You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.
What's the difference?
What kind of traits determine each?
I try to make people happy, not so they approve of me (although I do want approval), but because I like seeing people happy.
I am pretty passive and agreeable until it comes to something I feel strongly about (then I get defensive and don't care who I offend).
I care about looking good and having my life be as perfect as possible, but I'm not particularly concerned about my health, money or security. I simply want to gain happiness and completeness from perfection.
I like being independent, but I'm emotional and spontaneous.
I thought they were very much into keeping themselves comforted, and materialism in the external realm seems like it can provide that to many. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I thought they were very much into keeping themselves comforted, and materialism in the external realm seems like it can provide that to many. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't know. I'm not familiar with instinctual variants, so I wanted some clarification rather than to prove you wrong. I meant to ask if an sp would sacrifice oneself for another regardless of whether the other can be of potential comfort or not.
Essentially the difference is that either the intensity of Sx is softened by So's need to preserve its safe place in the big scheme of things, or brought into higher contrast by Sp's need to focus on personal resources, making Sx/So more "magnetic" and Sx/Sp more "edgy". Sx/Sp is more fire-and-ice while Sx/So is more of a warm hearth. Sx/Sp is more all-or-nothing while Sx/So is more internally wavering but more externally consistent.
@Bumblyjack (Sx/Sp) wrote what I think was one of the best-ever comparisons between the two: "The Sx/Sp ideal is to run away with their love and leave all the world behind [while the] Sx/So ideal is not to run away but to stand and fight, tearing down the walls..."
It may be easier to determine your last priority, rather than your 2nd. I know I'm Sp-last because I always leave resource focus until it absolutely has to be attended to, I rarely ever worry about it, and my personal needs just don't have much of an effect on my day-to-day operation. I tend to wear myself tired and not get enough sleep all the time because I always prioritize being with my family or reading about interesting things. I'm a complete Sp fail. The Sx/Sp would let So involvement fall to the wayside instead.
Aesthete said:
So, do you mean to say that Sps will not sacrifice themselves for external things? [...]
I meant to ask if an sp would sacrifice oneself for another regardless of whether the other can be of potential comfort or not.
My boyfriend is an Sp/Sx, and I know that he often will sacrifice his time and comfort because he cares about people in general and their wellbeing, not because it will make things easier for him. He is a comfort seeker and protective of his resources, but in the long run, I think it evens out, as Sps naturally have more resources to give because they are more careful about allocation. Being Sx/So, I'm probably more willing to just jump into external things, but I also generally have less resources to do so.
Interestingly, if given preference, I think that what he tends to do is include those important to him in his resource allocation - in other words, he will try to ensure comfort for everyone by sacrificing resources up front, so that he can work around it, rather than having to sacrifice it down the line when it's harder to shift things around.
Essentially the difference is that either the intensity of Sx is softened by So's need to preserve its safe place in the big scheme of things, or brought into higher contrast by Sp's need to focus on personal resources, making Sx/So "magnetic" and Sx/Sp "edgy". Sx/Sp is more fire-and-ice while Sx/So is more of a warm hearth.
Well, it may depend on the comparison. I figure Sx/So would be fire-and-ice in comparison with So/Sx whose warmth is more constant and less wavering in intensity. I was trying to give her a relativistic viewpoint, since she's already determined Sx first.
What I meant by fire-and-ice is essentially the same as all-or-nothing. I think that Sx/So is more like fire-or-fight... we're either totally with you or we're fighting against you. I guess because of the binding of So, it's very hard to do ice-ish personal removal.
Well, it may depend on the comparison. I figure Sx/So would be fire-and-ice in comparison with So/Sx whose warmth is more constant and less wavering in intensity. I was trying to give her a relativistic viewpoint, since she's already determined Sx first.
No, neurotic soc can also indeed be to refuse to want to fit in and be more of a lone wolf kind of person. Do remember though that the motivation behind this is because you supress soc by pretending you don't want or need it.
Sure. So is just always aware of groups and power dynamics. Personally I like being in groups, and being a leader in groups, but I also tend to push change for the better within groups, so sometimes I'm seen as a "bad guy" or a rebel while I'm trying to affect that change. I don't think Sx/So does "status quo" very well.
Essentially the difference is that either the intensity of Sx is softened by So's need to preserve its safe place in the big scheme of things, or brought into higher contrast by Sp's need to focus on personal resources
- Sx/So's are virtually never concerned with security of any kind. that is the source of their charisma.
