User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 13

  1. #1

    Default Different methods of building trust? (sx/sp/so)

    Apologies in advance for quoting without the names. Reading some of the older threads, I really liked one of the suggestions that (sx) throw out bits of information to see whether someone will take a bite and then share their own opinion.

    When I meet someone I don't know and who responds to me on a personal level, it's like shots of caffeine and cocaine shot straight to the brain. Everything revs up immediately into overdrive and I'm completely immersed in the conversation. And because they are a mystery to me in many ways, that engages my intuition and curiosity -- I want to understand them and see how they fit together and "know" who they are.
    I'm ready to be open and intimate whenever you are, but if I see that you have a roadblock up, it makes me back up. It makes me think, "if they are throwing up a roadblock, then apparently they think roadblocks are necessary in this relationship. But, it would always result in me sharing something really personal - or even personal feelings that I had - and then I'd be like, "OK, your turn!" And then they would clam up or "couldn't put it into words" or "needed more time to process" or "can we talk about something else?"
    I want it to go "step for step". I open up a bit, then you open up a bit. Then I'll open up further, then you open up further. Once I know that I've opened up like 3 levels beyond what you have, I'll stop. Not to play games, it's more subconcious than that. If you can't "come along with me" on the journey of opening up, then it freezes me. I've told ex's in the past that I'm a total open book. I'll share anything with them. I wear it all on my sleeve. There's nothing I will not talk about. But, you've gotta come with me.
    Thinking about my own style (sp), I often feel like I need TIME specifically to determine whether I should trust the other person even if I'm 95% sure of who they are based off our interaction. With time, I feel more secure that they won't betray me or leave even if the connection itself is fantastic. This feels like it might be a (sp) thing, but maybe it's just universal for all (sx/sp/so) types. How strongly do sx or so types relate to this?

    I can definitely relate to loving one-on-one time and being upset if other people are around when a friend invites me over. I am also very cautious when it comes to toxic relationships and cut off these kind of people immediately and am also careful about developing emotional intimacy, while on the other hand I naturally try to go deeper and need at least one or two deep meaningful relationships.
    Regarding so, people described themselves as needing an established relationship first before divulging personal information. This seems similar to the requirement of time but I'm not entirely sure. Eitherway, it's clear the difference between (sx and so), where sx builds trust by seeing how people react to personal information, while (so) seem to be the other way around.

    I do, however, think SX-last types are less inclined to discuss or more inclined to downplay private matters. Yeah, I agree with what was said above that we just don't like to talk about it openly as much. Maybe because:

    So overrides Sx to not disturb a social environment/image.
    Sp overrides Sx to protect a possible route of vulnerability.
    She is quite So/Sp, and he was definitely Sx-dom from what I could tell. She expresses strong resistance to intimacy - even after being very close friends for 6 years, I still have to prompt her or she will not share the quiet details.
    How do (so) types go about establishing that trust?
    It's possible to know someone for a long time, but that doesn't mean that you feel the need to trust them in a deeper way.

  2. #2
    Somber and irritated cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,528

    Default

    I do want to think more about this, but whether through learned experience or simply natural disposition (or as is probably almost always the case, it's a combo), I tend to be self-protective first, and not inclined to trust others with any more vulnerable feelings. I lost a lot of trust/faith in people as a teenager, through observing how everyone treated everyone else. And, have also learned that some people are not 'safe' to open up to. Quote is because obviously that's my own barometer/needs and whether *I* feel safe or not. Generally speaking I don't trust or care for most people, or if it's not a matter of distrust, I just tend to know there's not going to be a huge amount of common ground. I will try, depending, but a lot of dynamics are flat for me / don't go anywhere, whether due to me or them or likely it's just the combo.

    I do relate to the sx quotes to a degree, though, because with some people, things just 'connect' more seamlessly. I have mused sometimes over the fact that with some people, closeness might develop very quickly, but with others, it might never happen. So I do relate to the element of if someone else opens up about something, I'm that much more likely to share something I relate to about that, or something similar in myself. I have also mused that it can often be easier for me to blab something to strangers, vs someone I've known for a while - because there's little risk in that, really, if you know the relationship will end soon and you'll never see them again, or you know they don't know that much about you, so any judgment they make doesn't wound very much, since there's little investment there in the first place. Vs it can be harder to be super vulnerable if there's a ton at stake, ie the relationship has been going on for a long time. So I guess maybe I could be the reverse of the so-quotes you included, in that the longer things go on, it may not make things easier or safer. However, if from the get-go things started out as more personal, and kept going, then it is kinda a non-issue in the future since all of that has already been established foundationally.

