak to you about this event afterwards?

I think I was feeling fear, to be honest. I was freaked out when I realized what had suddenly happened/was happening, and I ran from it. I also wanted to keep away from the hordes of people who were around, as I didn't want to talk about my last interaction or think about it much - even though it was so loud, inside of my own head. It was probably one of the first real anxiety attacks I ever had, and I just didn't understand it yet. I was twelve, after all.

So I guess my instinct wasn't to lock myself in a bathroom, per se, but I knew that I needed to keep away from others if I wanted to temporarily escape from what had just occurred. I needed to distance myself from what I already understood was a man's death in the reception hall. I think I was also a bit disturbed by the compulsion I had to go say hello; it was out of character to want sudden socialization, and the inner voice that had guided me suddenly carried so much weight and depth that I didn't know how to deal with it. Not at the time, anyway.

I went back when the ambulances left. No one seemed to have noticed my disappearance or cared that I had just been at that table, so that was good. Nobody really explained what had just happened, either, so I had to make sense of it, more or less, on my own. I don't remember much else from that day or family gathering at all - this is the one memory that pops.

Like I said, could be part of what eventually shaped the sexual instinct in me...or maybe it's just a weird childhood story. I think most people have one or two unsettling tales from their formative years. When they begin to stack up, though, it may well lend itself to personality development. This particular story of mine, I think, might have more to do with core Enneagram, whereas the lack of emotional support in dealing with things like this - the bonding that I craved - probably contributed to instinctual stacking.

 

[windoverlake]

I think I was feeling fear, to be honest. I was freaked out when I realized what had suddenly happened/was happening, and I ran from it. I also wanted to keep away from the hordes of people who were around, as I didn't want to talk about my last interaction or think about it much - even though it was so loud, inside of my own head. It was probably one of the first real anxiety attacks I ever had, and I just didn't understand it yet. I was twelve, after all.

So I guess my instinct wasn't to lock myself in a bathroom, per se, but I knew that I needed to keep away from others if I wanted to temporarily escape from what had just occurred. I needed to distance myself from what I already understood was a man's death in the reception hall. I think I was also a bit disturbed by the compulsion I had to go say hello; it was out of character to want sudden socialization, and the inner voice that had guided me suddenly carried so much weight and depth that I didn't know how to deal with it. Not at the time, anyway.

I went back when the ambulances left. No one seemed to have noticed my disappearance or cared that I had just been at that table, so that was good. Nobody really explained what had just happened, either, so I had to make sense of it, more or less, on my own. I don't remember much else from that day or family gathering at all - this is the one memory that pops.

Like I said, could be part of what eventually shaped the sexual instinct in me...or maybe it's just a weird childhood story. I think most people have one or two unsettling tales from their formative years. When they begin to stack up, though, it may well lend itself to personality development. This particular story of mine, I think, might have more to do with core Enneagram, whereas the lack of emotional support in dealing with things like this - the bonding that I craved - probably contributed to instinctual stacking.

Have more to say about the earlier parts of your post, but need some time to process and articulate it clearly; so will be back with more later.

But had some thoughts about your experience with sudden death. The bolded parts seem to indicate your sp-second more than the sx-first, which I often wonder about in terms of when it develops or if it's biologically innate, the way introversion/extraversion is 'decided upon' before birth. Regardless of E/I, I feel like sx/so would be drawn to the scene, or at least want to find out more. I'm incredibly nosy, and can be covert about it if the situation requires decorum, but most of the time I'm just posing direct questions or just sticking my beak in. I'll get the info I need then go introvert and process it. But I'm always going back 'to the scene'. I could be wrong, but this feels like the so function rather than the sx. What do you think? How does it feel for you?

Also, thinking of my sx/sp friends, they are more reticent. They're not necessarily anti-crowds/society, but they hold themselves back in a way sx/so does not. I'd describe sx/sp as having a very strong sense of inner poise that emanates outwardly. And it's not affected, as it might be in someone who's 'been to charm school'. sx/sp poise feels distinctly 'feminine' and I use that word gender-neutrally. Maybe what I'm trying to say it, sx/sp is very reluctant to 'outside consultation' in a way sx/so is not. sx/so will 'open up' in a more casual, free way than sx/sp, who might even perceive sx/so as being 'too open'. Nota Bene: I don't relate this at all to E/I.

ETA:

Based on intuition, I'm proposing that you were born sx-first and that it's the 'trauma' that awakens you to your sx-first as a motivation or way of orientation. It's at the time of (first?) awakening upon which you 'decide' upon your second function. This could have happened for you at twelve. Perhaps before then you were neutral w/r/t expressing preference between sp and so.

 

[Elfboy]

Instinctual variants are, by their nature, present from birth

 

[thoughtlost]

Hi.

I am not sure what my instincts is (but it's not sx-first). I wanted to respond based on something I read on page 5; it was about my opinions of that relationship-seeking people (and my confusion about why people think that means sx). Feel free to ignore this post.

