[so] so doms ... join our group!

[proteanmix]

Some information that may be of interest about the Social Instinct. From here.

Social Instinctual Subtype

The "social" Instinctual Subtypes are driven by the ongoing search for groups and community, akin to the herd instinct in animals, where there are safety and security in numbers. The focus of attention is on"the group" and "our greater world." The primary desire is for groups, which is manifested by an imbalanced perceived need for people, recognition, popularity, honor, status, and social acceptance.

The concerns of the social Instinctual Subtypes involve issues of relating - for example, "to relate or not to relate" or "how to relate." The survival strategy is an emphasis on sociability or unsociability. The common theme statements reflect an inclination to categorize oneself in terms of others, such as "who am I?", with this type being defined by "how comfortably and successfully I experience my group" - i.e., issues dealing with "how am I perceived by the group?"

The energy projected is described as "split energy" and is often experienced as "scattered" and projected outward, appearing personable, superficial, and cursory in nature. It is imperative that "a good impression is made" and that "nothing important is missed." The social Instinctual Subtypes will "sacrifice for the group" to insure status. Rather than looking inward or to a mate for security and to "solve problems," these types tend to "look outward," based upon a belief that "my value is dependent upon how I am perceived by the group."

Also this:

1. Drive The search for Community
2. Focus "Our Greater World"
3. Desire Social Acceptance, People, Recognition, Popularity, Honor, Status
4. Fear Loneliness, Low ranking, Inferiority, Failure, Outcast, Alienation, Isolation
5. Issue To relate or not to relate, How to relate
6. Preoccupation Fellowship, Events, Cooperation, Admiration, Pecking Order, Clubs High Ranking, Superiority, Glory Causes, Companionship, Fame
7. Strategy Approval-Shame, Philanthropy, Misanthropy, Rigidity, Companionship, Friendliness, Enmity, Achievement
8. Energy Cursory, Personable, Superficial, Cooperative, Superficial, Inconsistent, Rigid
9. Theme Statements Who am I? I am my group. Am I popular? I am considerate. I sacrifice for the group. We can make it if we all cooperate

And just cause I think those are a little bogus, here's something else:

Social (aka "Adaptive") Instinct

Just as many people tend to misidentify themselves as Sexual types because they want one-on-one relationships, many people fail to recognize themselves as Social types because they get the (false) idea that this means always being involved in groups, meetings, and parties. If Self-Preservation types are interested in adjusting the environment to make themselves more secure and comfortable, Social types adapt themselves to serve the needs of the social situation they find themselves in. Thus, Social types are highly aware of other people, whether they are in intimate situations or in groups. They are also aware of how their actions and attitudes are affecting those around them. Moreover, Sexual types seek intimacy, Social types seek personal connection: they want to stay in long-term contact with people and to be involved in their world. Social types are the most concerned with doing things that will have some impact on their community, or even broader domains. They tend to be warmer, more open, engaging, and socially responsible than the other two types. In their primary relationships, they seek partners with whom they can share social activities, wanting their intimates to get involved in projects and events with them. Paradoxically, they actually tend to avoid long periods of exclusive intimacy and quiet solitude, seeing both as potentially limiting. Social types lose their sense of identity and meaning when they are not involved with others in activities that transcend their individual interests.

How much do the socials here identify with these?

 

[Fidelia]

Very much relate to second description. I think that I am conscious of my role in the group. I may not be doing something just to be popular, but I may be aware of the impact that doing something may have to make me less popular and decide whether or not it is important enough to me for the impact it will have. I like to know how others perceive me. I think it's true that I look outward to solve problems in some senses. Depends on context.

How 'bout you, Protean?

 

[PeaceBaby]

I too relate more to the second description ... perhaps though because the first one reads like So doms are only concerned with group connections in the manner of some vacuous high-school popularity contest. Plus, there's a spate of negative words and connotation alike ...

