User Tag List

First 8910

Results 91 to 96 of 96

  1. #91
    Senior Member Sanjuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    MBTI
    Ne
    Enneagram
    468 sx/so
    Socionics
    :-( None
    Posts
    822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neokortex View Post
    You were exaggerating about how "desperate" I must be for favoring phone calls over text messages. And waiting for that time when the other would quit beating around the bush.
    No, I'm not saying you are personally desperate. I'm saying I disagree with the wording and I wouldn't want it attributed to me.

    Haha, and you give authority to theorists over experiences? Well, I tell you, they all have to do with it. Based on the theory Sx can be anything if it means wasting your energy on something to get high. But the only thing that narrows it down, is maybe that particular Enneagram that is associated with it. Otherwise, I see myself get high on all kinds of things (especially as a core 4) and I like to get high on women as well.
    Actually, I give credence to theory inasmuch as it checks out with my personal experiences, not vice versa. But that being said, I do listen to the cannon and make it a point to read published works so that I have a clear idea of what the theoretical premises are to begin with. I do not disagree with what you say in the bolded, as long as we remember this is figurative.

    Can you explain to me your thoughts about how core 4s are especially prone to getting high on all kinds of things? I was under the impression it was a bit different but I want to hear your take.

    Naaa, there's more to your blind spot than just neglect. It's actually the very reason why you have it's opposite as dominant in the first place.
    "The dominant instinct is the one you're focused on by default. It is generally not an easy area. If it is too easy, you are probably mistyped."
    No, actually you're focused on both. They're not separable. And I'd say the blind spot is the damaged area and the dominant is the area of overcompensation that can go bad if gone out of control.
    Actually, practitioners usually state that the dominant instinct is in fact damaged. See these words, for example, published on Enneagram Monthly:

    There are three fundamental instincts in human existence: the self-preserving (survival), the social and the sexual. You are governed by every one of these instincts, of course, but one of them will dominate your life. The instinct dominating you is the one that is the most DAMAGED of the three, where you are the least in touch with your essence, where you have the least access to that effortless flow the Zen archer uses to hit his target without aiming. In a three-party system, it is the one which carries the voice. In a family with three children, it is that crippled child who needs the most attention. It is where you are leaking essence the most dangerously. It is where you waste the most energy, while resisting the flow of essence. But just as you can change your enslaving passion into liberating virtue, your gravest deficiency can turn into the greatest fulfillment, and your most damaged instinct can become your most healed. Free-flowing instinct is pure energy.
    However, you must work with the instincts separately, entirely on their own and independently of the enneagram, in order to recognize which is the one ruling you and how your particular delusional system operates. You might want to rank them, from most to least damaged; it is useful to know such things about oneself.
    That's pretty generally accepted among enneagram practitioners. If you would like to try to prove me wrong, by all means, but I do understand the theory regardless of what you might suggest.

    No offense miss, but this is more reflective of you, I think. Ya know, Eight being the lustful type and all. DDD I mean about the stuff you write, about Sx not being the easy area... for me it's rather Sx having trouble with the social norms. The only uneasiness is to assert it in a way that they won't call me a madman. But I don't feel like a madman, because I know that everyone's just like me. Except when Sx 1 rage gets out of hand, then I'm a psychopath, haha. D But then again, people are also psychopaths. But I've never blamed my Sx, I've always feared my So blind spot.
    Again, you're going to have to explain exactly what Sx-first has to do with having trouble in the social realm in your case. I'm serious, I'm not seeing the connection. Please be specific--are there examples of how this works for you?

    I do see one reason, though: you haven't given me info about your Sx before you became avoidant, abstinent. And you said you were a boring person...
    ... and described Sx experimentation without the subversive potential of Sx.
    I mean you can be Sx but if you hold abstinence over your Sx qualities until the end of your life or or you narrow down your Sx qualities to a very few and general cases, then you mostly likely aren't.
    Sx isn't about having lots of sex. That's all I care to say about it. It may be that we are having parallel conversations where you think I'm saying one thing about myself, but I'm saying something quite different.