I find the tendency to seek out relationships for the sake of it to be a bit repulsive. I made a new friend with a girl from Brazil/Hungary (she is Hungarian living in Brazil) and I was glad to finally find something who understands where I am coming from. We talked about how such behavior is not always a sign of immaturity, rather, it could be a sign that something else is hidden from view. They may not understand their own needs well enough, so that could be hidden from them. Or they don't know how much other people are telling them what to do (so that could be hidden from them too). Maybe there is something they hate about themselves... so they use relationships to salvage that part and as long as they have people who like them they don't have to confront the "evils". A variety of things can be hidden from view to the person who focused on finding romantic relationships. This is going to sound harsh, but it feels dishonest even if it's not intentionally dishonest. I mean, I am understanding when people are dishonest and don't realize and wouldn't be this way if they deeply knew (and when I say "deeply" ....you can't get a deep understanding of things simply by having someone tell you what you're doing). It's dishonest to yourself (PSA: Humans --dishonesty ALSO includes being dishonest with yourself ...even if you're not aware of it).

Of course, NOT pursuing relationships does not mean that you're free from being dishonest too... so this isn't mean to be "people who seek out relationships are worse than those who do not". Those who do not seek it out can also be immature or hide things from view. The only difference is that those who seek out relationships are involving other people in their dishonesty in a slight way. Those who do not ...are trying to exclude people from it.

....I should probably make a note that I think I am on the "avoid" humans spectrum even though I am warm/super friendly with humans (I say this so you know where I am coming from). I do not seek relationships. I barely seek out friendships although I can make friends pretty easily (I do consider myself a people person ...in a strange way ....however, I guess we are all "people persons," just in our own ways). My main point is that I find seeking out romantic relationships (and even friendships to a certain extent) to be repulsive and forced, but it doesn't mean that I don't ever interact with humans. I do, but I always make a note to myself what the interactions mean to me. I don't even call someone a friend (in my mind ....I might introduce someone as a friend to another human, though) unless I really FEEL them to be a friend. Keep in the mind, this has only happened ...at the most twice? If I don't feel someone to be a friend, ....I may still call them a friend on the basis of them being a decent/pretty good human being that isn't out to be an insensitive jerk to others and that person respects me on a basic human level. We can talk about anything and I can be my owning "dancing" self knowing that they will be respectful. ...And it gives off a false sense of "deep connection".

It's strange, on my end, that I fuss over those who don't seem to want to get me or don't try to or can't understand me. It doesn't start off this way ...it just ends up happening over time. I noticed that [MENTION=17697]small.wonder[/MENTION] talked about not being in a relationship until someone gets you. I mean, my parents/family don't get me ...but i don't care. I don't expect that from them. I am okay with it because they handle practical stuff for me (like money and having enough food and simple mundane stuff like that we're not rich or anything but they tell me what to do when it comes to taxes ...my dad even complains that I don't call him unless I need him to sign a form or something boring like that). I can live with the lack of emotional/chemical connection from them because I know my parents/family can take of themselves in a practical sense (emotional and nonpractical things are harder for them ...so I ignore that when it comes to my family). I do fear the day they cannot take care of themselves (I am SP oriented like that).

I don't go to family for emotional support or things outside of "what health insurance company do we have??" And because of my family issues, we don't have strong community connections and I am okay with that. I stopped going to church and I don't feel the need to get into contact with my extended family even though my mom pushes that on me (they live in a different part of the world... so they try to talk to me on facebook). I am selfish about it because so far I have survived without them ...so I don't know why I need my extended family now.

OK: back to humans and my relationship with them.

However, when I do feel comfortable around certain friends it's because I genuinely find them to be respectable people ...but it doesn't make me feel like I've made a connection. I feel more of fire when things are "up in the air" ....when I don't feel comfortable ....but I am being pulled by something to want to connect, and it's even more powerful when we clash somehow (and clashing doesn't always mean to mean "bad" in my case ....there is just simply a disconnect). Something about the contrast is really interesting and I don't know why. Edit:: I think I figured something out ... compared to what [MENTION=17697]small.wonder[/MENTION] said, I am not waiting until the person gets me. I am waiting until I have the desire for the person to get me and I, them. ... I know... convoluted =P

 

[Hawthorne]

Instinctual variants are, by their nature, present from birth

My understanding is that all the instincts (by virtue of being instincts) are present from birth but early influences on development cause us to prioritize them differently.

So while the sexual instinct may be present from birth, being sx-first is something we became after an event (or lack thereof) caused us to overfocus on it.

Is that what you were saying?

 

[windoverlake]

My understanding is that all the instincts (by virtue of being instincts) are present from birth but early influences on development cause us to prioritize them differently.

So while the sexual instinct may be present from birth, being sx-first is something we became after an event (or lack thereof) caused us to overfocus on it.

Is that what you were saying?

+1, especially the bolded.

 

[RedAmazoneFriendZone]

Now that I'm considering it, I think being a good parent means having an awareness of who YOU are... and having an awareness of who your CHILDREN are. I think we hopefully gain some self- and other-awareness as we age, but some people seem to struggle with that.

