User Tag List

First 5131415161725 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 359

  1. #141
    Non-Oblivion Lady Lazarus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Starry View Post
    Um...I guess my massive, seemingly lifelong goal of reciprocity kicks me out of the sx dom camp...
    As someone whose entire "identity" was created from the first lack of reciprocation called abandonement, me too. I think I would have killed myself way before I got to adulthood if I had to live a life of objectifying others and no reciprocation. But I am Fe. Though I guess then I would probably have had way more relationships instead of one and like the flaming kamikaze ruins of 10% of one.

    「」
    Likes Starry liked this post

  2. #142
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Deadpan View Post
    The comment I was writing just disappeared somehow on my phone, and I'm tired, so I'm gonna keep it concise.

    I've read this in many places, but I'll leave you with one resource that I can't really criticize much. He cites his sources on the bottom of the home page.

    The Three Instincts - Enneagram Universe

    Social:
    "Possible examples of thoughts: Who are we? What do we have in common? What connects us? Are we an item? How close are we? Are we close enough that I can call them after 9 pm? Will anyone be there for me? Does that person have germs? Why isn’t she responding to my text? Why can’t I find anyone to hang out with? Did my boss get me a birthday card? Why can’t we spend quality time? Do I have these people under control?

    Concrete examples: Asking a person how they are, active listening, friendships and close bonds, family, power seeking, group leading, group control, teaching, lecturing, imparting, social media, providing, making a difference, making an impact."

    Sexual:
    "Possible examples of thoughts: Is this exciting to me? Do I crave it? Do they crave me? How deep can I penetrate this? Why aren’t they hooked on me? Will they be turned off if I do this?

    Concrete examples: Pushing a person’s boundaries, trying to get a rise out of someone, invading their comfort zone, locking someone into you."

    As you can see, connection is not the same as chemistry. That's why I refer to sexuals as "seeking an outlet to plug into." They want juice. Socials on the other hand are looking for connection and reciprocity of care. That's not to say sexuals don't care about their intimates or want to be cared about, but social blinds drastically neglect to nurture their connections.

    You can think of it similarly to (one of) the descriptions of Fe vs Fi, the space between vs. the space within. Fe wants things between people to be cohesive, and Fi wants inner cohesion. Similarly, social wants the space between people to be mutually supported, and sexual wants to feel enlivened by the other.

    That is why Sp/Sx has been loosely accused of being the most selfish/self-centered instinctual stack. It's using Sx to meet the needs of Sp, so it's using seduction and objectification to serve self-preservation, which very roughly translates into "I'm willing to use you for juice in order to meet my need for security."

    Vampires are a wonderful archetypal example of Sp/Sx, seducing a vixen in order to suck her blood and continue to thrive.

    Now obviously, some people like that sort of thing, and none of the above means that sexuals don't care about their relationships, it just that they measure the health in terms of "juice" and not reciprocity of care.


    I'm trying to figure out what I want to say to the bolded line as I think there's a bit of an overall misunderstanding when it comes to *juice* and the sx dom primary relationship. Oh I can't really think of it because I'm also watching a movie with my family wtf? But yah...I mean, I get a hell of a lot of *juice* out of harmony/reciprocity.

    I think a lot of the behavior you see out of sx doms is
    simply tribal in nature. For many of us there really is just a "you and me against the world" orientation. Many sx doms can be aggressive with the outside world but total sweethearts in the intimate sanctuary... it changes a bit with the different points. For example...e7 is all about juice...and if sx is only about juice...that is going to be so much fucking juice. I would never be with a non-interesting person...but sometimes the best juice for me is none at all.

  3. #143
    Silver and Lead Galena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/so
    Posts
    3,860

    Default

    I'm in between on this...I can see myself absolutely being able to exist as simply a feeder without ever thinking of reciprocating, but that's one of many reasons why I act on the urge to plug in so little. Because it's unacceptable for someone else to even get a grain of that dark side from me. I'm afraid to act on the urge to act upon chemistry until I am one million percent certain that I've murdered the part of me that would do that and it is all the way dead. Unacceptable standard? Probably, although I really don't want to say that it is. This is someone's heart we're talking about. Also, I have this self-defeating notion of the reverse, that I'm equally capable of getting by without being reciprocated.

    ISFP
    4w5 1w2 7w6 sx/so
    Likes Lady Lazarus, cascadeco liked this post

  4. #144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Deadpan View Post
    The comment I was writing just disappeared somehow on my phone, and I'm tired, so I'm gonna keep it concise.

    I've read this in many places, but I'll leave you with one resource that I can't really criticize much. He cites his sources on the bottom of the home page.

    The Three Instincts - Enneagram Universe

    Social:
    "Possible examples of thoughts: Who are we? What do we have in common? What connects us? Are we an item? How close are we? Are we close enough that I can call them after 9 pm? Will anyone be there for me? Does that person have germs? Why isn’t she responding to my text? Why can’t I find anyone to hang out with? Did my boss get me a birthday card? Why can’t we spend quality time? Do I have these people under control?

    Concrete examples: Asking a person how they are, active listening, friendships and close bonds, family, power seeking, group leading, group control, teaching, lecturing, imparting, social media, providing, making a difference, making an impact."

    Sexual:
    "Possible examples of thoughts: Is this exciting to me? Do I crave it? Do they crave me? How deep can I penetrate this? Why aren’t they hooked on me? Will they be turned off if I do this?

    Concrete examples: Pushing a person’s boundaries, trying to get a rise out of someone, invading their comfort zone, locking someone into you."

    As you can see, connection is not the same as chemistry. That's why I refer to sexuals as "seeking an outlet to plug into." They want juice. Socials on the other hand are looking for connection and reciprocity of care. That's not to say sexuals don't care about their intimates or want to be cared about, but social blinds drastically neglect to nurture their connections.

    You can think of it similarly to (one of) the descriptions of Fe vs Fi, the space between vs. the space within. Fe wants things between people to be cohesive, and Fi wants inner cohesion. Similarly, social wants the space between people to be mutually supported, and sexual wants to feel enlivened by the other.

    That is why Sp/Sx has been loosely accused of being the most selfish/self-centered instinctual stack. It's using Sx to meet the needs of Sp, so it's using seduction and objectification to serve self-preservation, which very roughly translates into "I'm willing to use you for juice in order to meet my need for security."

    Vampires are a wonderful archetypal example of Sp/Sx, seducing a vixen in order to suck her blood and continue to thrive.

    Now obviously, some people like that sort of thing, and none of the above means that sexuals don't care about their relationships, it just that they measure the health in terms of "juice" and not reciprocity of care.
    I read the page where he describes sx. What he's done is to twist the perspective with evo-psych beliefs where evo-psych is the village idiot of social sciences.

  5. #145
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Lazarus View Post
    As someone whose entire "identity" was created from the first lack of reciprocation called abandonement, me too. I think I would have killed myself way before I got to adulthood if I had to live a life of objectifying others and no reciprocation. But I am Fe. Though I guess then I would probably have had way more relationships instead of one and like the flaming kamikaze ruins of 10% of one.

    You are in my tribe.


    I'm so embarrassed but I don't fully understand the meaning of objectification I'm not even kidding...and yet it is a trigger word for me. It's like I know there's something wrong here...it's like my spirit is rejecting it...not allowing my mind to go there or something (what does it mean though...you can rep me)./
    Likes Lady Lazarus liked this post

  6. #146
    Pyromanic tea Earl Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    2,602

    Default

    This seems a bit odd. It implies the nature of sx itself is to objectify their targets of attraction for themselves, that they are selfish.

    What happened to sx needing bonds?
    The closest I can see sx being this way are with certain enneatypes; eg E3 (wanting a beautiful wife for an image of prestige, for example).

    I thought soc needed to belong, sx needed those specific bonds- eg; feeling more secure (or whatever it is they are looking for) if they had a mate in life, feeling more energized if they had people to love and bond with. To put it generally, my understanding is that pure soc would have several places their belong but not necessarily people they connect to deeper, and are social nomads in a sense; they just need to belong. While sx needs something 'deeper'.
    I'd provide sources but I have none, this is just sounding very different from what I know / have read.

    Any sx-doms want to pitch in further? I'm not sx/don't quite understand how it works, so it'd be better to hear it from sx-doms/sx-seconds themselves.
    Non mi snudare senza ragione.
    Non mi impugnare senza valore.
    Likes Hexcoder liked this post

  7. #147
    Junior Member Klaus V.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Deadpan View Post
    The comment I was writing just disappeared somehow on my phone, and I'm tired, so I'm gonna keep it concise.

    I've read this in many places, but I'll leave you with one resource that I can't really criticize much. He cites his sources on the bottom of the home page.

    The Three Instincts - Enneagram Universe
    Some of the descriptions you provided are a bit imbalanced and biased (Soc descriptions are broad and describe highly specific things, Sx descriptions are short and vague).

    Social:
    "Possible examples of thoughts: Who are we? What do we have in common? What connects us? Are we an item? How close are we? Are we close enough that I can call them after 9 pm? Will anyone be there for me? Does that person have germs? Why isn’t she responding to my text? Why can’t I find anyone to hang out with? Did my boss get me a birthday card? Why can’t we spend quality time? Do I have these people under control?
    To begin with, I disagree with the way the author interpreted "connections" as being almost strictly Soc, it's a very limited view. My main issue with it is that most of those are very common and trivial concerns ("Who are we?", "How close are we?", "Why isn't she responding to my text?"). And some are just weird ("Does that person have germs?" Seriously...?). I can see how some of those can be chalked up to the Social instinct, but the issue is those are such common human experiences that they can be interpreted however you want. Feeling lonely ("Why can’t I find anyone to hang out with?") is not a Soc thing, worrying how those who are close to you perceive you or feel about you ("Why isn't she responding to my text?") is not a Soc thing -- those are common human experiences. In my view, instincts should describe common, basic drives and focuses, but never highly specific behaviours; the drive behind those behaviours are the most important (this should be applied to all of Enneagram literature, imo).

