• 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.

so/sp interactions with other variants - ESPECIALLY SX

Giggly

No moss growing on me
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
9,661
MBTI Type
iSFj
Enneagram
2
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Hey Peacebaby, if it's any consolation, I have trouble with people who come and go too. :)
 

Rebe

New member
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
1,431
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4sop
Yeah, I definitely look for cues and communication styles. That's just common sense. But, I still "overstep" sometimes or "read them wrong" one way or the other.

I'll give you an example: This is not a "brag" at all - let me be the first one to say that I am not Mr. Smooth with the ladies. Not by a long shot. But, I have this recurring situation in my life that I attribute to my "sx" variant. I will meet a woman who is somehow intrigued and even attracted to my openness. A couple of them may have been sx, and a couple of them not sx. We will hit it off really well (as friends!!!) and talk about interesting stuff and, blah, blah, blah. Weeks will go by, we've gotten to know each other better, even hung out with mutual friends and done some fun things together, shared a lot of laughs, etc. Then when I find out that they are "in love" with me, I'm like: :shock: I just didn't see it coming. And I never saw them that way at all. And when I have to tell them that I don't see them that way, they become very upset. Like, "what the? What do you mean? Look at all the stuff we talked about and all the times we hung out!" "Umm, yeah, so?"

I'm thinking it's because, as someone mentioned earlier, "I'm zooming in on that person." I'm really interested in getting to know them and what they are all about and maybe they've never experienced someone having that kind of a genuine interest and focus on them. It has certainly gone the other way too - where I end up falling and they think I'm a bit too "intense".

It's actually happening right now with a friend of mine. With this particular girl, I've never even gone anywhere with her. I've only talked to her when I go eat at her restaurant. Good talks. Interesting talks. Many of them. But, now she's asking all the time if I want to go hang out, do this, do that. As a result, I had to scale it way back. I didn't think the girl would fall for me. She's much older than me to begin with - I'm closer to her daughter's age than I am to hers. How did I know that our talks would result in this? She was interested in what I was saying and I was genuinely interested in her. Just two people talking. And when I tell her I can't hang out, she says stuff like, "I think you're smarter than you let on. You know more than you act like you do." Inside my head I'm thinking, "Yeah, what I know is that it's become obvious that you like me and I've made it clear to you over and over in our conversations that I'm happy being single and am not interested in any form of dating or relationships right now. So, why do you continue to press me when you KNOW where I stand?"

It sucks that I have to lose a great friend over that. We could have continued talking like a bunch of crazy teenagers and become really good friends. So, they seem to think that I had it planned the whole time: get close to them, suck them in, and then spit them out and break their heart. That's NEVER how I enter a situation. That would be pathetic. In reality it's just realizing that "oh this person is cool and interesting." And each conversation becomes progressively more interesting. But, they are the ones asking the questions about me. It was their curiosity that allowed me to open up. It wasn't me "hunting them down" and trying to break their heart. But, the result of it is that I'm a bad guy. I suppose I've got to be smarter than this and just really not go there with people that I know I wouldn't date. But, then I feel like I'm not being my self. :(

Oh, and I don't know if this has any meaning or if it's just coincidence, but those women almost always seem to be Fi-dom or Fi-aux. The commonality seems to be that they never share with me that they are developing feelings in the early going. They just wait until their frustration boils over and then they blow up on me. Fe-users would probably tell you at the beginning, "I can see myself falling for you." I'm just saying, the fact that they never communicate that they are developing feelings until after it has become "full blown love", plays a role in me being so surprised by it.

Hey, that's very interesting the distinction you made between Fe dom and aux and Fi dom and aux in regards to expressing feelings. My fe aux friend tells me I am very confusing to guys all the time. Part of it is that we, Fi types, want to be absolutely sure we have feelings. Perhaps we know that the situation won't change so we try to stuff our feelings in, but eventually, the feelings has deepened and it needs to come out and reach some sort of resolution. I don't know how I might ... prevent that ... I won't say anything until I am 'certain' I have 'true' feelings but I won't be 'certain' until my feelings are so strong that there's not much I or the other person can do to 'resolve' it peacefully. You know what I mean? I think we are more all or nothing ... When it gets to that stage, it's either you win all or lose all in the relationship, that's that.