There are on earth many bad parents I don't know many parents who are able not to MAKE PROJECTIONS over their children.

They want their children to do that, think this way, and be a clone of who they are.

Narcissism and ego again



- - - Updated - - -

Well...maybe I like to defend children ....

 

[RedAmazoneFriendZone]

If I can give you some useful informations, as my enneagram courses say :

Instincts take place between 0 and 2 years old.

Preservation instinct preoccupations :

"I am ...my body
I am afraid...not to survive
Am I safe ?
There should be a way to be immortal !
Then I behave cautiously or...I am challenging danger"

Social instinct thinks unconsciously this way :

"I am...the groups in which I am
I fear not to belong to
I wonder if I am popular,
I am in the illusion of getting outside what I can't get inside (love, acceptation, approval),
I am or very sociable or the other end : antisocial"


To end with the best let's see what SX is now :

"I am...my relationship with "the other",
I am afraid of not being desired anymore,
Question I always ask to myself _unconsciously of course!_ : Am I an attractive man/woman ?
Illusion : I could become happy, and really be myself by developing a strong link with this other person.
So I behave...with promiscuity or I choose abstinence."


The course insists on the fact that sx and so instincts are totally different AND NOT TO BE MISTAKEN WITH

the desire to create a/some relationships that belong to the emotional function.




Coming back soon for some other details :bookish:

 

[windoverlake]

[MENTION=13973]Luv Deluxe[/MENTION]

Aiiiii NOOOO I accidentally deleted my post, which took me 30+ minutes to draft and edit ....

:tantrum::cop:

(will try again later)

 

[brainheart]

[MENTION=17697]small.wonder[/MENTION],

My parents just visited me so this is fresh in my mind. I am the youngest of six kids. There was nothing intimate about my upbringing, and I craved it. My parents could never give me one on one attention- for long, at least. As soon as I was five or so I was all about the best friend. I wanted that closeness, that person to share the deepest things about myself with- and vice versa- so very badly.

I know my parents love me, but they are just too busy to give me much attention, and they always have been. My mom is an extreme social first 1w2 ESFJ (I think so/sx) and she's constantly doing stuff at church, etc. My dad's a 1w9 sp/so ISTJ and I think having such a big family has always been overwhelming for him.

I don't think my sexual instinct was shaped by my upbringing. I think it's inherent. (I do, however, think enneagram defenses become triggered by upbringing.)

 

[Galena]

Okay, now I can actually answer the instinct question. I had nothing for sp, but this isn't even that hard to trace back.

I am the oldest of three children, which means that I began life with a one-to-one relationship with my parents, but a couple years later this ended permanently, and then was spread even thinner with the third child. Even now, I struggle to validate the hurt and competition my child self felt surrounding those two births. I want to say it was a selfish emotion that I should not have felt toward such a natural process. How about pride in my baby siblings? Love? Fucking hell, these are human children we're talking about here, child Nixie you little psycho. There's no way to surgarcoat it - I'd go on to compare us, rank our worths in my head (I never came first), pry attention away from them with my temper, all before I even learned to read.

Granted, the instinct-making element here is that each time a baby was born, there was an extra coincidence that took place on top of it that increased either my need for love or my distance from my parents beyond what it normally would have been with a new member entering the family, therefore increasing the intensity and urgency of the loss of the one-to-one origin.

With the middle sibling, my mother had a pretty bad couple months of postpartum anxiety, like in and out of the hospital bad. It didn't last, and I remember none of this, but there's no way it didn't have a confusing impact. As a two-year-old, I couldn't have understood this and its influence on her behavior even if I understood the new baby needing her attention. Remember that this was the first sibling after me - the very first time in my life that I didn't have my parents to myself.

With the third sibling, I was entering school for the first time pretty much exactly when this sibling was born. I started getting bullied by other kids on day one, which indicated that I was already psychologically dented by this point. Children can smell that shit. My mother has said that she wishes she were more available at the time to be there and help me cope, and there was a lot of pain she didn't know I was going through. To just write about it triggers emotions, among which is an impulse to say that if I couldn't cope on my own, I wasn't worth the love anyway. That isn't truth, just a child's primitive attempt to interpret something far, far bigger than them. Too bad about how long our childhood interpretations can lurk around - you can still see this undercurrent in my adult allergy to forming material ties to others and denial of romantic desire. No, I am not the kind of Sx that is easy to see or type.

In these two situations, my parents did their best with the time they had. There is no perfection in parenting because resources like time and energy are limited and coincidences happen. The reality is that to have been given the extra one-to-one time I needed in these situations would have been to take some away from a helpless infant, so the attention ultimately went where it needed to go. I felt ashamed for having my need - bad, because of what it meant for the babies. I felt like my need was abnormally excessive and that pursuing it directly would be the road to sin. And so the moth flees the flame in spite of its nature.

 

[Blackout]

Isn't this supposed to be more or less 'natural'

It's just always been the way I am; I am very high-strung. I fear not "living life" enough.