    "no part of instinct theory ever touches upon and no theorist mentions;" "Absolutely nothing to do with it in my case." - is there never any "in-between?" And, e-hm "While I can easily see you as sx-first due to your hangups;" "Legitimately sorry if you perceive that;" "I'm honestly sorry if you see me worried about..." What hang-ups?? And why sorry? Is this an often used choice of words at your place or have I just been missing out on an air condescension there?
    No condescension intended. I don't understand why I can't say I'm sorry if.... and that's not seen as a genuine expression of sorriness. "I don't want you to see me as ___ and I apologize if you do". I don't think it's that condescending. And yes, I see this entire thread as an expression of a hangup--you're fed up with girls who won't hit on you, and now you're taking it out on women who type as sx-first. There are no sx-first women, because if there were, they'd get it on with you right then and there, swinging from the chandalier. That's the distinct impression I am getting.

    And not having a social sphere... and by that I meant a group where you belong... well, then wait to see what that unidentified person wrote about Sx/So 8s, haha
    A) Who says I'm an 8?
    B) You were just questioning whether I put theory over experience. I am going to ask you the same. The Oceans Moonshine blurb you cite there is but one example from an obscure corner of the internet. Not a bad source, but not the final verdict on how your instinctual stacking may manifest. It's a blurb, something to reflect on and take into account, but not the ultimate authority.

    You're right there. I wasn't specific enough. Bot Sx-doms are more experimental about the social sphere... meaning that they bring a transformative quality due to their own heightened self-awareness. The Sx/Sp about their own self-awareness and Sx/So about their deeper insights into group dynamics. Confer the following excerpts...
    I am still not sure I see the connection that you do, but I thank you for sharing anyway.

    Yours against mine?? D What if most of the guys I know have all limited experience with women being initiative, direct and straightforward to them? D Gotta make some phone calls D
    What if most girls I know say the opposite??

    We could be on opposite corners of the globe, have different cultural traditions, or whatever else. Each person has a different experience, which is THE important lesson from the enneagram. One person's word against another, worlds collide, greater tolerance and understanding and all.

    Well, ya know. The experimentation you talked about a while back. I quoted you. Ring a bell?
    Yes, but just like "experimentation" doesn't have to be wild and/or sexual, it also doesn't necessarily have to come from a place of sx-first. I am sorry, but you will have to give a very clear example of how sx experimentation can run amok in the social sphere for you, or a lot of people won't quite see the connection the way it's written.

    In that regard, the most I'd say about the sx-subtypes I have known is that they were indeed eccentric, but not habitually into breaking out of the social system for its own sake. The one exception to this would be my sx/soc 6w5 father because, well, he rebelled against everyone.

    Okay, it's not my intent to be condescending or anything but eeehm... Maybe, perhaps, even for a little bit, theories may be a bit farther away from what your real strengths are? And the world needs people like that, don't get me wrong, but uuhm...
    I may quite fairly say, Two can play at that game. Back at you.

    Something I find interesting in this particular case is that according to my understanding of the theory, I quite honestly can see and accept you and your circumstances as a sx-subtype, in addition to seeing myself the same way despite ostensible differences. Your understanding, though, doesn't seem to account for mine, presumably because what I explain about mine doesn't agree with yours word-for-word. I'm not telling you a right and wrong here, or a lesson you're supposed to learn. Just food for thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neokortex View Post
    Wait. Wait... I've missed this one. What " 'romance-' bullshit" ? Who talked here about romance? Or "romance?" DDD Did just calling by phone turn romantic overnight? DD Gimme yo #! xDDDD
    "Romance" in the English language can range from cutesy-frilly nonsense, to "loving feelings and courtship", to "romantic encounters" ie, sex. Much of which does pertain to the themes you've raised. I don't believe there was anything off about my choice of words, but if you'd like to continue mocking me, I will pull out of this discussion very quickly.
    *Need enneagram questionnaire?
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ml#post2218641
    Likes Luv Deluxe liked this post

  2. #92
    Senior Member Neokortex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    461 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII Si
    Posts
    112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanjuro View Post
    A) Who says I'm an 8?
    Methinks. It's on your tag. But now I'll also assert it. I hate 8s but after learning some more it seems to me that this whole long debating (arguing?) comes down to your 8 hiding its weaknesses. (and me being naive to fight against it) And it got sooo complicated that I even lost the woods for the tree.