I think it's perfectly fine for you to be so intensely and platonic-ally interested in someone without them getting the wrong impression. You may be sending all sorts of strong signals that you don't mean, but they are 'send' anyway. Maybe how you interact is exactly identical to someone who is 'interested' might act. And also, regarding Fi dom and aux, it takes a lot for them to realize you like them and a lot for them to fall for you, so your signals and personality must be crazy awesome and intense. :D
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
But, why is there this sense that sx is the "deepest"? I see this very urgent and compelling need to experience deep intimacy with other people, but why is that somehow equated with depth of character?
I think you're are the only one perceiving it that way.
I can totally see where Jen and the other SXs are coming from in this thread. But your reactions at times are hostile and defensive. There is clearly some kind of gulf (perhaps created by resentment you feel towards people you have typed as SX) that is hindering understanding.

Or, maybe for just half an hour, get out of your own head, don't count the minutes, and just get into the story? Maybe it will be more interesting than you think.
I'll be honest with you (since we're being all carey sharey in this thread :cheese:) that response makes me bristle. I wasn't looking for advice or a lecture, I was responding to your assertion that SXs use and exploit people. We don't. More often than not people want or expect more from us than we have ever promised (as INTPness describes), just because we happen to have expressed an interest in them. You don't seem to be capable of grasping that. Perhaps because you are one of those people?
they seem predator-ish. Not necessarily in a rapist kind of way, but you just feel zoomed-in on.
Fuck. It gets worse!
Would it be a fair generalization to say that SX-dom NT's want to go deep about knowing facts and SX-dom NF's want to go deep knowing feelings? Or is it a combination of the two?
No. I'm not interested in facts or feelings.
I'm more interested in opinions and insights.

As an SO-SP, I would meter out personal information about myself, over time, until I felt I could trust you with it. Does that feel like a roadblock to you? Does this "slowness" of divulging come across as too much like work?
It depends what you are being reticent about.

Do you think SX is more about understanding, or more about being understood?
For me, I'm much more interested in the former. I've pretty much given up on the latter.

See, I don't think some facts about myself are ways to hurt me.
I used to be much more open until I realized how vulnerable that made me to crazy stalker types.

How much sharing is TOO MUCH for an SX? Or is there such a thing?
No such thing.
Over-emoting is a HUGE turn-off for me though. If you can't share dispassionately, please don't share at all. I'm not one for hugging it out or sobbing along. My interest is more impersonal.

How'd it go with the ESFJ, Morgan? :D
I honoured the arrangement of course! Fortunately, she had forgotten and gone shopping, so I talked to hubby instead. I now don't have to feel guilty but also don't have to feel obliged to honour future invitiations. Win-win!! ;)

Here's what it's like for me: I'm an INTP 5w4 sx/sp = I'm pretty introverted! So, I really, really, really don't need to talk to people much at all. When I meet people and run into people, my natural instinct is to not even talk to them. If they ask me a question, give them an answer, but keep it very straightforward and simple. I really don't care to get "tangled" up in human relations very much. But, inevitably, people ask questions.

When I answer these questions, I answer fully and honestly. I'm not good at reading into the fact that they only wanted me to say, "I'm doing good. Bye!" I thought they really wanted to know what's been going on.
I think this is what is meant when INTPs are described as pure and childlike. I like this about us. I see it as being authentic. I won't give that information to just anyone though. They have to be worthy. So now I can do the "Fine, thanks" thing and move on without feeling like a fraud.

there are many ways to define ‘deep’. I guess my point is that ‘deep’ isn’t necessarily ‘personal’.
Yes.

Here’s an example of what I’d consider personal: there’s another member here I haven’t interacted with very much who doesn’t make it available to leave messages on their public wall. I think this person is kinda interesting and I’m curious why- something tells me it’s a reason I can relate to. Asking this person through a pm (though we haven’t interacted much) is what I’d consider getting personal. On the other hand: starting a thread and delving into the theoretical reasons why people don’t make it available to post on their wall is what I’d consider wanting ‘deeper’ conversation that isn’t necessarily personal.

So where does sx fall in there?
I don't see much difference between the two. (And I'd classify both as personal rather than deep). I'd ask if I was curious. I don't care if someone thinks I'm being "too" personal. They can always ignore me or tell me to MMOFB. I won't take offense.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,190
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Here’s an example of what I’d consider personal: there’s another member here I haven’t interacted with very much who doesn’t make it available to leave messages on their public wall. I think this person is kinda interesting and I’m curious why- something tells me it’s a reason I can relate to. Asking this person through a pm (though we haven’t interacted much) is what I’d consider getting personal. On the other hand: starting a thread and delving into the theoretical reasons why people don’t make it available to post on their wall is what I’d consider wanting ‘deeper’ conversation that isn’t necessarily personal.

So where does sx fall in there?

I don't see much difference between the two. (And I'd classify both as personal rather than deep). I'd ask if I was curious. I don't care if someone thinks I'm being "too" personal. They can always ignore me or tell me to MMOFB. I won't take offense.

Yes, I'm not even sure what the problem is, honestly.

If you want to know something, ask politely.
("Hey, i'm just curious why you have your Wall turned off. No worries if you don't want to talk about it.")
If they choose to answer, then there you are.
If they say no, then let it go.

And if they are bothered by thinking such a request is "too personal" enough to be annoyed with me for even asking in such an open-ended, non-pressuring way, then I don't even want to waste a lot of energy on them because if they can't even handle questions about relatively impersonal items and routine curiosity, I'd probably be very unhappy with their lack of basic communication in a relationship. I'd be dissuaded from engaging, if I kept getting slapped. The relationship would soon just become a dance of silence and internalized in each person's head -- interacting much more with their IDEA of each other rather than more with the REALITY of each other.

I see it as better when people take at least some responsibility for their own boundaries. Yes, it's good to be aware of boundaries and try not to step on them, but interaction involves the butting of two boundaries and finding the spot in the middle where both people are willing to go. If one person is constantly trying to avoid any boundary clash, then the relationship to me is going to suffer -- less direct communication is being made -- and meanwhile the other person is not being given opportunities to engage in turn, or maybe being stretched a bit. It just seems to be best to (1) be respectful in how you ask / put yourself out there, but still put yourself out there and (2) be willing to maturely state when someone is going somewhere you don't want to go. Relationships are dirty and organic to me, not pristine and orderly.

With the thread concept, I'm actually more bothered when I sense someone doing a huge workaround if it seems pretty clear what their actual intent it is. It feels like a huge game to me. If you can make it general enough that no one perceives why you're asking it, I guess it works... or if there is a larger social point to be made, then it works... but otherwise it just seems like a lot of energy when a simple direct question would have sufficed.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I see it as better when people take at least some responsibility for their own boundaries. Yes, it's good to be aware of boundaries and try not to step on them, but interaction involves the butting of two boundaries and finding the spot in the middle where both people are willing to go. If one person is constantly trying to avoid any boundary clash, then the relationship to me is going to suffer -- less direct communication is being made -- and meanwhile the other person is not being given opportunities to engage in turn, or maybe being stretched a bit. It just seems to be best to (1) be respectful in how you ask / put yourself out there, but still put yourself out there and (2) be willing to maturely state when someone is going somewhere you don't want to go. Relationships are dirty and organic to me, not pristine and orderly.

With the thread concept, I'm actually more bothered when I sense someone doing a huge workaround if it seems pretty clear what their actual intent it is. It feels like a huge game to me. If you can make it general enough that no one perceives why you're asking it, I guess it works... or if there is a larger social point to be made, then it works... but otherwise it just seems like a lot of energy when a simple direct question would have sufficed.
Fuck yes! Just seems cowardly and weak.

I suppose I have a problem with boundaries... this seems to be a recurring SX theme... Because I fail to see the point of them I don't respect them at all. I have no problem telling people to butt out if they are being invasive (usually judgmental rather than just curious), and I expect them to do the same with me without making a meal of it. I see almost all information as public domain and impersonal - what Jock said about the tendency to de-personalise and to separate the individual from their experiences - I don't understand why people are so precious about stuff.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,190
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I suppose I have a problem with boundaries... this seems to be a recurring SX theme... Because I fail to see the point of them I don't respect them at all. I have no problem telling people to butt out if they are being invasive (usually judgmental rather than just curious), and I expect them to do the same with me without making a meal of it. I see almost all information as public domain and impersonal - what Jock said about the tendency to de-personalise and to separate the individual from their experiences - I don't understand why people are so precious about stuff.

I think I missed that (I haven't been keeping up with the thread), but that's really it. I can have people share their "personal" stuff with me but I process it apart from them. I feel like a lot of people are scared to share because they feel like they will judged or rejected or exposed... but people who are close to know me know they can trust me. Even if I sometimes have an opinion about the things that are shared in terms of whether it's good or bad, it typically doesn't impact how I would interact with that person; my interaction is typically determined by how they are interacting with me right then.

This probably also contributes to my feeling that it's okay to research people online with publicly available information, to help me understand them better; I'll find things and figure out what I can, but it's not meant to be invasive. I don't go into private spaces (i.e., what amounts to breaking and entering), but if they put it out there somewhere, then to me it's open information. I post a lot of stuff on my Wall that others might be protective of, but it's just information to me, in case someone is interested in understanding me.

Since my "rationality" is like yours here, I'm not sure where my sensitivity to the boundaries comes from. Religious guilt? Unsafe emotional environment in upbringing (i.e., bumping people's boundaries brought reprisal)? Just not sure. The older I get, the more I seem to be reverting to the impersonal standard -- expect me to engage if I'm curious, and if you don't want me there, just tell me not to go there. No need for a drama. And I'll do the same in turn. I'll get pissed if I specifically ask someone to butt out and they don't -- that's an intrusion to me, but asking? That's fine.

I don't really like the mixed messages where people say they're inviting, then get weird if I ask certain questions and shove me back without comment as if I should have known better (or try to dodge completely), then go back to saying they don't mind and are of course open, etc., and otherwise put out conflicting signals.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
I think you're are the only one perceiving it that way.

No, I'm not. But the difference I think is what was hinted at earlier, the difference between deep and personal. For me deep is more about personal, personal is usually about an intense feeling. Those are the parts I tend to protect more. I think I see what you all are getting at now - that what I consider the personal stuff doesn't necessarily feel like it needs more protection than anything else for you.

I can totally see where Jen and the other SXs are coming from in this thread. But your reactions at times are hostile and defensive. There is clearly some kind of gulf (perhaps created by resentment you feel towards people you have typed as SX) that is hindering understanding.

I have done my best to stretch the boundaries without offending anyone.

I've stated what I am doing, several times over now. I have apologized in advance for using extreme examples that don't necessarily reflect my personal point of view.

I harbour no resentment to you or anyone. I had never even thought about SO / SP / SX in the context of relationships before a week ago. It was a new place to explore. So that's what I am doing.

I am not hostile nor am I defensive here. I've been open and candid.

But congratulations, way to misread and overlook my clearly stated intentions.

And yes, it makes me upset to be misread. Just so we are crystal clear. You can now revel in this knowledge as well.

I'll be honest with you (since we're being all carey sharey in this thread :cheese:) that response makes me bristle. I wasn't looking for advice or a lecture, I was responding to your assertion that SXs use and exploit people.

I said no such thing. Ever. Re-read every post. I shared your pain on the "social time" that was needed to sit with MS ESFJ. I see it as a nightmare too. I shared what I would do to try to help myself. If it doesn't help you, fine.

No. I'm not interested in facts or feelings.
I'm more interested in opinions and insights.

@ bold: clearly.

And that's OK.

But I've been confusing and intermingling the difference between what kind of information is classified as deep, and instead of getting self-righteous maybe you could have helped me clarify it instead.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I have done my best to stretch the boundaries without offending anyone.

I've stated what I am doing, several times over now. I have apologized in advance for using extreme examples that don't necessarily reflect my personal point of view.

I harbour no resentment to you or anyone. I had never even thought about SO / SP / SX in the context of relationships before a week ago. It was a new place to explore. So that's what I am doing.

I am not hostile nor am I defensive here. I've been open and candid.

But congratulations, way to misread and overlook my clearly stated intentions.

And yes, it makes me upset to be misread. Just so we are crystal clear. You can now revel in this knowledge as well.



I said no such thing. Ever. Re-read every post. I shared your pain on the "social time" that was needed to sit with MS ESFJ. I see it as a nightmare too. I shared what I would do to try to help myself. If it doesn't help you, fine.



@ bold: clearly.

And that's OK.

But I've been confusing and intermingling the difference between what kind of information is classified as deep, and instead of getting self-righteous maybe you could have helped me clarify it instead.
You're still misreading tone. You ask for feedback, produce analogies which you recognise to be offensive (whilst asking people not to get offended), then make personally critical and unpleasant remarks. (I'm still not offended, btw).
I'm astonished that you can't see any of this. It's interesting to me though.

I didn't realize how fundamental to communication / relationship these differences are, so I'm actually grateful for your thread.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
^ tell me then, explicitly, what you find critical and unpleasant.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I had bolded the relevant bits, but I thought the whole post indicated that you were a bit put out. Your reply to Jennifer came off the same way.
I don't know if you are reacting to the poster, or the mindset. I'm unable to inhabit yours to understand what it is that you are taking exception to...
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,190
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
^ tell me then, explicitly, what you find critical and unpleasant.

A response like the one I just quoted.

I can't get into your perspective enough to understand what you meant, so I'm left with only how I perceived the exchange:

Morgan gave you a few paragraphs, and bolded a few items.

A one-line response like this comes off as "Yeah, well, prove it!" rather than as a serious request, from the way I process things. If someone complains about me, I go back and reread and try to figure out what they meant, and then I ask them what they meant, and mention some things they might have meant.

You didn't seem to invest in responding to her answer -- you didn't address what she DID say, nor did you add anything. You just demanded more proof. It's the same response someone gives when they're basically saying, "Screw off, you're wrong." A little investment in her response would have showed openness, but I couldn't see it in a comment like this.

As has been said, if you are being sincere, this is a communication breakdown -- we can't read each other -- and I left a few days ago because the communication barrier seems too hard to overcome in this context. I'm rather stymied.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
There's nothing I don't communicate here that's NOT sincere.

Frankly, to me it's a given.

I'm not asking her to prove anything. I truly want to know what I said in thread that is perceived as hostile, critical or unpleasant. I want to understand this, so I asked.

I would not use the word hostile lightly for example. It's a huge word to me.

I know some of this is the classic NT / NF disconnect, but if you read anything other than sincerity into my words, then you've gone somewhere else beyond my intention.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
FWIW, PB, I don't doubt your sincerity at all.
I feel like you're getting upset and I don't have the insight to understand why, so I'm assuming some kind of transference thing is going on. Obviously, something personal prompted you to start this thread but you haven't shared what it is. What you have shared are your misgivings about a group of people who test/interact in a certain way. You do want to understand, but your misgivings are getting in the way of that (or so it seems to me).
Going back to the OP:
I am looking for some insight into what you think the major pulls / obstacles and misreads would be between the following variant types:

so/sp with sx/sp
The entire thread is an excellent example of the sort of "misreads" that occur :)- though I'm not sure if we have achieved insight or just followed a pattern...
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,190
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
There's nothing I don't communicate here that's NOT sincere.

Frankly, to me it's a given.

I'm not asking her to prove anything. I truly want to know what I said in thread that is perceived as hostile, critical or unpleasant. I want to understand this, so I asked.

I would not use the word hostile lightly for example. It's a huge word to me.

I know some of this is the classic NT / NF disconnect, but if you read anything other than sincerity into my words, then you've gone somewhere else beyond my intention.


I don't know if it's NT/NF.

People call me a meld of the two, and I have enough NF friends where this sort of disconnect doesn't regularly happen. It's only with you and a few others that it shows up. So I don't understand it and cannot figure it out.

Let's look at this very last exchange: Do you understand why I even read your last line as hostile? You asked what was hostile, I said, "This line" -- I kept it confined to one particular line, rather than overcomplicating it with having to spend lots of time to dig through your posts, repeat all the hostile-seeming lines, explaining the context of them (so as to accurate frame the communication)...

... and your response was (in a nutshell), "It wasn't hostile, and if you thought it was, you were incorrect because I never mean to be hostile."

Do you see where you asked a question, I gave you one scrap to deal with, and you dismissed it? I don't think I want to invest an hour to make a strong case for my viewpoint and have you do the exact same thing to it; it's not worth it. I think my communication with my NF friends I don't have an issue with, they actually address the point with something as simple as, "That wasn't what I meant, but I see why you might have read it like that, I was kind of unclear," and then they rephrase it a better way; and I do the same with them.