 

[JocktheMotie]

Yeah, the second description seems a lot more fair. I also wonder as to the specifics of the distinction of intimacy vs. personal connection in the second paragraph attributed to Sx and So, respectively. As an Sx, I have an inherent frustration with So doms and it's important for me to keep the genuine nature of the So style in mind.

 

[Poki]

I match the second quote "Social (aka "Adaptive") Instinct" alot more then the first.

In regard to Sx. I am very aware of their presence and I attempt to distance myself from to strong a Sx pull. Being Sx secondary I have no qualms with Sx at all. I enjoy it, but I wont allow Sx to pull harder then So meaning that a social connection comes first, intimate connection comes second once a social connection has been figured out. I come across people trying to pull me into that Sx connection and it causes me to withdraw if that So connection is not present.

From my interactions both on here and in person, Sx/So is blunted from that strong Sx pull by So. The major difference is that they begin by using Sx before they fall into an So connection. That intimacy is more important, but it doesnt mean that the social aspect isnt.

An Sx though is more likely to get sucked into an Sx connection/relationship forgetting about So while an So person is more likely to get pulled into an So relationship without paying to much attention to Sx. Eventually it seems like an Sx dom will realize the importance of So and an So dom will realize the importance of Sx.

 

[Fidelia]

Yeah, the second description seems a lot more fair. I also wonder as to the specifics of the distinction of intimacy vs. personal connection in the second paragraph attributed to Sx and So, respectively. As an Sx, I have an inherent frustration with So doms and it's important for me to keep the genuine nature of the So style in mind.

Interesting you say that. I'd like to hear more about that, Jock. Tesla said at first that she interpreted my interest in connecting with a lot of different people as some kind of insecurity rather than genuine feeling because if it were here (she's an sx) that would be what was fueling it. I'm curious if that's how most sx types would initially perceive so types or where the frustration comes in. I think I am fairly open, but I do not like it when people leap over social conventions to get to the good part. I want to know if plan to be around for a bit, or if they just want an intensive exchange and then disappear. I find sp types feel very aloof and detached and overly private to me. Therefore, given a choice I'd tend to interact more with sx types, but probably try to impose some of my own conventions on the exchange.

 

[proteanmix]

A possible comparison of SO relationships vs SX relationships. From MSN no less!

Friendship is the glue that holds the "Harry Potter" series together...The main thing we love about the romance in "Harry Potter," though, is not how grown up and committed it is, but that Rowling doesn't let it upstage more platonic love. Harry definitely thinks more about his dead parents than he does about Ginny, who is alive. And it's Lily's love and sacrifice, after all, that keeps him safe year after year. The romances in "Harry Potter" don't make anyone lose perspective and forget their other loved ones, and they never get all-consuming or stalkery. They're pretty normal, healthy relationships.

Friendship in “Twilight” is not quite on the same level as in “Harry Potter.” Well, I should restate that…Friendship with mere humans is not quite on the same level as in “Harry Potter.” Bella is a great friend to Alice, and vice versa. But let’s face it, she is a pretty lousy friend to the humans. Once she figures out the Cullens are vampires, she goes off with them and pretty much says “Adios” to the regular, boring ole peeps. The Cullens are the ultimate Cool Kids: rich, powerful, smart, and fangtabulous. After she becomes a vampire, then Bella really can’t hang with any peeps—she’d just want to have them over for dinner....“Twilight” is pretty much one big romance. One seriously big, drama-filled, peril-filled, villain-filled romance. Bella and Edward are one another’s destinies...

I think the Harry Potter (this isn't about HP or Twilight, they're just illustrating my point...please don't let this get into a discussion about HP vs. Twilight) perspective on relationships is something a SO is more likely to take. It's not about focusing on really intense relationships, I personally prefer to spread feeling out to those I care about vs focusing them very tightly.

I think strong SX people feel like old smoke or perfume lingering in the air. Some people enjoy that; it sets all types of pinball machine-like reactions in them that they like to luxuriate in. To me it feels stale and stagnant, like there's no cleansing breeze or open vistas to flush the residue away. I don't like to feel heavy on people, I don't want to cling to people like old smells in curtains. I guess to others, the breaziness of SOs seems may feel resistant to intimacy, but that isn't the case.

There's a little too much mindlessness implied in the first SO description, but if I step back from it, I can see where it makes sense for me.

I am very conscious of my "status" within the group...I can see it at work when I'm invited to meetings or not invited to meetings or cc'ed on emails or not cc'ed emails. I want to be considered "need to know" person. I want to be consulted about my opinion on how things should go or be a person who's knowledge, expertise, or perspective on things is valuable and necessary.

I'm also conscious on status in terms of power dynamics, who is who in relation to whom. Totem pole, hierarchy, pecking order, and office politics are of great concern to me because they either give me room to move or they hinder my movement. They let me know how to navigate around a situation, who to go to, who to speak to, who the underdogs and trampled are and the ones who are abusing power or not using their power in a way I think will be beneficial to as many people as possible--which speaks to the search for community need. So yes, when I think about it, I do want to place myself in a position where I can have great effect. Someone's going to have it, so why can't I be a part of it or It?

I also identify with the "to relate or not to relate" or "how to relate" parts of the first description. I was reading back over the thread and think some of what I've said seems more SP than SO. When I saw these statements, I thought, that makes sense. It's not me being SP making me labor over whether to engage (generally I don't feel like I am) but it is me figuring the level of engagement and how to do it. I take a lot of time figuring out my level of engagement...I've even done it on this forum by turning off my wall messages (I prefer to build rapport via PM) or how much I make myself know in an "official" capacity. This plays into the second descriptions description of SO types.

Also this part:

...seek personal connection: they want to stay in long-term contact with people and to be involved in their world.

Could possible explain why I get so mad at friends (and they eventually stop being friends of mine) who can't pay attention to our relationship. I'm not the type of person who drops people when I get a new romantic interest or is never able to make time for old friends once someone new and shiny comes along. I'm very much into forging a long-term/long-haul type of friendship that needs to have a more present-tense feeling of connectedness. I'm not one of those people who you can talk to once every five years and it feels like old times. It does not feel like old times to me, I have changed in five years and so have you and we know nothing about how we've changed. Yes, your essence may still be the same but other things just as germane to your essence have morphed and that's what would make a friend who I haven't kept in more consistent contact feel strange and unfamiliar to me.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I find myself quite perplexed by all this ... it will merit a great deal of thought for me to sort it out and all the implications.

Why am I repelled by people when I sense their need to "deeply" connect? Sometimes I am afraid they will be takers, not givers or even share-ers - they will take something from me and leave me alone and afraid and unhappy.

I don't trust that interaction on an intimate level so quickly. And I don't mean in an overtly sexual way. I have met very warm and friendly people who seems to zoom in and I share back, then they are gone and I am left wondering if I did something to make them lose their interest in our friendship.

Is that the nature of sx? Like a hummingbird, flower to flower, drink deep and move on? Would two sx people understand this in a way I cannot?

-----

Edit: seeing your post in the interim protean:

I am very conscious of my "status" within the group...I can see it at work when I'm invited to meetings or not invited to meetings or cc'ed on emails or not cc'ed emails. I want to be considered "need to know" person. I want to be consulted about my opinion on how things should go or be a person who's knowledge, expertise, or perspective on things is valuable and necessary.

I'm also conscious on status in terms of power dynamics, who is who in relation to whom. Totem pole, hierarchy, pecking order, and office politics are of great concern to me because they either give me room to move or they hinder my movement. They let me know how to navigate around a situation, who to go to, who to speak to, who the underdogs and trampled are and the ones who are abusing power or not using their power in a way I think will be beneficial to as many people as possible--which speaks to the search for community need. So yes, when I think about it, I do want to place myself in a position where I can have great effect. Someone's going to have it, so why can't I be a part of it or It?