- Sx/So's aren't concerned with maintaining a "place" in the group. their influence on groups tends to be more disruptive in nature (not disruptive as in delinquent or destructive, but as in shaking things up). they make their own place or pull aside people to form a new group.
making Sx/So more "magnetic" and Sx/Sp more "edgy".
Sx doms in general tend to be both magnetic and edgy. whichever one dominates has more to do with E type and MBTI
Sx/So is more fire-and-ice while So/Sx is more of a warm hearth. Sx is more all-or-nothing while Sp is more internally wavering but more externally consistent.
fixed
Sx/Sp is more like a penetrating laser that hits you in the chest; Sx/So is like a wild fire
@Bumblyjack (Sx/Sp) wrote what I think was one of the best-ever comparisons between the two: "The Sx/Sp ideal is to run away with their love and leave all the world behind [while the] Sx/So ideal is not to run away but to stand and fight, tearing down the walls..."
It may be easier to determine your last priority, rather than your 2nd. I know I'm Sp-last because I always leave resource focus until it absolutely has to be attended to, I rarely ever worry about it, and my personal needs just don't have much of an effect on my day-to-day operation. I tend to wear myself tired and not get enough sleep all the time because I always prioritize being with my family or reading about interesting things. I'm a complete Sp fail. The Sx/Sp would let So involvement fall to the wayside instead.
I think you can figure your type out both ways (for me it was obvious either way I looked at it)
My boyfriend is an Sp/Sx, and I know that he often will sacrifice his time and comfort because he cares about people in general and their wellbeing, not because it will make things easier for him. He is a comfort seeker and protective of his resources, but in the long run, I think it evens out, as Sps naturally have more resources to give because they are more careful about allocation. Being Sx/So, I'm probably more willing to just jump into external things, but I also generally have less resources to do so.
Interestingly, if given preference, I think that what he tends to do is include those important to him in his resource allocation - in other words, he will try to ensure comfort for everyone by sacrificing resources up front, so that he can work around it, rather than having to sacrifice it down the line when it's harder to shift things around.
- Sx/So's are virtually never concerned with security of any kind. that is the source of their charisma.
- Sx/So's aren't concerned with maintaining a "place" in the group. their influence on groups tends to be more disruptive in nature (not disruptive as in delinquent or destructive, but as in shaking things up). they make their own place or pull aside people to form a new group.
You have to have some degree of place and security within the group to shake things up - if you don't, you'll be written off and excluded, instead of listened to and even followed when you rebel. If Sx/Sos weren't at all concerned with group inclusion, there would be no point in shaking up the group at all, after all - we would just go our own way.
The Sx/So charisma is that of the activist, who wants to create social change. We'd rather take everyone with us, if we had the choice, so we push our own direction and pull those around us as much as we can - and the importance of social security isn't in the security itself as much as it is we feel we can't maintain those close connections if we completely lose our place in society. Plus, the So instinct reminds us that everything is connected. Even if we left to live in a bubble, we wouldn't be making things right; we'd just be living in isolated illusion - plus we would lose our option pool and arena for forging those close connections with new people. There are certain constraints of reality that we must learn to live with. That's why the Sx/So wants to stand and fight - we realize that regardless of how far we try to run, we can't escape the chains and walls of the world around us.
Shiva's power of destruction is a purifying power, making the world ready for Brahma to create and Vishnu to preserve. The only real option is to stay and tear the walls down and break the chains, making way for the social builders to forge new and better ones.
Sx doms in general tend to be both magnetic and edgy. whichever one dominates has more to do with E type and MBTI
I disagree. We all consciously modify our behavior, but Sx/Sp is more aware of resource depletion while Sx/So is more aware of effect on environment. Sx/Sp volatility is more calculated in terms of resources - time, energy, money. They're more likely to walk away from a bad situation, instead of of pouring all their energy into trying to fix it, whereas Sx/Sos will be more likely to stay in a bad situation and wear ourselves to the bone because we don't have a good awareness of our personal resources, and we feel some degree of binding to the current environment. Because of that binding and desire to stay, the Sx/So will also smooth a lot of outward volatility because it creates public distrust - and the only thing worse than removing yourself from the group is having the group remove you (because, like I said before, it undermines your Sx power). In other words, Sx/So edginess is externally contingent, while Sx/Sp edginess is internally contingent. But since other people are outsiders, the So instinct will try to hide volatility from them. That's why an Sx/Sp will seem more edgy to observers.