I believe what people do, regardless of what they say. You said one thing, but did another; I can't avoid but note the discrepancy, it's glaring to me and makes it difficult for me to just go with your words. Your tone just seems different.

EDIT: I don't know if this is even an SO/SX issue anymore, I'm sorry if this has taken things on a tangent, and we can pull it back on track if we want.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
As an SO-dom, I do feel like the ongoing part of a relationship is not as important to some people in my life as it is to others. I was interested to see if that could be defined by this whole SX - SO thing.

Morgan, yes I am feeling frustrated at being misread, and the bolded lines that you pointed out reflect that. It truly is important to me to know what you see as hostile though, because I truly am not seeing it. Hostile is such a huge, horrible word, and it bespeaks a relationship of enmity, not allies. If I am missing such a huge thing, I would embrace you pointing it out to me, in order that I might grow.

Jennifer, all I can do is tell you that every time you have "read" my intention, both here and in past threads, you have been incorrect. Plain as that. I'm not sure what emotional overlay you are plopping on my writing, but something is there beyond my words and I cannot understand the origin; only you can.

My sentence to Morgan was succinct and delivered such that I could address each and every point to hopefully assure her I was not trying to insult her or anyone here. To reestablish rapport. The emotional context read in is unwarranted and unfair IMO; perhaps I too would have appreciated receiving the benefit of the doubt and a clarifying question myself before being judged.

-----

Let's do a breakdown on one of the issues in this thread:

The thread started to go to downhill (with both Jennifer and Morgan) when I said this:

Is sx just about the hit, the high? That's the part I don't want to give you because I feel like I'll give over and then you'll be gone. Very similar to a sexual one-night stand metaphor. I don't like the sense of being "used" and I feel like if you liked me enough to have sex with me and be intimate with me what is it that makes you leave me?

I knew it was risky to put this paragraph out there. It doesn't "sound" nice. I knew it could provoke a reaction. But I didn't soften it, because frankly, my posts are so nice sometimes they don't even get attention at all. And, I wasn't sure what the edge of SX was ... is that connection so addicting, so compelling, it could compare to these extremes.

Morgan's response was one I knew could happen but hoped would not: "I resent being compared to someone out looking for a one-night-stand or a drug-hit. You realize that you are accusing SXs of the same shallowness that you rankled against on behalf of SOs?"

Let's examine this critically; if you re-read my paragraph again, I didn't accuse anyone of anything. They are simply questions. The common response is to say, "nah, it's not like that PB" or "yes it is!" (The intense words that jump out at me are in italics; they speak to a strong emotional reaction from the writer, but I know NT's often dismiss that they are using the words to reflect any emotional effect. So I ignored that part.)

To me however, Morgan's reaction is an egregious leap of emotional interpretation, although not entirely unexpected. Again, let's be clear: My paragraph and Morgan's paragraph are not equal to each other. At all.

Now, having received Morgan's reply, I am put on the spot to assure her I didn't want her to think I meant this literally, even though in the same post, only 2 sentences later than my quote above:

PS I am being a bit harsh and a little unvarnished ...

I pushed the boundaries of metaphor to ask my questions. Metaphor isn't LITERAL. Yet I am literally interpreted then placed on the defensive as some kind of hypocrite. Even with a disclaimer readily available to help frame the context so I wouldn't end up being thus interpreted.

Morgan, upon examination can you concede that yours is the incorrect conclusion to draw given the circumstances and disclaimers present?

(FWIW, no other SX-dom in thread has reacted as Jennifer and Morgan have. Which is also curious to me. The only commonality I see is gender.)

-----

Here's the crux:

I sense I am pissing people off. So I try to explain myself, to assert the sincerity of my intentions but still I feel misunderstood, I get defensive, shake off that inner frustration, and try again to be understood.

Sigh.

-----

At any rate, who knows if posting this is any help at all or a giant FAIL. But, at least this thread has helped me understand some aspects of the SX dynamic better, and see some differences between type as to what constitutes "deep" information.