    And yes, I see this entire thread as an expression of a hangup--you're fed up with girls who won't hit on you, and now you're taking it out on women who type as sx-first. There are no sx-first women, because if there were, they'd get it on with you right then and there, swinging from the chandalier. That's the distinct impression I am getting.
    Women had never been (intended to be) the main focus here. Rather the idea of social subtypes being more compromising (conforming) and thus using technology as a form of relating because their Sx blind spot would not make the risks that earlier generations did. But I don't think this applies to you since 8s are very good at making risks. I watched this video and this . I felt it wasn't worth continuing this conversation for I needed some more research to back it up and also that strong confrontation I was getting from you. Like, there still are discrepancies and things I find I can complement your knowledge with but since I hate 8s and you might become defensive (=offensive) again, I won't go the trouble. You can call me sensitive/over-reacting but in-between your lines the 8 dynamic is easily recognizable.

    So it's not big research but I thought I'd share the "anecdotal truth" that came out of my inquiries. Over the winter holiday I asked a couple of acquaintances, old friends about their experience with women.
    E8-3w2-6 ENTJ
    E9-- ISFP
    E9-3 ISFJ
    E...Sx/So 6? IXXJ
    E6-3 ESFP

    Generally, all of them said that it's rare for women to initiate. However, the ISFJ and ENTJ in particular had more instances of that happening. ISFJ pointed out that when he was working out he used to have more women come up to him and a few cases sounded exceptional while others didn't entail as much risk from the women's part. Then I remembered that ENTJ and ISFP have as much athletic, muscular body types as ISFJ. IXXJ, although very social, is as lanky & lean as me and could be also because of his gender role bias but he couldn't recollect any cases. ESFP has been having a long term relationship and his and ISFP's comments consolidated the idea that earlier in high school (8-10th grades) it was more common for girls to initiate.

    I think 8 can be easily mistaken with Sx qualities, there may be an overlap there. And when some are stronger on the 5 side of 8, compensating the 5 introversion with 8 (acting tough) could be the reason for the appeal of Sx. Of course I'm not insinuating anything... My reason for making this thread was another 8 girl who acted tough then was not willing to call me back. Because of my 1ness I'm also keen on being aware of power relations and the physical/biological energy state of the other. Hence I find this discrepancy btw the bravado of the 8 and the physically weaker sex trying to attract attention bot not in a straightforward way. Even if making this thread had something to do with whining about women, the more important thing that can come out of that is the recognition of what women's boundaries are, biologically determined, when it comes to taking risks. She was lucky with me being a 1, had I been an 8 I'd have slapped her face right away after her messing around with me passive-aggressively. "Confrontation intimacy" is just not my thing.

  3. #93
    Senior Member Sanjuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    MBTI
    Ne
    Enneagram
    468 sx/so
    Socionics
    :-( None
    Posts
    822

    Default

    ^I realize I'm responding like 4 months after the fact. I have no real desire to continue this discussion. But for the record I'm simply going to say,

    A) Actually Hypersensitive and Over-reacting are not generally words I assign people, and were not anything that went through my head in the course of this discussion. I might, however, say you're a good candidate for can dish it out but not take it. People gave their opinions, and you questioned and dismissed them, sometimes rather offensively. I then asked you some very serious questions that you didn't answer; instead you mocked my ability to understand the theory and told me I was being confrontational and offensive. Fine. Let's just stop talking.

    B) Sx-first has no appeal for me whatsoever. I'd far rather be sp- or soc-first.

    C) Since you're into unsolicited typings, I'll respond in kind: I think you're a 6.
    Last edited by Sanjuro; 08-13-2017 at 10:29 AM.

  4. #94
    Senior Member Neokortex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    461 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII Si
    Posts
    112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanjuro View Post
    ^I realize I'm responding like 4 months after the fact. I have no real desire to continue this discussion. But for the record I'm simply going to say,