Celebrity example-
Compare Rihanna, often said to be ISFP, and clearly Sx/Sp, to Madonna, often said to be ESTP, and Sx/So. You would expect an ESTP to be much more edgy than an ISFP, right? Yet Madonna shakes things up but she's not as raw as Rihanna. Madonna is very aware of what she's doing culturally and politically. Rihanna seems more into exposing her own struggles, her own life, capturing the energy of it all - it's reality, so whether it's culturally or socially acceptable doesn't really matter. Rihanna's "Disturbia" is a lot more dark, edgy, and personal, even though "Papa Don't Preach" is more explicitly controversial, for example. Or Rihanna's "S&M" versus "Like A Virgin" - Rihanna just asserts herself, while Madonna makes more of leap to it. There's just a little more intentionally-modulated distance in everything Madonna does for the sake of audience response. And there's more self-focus and self-assertion in Rihanna, which is part of what makes her so appealing - there's absolutely nothing "fake" about her. Madonna is more spirit of the times. She pushes, but she's connected. She stands as a symbol of the 80s because of that cultural connection. Rihanna is Rihanna in everything she does. She may stand through time on her own, but not as a symbol of a time or a people.
Etype and MBTI can definitely be confounding factors, though.
Well, it may depend on the comparison. I figure Sx/So would be fire-and-ice in comparison with So/Sx whose warmth is more constant and less wavering in intensity. I was trying to give her a relativistic viewpoint, since she's already determined Sx first.
What I meant by fire-and-ice is essentially the same as all-or-nothing. I think that Sx/So is more like fire-or-fight... we're either totally with you or we're fighting against you. I guess because of the binding of So, it's very hard to do ice-ish personal removal.
- Sx/So's are virtually never concerned with security of any kind. that is the source of their charisma.
- Sx/So's aren't concerned with maintaining a "place" in the group. their influence on groups tends to be more disruptive in nature (not disruptive as in delinquent or destructive, but as in shaking things up). they make their own place or pull aside people to form a new group.
Sx doms in general tend to be both magnetic and edgy. whichever one dominates has more to do with E type and MBTI
fixed
Sx/Sp is more like a penetrating laser that hits you in the chest; Sx/So is like a wild fire
this is definitely correct
I think you can figure your type out both ways (for me it was obvious either way I looked at it)
Compare Rihanna, often said to be ISFP, and clearly Sx/Sp, to Madonna, often said to be ESTP, and Sx/So. You would expect an ESTP to be much more edgy than an ISFP, right? Yet Madonna shakes things up but she's not as raw as Rihanna. Madonna is very aware of what she's doing culturally and politically. Rihanna seems more into exposing her own struggles, her own life, capturing the energy of it all - it's reality, so whether it's culturally or socially acceptable doesn't really matter. Rihanna's "Disturbia" is a lot more dark, edgy, and personal, even though "Papa Don't Preach" is more explicitly controversial, for example. Or Rihanna's "S&M" versus "Like A Virgin" - Rihanna just asserts herself, while Madonna makes more of leap to it. There's just a little more intentionally-modulated distance in everything Madonna does for the sake of audience response. And there's more self-focus and self-assertion in Rihanna, which is part of what makes her so appealing - there's absolutely nothing "fake" about her. Madonna is more spirit of the times. She pushes, but she's connected. She stands as a symbol of the 80s because of that cultural connection. Rihanna is Rihanna in everything she does. She may stand through time on her own, but not as a symbol of a time or a people.
Etype and MBTI can definitely be confounding factors, though.
I feel that Madonna is smarter or better educated, was probably raised much more conservatively, and yes, calculates a very particular meaningful impact on society.
It's not even some childish flying in the face of religion, either; I think Madonna actually has endured a very ambivalent relationship to the Catholic church, to her father, and overall even to her own spirituality, becoming quite the spiritual seeker once she got past 40 (inferior Ni?). Is she an Enneagram 6??
However, I may see Madonna as smarter because she basically planned out her own success, became a business woman, had actual musical talent on top of it all, and I just think she's ethically more intelligent. The latter is probably my own opinion, and probably reflects my own sx/so attitude toward social impact and maybe also because I had a more conservative upbringing.
There's something more structured about Madonna, mentally speaking. She has an appreciation for culture.
In Jung's neurotic types I would actually say Madonna is a Cultural Realist, which is ESFP, not ESTP.
However, she definitely seems more like a Ti type than an Fi type, realistically; she's very hard to "get to" she's not someone that anyone could easily affect, so I don't see her as an Fi type.
Okay, I don't think I'm either! I think I'm excessively sx that sp and so don't even factor haha
I'd rather run away with my love than stand and fight against the world
I don't care about security or making an impact in a group
I purely care about being very close with one person at a time