And if anyone wants to do a thorough dissection of all the disconnects, be my guest as I would love to see where my blind-spots are too.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,190
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Hey, that's very interesting the distinction you made between Fe dom and aux and Fi dom and aux in regards to expressing feelings.

That part really leaped out at me as well.

I've seen the Fe in action -- it usually overlays some sort of social formality / clarification of things (as an externalized judging function), and the person basically is determining where the interation goes.

Note that it could also be J/P. Fi necessarily is attached to Pe. Pe is organic and accepts input -- it tries to feel its way through things rather than dictating where things should or must or should not or must not go. I remember many romantic relationships with Je types where I felt they were overlaying a particular plan on the relationship rather than just responding to what is happening.


My fe aux friend tells me I am very confusing to guys all the time. Part of it is that we, Fi types, want to be absolutely sure we have feelings. Perhaps we know that the situation won't change so we try to stuff our feelings in, but eventually, the feelings has deepened and it needs to come out and reach some sort of resolution. I don't know how I might ... prevent that ... I won't say anything until I am 'certain' I have 'true' feelings but I won't be 'certain' until my feelings are so strong that there's not much I or the other person can do to 'resolve' it peacefully. You know what I mean? I think we are more all or nothing ... When it gets to that stage, it's either you win all or lose all in the relationship, that's that.

I think it actually is that way. You feel your way through stuff, and when it's there, then it's already there. Je people typically tell their feelings where to go -- the outcome is already decided, and so the internal feelings are ignored or aren't given the leeway to "push someone." They are very apt to declare their intent up front. Pe people tend to declare their intent only after they figure it out, and the process is unfolding.
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,491
This was in the other Sx thread and I think you might like it, as it reiterates that every instinct is drawn to one on one interaction, but with Sx there's just more of a focus, almost a compulsion.

This excerpt is from the enneagram institute website and I thought some of you might find it interesting. It's possibly why so many identify as being sexual when they are not:

Sexual (aka "Attraction") Instinct

Many people originally identify themselves as this type because they have learned that the Sexual types are interested in "one-on-one relationships." But all three instinctual types are interested in one-on-one relationships for different reasons, so this does not distinguish them. The key element in Sexual types is an intense drive for intimacy and a constant awareness of the "chemistry" between themselves and others. Sexual types are immediately aware of the attraction, or lack thereof, between themselves and other people. Further, while the basis of this instinct is related to sexuality, it is not necessarily about people engaging in the sexual act. There are many people that we are excited to be around for reasons of personal chemistry that we have no intention of "getting involved with." Nonetheless, we might be aware that we feel stimulated in certain people's company and less so in others. The sexual type is constantly moving toward that sense of intense stimulation and intimacy in their relationships and in their activities. They are the most "energized" of the three instinctual types, and tend to be more aggressive, competitive, charged, and emotionally intense than the Self-Pres or Social types. Sexual types need to have deep intimacy in their primary relationships or else they remain unsatisfied. They enjoy being intensely involved—even merged—with others, and can become disenchanted with partners who are unable to meet their need for intense energetic union. Losing yourself in a "fusion" of being is the ideal here, and Sexual types are always looking for this state with others and with stimulating objects in their world.

I also bolded the last bit because I don't think my Sx-ness only manifests itself with people, but it's an overwhelming attitude I have towards objects that intrigue me in general.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
^Yes. It's really just about focus and passion, more than anything else.
Morgan, yes I am feeling frustrated at being misread, and the bolded lines that you pointed out reflect that. It truly is important to me to know what you see as hostile though, because I truly am not seeing it. Hostile is such a huge, horrible word, and it bespeaks a relationship of enmity, not allies. If I am missing such a huge thing, I would embrace you pointing it out to me, in order that I might grow.
...
The emotional context read in is unwarranted and unfair IMO; perhaps I too would have appreciated receiving the benefit of the doubt and a clarifying question myself before being judged.
In what way have you been judged? I (correctly) interpreted that you were getting upset. So did Jen, which is why she backed off.

Hostile doesn't carry the emotional weight for me that it seems to for you. If I perceived that kind of enmity, I wouldn't bother to engage you, so :huh:.

