Multiple Enneagram Subtypes/Instincts Social Last Support Group

[brainheart]

The difference in these definitions means everything for me in determining my type. The idea that I would use people for obtaining a high, without actually wanting interpersonal connection, is contrary to what I am. That is what you mean, Cascadeco? For an sx-dom, the high from connecting is more important than the actual connection?

Yeah, instincts are tricky, for several reasons. First off, we're not exclusively our dominant instinct, and it doesn't reside in a vacuum. Second, you have your INFP values, and my guess is one of your values is to not be an asshole, to value everyone for their inherent self-worth, which seems pretty contrary to the 'using people for a high' idea that the sexual instinct can put out there. Third, you've got your tritype, your secondary instinct, your upbringing, your life experiences, etc.

What I'm inclined to believe, as far as the sexual instinct goes (hey there, [MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION]) is that there is a focus on the feeling that intimacy evokes. For example, falling in love, orgasms, and breast feeding all release oxytocin, what has been dubbed by some people as the 'love' hormone. Obviously it makes you feel really good, and the good feeling comes from the intimate interaction you are having with another person.

When you are intimate with someone, either sexually or no, or in the midst of something thrilling or exciting or novel, it triggers hormones that make you feel good. I think people who are sexual dominant are more attuned to those feelings, just as a self-preservation-dominant person is more attuned to the feelings evoked by personal comfort and self-reliance and the social-dominant person is attuned to the feelings evoked by reliable alliances.

When a sexual dominant person is unhealthy, the feeling of love/infatuation can become the ultimate priority in a way that can make them be selfish, manipulative assholes (think Humbert Humbert in Lolita- obviously not all unhealthy sx doms will be like this; it's an extreme example). They may think that their focus is intimacy and love, but what they're really chasing is the chemical reaction, to the detriment of the relationships (and people) that matter to them.

 

[Neokortex]

And these socials say they have the very same issues. If they hate it too what "we" hate, then who's to be faulted? Who's to remunerate? (...) I think it's the one who presents his/herself as recognizing the "cause," as willing to initiate a support group for the downtrodden, disenfranchised asocials and by that implies, pretends as if s/he was outside of it all. (...) I couldn't find a group where people gathered as "asocials" (...) were actually intimacy-seekers or (any group whatsoever where people fit its label, be it introvert, core-fix Enneagram 4, INFP, etc.) [Correction: intimacy seekers that were outsiders as well, not affected by the group dynamic, group culture, standards, opinions etc.], (...) How come you're only "coming out" now? (for duuh, if that ain't why I joined typology in the 1st place?)

[MENTION=10714]Qlip[/MENTION] hey, I've figured out a way to clarify this a bit. Too much snide talk, less theoretical/abstract clarity. So don't take it the wrong way (even though, my emotions did get in the way) but what I'm merely pointing out and questioning here is not your person but the inherent inconsistency I sense between what you meant / your meaning vs. your online behavior/gesture. What is said vs. what/how it's done (the pragmatics of your speech act). This is in no way to judge you, I'm just exercising my skills in Te expression.

So, again: through acknowledging/taking for granted a pre-established intersubjectivity (social, shared understanding of reality) about a certain subset of a taxonomy ("personality types") and also through taking granted and advantage of the social structure/institution as its extension ("typology forum") and that this institution functions as intended (!) - utilizing it as to initiate a service ("social last group support") ---, you, by implication, constitute yourself as having already been part of an in-group (of this intersubjectivity) and consequently, you suggest/posit a definition for an out-group: one that is perhaps against the pitched cause, one that may have a different intersubjectivity/cultural understanding of these categories. For all your comments about not wanting to be "part of it," you don't seem to mind the idea of interpellation through obligation/debt that transactional relations as the proposed ("social support", "help") entail.

In other words: do you want a group as support or one individual? Do you want to negotiate with one individual over the common language of rapport, etc. or you can trust to be obliged to / interpellated by a collective to share a language/groupthink/standards that is needed for the interaction? (the particularism available in 1-on-1 intimacy may be lost on the (necessary) by-and-large discrimination of groups).

The blue part is the most suspicious element - I know how all this comes off as very prejudicial, not really knowing you and all - but that little detail of attitude of hope, of social utopianism is that which is quintessential, indispensable to forming groups. After all, how would people like to be together if they thought it was all to waste?

 

[Neokortex]

Anything in life (and any variant) is open to abuse, right?

Abuse connotes agency. I'm not suggesting it is always the case. Life is an organic, emergent system, such is the human body. There are parts in it that construct (dunno, growth hormones, cells replicating?), and others that dismantle (stomach enzymes) - such, I heard, is the case with blood too, my doc says my thrombosis is of genetic origin since one type of blood cells I have are malformed, lazily produced, hence underfunctioning: their function would be to dismantle coagulating blood cells (to keep the balance). Oddly enough, Fritz Riemann's Grundformen der Angst, an early "typology" (extrapolated loosely on astrophysics) talks about the "individualist" type as planet that has only "centripetal" power, leading it to rigidification and inertia over being diverted ("ostracized") from its orbit.

Referred passage:

Und würde sie schließlich nur der Schwerkraft gehorchen ohne den Gegenimpuls der Fliehkraft, des Zentrifugalen, müßte das zu völliger Erstarrung und Unveränderlichkeit führen, oder zu passivem Aus-der-Bahn-gezogen-Werden durch andere Kräfte, denen sie keine eigene Kraft entgegenzusetzen hätte.

[emphasis by me]
https://dictionary.reverso.net/german-english/Erstarrung

 

[Peter Deadpan]

That is the most black and white interpretation of instincts I've ever seen, and ridiculously verbose. I'm now questioning your entire self-typing. You also don't seem to understand the nuances of core 4s.

To be clear: I really don't give a fuck about your typing, just pointing out that shit doesn't make sense.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Allow me to attempt to rephrase this politely: You've come into a thread about Social-lasts and done nothing but "offer" unsolicited commentary on the types of people you've never spoken to, based on your implied expertise and one-sided observations.

Congratulations, you've fallen prey to shallow typing of others based on actions and not motivations - which, btw, you clearly do not seem to be able to detect.

That's as nice as I can be right now, so I'm just gonna go. Deuces.

 

[brainheart]

[MENTION=29478]Neokortex[/MENTION],
just because an instinct is last doesn't mean it's nonexistent. All it means is it's the least developed. I think of it as being similar to the inferior function in MBTI.

 

[Qlip]

@Qblip hey, I've figured out a way to clarify this a bit. Too much snide talk, less theoretical/abstract clarity. So don't take it the wrong way (even though, my emotions did get in the way) but what I'm merely pointing out and questioning here is not your person but the inherent inconsistency I sense between what you meant / your meaning vs. your online behavior/gesture. What is said vs. what/how it's done (the pragmatics of your speech act). This is in no way to judge you, I'm just exercising my skills in Te expression.

So, again: through acknowledging/taking for granted a pre-established intersubjectivity (social, shared understanding of reality) about a certain subset of a taxonomy ("personality types") and also through taking granted and advantage of the social structure/institution as its extension ("typology forum") and that this institution functions as intended (!) - utilizing it as to initiate a service ("social last group support") ---, you, by implication, constitute yourself as having already been part of an in-group (of this intersubjectivity) and consequently, you suggest/posit a definition for an out-group: one that is perhaps against the pitched cause, one that may have a different intersubjectivity/cultural understanding of these categories. For all your comments about not wanting to be "part of it," you don't seem to mind the idea of interpellation through obligation/debt that transactional relations as the proposed ("social support", "help") entail.

In other words: do you want a group as support or one individual? Do you want to negotiate with one individual over the common language of rapport, etc. or you can trust to be obliged to / interpellated by a collective to share a language/groupthink/standards that is needed for the interaction? (the particularism available in 1-on-1 intimacy may be lost on the (necessary) by-and-large discrimination of groups).

The blue part is the most suspicious element - I know how all this comes off as very prejudicial, not really knowing you and all - but that little detail of attitude of hope, of social utopianism is that which is quintessential, indispensable to forming groups. After all, how would people like to be together if they thought it was all to waste?

I really don't want to belabor the point, because it's really not what this thread is about. If by your logic, so lasts don't want to talk about being so last in identification with other so lasts, or being anything at all in a 'group' with anything else then we would de facto not have any self-identified so lasts on any typology forum, right?

Let's apply your conclusions from from another framework. You're not a thinker, Neo, therefore you shouldn't even be able to make a logical argument at all, right?

Both these conclusions are patently absurd, and if you look into it both Te and being So have very specific expressions within their theory, and not often well understood that aren't "can't Think" and "not Social".

I'm going to explain this thread from less analytical and more observational point of view. I've observed so lasts like to bitch about being so last, and talk about it, they also like to read about it, this thread is for that. I'm actually really amused at various, seemingly phobic (?), so-lasts response to this thread hovering over it and prodding at it, seemingly attracted and repelled. It's my guess that those who are participating here accept that they find various aspects of being with people as an important thing, either for companionship, achievement, or just self-preservation. None of these are outside of the classification of being so-last.

 

[brainheart]

I personally don't relate to that thing about the high wearing off. I always tend to keep my interpersonal eggs (?, or is it marbles? can't remember - that "Don't keep all your ___ in one basket" idiom) in too few baskets, but I never really get sick of or bored with the baskets. If that makes sense.

I'm thinking this might have to do with the harmony triads. My guess is the frustration/idealistic types- 1,4, and 7- are the ones most likely to grow dissatisfied with the contents of the baskets.

 

[cascadeco]

I like the baskets analogy; I fully admit I often become frustrated and disillusioned with the contents of baskets - career/job / survival and finding a means of doing so that I actually don't hate is the easiest example, though I'll be honest, I can struggle with 'Stagnation'/ repetition and what to do without 'all positive emotions or thoughts' with most aspects of my life (which can be often, though not nearly the issue it used to be) and can view any negative element as something that indicates it's all bad --- ie I've struggled for sure with thinking if something is off, then omg what to do what does it mean/imply, doom etc etc. So, sadly I can relate to the 'high' element and having troubles when it is lacking, ie wondering 'what does this mean', but it's something I've become more aware of as the years go on and I think I have a better handle on it.

It has taken a long time of living with myself and understanding myself better, as well as others and relationships, to learn how to better handle and cope with these 'less high' elements and be OK with them; or rather, to integrate them into things, that maybe it's in fact ok.

I also relate very much to issues with not having a network or building one and how that impacts ability to find a job - I missed [MENTION=19719]Forever[/MENTION] Jung's post early on where he cited reviewing 100's of resumes and going with someone who was known/recommended. Welp, I'm always the one of the hundreds that's thrown away.

Additionally, with my current job which is one in which I 'should' be so-dom (as well as Fe, haha) in order to succeed and best fit into the role/expectations in it, it's blatantly obvious to me that I'm not, and these elements of my job would sit easier with me if I did highly value so- elements. Historically I was more sheltered from knowing this about myself, as I had jobs in the past which suited my disposition a lot better (though I hated them due to other aspects) -- so oddly enough this people aspect of myself has only recently become more 'known' to me in my midlife. There is truth in my self-deprecatingly referring to myself as the 'soup nazi' of baristas.... I mean I do my utmost not to be, but it can be draining. One aspect of the job is to 'connect with everyone' -- and I get it from a company/role perspective, it's what customers want and perhaps deserve -- but it's just not me. Me trying is still not ever going to be what's natural for others with different dispositions / end whine lol

Just a few things that I was just thinking of based on what's come up in this thread.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

There is truth in my self-deprecatingly referring to myself as the 'soup nazi' of baristas.... I mean I do my utmost not to be, but it can be draining.

Hahaha! This is so me at work. Except I don't really try that hard at all anymore.

It shows. I should get outta here.

 

[cascadeco]

Hahaha! This is so me at work. Except I don't really try that hard at all anymore.

It shows. I should get outta here.

Yeah.... I feel I am often on a Sine wave when it comes to work... I can do ok for a while, then it really shows, then I'm ok for a while and have more energy to deal with it / try / things roll off of me, and so on. I like the active / physical aspect of it a lot, as well as I suppose the lifestyle elements that fit me, but too I don't have another solution at this point so I guess you could say overall I'm neutral-to-somewhat-ok with it for the time being. But yes, I too am aware it's not a super great fit for me.

I posted in here about all of it because an Fe-dom so-dom customer of ours who I really don't care for (because of the expectations she imposes on everyone for how they should be and behave -- just wears me down and I can't be that person she wants) --- was in today. And she's in the past told me that I should smile more, and has told my boss (she talks to him about everyone / all the baristas) that 'oh sometimes Cascade is happy, sometimes she's not'.... it's really irritating. And today I overheard her saying one of the usual things she talks about, 'oh, people should be happy with what they're doing', and I'm thinking, oh jeez lady.... do you want to be my Patron and pay for all of my excursions into the mountains to do landscape photography or buy all of my paintings? Cause that's what would bring a smile to my face lol.... So really, I get the whole notion of 'everyone should be happy with what they do' as that's obviously an ideal to strive for, but reality is another matter haha. Ok lady, I'm sure we'll some day get 100% of every store and every single barista employed who glows with smiles 100% of the time and wants to listen to your stories about your back problems all of the time...

/ derail / and I know not all of this has to do with enneagram or instincts.

 

[GoldenDawn]

Yeah.... I feel I am often on a Sine wave when it comes to work... I can do ok for a while, then it really shows, then I'm ok for a while and have more energy to deal with it / try / things roll off of me, and so on. I like the active / physical aspect of it a lot, as well as I suppose the lifestyle elements that fit me, but too I don't have another solution at this point so I guess you could say overall I'm neutral-to-somewhat-ok with it for the time being. But yes, I too am aware it's not a super great fit for me.

I posted in here about all of it because an Fe-dom so-dom customer of ours who I really don't care for (because of the expectations she imposes on everyone for how they should be and behave -- just wears me down and I can't be that person she wants) --- was in today. And she's in the past told me that I should smile more, and has told my boss (she talks to him about everyone / all the baristas) that 'oh sometimes Cascade is happy, sometimes she's not'.... it's really irritating. And today I overheard her saying one of the usual things she talks about, 'oh, people should be happy with what they're doing', and I'm thinking, oh jeez lady.... do you want to be my Patron and pay for all of my excursions into the mountains to do landscape photography or buy all of my paintings? Cause that's what would bring a smile to my face lol.... So really, I get the whole notion of 'everyone should be happy with what they do' as that's obviously an ideal to strive for, but reality is another matter haha. Ok lady, I'm sure we'll some day get 100% of every store and every single barista employed who glows with smiles 100% of the time and wants to listen to your stories about your back problems all of the time...

/ derail / and I know not all of this has to do with enneagram or instincts.

Sounds like it could be a bit to deal with!

Stick in

 

[Peter Deadpan]

[MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION] - Hahaha, no, that is just perfect for this thread.

 

[Snow as White]

I often instantly regret adding Facebook "friends", particularly work folk. I also get annoyed by all of their overly shiny group photos and their shallow conversations. I look forward to regular purges. My list stays around 100 people total.

I'd honestly rather see pictures of food. Or emo solo selfies.

Sometimes I'm temporarily blinded by the reflection off of their teeth.

i changed my name on facebook to something different just to avoid getting random friend invites. and then when i would still get them via the friend of a friend network of terribleness i changed my settings so i can't be friended.

and eventually i made my picture into something not me.

and now i just use it to talk to my best friend and see cute pics of my nephews since i always forget to check messages from my brother and sis in law on that terrible invention snapchat.

snapchat and filters are my first get off my fucking lawn response i've ever had to technology.

just stop with the fucking flower hair and deer face.

and just like that, i have the start of a dear editor letter.

 

[Ghost]

• Step 1: Hangout at the library.
• Step 2: ???

I've been trying to execute this plan for nearly 30 years. Any day now...

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I'm thinking this might have to do with the harmony triads. My guess is the frustration/idealistic types- 1,4, and 7- are the ones most likely to grow dissatisfied with the contents of the baskets.

I almost wrote something similar, but I haven't been in the mood lately to deal with potential backlash. (I don't know about harmony triads - but I'm looking at you, ExxPs and e7s).

 

[Neokortex]

[MENTION=29478]Neokortex[/MENTION],

I hear ya. For fours, this is the problem (and the delicious torture) of overly negative descriptions. Oh how we love to get caught up in our flaws.

The sexual instinct isn't an obsession with sex so much as everything in life has this tinge to the sexual about it. Whatever turns you on - for sexual doms, that's the deal. We need to be 'turned on' in order to pay attention, in order to be motivated. If we're not aroused (by work, by a conversation, by sex), we struggle. [...] I try to take their advice to heart on how to engage the social, mainly to support my self pres- I need to make some money. But it's just not working, probably especially because they seem to enjoy it, like they get a physical thrill from social engagement. If I could find a way for the social to support my sexual instinct, maybe that would motivate me. I haven't figured out how to make that work yet.

Basically, what I'm saying here is I need some money-making advice from a fellow sx/sp. Or social last.

Yea, you nailed it there, that was the 4 in me whining hard. Especially 4w3, so in a sense, the peacock behavior I mentioned in my prev post may be attributable to just me wanting attention and feeling validated (worth, competence, smarts). But beyond that and sexuality (which, all in all, I actually managed more quietly than perhaps extroverts do) there're also other areas: manipulation, feeling injustice, lies, social complicity that can get me intense, although one area is definitely not Sx for me: the heart. I'm more adaptive in that respect, even to a fault. I should practice asserting my emotions more often. Yet, concurrently, when alone, occasionally I try to indulge in it the fullest, especially by listening to select pieces of landscapes of music.

I don't have difficulty with advertisement, actually. I rely on my w3 for that but I've grown to hate it and be more self-reflective about its over-use. I've never advertised my art, though, one reason is that I've neglected that area. Other is that the recipients often are the type who want to be dignified by art, instead of learning to control & accept their body. Contrary to my parents talking me out of an artistic career, I think it can be profitable, lot of people are thirsty to it, yet if a core-fix 4 is concerned, I think most may aspire rather to realism and activism than fabulation. Perhaps E1 is not your integration point?

 

[Luminous]

I hate the fact that I need people.

 

[Neokortex]

I really don't want to belabor the point, because it's really not what this thread is about. If by your logic, so lasts don't want to talk about being so last in identification with other so lasts, or being anything at all in a 'group' with anything else then we would de facto not have any self-identified so lasts on any typology forum, right?

Na, I was implying that So lasts "socialize" differently. I think most So lasts like to guard their integrity and freedom to be able to be who they are. And that is expected from the other party. But a certain affability, congeniality in the way you opened the thread is already makes one feel obliged to emotionally reciprocate. Not that the idea was bad, it's just that it's not formulated in a way to invite *only* so lasts. And for an so last, if s/he seeks intimacy beyond just ranting, (like, basically what in any of these subthreads, forums goes on) freedom from obligation and from the judgment of the Socials (propriety, taboo) is essential.

I believe we do have some so lasts self-identified correctly on a typology forum. What you're missing there, though, is that so blind spots may not take the "forum" as a communitarian space, but rather as a tool, (and socialization, entering groups, all the same), since better has not been invented yet, to meet their self-pres or sx needs. (+ subconsciously the desire to integrate back, hence keeping up w/ the trends to some degree,) So it's always the immediate group so lasts find themselves in that they use to justify being so last, that they use to individuate themselves from sooner or later. And since this knowing/attitude was not there in your first post, I assume you are So secondary.

I've observed so lasts like to bitch about being so last

Hey, I've also observed So firsts bitch about being So last. It sounds kinda self-deprecating, doesn't it? Society is this indefinite continuum of opportunism, favoritism and corruption and it's all our fault, so lasts, that we don't keep up with the gold rush. (??!)

 

[Neokortex]

(ps I should add that I published a book last year (...))

Mind if I ask what's it about?

I am married to someone who is social first, so I feel like I have an intimate awareness of the instinct, while it still is last in my stacking. It is a primary source of tension between the two of us, precisely for all the reasons listed above, esp the bolded.

Those issues can appear in any introvert vs. extrovert pairing. I don't find it hard to imagine being jealous of ESFPs' sharing too much attention with other guys. Esp. with that 5 wing, keeping up with the 7's schedule of fun events... There was a time when my calendar was full and I grated my teeth to be able attend all. xDDD

I didn't know that I was a social last four when we met and married, but I guess intuitively I knew my savior would be someone to deal with things I suck at, while still being a softie. Therefore, social first ESFP 6w7.

Sx/Sp 4 with an So-dom ESFP? Man, I can hardly believe that. Well, yeah, there's the obvious connection through arts. You're an "auteur" artist, she's a performance artist so you both have a common scene to keep you together. But what about these aspects:

In addition, the merging tendency, when taken to extremes, can lead to an inability to protect important boundaries.

May not have an awareness of the need to connect in a broader sense with the world, (...) or even of the need to foster approval, support, and understanding of themselves within groups they are connected with, often causing misunderstandings with allies, supporters, friends, and family members.

? For some reason I can't help but think of Meryl from the Truman Show. D