    The only other thing I can think of tied to this is that everyone is going to have their own idea of what is 'vulnerable' and 'deep' -- so some people might find I don't share enough (that's probably common), some people think I'm not being vulnerable or sharing enough when I'm actually sharing a TON, maybe sometimes people are uncomfortable with something I share and that's why they don't say much in response ( I mean I don't know, just speculating here), sometimes I say things or admit things that other people would never admit but I don't think is a big deal, I might feel either towards other people, etc etc. It seems pretty complex to me and also highly individual.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    Likes Satachi liked this post

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    I do relate to the sx quotes to a degree, though, because with some people, things just 'connect' more seamlessly. I have mused sometimes over the fact that with some people, closeness might develop very quickly, but with others, it might never happen. So I do relate to the element of if someone else opens up about something, I'm that much more likely to share something I relate to about that, or something similar in myself. I have also mused that it can often be easier for me to blab something to strangers, vs someone I've known for a while - because there's little risk in that, really, if you know the relationship will end soon and you'll never see them again, or you know they don't know that much about you, so any judgment they make doesn't wound very much, since there's little investment there in the first place. Vs it can be harder to be super vulnerable if there's a ton at stake, ie the relationship has been going on for a long time. So I guess maybe I could be the reverse of the so-quotes you included, in that the longer things go on, it may not make things easier or safer. However, if from the get-go things started out as more personal, and kept going, then it is kinda a non-issue in the future since all of that has already been established foundationally.
    I really like this insight about a possible difference when revealing information as (sp) and (so) later on in a relationship. It'd be interesting to hear whether (so) users can relate to this particular paragraph. You're totally right about it being a scary experience sharing information later on that has the potential to shatter a relationship that has been cultivated over a long period of time.

    It makes me wonder whether (sx) method of connecting early on can be interpreted as a defensive mechanism in that sense. You quickly throw out all the things that represent you. If the other person is interested, fantastic! If not, you haven't become emotionally invested enough to be hurt too deeply. It reminds me of potential weak point of (sx) users it's possible to become insecure of how the "chemistry" between the two of you are. While, observing my (so) friends (admittedly, a limited sample size), they didn't seem to have as much of an issue on the whole [avoidant, anxious, secure attachment style] aspect.

    The only other thing I can think of tied to this is that everyone is going to have their own idea of what is 'vulnerable' and 'deep' -- so some people might find I don't share enough (that's probably common), some people think I'm not being vulnerable or sharing enough when I'm actually sharing a TON, maybe sometimes people are uncomfortable with something I share and that's why they don't say much in response ( I mean I don't know, just speculating here), sometimes I say things or admit things that other people would never admit but I don't think is a big deal, I might feel either towards other people, etc etc. It seems pretty complex to me and also highly individual.
    Indeed, for that reason it'd be interesting to see if there are any trends that emerges from hopefully different perspectives.

  4. #4
    Senior Member ceecee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    11,769

    Default

    I'm an e8w9 sp/sx. Trust of others is probably in my top 3 problem areas. It will take time for me to trust you and I'll test as well. I have gotten better as I've gotten older and I realized I can't very well expect others to trust me if I can't do the same in return (contingent on if they've earned it, even a little.). In long term, intimate relationships I always suggest this - don't lie. Or we're done and I don't especially care what the justification is for the lying.
    I like to rock n' roll all night and *part* of every day. I usually have errands... I can only rock from like 1-3.
    Likes Satachi liked this post

  5. #5
    夕日無影 Earl Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    3,534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luminess View Post
    How do (so) types go about establishing that trust?
    It's possible to know someone for a long time, but that doesn't mean that you feel the need to trust them in a deeper way.
    I type as sp/so, and speaking purely for myself, it is as you say. The quality of the relationship matters more than the quantitative length of time spent, though usually, they understandably come hand in hand. That being said, I had to read OP several times to get an understanding of what is being asked. To begin with I suppose, I wonder how you define 'trust'- and in what context? I assume the trust meant here is tied to one necessary for cultivating relationships- some kind of indicator of a deeper bond.

    In that case, I generally do not understand/do not really follow that the more is known about each other, the deeper and more (emotionally?) intimate the relationship is. Looking back, I suppose some people tie that to intimacy, a kind of feeling of being 'special' or 'exclusive'- "Steven only talks to me about his [particular topic]!" I do not necessarily feel that way. I for one do not necessarily need to trust someone or be particularly close to them to divulge certain things, as long as there was a reason/need- if there is nothing to be gained from divulging things, I don't say them.

    In this context, it's not necessarily a measure of cautiousness or the presence of distrust, rather a general disinterest to deepen a relationship, for me. And following that, I don't quite know how to answer because I don't particularly seek those kinds of relationships, the 'trust' included. I'm not sure if others who type as socials/sx last as I do share the same view, but this is mine.