    A) Actually Hypersensitive and Over-reacting are not generally words I assign people, and were not anything that went through my head in the course of this discussion. I might, however, say you're a good candidate for can dish it out but not take it. People gave their opinions, and you questioned and dismissed them, sometimes rather offensively. I then asked you some very serious questions that you didn't answer; instead you mocked my ability to understand the theory and told me I was being confrontational and offensive. Fine. Let's just stop talking.
    Ending the thread with this doesn't shed a favorable light on my social image. I went back, & thru in-detail, tried to integrate missed parts. Here are the answers to the serious questions that I didn't answer at the time.
    And yes, I see this entire thread as an expression of a hangup--you're fed up with girls who won't hit on you, and now you're taking it out on women who type as sx-first. There are no sx-first women, because if there were, they'd get it on with you right then and there, swinging from the chandalier. That's the distinct impression I am getting.
    First, I'd like to dispel this confusion. The "swinging from the chandelier" bit I took as hurtful, it's a strong exaggeration. I don't want to get into the who inflicted first game but there was something already in the beginning that I found "off" about your approach, as well as @Luv Deluxe 's.
    " I don't like to let myself be pathetic enough to be "desperate" for one other person." --- I'm sure I won't be able to get this across... but the culture I'm coming from has a different set of pre-established values. If I think of Western countries, it makes sense why one can say your lines with pride. But in my culture's logic, the 1st post is a valid complaint. Maybe except not the part about women, since, as we know it, they are the "weaker sex." (-traditionally; not trying to sound, degrading, tho) So for the record: someone in another forum during a similar argument over Sx/Sp used the same "male hangup" rhetoric on me. But that time it wasn't even remotely about women. That makes me believe this is a general "mansplaining" female critique. Following the 1st post, this thread was meant to address a wider, very common concern about alienating youth. Still, there is an overlap between that and how people have become easily dispensable in the initial getting-to-know phase of courtship/flirting. That impersonality I believe is not just owed to big city rush, alienation, smart phone tech's but also to certain social strategies of sizing up new individuals with the least effort, by online behavior/profile which of course is anything but the particularism that intinct. theory suggests of Sx-doms. Sx/Sos, however, may ghost people, as I read it in the lead-up to this post.
    Yes, but just like "experimentation" doesn't have to be wild and/or sexual, it also doesn't necessarily have to come from a place of sx-first. I am sorry, but you will have to give a very clear example of how sx experimentation can run amok in the social sphere for you, or a lot of people won't quite see the connection the way it's written.
    It doesn't have to be experimentation per se. Already being different and less conforming can make people raise their brows. It's like being an illegal alien in one's own home country. Now at this point I've already left behind instinct. var. theory. But if you're still interested in what I meant, according to my interpretation of it, So blind spots and Sx/Sos are more aware of the discord between the social expectations and individual's private reality. Experimentation means that this awareness doesn't quite allow one to take fully granted the way local group-culture acts as a filter/negotiator with a more wider culture of tact/civility/politeness and manifest the group-culture with zeal. So/Sx-es are also somewhat aware of this and both them and Sx/Sos are the best in conforming to the group-culture, whereas Sx/Sp-s are the worst.

    In that regard, the most I'd say about the sx-subtypes I have known is that they were indeed eccentric, but not habitually into breaking out of the social system for its own sake. The one exception to this would be my sx/soc 6w5 father because, well, he rebelled against everyone.
    Integrity is enough to make one look "rebelliously stubborn." I think, if the people I've met were Sx/Sos, according to the theory, they don't really try to break out of the system, they are rather suave and smoothly try directing people to ideas of other possible cultures, rule-sets. Create their own system politician-wise. Hence, probably more prone to have their group be against a larger group.
    Can you explain to me your thoughts about how core 4s are especially prone to getting high on all kinds of things? I was under the impression it was a bit different but I want to hear your take.
    I left out "being" in "especially as [being] a core 4." I meant that having Sx orientations in more than one Enneatype and a 4 in the rest of the Enneatypes (in my case 9 so 4 so 6 so 6 sp/sx 1 sx/sp 7w8 ?) allows for some "extra juice" since 4 is known to be very immersive in emotions - its own emotions mainly and is said to be a "processor" of others pain, sorrow.
    Again, you're going to have to explain exactly what Sx-first has to do with having trouble in the social realm in your case. I'm serious, I'm not seeing the connection. Please be specific--are there examples of how this works for you?
    Before Enneagram, I tried finding ways to prove that me being different was not pathologic, my difference was only seen to be unhealthy because society itself was unhealthy. When I read this Instinct theory, it made sense. There are the ones who invest in fitting in, obliged to naturalize state of affairs, toxic conditions, social pyramid and gaslight the "others" lagging behind. Then I realized I'm also compromising on my emotions, so it's not all that simple. Instinct. var. theory had a moment of... lucidity, so to speak, when still in its earnest phase, but as any theory, unable to capture the dynamic, not providing more than snapshots, it will be/has to be replaced by yet another new subculture. Conf.: Debord's recuperation, Marcuse's repressive tolerance. And what me and the lonewolves're doing may be complete and utter nonsense in the great scheme of things. If there was a "revolution" (socio-, psychological breakthrough), if there was a final overthrowing/update of/to a system that fixed humanity or just the local society's injustice, then humans would cease to exist. I see Ennegram, typology now as a form of status/virtue signaling. It bleeds into the self-help movement of "self-imrovement"/"soul searching" in line with high ideals of "authenticity" and "transparency," which today is more adequate for promoting one's upward social mobility than, say, jewelry, buying a monster truck. There's as much future to typology, as one subculture being as good as the other.
    Last edited by Neokortex; 09-17-2017 at 04:46 PM.
    Tritype 461: 4w5<->w3 so/sp 6w7 sp/sx 1w2 sx/sp - conservative social taboo / cultural critic