I knew it was risky to put this paragraph out there. It doesn't "sound" nice. I knew it could provoke a reaction. But I didn't soften it, because frankly, my posts are so nice sometimes they don't even get attention at all.
So you wanted to provoke a reaction, but when you got that reaction you're not happy about it. This doesn't make sense to me. Like I said, I resent the accusations of emotional promiscuity/"vampirism" that have been leveled at SXs in recent days/weeks and feel the need to challenge them. It's a character sleight. That doesn't mean I resent you. Can you see the distinction? That's why I sought to clarify.

(The intense words that jump out at me are in italics; they speak to a strong emotional reaction from the writer, but I know NT's often dismiss that they are using the words to reflect any emotional effect. So I ignored that part.)
Yeah...but no. I really don't know you well enough to have any kind of emotional reaction to anything you say, let alone a strong one.

I pushed the boundaries of metaphor to ask my questions. Metaphor isn't LITERAL. Yet I am literally interpreted then placed on the defensive as some kind of hypocrite. Even with a disclaimer readily available to help frame the context so I wouldn't end up being thus interpreted.

Morgan, upon examination can you concede that yours is the incorrect conclusion to draw given the circumstances and disclaimers present?
Not really, no.

The thing is, I have only responded (dispassionately) to what you have actually said/asked:
There's this sense that sx is about getting sx needs met, but seldom is the other person mentioned
...
Is sx just about the hit, the high? That's the part I don't want to give you because I feel like I'll give over and then you'll be gone. Very similar to a sexual one-night stand metaphor. I don't like the sense of being "used" and I feel like if you liked me enough to have sex with me and be intimate with me what is it that makes you leave me?
...
I resent that I'm not important enough to warrant anything more than a cursory inspection to see if I am willing to get there "fast".
...
Why does an sx-dom think anyone should? What have you done to "earn" that level of intimacy?
Whereas, throughout the thread, you seem to be reading stuff that simply isn't there - implicitly or explicitly:
For example:
To suggest that "so" is a "stay superficial" orientation is kind of insulting, really.
So you do a door-slam, minimize/dismiss the material that offended you by reading in an interpretation or intention that did not exist, then toss a passive-aggressive comment out saying "I'm finished here."
And your (unfounded?) assumption that the people who "come and go" in your life are SXs:
I feel like they get their high off of me, and then when they get what they wanted they move on. I wanted to be friends. I thought they liked me. But, they wanted to explore me and taste a bit and move on. But I wanted more! I find that ironic somehow, when the sx is supposed to be all about "depth".
You think SXs are "being socially inappropriate when they move fast".

I think someone will "take" something from me and then never maintain that friendship over time. This has been a pattern IRL; I make friends with relative ease, but I can feel some want my energy and when I am "figured out" (so to speak) they move on. Not everyone, but enough for me to notice a trend.
A trend that marks these people who have "taken something from you" as SX, apparently. Hence this thread requesting that SXs justify their "socially inappropriate" behaviour.

Who do you think is jumping to judgments/conclusions, really...?

Again, I'm not offended in the least by anything you've said. Even the unsolicited advice. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. We are coming at this with very different sets of values and assumptions and perhaps we'll never be able to understand the other's perspective, but we should aim to respect it, at least.:)
 

INTPness

New member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
2,157
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
^Morgan said it's about "focus and passion". So true. It energizes us. It's such a great feeling to be in that "zone" with someone. And the intense focus is probably why other types feel "zoomed in on", as someone mentioned. In really intense connections, it's sometimes as if the other person and I are the only ones who exist at that moment. Nothing that's going on around us even gets noticed or paid attention to.

I remember sitting in a car with a date one time - it was probably like 9pm and there was a park next to us with lots of people in it. We had that intense connection in our conversation. Next thing you know, 2 cops come up next to us and say, "what are you guys doing here?" "uhhh, just talking, why?" "It's midnight, the park has been closed for an hour, and you're in a no parking zone. Didn't you notice any of those things?"

LOL. Sorry Ocifer, but no I didn't.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,190
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I also bolded the last bit because I don't think my Sx-ness only manifests itself with people, but it's an overwhelming attitude I have towards objects that intrigue me in general.

I posted something earlier in the other thread about how I think this SX description actually applies to artistic experience for me (vs things that people call art but typically have hold no interest to my mind).

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/enneagram/32191-sx-doms-come-me-2.html#post1242165
 
Top