    Considering IV (instinctual variants) and how they manifest differ from enneatype to enneatype let alone individuals, I may be very well wrong or simply am particularly distant even for my stacking, but overall speaking, I think the general stereotype of soc being breadth and sx being depth in terms of intimacy of a relationship itself applies here, and that sx might have particular, specific inclinations and needs towards this kind of trust.


    EDIT: I had just realized that my current listed type does not match what I have just said. Ignore that, it's a joke typing.
    I type as sp/so, and do match up to quite a degree to so/sp as well.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ixaerus View Post
    I type as sp/so, and speaking purely for myself, it is as you say. The quality of the relationship matters more than the quantitative length of time spent, though usually, they understandably come hand in hand. That being said, I had to read OP several times to get an understanding of what is being asked. To begin with I suppose, I wonder how you define 'trust'- and in what context? I assume the trust meant here is tied to one necessary for cultivating relationships- some kind of indicator of a deeper bond.
    Sorry for not making it clearer but yes, that's what I'm talking about.

    In that case, I generally do not understand/do not really follow that the more is known about each other, the deeper and more (emotionally?) intimate the relationship is. Looking back, I suppose some people tie that to intimacy, a kind of feeling of being 'special' or 'exclusive'- "Steven only talks to me about his [particular topic]!" I do not necessarily feel that way.
    Oh, this is an amazing answer! Thank you for your insight here.

    I know for myself personally, I do feel there is a correlation between sharing views/more knowledge and the perceived intimacy levels (sx?). However, it's clear from your answer, that isn't necessarily the case. It feels like I've made a logical fallacy but I can't quite pinpoint it! >.<

    1) Relationship is intimate because of higher amounts of information about each other.
    2) Higher amounts of information is simply just that. There's a correlation, but it's not causation?

    In this context, it's not necessarily a measure of cautiousness or the presence of distrust, rather a general disinterest to deepen a relationship, for me. And following that, I don't quite know how to answer because I don't particularly seek those kinds of relationships, the 'trust' included. I'm not sure if others who type as socials/sx last as I do share the same view, but this is mine.

    Considering IV (instinctual variants) and how they manifest differ from enneatype to enneatype let alone individuals, I may be very well wrong or simply am particularly distant even for my stacking, but overall speaking, I think the general stereotype of soc being breadth and sx being depth in terms of intimacy of a relationship itself applies here, and that sx might have particular, specific inclinations and needs towards this kind of trust.
    Thank you once again. If you don't mind me asking, how would you approach this with significant others?

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ceecee View Post
    I'm an e8w9 sp/sx. Trust of others is probably in my top 3 problem areas. It will take time for me to trust you and I'll test as well. I have gotten better as I've gotten older and I realized I can't very well expect others to trust me if I can't do the same in return (contingent on if they've earned it, even a little.). In long term, intimate relationships I always suggest this - don't lie. Or we're done and I don't especially care what the justification is for the lying.
    I'm still deciding whether I'm sp/sx or sp/so, however I can relate to the idea of needing to trust others first if I want to get somewhere. Lately, this has been manifesting as being the first to open up much more rather than waiting to see how much they offer back.

    While I share your sentiment with the not lying aspect. Personal experience has shown me that I try to revert things back to what they were previously (Losing a 6 year relationship was destabilising who I am as an sp individual?)

    I wonder whether this is a difference in enneagram type, 8w9 as opposed to 6w5. Thanks for your insight.

  8. #8
    夕日無影 Earl Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    3,534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luminess View Post
    Sorry for not making it clearer but yes, that's what I'm talking about.
    Not your fault. This concept is rather alien to me, so it took a few reads to understand.
    I am rather interested and delving into it, even if only from a more intellectual basis than actual experience, at least for now.


    I know for myself personally, I do feel there is a correlation between sharing views/more knowledge and the perceived intimacy levels (sx?). However, it's clear from your answer, that isn't necessarily the case. It feels like I've made a logical fallacy but I can't quite pinpoint it! >.<
    I can understand where you are coming from. For the majority of my life I thought others were just like me, but apparently not. The tendency might be clear, true, and present for you- so it is not false. But it is not for me, and not necessarily for others, either.
    That is a reason why exchanges like this and typology exists- to bring to light and understanding individual differences in how people function.

    I wouldn't know if that function specifically relates to sx in particular, I am still learning, myself. I still do not quite understand the relationship between sx and intimacy. But at least now you know that another mode of function exists that differs from yours- it can be expanded upon and studied further to accurately attribute the correct type to it (be it sx or not).

    1) Relationship is intimate because of higher amounts of information about each other. - Possibly, but not necessarily so. Technically speaking, it could be intimate in the sense that you know more about the individual than others do, but in terms of bonds and emotional significance, not necessarily.
    2) Higher amounts of information is simply just that. There's a correlation, but it's not causation? - Correct. There can be a correlation, and it can cause the deepening of a relationship in the sense that there is more understanding present between both individuals, but intimacy? Not necessarily, not for me at least.



    Thank you once again. If you don't mind me asking, how would you approach this with significant others?
    It is extremely simple: Ask, and provided good reason, I will answer. So, it is not necessarily that I indiscriminately share, either.

    That being said though, in virtually all significant relationships I have had, I have always been told to be 'too distant'. I tend to think that my business is mine, so if someone has no reason asking about anything (and emotional bonds do not factor into this), I would be much less inclined to answer. It took me a while to realize that the perception and tendency of 'distance' originates from my lack of interest of self-revealing for the express purpose of deepening bonds.

    This very conversation is an example: I would not normally say these just for the heck of it or to attract people to me, but it fits the context of broadening my knowledge base as well as adding to yours, so I am able to divulge information just fine.

  9. #9
    Inactive For A Bit RadicalDoubt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    3w4 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Satachi View Post
    How do (so) types go about establishing that trust?
    It's possible to know someone for a long time, but that doesn't mean that you feel the need to trust them in a deeper way.
    What I've noticed is that a lot of soc types (especially soc doms/so/sps) tend to replace the drive for intimacy that many sx types have with activity initially. Trust is established primarily through getting to know the way a person behaves and enjoying mutually favored activities with the other person (either in a group or a 1 to 1 scenario). Information sharing is also a way to establish trust, but it tends to be less "private" if you can understand. Like it'll be talking about your day or talking about how so and so pissed you off or opinions on things, usually in a way that maintains boundaries between you and the individual, but allows you to connect and know the person at a safe level. After you reach that level of comfort (either by proving trust or just being a friend long enough), you start to get more personal information and trust deepens further. This is probably a more sx blind perspective then anything else. I find if you can get a sp/so to trust you, they're much easier to get information out of, but if you can't break past those boundaries it's nearly impossible. So/sp sort of does the opposite, appears more open in the begin and eventually withdraws because they were too open in the first place (in their minds).

    I won't bother to describe my own way of adjusting trust in detail because I haven't done that in years. If I'm not mistaken, my tactic of gaining trust resembled/resembles sharing superficial pieces of myself to get the other person to share as much information as I can get out of them. Sometimes I'll throw out something semi-intimate to see if the other person is open for a more intimate discussion (since those can be very stimulating when I can bring myself to have them...), and also I've try to initiate activity with the other person in attempts to gain trust within them and trust them myself. I know that at the very least, I see the intimacy of a relationship as a measure of how much I know about a person and how much I myself am willing to share. But these are the sort of tactics that I notice high soc individuals use on other people (and myself).
    - 3w4 5w6 1w9 sp/so - INTP -

    “My deplorable mania for analysis exhausts me. I doubt everything, even my doubt.” Gustave Flaubert
    Likes Earl Grey liked this post

  10. #10
    夕日無影 Earl Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    3,534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RadicalDoubt View Post
    What I've noticed is that a lot of soc types (especially soc doms/so/sps) tend to replace the drive for intimacy that many sx types have with activity initially. Trust is established primarily through getting to know the way a person behaves and enjoying mutually favored activities with the other person (either in a group or a 1 to 1 scenario).
    This, precisely. I can absolutely enjoy friendship that continues on in this manner without feeling like I need more (which frustrates sexuals).
    I become highly interested not necessarily in the 'deeper, more intimate' aspects, but rather the person's influences. Who they talk to, where they work, the like.

    I don't know if it relates to a need / a rejection of needs of sorts. For purely myself, as I have stated above, it is simply lack of interest than due to distrust or anything like that, so the manifestation might differ depending on enneagram.

Similar Threads

  1. [sx] What is the difference between an Sx/So 1w2 ESTJ and an Sx/Sp 1w2 ESTJ?
    By Avocado in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-19-2018, 07:35 AM
  2. [sp] sp/sx ~ sp/so business layout
    By Tomb1 in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-01-2014, 03:59 PM
  3. 9w1 sx/sp/so?
    By prplchknz in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-28-2012, 06:24 PM
  4. [sx] Examples of Sx/Sp Persona-Building
    By Mal12345 in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-05-2012, 05:16 AM
  5. A Different Method of Typing
    By Little_Sticks in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-14-2011, 01:19 AM

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