  5. #95
    Senior Member Neokortex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    461 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII Si
    Posts
    112

    Default

    And as for the mess-up with @Luv Deluxe... I was getting both tired and annoyed and got "lost among the weeds" but reading back I realize I didn't miss out on much. In fact some questions I targeted her with were really good, that she had to either carefully avoid or some could directly decline answering. I didn't purposefully attempt to be imposing or vexing, but truth be told, I hold my own negative stereotypes about "ESTPs." Ultimately I feel that, though, perhaps I should've listened to them more instead of extending the convo and slide into stickler-mode.

    Pertaining to the topic at hand:
    Yeah, I used the word "romantic" because I tried to differentiate between the notions of romantic love and sexual energy, which for me are separate. Even if I feel excited by someone, if they don't call me back (or text, as is much preferred) - I just mentally move onto the next thing, which is easy for me to do since it takes longer for romantic feelings to develop. I think everybody wants to be texted back, but I'm not inclined to sit around and be sad about it if that doesn't happen. (If I don't know you very well, and you're not giving me the high I want, I'll find someone who will.)
    -- maybe I'm explaining too much into it but the overall attitude of this suggest suggests that she's not only able to move on fast by being used to no feedback of resolution, but also, she may not text others back when they don't peak her interest. From an E6 perspective, Batman vanishing during a dialogue is grit, but a whole society playing the cool is conniving class/cast separation.

    And the feature argument:
    Haha, homely hobbies? What would that entail, in your opinion? Crocheting? Watercolors? Decorating my living room?
    No, I like a thing and I make it my life, end of story. It's enticing, exciting, wouldn't-know-who-I-am-without-it kind of juice. If you can't realize that people don't need to be a focus there (though they absolutely can be), then I don't know what to tell you. Read more, I guess.
    Again, the underlying attitude. I think there is some credit to the idea that "ESTP's" excel at strategically employing their Fe. Half of her process was empathic anticipation gauging what I value in/think of as "Sx/Sp", then mirroring it back; the other half was anchoring it to the social reality. She offered help, right, but as if a visibly atheist woman posed as a believer, regurgitated the lofty ideals/values of a given religion, and then emphatically asserted that she's a real deal and one shouldn't expect for more. My stubbornness and lack of empathy was right there to be used to ground that mock indignation. Not that I cared about marriage or religion, but I do come across often the same inconsistency of outer self-confidence coupled with a body-/paraverbal language shouting "I'm good enough, make up your mind already!" Since I've realized Sx/Sp is just that: an ideal- reading back I do seem terribly naive, bamboozled. She used the theory to complement/enforce a socially timely, preferred "independent (+authentic+uncorrupted) woman" image. Her underlying attitude gave away the absence of that original place where that "Sx/Sp" I was expecting ought to have come from, hence my annoyance. Contrary to the above quoted: freedom, real independence wouldn't be a perpetual ideal, a stable, characteristically core yearning of the "Sx/Sp" if it was possible to be achieved. The ones who still believe in it haven't really tried. One's pursuit can be anything if there's no way of foregoing the people. Not to put all the blame on her, ofc, it's a long historical trend, women went where man has gone, in each new era, they also had to update "themselves" to fit the emerging social classes (e.g. flappers), fit for upward social mobility, to look fresh, challenging, mysterious. Without it the species wouldn't have survived. But when a man wakes up from women's promises, it's hard not to feel an existential dejection or anger. The masquerade is different but the same old story behind it still lacks origin, explanation, teleology. It's two sided: not all women are good with and willing cultural transition but if we don't protect our women, hehe, someone else will.
    Last edited by Neokortex; 09-17-2017 at 02:23 PM.
    Tritype 461: 4w5<->w3 so/sp 6w7 sp/sx 1w2 sx/sp - conservative social taboo / cultural critic

