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.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.
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.
Actually, practitioners usually state that the dominant instinct is in fact damaged. See these words, for example, published on Enneagram Monthly: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.
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.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.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.
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?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.
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.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.
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."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?
A) Who says I'm an 8?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
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.
I am still not sure I see the connection that you do, but I thank you for sharing anyway.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...
What if most girls I know say the opposite??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
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.
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.Well, ya know. The experimentation you talked about a while back. I quoted you. Ring a bell?
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.
I may quite fairly say, Two can play at that game. Back at you.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...
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.