Could possible explain why I get so mad at friends (and they eventually stop being friends of mine) who can't pay attention to our relationship. I'm not the type of person who drops people when I get a new romantic interest or is never able to make time for old friends once someone new and shiny comes along. I'm very much into forging a long-term/long-haul type of friendship that needs to have a more present-tense feeling of connectedness. I'm not one of those people who you can talk to once every five years and it feels like old times.

I can relate to the top quote quite strongly; and to the second just a little less so, but true that too.

 

[Fidelia]

I feel like I could have written the top quote. The other one - well I am always very conscious when meeting up with someone that I haven't seen for awhile that nothing will be exactly as it was. We will have changed in some ways and there is an interim time of feeling each other out to determine if we grew in similar directions or if there is a gulf too big to cross between us.

 

[JAVO]

As another sx lurks in the thread...

 

[JocktheMotie]

Interesting you say that. I'd like to hear more about that, Jock. Tesla said at first that she interpreted my interest in connecting with a lot of different people as some kind of insecurity rather than genuine feeling because if it were her (she's an sx) that would be what was fueling it. I'm curious if that's how most sx types would initially perceive so types or where the frustration comes in. I think I am fairly open, but I do not like it when people leap over social conventions to get to the good part. I want to know if plan to be around for a bit, or if they just want an intensive exchange and then disappear. I find sp types feel very aloof and detached and overly private to me. Therefore, given a choice I'd tend to interact more with sx types, but probably try to impose some of my own conventions on the exchange.

I don't know if I'd recognize it as insecurity, or call it that. My initial perceptions of So doms were that they were more people collectors and they extracted energy from networking and stopped there. Now, I recognize that it seems as though you're content with a wide spectrum of "relationship qualities" that could range from the superficial to the extremely personal and you can find meaning in all of those, whereas with Sxs it tends to be all or nothing, on or off, hot or cold. In this I think Sos are actually more adaptable. Sxs will have a "minimum requirement" aspect to their interactions and don't have a spectrum as much as they have a niche and stick to it.

The above might not make sense, having trouble spitting my thoughts out on this one. If I have to clarify or expand let me know.

 

[Fidelia]

I think your assessment is very accurate Jock, at least for me. I always am on the lookout for the type of interactions that sx types go after, but am more likely to only choose certain individuals to do that with. There is an element of curiosity, but it also requires finding the qualities that I think are needed to create the kind of intimacy I want.

 

[mrcockburn]

Can I just call myself a SO-SX tie? x2

No. You can call yourself "Sox". And why would you pay $$ for that test when there's a million free ones? lol

 

[mrcockburn]

Hmm. As an So/Sp, I see myself as "partof THE group" - I like to have a sort of "community", a la the Cockburn Mafia. To me, there's power in numbers, and when working on projects with others, it's great when we can work in synergy. And yes, I DO get overly worked up about my "image", but at the same time, I don't want to lose myself in "a crowd" either. The whole "angry mob" mentality freaks me out. Ever watch Spongebob? You know all the mass crowds of fish that look nearly identical and seem to act the same way? I don't wish to be a fish. So I do my own thing. Being so-dom doesn't mean being "so dumb".

But I've got sx in me, too. It's so much fun to meet new people, get drunk and philosophize with them until the wee hours...

 

[ThatGirl]

I think I made a mistake....unless SO=SP?

 

[CzeCze]

No. You can call yourself "Sox".

And why would you pay $$ for that test when there's a million free ones? lol

Go back to your own thread, closet SP!!! :steam:



You know I kid.

I think strong SX people feel like old smoke or perfume lingering in the air. Some people enjoy that; it sets all types of pinball machine-like reactions in them that they like to luxuriate in. To me it feels stale and stagnant, like there's no cleansing breeze or open vistas to flush the residue away. I don't like to feel heavy on people, I don't want to cling to people like old smells in curtains. I guess to others, the breaziness of SOs seems may feel resistant to intimacy, but that isn't the case.

Oooh, old smoke, that sounds sexy. A la Cary Grant and glamorous Hollywood from the 40s and 50s. But the way you make it sound, it's more like Cary Grant if he were alive now. I.E. Old man cigar smell. Not sexy.

I remember you described Fi on a bad day as a miasma or a lingering bad smell gross: thanks) I get that analogy but for SX...I never thought of SX as 'heavy' per sae. I thought of it more as intense and penetrating. I think SX can seem clingy, but only if the person hasn't learned the fine art of understanding social convention and body language.

Otherwise...I guess this is where my strong SX comes out, because when I am easy and breezy it is a conscious thing and more specifically, a conscious counter to the intensity and unwanted gaze of SX. I am very aware, and have also learned with the bumps and lumps that come with life to be even more aware, that not everyone is comfortable with that intense desire to know. It can make people downright uncomfortable and that in turn makes me feel beyond rejected, it makes me feel almost ashamed, like I violated them or tried to violate them. It's like a child who has discovered they've done something "bah".

I mask and diffuse a lot of my SX desires/needs and through the years I have been blessed with enough opportunities (I guess?) for intimacy that I've learned to "hold the line".

I'm a bit confused because I thought it was human nature to be aware of boundaries and pay them mind. It seems from reading these concurrent So/Sx/Sp threads that SX doms are *not* aware of boundaries? Or like to disregard them or liquify them so they become amorphous? Whereas So's pay them homage by respecting them and SPs defend them and double-pane them to make them extra strong?

I think your assessment is very accurate Jock, at least for me. I always am on the lookout for the type of interactions that sx types go after, but am more likely to only choose certain individuals to do that with. There is an element of curiosity, but it also requires finding the qualities that I think are needed to create the kind of intimacy I want.

Interesting...I always thought this was universal? The idea of wanting that kind of intimacy with everyone seems exhausting? Partially because with that kind of intimacy there is more responsibility (at least, this is how I have always understood it) and it seems like that is a lot of resources to have to spread out like that and amounts to a large *burden*. For me intimacy is very much a 2 way exchange and interplay, and it's active vs passive. Even when two people seem like they are sitting in silence, engaged in different activities, there can be intimacy building between them

I guess that's what I have been trying to verbalize between So and Sx, or maybe it's not related to either. To me trust is a burden, it's a task to earn and a burden to keep, but it's a burden you gladly take because of all the good stuff that comes with it. But, that's also partially why I don't want that kind of intimacy with just anyone.

I almost feel like when I was younger I was more 'Sx' or rather I had this keening need inside me for deep intimacy, to know and be known, to love and be loved, platonic or not. As I've gotten older I realize more and more how 'So' I am. Of course, typology is full of abstractions and when I say 'Sx' or 'So' I might just be referring to the general effect of "aging" which is to mellow out and get more balanced and be more actively invested in your place in the community and the world.

There is a negative extreme generalization of "So" which would be that So's are snobs? And always have the pecking order and social standing in mind when making personal decisions...

 

[PeaceBaby]

^ as for the free tests, it is true often-enough that you get what you pay for.

---

Of course, typology is full of abstractions and when I say 'Sx' or 'So' I might just be referring to the general effect of "aging" which is to mellow out and get more balanced and be more actively invested in your place in the community and the world.

A great quote CzeCze ... have reflected on that somewhat as well. Although I used to be far more active in groups than I am now ... I learned that it's more about me learning to protect my boundaries than for anyone to either care about them or even notice them.

Still pondering the implications of this particular aspect of personality theory.

---

QUESTION: Does anyone know (or know of any studies that illustrate) what the percentages of each variant are in the general population? It seems that here on TypoC there are more sx's than the other two. I would venture the order here is sx - sp - so.

 

[runvardh]

QUESTION: Does anyone know (or know of any studies that illustrate) what the percentages of each variant are in the general population? It seems that here of TypoC there are more sx's than the other two. I would venture the order here is sx - sp - so.

You want to bare in mind that the membership of this board is a skewed representation of the general population...

 

[PeaceBaby]

^ of couse, that's why I am wondering if there are any studies ...

 

[ayoitsStepho]

So/sx :hi:

You may now start the party.