  6. #96
    Step into my office. Luv Deluxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    NiSe
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/sp
    Posts
    445

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neokortex
    And as for the mess-up with @Luv Deluxe... I was getting both tired and annoyed and got "lost among the weeds" but reading back I realize I didn't miss out on much. In fact some questions I targeted her with were really good, that she had to either carefully avoid or some could directly decline answering.
    You sure about that? I didn't avoid anything (besides the detailed pornographic adventures you were apparently after), and have otherwise been pretty up-front. Nicer than I'd like to be, even. It's my suspicion that you simply didn't like what you read, because it was well-articulated and didn't fit with your preconceived ideas. This was never a thread for discussion; this was all about you seeking affirmation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neokortex
    I didn't purposefully attempt to be imposing or vexing, but truth be told, I hold my own negative stereotypes about "ESTPs." Ultimately I feel that, though, perhaps I should've listened to them more instead of extending the convo and slide into stickler-mode.
    Why are we talking about ESTPs again? What do they have to do with us, or with this thread? I can sure act like an ESTP when I'm drunk, but beyond that, I'm afraid you're pretty confused. Thought we cleared that up ages ago, but as with literally everything else in this thread, I guess not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neokortex
    maybe I'm explaining too much into it but the overall attitude of this suggest suggests that she's not only able to move on fast by being used to no feedback of resolution, but also, she may not text others back when they don't peak her interest.
    I'm not "used" to no feedback - it's just that if I happen to not get it, I move on. Simple, yes? Who cares - if they don't like you, they don't like you. Someone else does. If anything, I think having plenty of options and a lot of interest has built my confidence to the point where guys have to work harder to be more interesting to me. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Guys like you - specifically, guys who feel threatened by this approach to the point where they've gotta broadcast it to the heavens - try to put girls like me down. That is something I'm used to, I'm afraid.

    Soooo, yeah. I guess you're gonna have to step it up if you genuinely hope to persuade me of anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neokortex
    Again, the underlying attitude. I think there is some credit to the idea that "ESTP's" excel at strategically employing their Fe. Half of her process was empathic anticipation gauging what I value in/think of as "Sx/Sp", then mirroring it back; the other half was anchoring it to the social reality. She offered help, right, but as if a visibly atheist woman posed as a believer, regurgitated the lofty ideals/values of a given religion, and then emphatically asserted that she's a real deal and one shouldn't expect for more.
    Your ESTP fixation aside, none of your analysis matches what I actually felt in talking to you. I'm sorry you want to see it that way, and I can't change your mind - obviously - so you'll see what you'd like to see. However, let the record show that your interpretation of why I said anything I said doesn't line up with my end of it; I felt genuinely sorry for you, and still do.

    As for what you think of Sx/Sp, I have no idea. You're so all over the place that it'd be hard to gauge much, if I had still wanted to by the time you'd become mocking and dismissive. And suppose I had tried to connect with you and offer REAL INSIGHT in a considerably diplomatic way (which I did) - wouldn't that indicate higher Fe? Honestly, I don't really care that much at this point.

    See above: this thread was never meant for genuine discussion. It's all about you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neokortex
    Not that I cared about marriage or religion, but I do come across often the same inconsistency of outer self-confidence coupled with a body-/paraverbal language shouting "I'm good enough, make up your mind already!"
    Make up your mind about what? I know what I want. Get on board, or don't. For example: if you want marriage with me, then don't get on board.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neokortex
    She used the theory to complement/enforce a socially timely, preferred "independent (+authentic+uncorrupted) woman" image. Her underlying attitude gave away the absence of that original place where that "Sx/Sp" I was expecting ought to have come from, hence my annoyance.
    Can you describe my underlying attitude? In full detail, and specifically how it doesn't fit your specific, personal interpretation of what an Sx/Sp woman should look like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neokortex
    Contrary to the above quoted: freedom, real independence wouldn't be a perpetual ideal, a stable, characteristically core yearning of the "Sx/Sp" if it was possible to be achieved. The ones who still believe in it haven't really tried.
    According to you, of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neokortex
    One's pursuit can be anything if there's no way of foregoing the people. Not to put all the blame on her, ofc, it's a long historical trend, women went where man has gone, in each new era, they also had to update "themselves" to fit the emerging social classes (e.g. flappers), to look fresh, challenging, mysterious.
    Ahh, so you think I'm trying to look mysterious. It must be an act, because it cannot be real. No woman, surely, would ever act like this! She says she doesn't want marriage and children, but she surely does, because it's what all women want! I HAVE DECIDED SO.

    Dude, check yourself. I get that you feel lonely and overlooked and - special(?) somehow, but don't take it out on women like me. I felt compelled to be way nicer to you before you kept making far-flung interpretations of my psychological perspective (because it's so alien to what you've personally experienced), and especially before you stepped back into this ring, having learned nothing. I'm normally not a dick, I swear, but I'm kinda feelin' like you earned it, here and there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neokortex
    But when a man wakes up from women's promises, it's hard not to feel an existential dejection or anger.
    Would it help if I told you I only identify as a woman (female) physically, biologically? Or would that really blow your mind and be unacceptable on an entirely new scale?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neokortex
    It's two sided: not all women are good with and willing cultural transition but if we don't protect our women, hehe, someone else will.
    Not all women are good with cultural changes, true. But some of us are goddamn revolutionaries.

    Now, as I've said before, I'm probably not going to hang around in this thread since you're not processing anything I'm saying, and the whole thing is probably a waste of my time. It's been almost a year, seriously. Come back with something fresh, or don't expect me to respond.

    My takeaways from this entire thing:
    1. There is probably some kind of cultural divide here? Maybe? I'm American, so that brands me as a completely different animal for some people - and an undesirable one, at that. (While I have strong opinions about the current state of...everything, I'm not ashamed of being an American; I am what I am, but I recognize that some cultures perceive values here to be a bit superficial, or ultimately detrimental to whatever they feel is the proper crux of social survival.)

    2. You definitely still don't understand how instinctual variant theory works as applied to Enneagram and tritype theory. I don't even subscribe to the tritype thing anymore, but...seriously. Wow. You have one core Enneagram type, then if you're into tritype theory, you've got a type in each fixation of trouble (head, heart, gut). Your instinctual variant is your instinctual variant throughout.

    3. Sx-dominance can manifest in many different ways, as demonstrated in the somewhat polarized versions of it that @Sanjuro and I feel. While this doesn't make our personal experiences any less real, I would hope that it opens your eyes insofar as how the instinct can appear in different people.

    4. Women like me intimidate you. It's easier for you to pretend my behavior is an act of some kind than to accept that it's very real, and that yes, a lot of girls like me won't be interested in guys like you. I'm sorry. BUT! The good news is, there is someone who will love the everloving dick out of you, and you'll be elated when you find her. My last, parting bit of advice to you is to not get lost within your own head, to not over-analyze other people, and to let them teach you who they are - to let your connection be real, organic, and genuine. You'll be happier that way, I think.

    You're irritating as balls, Neokortex, but your enthusiasm is fun, and I stand by what I've said before - I really hope you find happiness. Everyone deserves that, and life is short. Go get it.
    AMERICAN TRASH
    Ni > Se > Fe > Ti
    7w6 cp
    so SX it hurts
    Sanguine/Choleric
    Chaotic Good

    ~ Gryffindor on the streets, Slytherin in the sheets ~

Similar Threads

  1. [sx] How did we become Sx-first?
    By small.wonder in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 09-28-2015, 06:36 PM
  2. [sx] What does an Sx first 9 look like?
    By LadyLazarus in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-25-2014, 05:27 AM
  3. [Si] Your first Enemy?
    By JivinJeffJones in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 11-24-2013, 04:49 PM
  4. Concertina story (read first post first)
    By TickTock in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-24-2010, 07:06 AM
  5. trust first, relationship first ?
    By INTJMom in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 02-25-2008, 09:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts