[sx] Why are sx-doms so common in typology communities?

[Lady Lazarus]

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.

 

[Starry]

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.

 

[Galena]

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.

 

[rav3n]

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.

 

[Starry]

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)./

 

[Earl Grey]

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.

 

[Klaus V.]

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).

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.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

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.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

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.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

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.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Objectification does not equal "I don't care about you and don't need you to care about me".

It's not even 8 am here and was like 10:30 last night when I responded. I'm old and crusty and like rest and DON'T like discussing complex subjects super early or late, especially when people aren't even trying to meet halfway in their understanding.

Look at it however you want because I don't care.

Now if you'll excuse me, pre-Christmas party coffee is calling my name.

 

[cascadeco]

I'm not going to pretend that I've read all of the enneagram literature, as I haven't, but I did want to chime in and say that I agree that there is probably a lot more social instinct present that people don't realize that they have.

As someone who by typists is usually typed as sx-last, and who even myself would never describe myself as 'intense' or single minded, or uber driven towards one and only one relationship (I don't LIKE the idea of 'us against the world', it seems way too possessive and claustrophobic to me), I'll say again (and will probably always say this when the subject comes up) that I *relate to pretty much every comment in these threads about not being interested in superficial relationships, not being driven to join organizations or even wanting to be part of them, requiring chemistry and 'connection' with my friends (I 'connect' in a friend sense with few), and I could go on.

So I agree using things like 'desires deep connections' or 'requires chemistry' is not helpful or distinctive for determining sx. It's gotta be something distinctively unique about the way of connecting, else so's will almost always relate. It's why when I add thoughts on sx-ness I always try to keep it away from relationships specifically and go more general....because there are hyperfocused loner sx ppl who are obsessed with their career, their art, their research....and drive everyone else away or maybe aren't even interested in anyone else because their true love is their research....or so on.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

It is certainly a very complex concept. I'm a little grumpy cuz it's early and my daughter's birthday and the day before a holiday, and I just don't have the time or energy to commit to a thoroughly thought out response to you all. I intensely enjoy these types of discussions, but it gets a little irritating when people are just responding stubbornly/closed-mindedly.

I cannot claim to be an expert on such things, but I can honestly say I am well-read on this topic and my eventual goal is to be an expert of sorts. Researching this stuff consumes the majority of my free time, but it takes me a considerable amount of time in addition to that to be able to break complex abstract concepts down into consumable parts. Perhaps I overshot trying to make social and sexual seem polar opposite in an effort to make succinct distinctions, but I still stand by most of what I said, perhaps just being a bit more careful with word choice.

When I have time, I'll try to come back with more information.

 

[1487610420]

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.

Typology: where worlds collide.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Typology: where worlds collide.

yer so af, m8

yer mum's m8ing fuk is so-so

Also, I told her I was gonna call her tomorrow, and I'm not.

 

[Earl Grey]

I'm not going to pretend that I've read all of the enneagram literature, as I haven't, but I did want to chime in and say that I agree that there is probably a lot more social instinct present that people don't realize that they have.

As someone who by typists is usually typed as sx-last, and who even myself would never describe myself as 'intense' or single minded, or uber driven towards one and only one relationship (I don't LIKE the idea of 'us against the world', it seems way too possessive and claustrophobic to me), I'll say again (and will probably always say this when the subject comes up) that I *relate to pretty much every comment in these threads about not being interested in superficial relationships, not being driven to join organizations or even wanting to be part of them, requiring chemistry and 'connection' with my friends (I 'connect' in a friend sense with few), and I could go on.

So I agree using things like 'desires deep connections' or 'requires chemistry' is not helpful or distinctive for determining sx. It's gotta be something distinctively unique about the way of connecting, else so's will almost always relate. It's why when I add thoughts on sx-ness I always try to keep it away from relationships specifically and go more general....because there are hyperfocused loner sx ppl who are obsessed with their career, their art, their research....and drive everyone else away or maybe aren't even interested in anyone else because their true love is their research....or so on.

Fair, those things you listed sound more general imo and personally, I myself type and test as sx last. Things like 'not desiring superficial' relationships are very misleading, because it also depends on the person and the context. Personally there are many things I or others might find meaningful that are widely attributed to soc (for eg; having a wide social circle and connecting to everyone in it) and to an sx, or introvert it might come across as 'superficial', but definitely not to the individual themselves. Being able to form business contacts and network is something else an individual can find important and meaningful but not to others, and thus resulting in the individual mistyping themselves.

Desiring connection to begin with at all is a universal trait, and needing or liking chemistry is just the awareness that with 'chemistry', whatever eases the gears, relations can go more smoothly. It can be with an individual, heck it can be a group. I do not know why it is attributed to sx as greatly as it is. I would love to read more and understand more about sx, myself.


Also a bit more of myself to give some background; I never knew sx was ... a desired trait? Something people keep mistyping as. This thing about people mistyping as sx and sx being special or deep or whatever the stereotype is is new and surprising to me, so I am purely here to learn.

 

[Earl Grey]

Objectification does not equal "I don't care about you and don't need you to care about me".

It is certainly a very complex concept. I'm a little grumpy cuz it's early and my daughter's birthday and the day before a holiday, and I just don't have the time or energy to commit to a thoroughly thought out response to you all. I intensely enjoy these types of discussions, but it gets a little irritating when people are just responding stubbornly/closed-mindedly.

I cannot claim to be an expert on such things, but I can honestly say I am well-read on this topic and my eventual goal is to be an expert of sorts. Researching this stuff consumes the majority of my free time, but it takes me a considerable amount of time in addition to that to be able to break complex abstract concepts down into consumable parts. Perhaps I overshot trying to make social and sexual seem polar opposite in an effort to make succinct distinctions, but I still stand by most of what I said, perhaps just being a bit more careful with word choice.

When I have time, I'll try to come back with more information.

My apologies if I misunderstood, but that is how I interpret those words. Is why I am here asking for clarification. I think it is natural to ask. I am in the middle of learning myself, and if you do come back and provide more examples, sources, or explanations to share, that would be great. If not, the internet is my playground.

 

[cascadeco]

Also a bit more for myself to give some background; I never knew sx was ... a desired trait? Something people keep mistyping as. This thing about people mistyping as sx and sx being special or deep or whatever the stereotype is is new and surprising to me, so I am purely here to learn.

On the forum at least, it's seen as a 'positive' trait simply because so-ness is typically associated with joining clubs, having a wide social network, and other such group-oriented things, and some of the most common things spoken of in sx threads is the desire of 'connecting deeply', soulmates, intimacy, and so on - so it creates the impression (whether accurate or not) that sx= desire for intimacy, and thus so- people do not have that desire or facet and are instead immersed in social media and networking.

(to be fair, when instincts are spoken of in isolation, they are going to be super 'extreme', and none of us totally lack the others, we are just driven by one moreso than the others).

 

[Earl Grey]

On the forum at least, it's seen as a 'positive' trait simply because so-ness is typically associated with joining clubs, having a wide social network, and other such group-oriented things, and some of the most common things spoken of in sx threads is the desire of 'connecting deeply', soulmates, intimacy, and so on - so it creates the impression (whether accurate or not) that sx= desire for intimacy, and thus so- people do not have that desire or facet and are instead immersed in social media and networking.

(to be fair, when instincts are spoken of in isolation, they are going to be super 'extreme', and none of us totally lack the others, we are just driven by one moreso than the others).

Now, this is what I do not understand. For example, to me, what's so glorified/good about soulmates? There are different nuances and levels of depth and experience that can be gained from joining wide social circles and having a wide social influence. I do not see how this is negative in any way, because it is meaningful to me (and that is why I even do it). People do whatever is meaningful to them (to attain their goals, self-expression, whatever it is). Be it joining 10 clubs or finding their ultimate true love. Either are / can be positive things.

But I understand what you are saying. At first, I as doubting soc for the very same reason, and because I am an introvert.
Yet, from these alone, I do not see how it puts sx on a 'higher hierarchy' than soc or sp, or how it makes it any more special, or if it ties back (even as a factor) to the thread title: a reason many mistype as sx.

 

[cascadeco]

Now, this is what I do not understand. For example, to me, what's so glorified/good about soulmates? There are different nuances and levels of depth and experience that can be gained from joining wide social circles and having a wide social influence. I do not see how this is negative in any way, because it is meaningful to me (and that is why I even do it). People do whatever is meaningful to them (to attain their goals, self-expression, whatever it is). Be it joining 10 clubs or finding their ultimate true love. Either are / can be positive things,

But I understand what you are saying. At first, I as doubting soc for the very same reason, and because I am an introvert. Yet, from these alone, I do not see how it puts sx on a 'higher hierarchy' than soc or sp, or how it makes it any more special, or if it ties back, even as a factor, to the thread title: a reason many mistype as sx.

I think introverts will often have more trouble relating to typical so- descriptions, since introversion is tied to 1:1 and 1:1 is often emphasized in sx comments on the forum. I mean, I know that I do. So that is why I often relate to much of what is spoken of in so-last threads. I think it is probably mostly for introvert reasons, for me at least. However, too, I think too much emphasis is placed in the understanding of sx on its ties to people only, as I don't think the driver is specifically a people thing; it can be anything.