    Concrete examples: Asking a person how they are, active listening, friendships and close bonds, family, power seeking, group leading, group control, teaching, lecturing, imparting, social media, providing, making a difference, making an impact."
    I'm okay with most of those, although friendships and close bonds are definitely not exclusive to Soc and I'm unsure whether those should even be related to instinctual variants in any way (just like the source claimed that love and intimacy are not instincts).

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Deadpan View Post
    Not to shite on you or your knowledge, but mutual understanding and respect fall into the realm of the social instinct. The sexual instinct is actually more about objectification (plugging into a "fix", like a drug) and doesn't involve any goal of reciprocation.
    Your source contradicts your claims:

    The sexual instinct needs to feel the chemistry of being hooked into someone/something and have it returned.
    ---

    As you can see, connection is not the same as chemistry. That's why I refer to sexuals as "seeking an outlet to plug into." They want juice. Socials on the other hand are looking for connection and reciprocity of care. That's not to say sexuals don't care about their intimates or want to be cared about, but social blinds drastically neglect to nurture their connections.
    Sx's need for chemistry can be one-sided, but it doesn't have to be, there's no logic behind that. "Chemistry" rarely happens without some sort of connection, you could say chemistry is an impression or reaction towards someone else, while connection is something that can be build on top of it and used to reinforce it. Yes, chemistry and connection are not the same, but those two can definitely coexist and often do.

    Now obviously, some people like that sort of thing, and none of the above means that sexuals don't care about their relationships, it just that they measure the health in terms of "juice" and not reciprocity of care.
    I've seen the words emotional "juice" being used to describe Sx and I must say it's vague af and confuses people (chemistry or emotional intensity are better words to describe it). What if the emotional high the Sx person gets from their relationship is related to how much they feel cared about? I think those descriptions ignore too many variables and interpretations while focusing on small details and experiences that ultimately don't tell a whole lot about how someone functions on a basic, raw level. I'm aware that it's difficult to describe how the instincts manifest in people due to their broad and simplistic nature, but that's why I think people should avoiding stating things like "[specific trait/behavior] is [instinct]" as if people were that black and white.

  8. #148
    Can't be satisfied. Peter Deadpan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    6,008

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bechimo View Post
    I read the page where he describes sx. What he's done is to twist the perspective with evo-psych beliefs where evo-psych is the village idiot of social sciences.
    I'm not sure what you're saying. He's far from the first to say this.
    Perpetual mood


    “Sometimes I think I have felt everything I'm ever gonna feel.
    And from here on out, I'm not gonna feel anything new.
    Just lesser versions of what I've already felt.”


    - look it up yourself



  9. #149
    Can't be satisfied. Peter Deadpan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    6,008

    Default

    The descriptions are supposed to be vague.

    You are confusing reciprocity of connection and care with a matching of intensity. They are not mutually exclusive, but they are not the same thing.

    These. Are. Instinctual. Drives. As humans, we have them all to varying degrees. It's about a primary drive that takes up so much space day in and day out that it's hard to even see in oneself, and then also using a secondary instinct to support/boost the first and fill in most of the blanks in our needs for survival and fulfillment.

    I provided this source because:
    1. It's the most recent one I've read.
    2. It utilizes many trusted sources but isn't primitive/clinging to expired truths.
    3. I had a deficit of interest in scouring through the countless resources I've read over the years and decided this one was a good summary.
    4. I loathe doing other people's research for them. I do my own and enjoy it and am generally annoyed when people ask me to explain succinctly something so complex because I know it takes time and dedicated effort to integrate such a concept mentally.

    To me, it sounds like many of you probably use the social instinct but don't want to see it. The odds are overwhelming that you do.

    I don't, and that's probably why I'm such a dick. I'm not generally consciously fearful of making a wrong move or severing some invisible security blanket between people. I do care about hurting specific people I feel energetically connected to though and turning myself off to them.

    It's not the same thing.
    Perpetual mood


    “Sometimes I think I have felt everything I'm ever gonna feel.
    And from here on out, I'm not gonna feel anything new.
    Just lesser versions of what I've already felt.”


    - look it up yourself


    Likes cascadeco liked this post

  10. #150
    Can't be satisfied. Peter Deadpan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    6,008

    Default

    You can view social and sexual as needing connection, but it's extremely important to know the difference, and that's where I think 99% of people fuck up in their understanding.
    Perpetual mood


    “Sometimes I think I have felt everything I'm ever gonna feel.
    And from here on out, I'm not gonna feel anything new.
    Just lesser versions of what I've already felt.”


    - look it up yourself



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO