Multiple Enneagram Subtypes/Instincts Social Last Support Group

[cascadeco]

Roth’s writing days were spent in long silence—no distractions, no invitations entertained, no calls, no e-mails. After I wrote a Profile of Roth, around the time of the publication of “The Human Stain,” we would meet every so often, and he told me the story of how a friend had asked him to take care of his kitten. “For a day or two, I played with the cat, but, in the end, it demanded too much attention,” he said. “It consumed me, you see. So I had to ask my friend to take it back.”​

Regardless of what my second instinct is, I relate immensely to this quote (MINUS the cat thing -- I cats and think I'd be ok with that 'distraction' .... I mean unless it was a super feisty rebellious troublemaker kitty who ran amok and didn't let me do anything on my own )

When I typed as a 5 it was mainly for these reasons -- for my recognition of my 'personal space and lots of time to self with no distractions' needs. I simply have difficulties / cannot accomplish much or think much or process my emotions or get into a creative head-space or... or... or... unless I am fully 'immersed' in my own self and no outside elements vying for my mind-space. ? It's highly self protective / self-needful, I realize it's selfish, it's something that can bother/annoy me about myself but it seems to be just how I am.

 

[Population: 1]

Regardless of what my second instinct is, I relate immensely to this quote (MINUS the cat thing -- I cats and think I'd be ok with that 'distraction' .... I mean unless it was a super feisty rebellious troublemaker kitty who ran amok and didn't let me do anything on my own )

When I typed as a 5 it was mainly for these reasons -- for my recognition of my 'personal space and lots of time to self with no distractions' needs. I simply have difficulties / cannot accomplish much or think much or process my emotions or get into a creative head-space or... or... or... unless I am fully 'immersed' in my own self and no outside elements vying for my mind-space. ? It's highly self protective / self-needful, I realize it's selfish, it's something that can bother/annoy me about myself but it seems to be just how I am.

It depends on how easily distracted you are. I’m easily distracted. Like a cat by a laser pointer easy.

People are complex and mixing them together creates an even more complex formula. After only so much of that I must have decompression/processing time or I become backlogged with unprocessed information. If I’m with people for say a week straight (cringe) by midweek I’m still stuck in the day before trying to filter through what’s transpired while being bombarded with new information and my brain just doesn’t like it. The continuous stream of input is too much. Analysis time has to be there. It’s why I have a very short fuse even with those I like.

Anyway I don’t think you sound selfish. It’s probably necessary for your continued stability to have that break.

 

[cascadeco]

It depends on how easily distracted you are. I’m easily distracted. Like a cat by a laser pointer easy.

People are complex and mixing them together creates an even more complex formula. After only so much of that I must have decompression/processing time or I become backlogged with unprocessed information. If I’m with people for say a week straight (cringe) by midweek I’m still stuck in the day before trying to filter through what’s transpired while being bombarded with new information and my brain just doesn’t like it. The continuous stream of input is too much. Analysis time has to be there. It’s why I have a very short fuse even with those I like.

Anyway I don’t think you sound selfish. It’s probably necessary for your continued stability to have that break.

I can relate to that. And thanks. I guess the self judgment (and it's come from others on occasion as well) comes from the context of me knowing people who exist who don't require this to be healthy/function, so it can be something I'm self-conscious of.

 

[Population: 1]

I can relate to that. And thanks. I guess the self judgment (and it's come from others on occasion as well) comes from the context of me knowing people who exist who don't require this to be healthy/function, so it can be something I'm self-conscious of.

Thank you. It’s reassuring to me when I find other people who work in a similar manner. I think it’s just the way our brains are wired. To us it’s not enough to take everything at face value. There are layers to everything and those layers take time to analyze. Others are content with assuming everything of value is resting on the surface.

 

[cascadeco]

Thank you. It’s reassuring to me when I find other people who work in a similar manner. I think it’s just the way our brains are wired. To us it’s not enough to take everything at face value. There are layers to everything and those layers take time to analyze. Others are content with assuming everything of value is resting on the surface.

I'd say too ... 'or assume everything can be easily and readily accessible / known / engaged with immediately'. (unless that's what you meant)

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Regardless of what my second instinct is, I relate immensely to this quote (MINUS the cat thing -- I cats and think I'd be ok with that 'distraction' .... I mean unless it was a super feisty rebellious troublemaker kitty who ran amok and didn't let me do anything on my own )

When I typed as a 5 it was mainly for these reasons -- for my recognition of my 'personal space and lots of time to self with no distractions' needs. I simply have difficulties / cannot accomplish much or think much or process my emotions or get into a creative head-space or... or... or... unless I am fully 'immersed' in my own self and no outside elements vying for my mind-space. ? It's highly self protective / self-needful, I realize it's selfish, it's something that can bother/annoy me about myself but it seems to be just how I am.

I don't really think it's selfish either, inasmuch as one defines "selfish" as "lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure." (Google's definition). But then I am e5 and for me, there's a distinct difference between interaction which benefits both parties and interaction in which only one party benefits and applies pressure/gaslights the other party into believing there's something wrong with them for not wanting to interact. I think a lot of people (those who need interaction, and need the approval of others to feel good about themselves*) resort to the latter without even realizing they're doing it to serve their own needs. I don't think there is anything inherently selfish about recognizing a need in oneself for a lot of time alone. At least for me, the word "selfish" has a more hedonistic, exploitative connotation. It's an adjective that implies using other people in some way.

*I don't mean to imply this is bad, it's just human frailty.

eta: Also, I'm totes a cat person too. But sometimes even they are too much, and I think to myself that I should reconsider whether or not I ever want more pets. Though most of the time the thing that makes me think I should reconsider ever getting more pets is how inconsolable I am when I loose them - that's the worst.

 

[Population: 1]

I'd say too ... 'or assume everything can be easily and readily accessible / known / engaged with immediately'. (unless that's what you meant)

Yes that’s part of what I meant too. People are complex and what they present usually has more than one level of meaning to be digested and so it needs to be examined and cross referenced with other information about them. Two people can say the same exact words yet because each speaker is an individual those words are flavored and accented with their individual personality. There’s an entire subtext that can change their meaning. That means taking all of that information to a quiet place to mull over.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Yes that’s part of what I meant too. People are complex and what they present usually has more than one level of meaning to be digested and so it needs to be examined and cross referenced with other information about them. Two people can say the same exact words yet because each speaker is an individual those words are flavored and accented with their individual personality. There’s an entire subtext that can change their meaning. That means taking all of that information to a quiet place to mull over.

I agree with this absolutely.

(Also, I anticipate the dialogue that ensues when [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] challenges your general pooh-pooh'ing of taking words at face value in 5... 4... 3... )

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Actually, [MENTION=33707]Population: 1[/MENTION], what you wrote reminds me of this quote by R.D. Laing: “The way we construe a difference may serve to narrow or widen it. Both what you say and how I listen contribute to how close or far apart we are.”

It seems to me like being least social instinct - at least, how I imagine it playing out in me - is feeling a priority to make that^ distance as short as possible, focusing the customization of language on a few people (because with a wider network, necessarily the way I 'listen' couldn't be as customized). The fact that I feel a sense of urgency to have this kind of closeness to another person/other people - and that I see some people not needing it, and who seem to be quite content without it - is what led me to identify as sx dominant instead of sp dominant.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Yes that’s part of what I meant too. People are complex and what they present usually has more than one level of meaning to be digested and so it needs to be examined and cross referenced with other information about them. Two people can say the same exact words yet because each speaker is an individual those words are flavored and accented with their individual personality. There’s an entire subtext that can change their meaning. That means taking all of that information to a quiet place to mull over.

Do you do this in a consciously intentional way? As in dedicating time to just sit alone with your thoughts. I ask because I do not do this, rather I just let the meanings come to me as they please, which is often in the moment, but occasionally in hindsight too.

Even when I'm doing nothing, I'm doing something (I'm always researching something online and rarely even sit down to watch TV by myself). Still though, I avoid people like the plague and get my interaction fixes online where I can follow my whims and not dedicate too much of myself to others.

 

[1487610420]

everyone's selfish in a personal way

 

[Luminous]

Actually, [MENTION=33707]Population: 1[/MENTION], what you wrote reminds me of this quote by R.D. Laing: “The way we construe a difference may serve to narrow or widen it. Both what you say and how I listen contribute to how close or far apart we are.”

It seems to me like being least social instinct - at least, how I imagine it playing out in me - is feeling a priority to make that^ distance as short as possible, focusing the customization of language on a few people (because with a wider network, necessarily the way I 'listen' couldn't be as customized). The fact that I feel a sense of urgency to have this kind of closeness to another person/other people - and that I see some people not needing it, and who seem to be quite content without it - is what led me to identify as sx dominant instead of sp dominant.

Oh, I love this, and can identify with it. And I hadn't thought of it in instinctual terms before. I was pondering in the back of my mind whether it had to do with Openness, since it sometimes feels to me as if the person who is more willing to adapt/acknowledge/lean into someone's else definitions is more open to considering new points of view.

 

[1487610420]

show of hands: who gets triggered by #metoo

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Oh, I love this, and can identify with it. And I hadn't thought of it in instinctual terms before. I was pondering in the back of my mind whether it had to do with Openness, since it sometimes feels to me as if the person who is more willing to adapt/acknowledge/lean into someone's else definitions is more open to considering new points of view.

I think that it does in the sense that we'll do a poor job of customizing how we 'listen' if we aren't open enough to find out (1) how we aren't hearing any context/meaning beyond simply the isolated words being spoken; or (2, which is worse) if we project our own context/meaning (or just, an incorrect context/meaning) without an awareness that the context/meaning we are attaching may well be incorrect.

But I mean, I can't imagine dominant so instinct variant would compromise Openness though. I guess I see Openness as the capacity to take in new information, regardless of the intensity of focus on the source of that information? (Like, it wouldn't matter if all the 'openness' were spread across a bunch of people of honed in on one or two - it's still 'openness'.)

I'm not even sure what I'm talking about at this point.

 

[Population: 1]

Actually, [MENTION=33707]Population: 1[/MENTION], what you wrote reminds me of this quote by R.D. Laing: “The way we construe a difference may serve to narrow or widen it. Both what you say and how I listen contribute to how close or far apart we are.”

It seems to me like being least social instinct - at least, how I imagine it playing out in me - is feeling a priority to make that^ distance as short as possible, focusing the customization of language on a few people (because with a wider network, necessarily the way I 'listen' couldn't be as customized). The fact that I feel a sense of urgency to have this kind of closeness to another person/other people - and that I see some people not needing it, and who seem to be quite content without it - is what led me to identify as sx dominant instead of sp dominant.

I strive to understand someone and to be understood or why bother communicating at all? I hope that doesn’t come off as arrogant but I mean I don’t talk just to hear myself, my own thoughts bounce around inside all day long. Since I dislike small talk because it’s simplistic and the international currency of communication (it is equal in value regardless of which person you exchange it with) I want real communication to be deep but easy to process. I wonder often if what I deliver hits the mark?

 

[Population: 1]

Do you do this in a consciously intentional way? As in dedicating time to just sit alone with your thoughts. I ask because I do not do this, rather I just let the meanings come to me as they please, which is often in the moment, but occasionally in hindsight too.

Even when I'm doing nothing, I'm doing something (I'm always researching something online and rarely even sit down to watch TV by myself). Still though, I avoid people like the plague and get my interaction fixes online where I can follow my whims and not dedicate too much of myself to others.

Yes I do set aside time purely for thought. It’s always been that way for me. I was an only child and my parents allowed me a decent amount of time to just be. Put those two factors with someone who’s generally not social and there’s plenty of thinking time. It’s never structured though in a cohesive linear sense. It’s free range thinking I guess.

Sometimes though after such sessions when I’m essentially sleeping on deeper subjects a revelation just smacks me when I’m doing something else. I can be researching and good old divergent thinking drops a loosely related eureka moment on me. I might actually just sit completely upright and go ahhh! It’s happened in libraries when I was younger. Rather embarrassing really.

 

[cascadeco]

Yes I do set aside time purely for thought. It’s always been that way for me. I was an only child and my parents allowed me a decent amount of time to just be. Put those two factors with someone who’s generally not social and there’s plenty of thinking time. It’s never structured though in a cohesive linear sense. It’s free range thinking I guess.

Sometimes though after such sessions when I’m essentially sleeping on deeper subjects a revelation just smacks me when I’m doing something else. I can be researching and good old divergent thinking drops a loosely related eureka moment on me. I might actually just sit completely upright and go ahhh! It’s happened in libraries when I was younger. Rather embarrassing really.

While I can't relate to the library example, I do relate to needing time just set aside for thinking, and do relate to things 'suddenly' becoming more clear to me.

Re setting aside time, I mean, that's what it ends up being, even though I'm not specifically saying 'I need to spend the next four hours thinking about X'. What it instead boils down to is my knowing I need a lot of 'down time' that's uninterrupted, which in turn gives me the Space and 'window' you could say in which to get into a space where I can have things just mulling over in the background or sometimes actively thinking. ie I may not figure much or anything out in that window, but I can start pondering and it allows for discovery. vs Not being able to discover if I don't have that time.

 

[Coriolis]

Roth’s writing days were spent in long silence—no distractions, no invitations entertained, no calls, no e-mails.​

This sounds like heaven, though I would probably just relegate emails, etc. to a brief period each day.

I can relate to that. And thanks. I guess the self judgment (and it's come from others on occasion as well) comes from the context of me knowing people who exist who don't require this to be healthy/function, so it can be something I'm self-conscious of.

Yes, those folks who think needing this is inherently unhealthy are quite trying.

I agree with this absolutely.

(Also, I anticipate the dialogue that ensues when [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] challenges your general pooh-pooh'ing of taking words at face value in 5... 4... 3... )

It is quite possible for there to be many layers to analyze in a person's words alone, unless their speech/writing is hopelessly superficial. What you interpret as "take my words at face value" would be better stated as, "everything I have to say is contained in my words themselves". It works much this way when you read a book.

Yes I do set aside time purely for thought. It’s always been that way for me. I was an only child and my parents allowed me a decent amount of time to just be. Put those two factors with someone who’s generally not social and there’s plenty of thinking time. It’s never structured though in a cohesive linear sense. It’s free range thinking I guess.

Sometimes though after such sessions when I’m essentially sleeping on deeper subjects a revelation just smacks me when I’m doing something else. I can be researching and good old divergent thinking drops a loosely related eureka moment on me. I might actually just sit completely upright and go ahhh! It’s happened in libraries when I was younger. Rather embarrassing really.

This all describes me as well. I used to get these thoughts toward the end of the 40 minute commute I had while living in Florida, when I reached the swamp in the evening, especially when the sky was dark and the enormous full moon hung just above the road straight ahead.

 

[Luminous]

I strive to understand someone and to be understood or why bother communicating at all? I hope that doesn’t come off as arrogant but I mean I don’t talk just to hear myself, my own thoughts bounce around inside all day long. Since I dislike small talk because it’s simplistic and the international currency of communication (it is equal in value regardless of which person you exchange it with) I want real communication to be deep but easy to process. I wonder often if what I deliver hits the mark?

That's the opposite of arrogant. And I think what you deliver hits the mark, though maybe we have an easier time communicating, both being INFPs...

Yes I do set aside time purely for thought. It’s always been that way for me. I was an only child and my parents allowed me a decent amount of time to just be. Put those two factors with someone who’s generally not social and there’s plenty of thinking time. It’s never structured though in a cohesive linear sense. It’s free range thinking I guess.

The same goes for me. Only child, a lot of time to myself to think. On vacation fairly recently, I was socializing far more than normal and when I got about a week into it, I had to stay in a room by myself for awhile just to think, process, and be. Fortunately some of the people I was with completely understand that behavior and were not at all offended.

 

[Population: 1]

It is quite possible for there to be many layers to analyze in a person's words alone, unless their speech/writing is hopelessly superficial. What you interpret as "take my words at face value" would be better stated as, "everything I have to say is contained in my words themselves". It works much this way when you read a book.

I never have to deliberate on what you are conveying in our exchanges. In fact you’re style took a bit of adjusting to on my part because of the level of directness involved.

And some people are not necessarily attempting to be dishonest but are rather unaware how their personality and personal experiences mold their words. The better I understand someone the less I need downtime to interpret our interaction. However I can only reach that level of clarity by engaging in lengthier periods of reflection initially.

It’s a horror show for me in a relationship where my SO words and thoughts hold more weight for me. Fortunately I’m dating a very direct woman. She leaves very little to be misinterpreted. Except her attempts to convey emotions. I kind of have to translate for her. lol