User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 14

  1. #1
    The Bat Man highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    21,330

    Default Enneagram instinctual subtype and intimacy

    What is your enneagram instinctual subtype and how do you describe intimacy in a relationship? That is what do you want in that area, what will you settle for and what is your ideal in that area?

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639
    Likes Peter Deadpan, RadicalDoubt liked this post

  2. #2
    ∂ιѕﻭяα¢є∂ ¢σѕмσηαυт Luminous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    952 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    5,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    What is your enneagram instinctual subtype
    I am a sx dom.

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    and how do you describe intimacy in a relationship?
    Intimacy is closeness, it's having the trust, respect, and understanding and/or openness to share private parts of one's self that one doesn't share with everyone. It's being able to stand naked in front of someone else, honest in who and what you are, physically, emotionally, intellectually. It generally requires a reasonable amount of acceptance on the part of the other or it's not going to last, because I won't want to share anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    That is what do you want in that area
    What do I want in that area? For friendships and family relationships, what I would like is to have some relationships where we have the mutual trust where we can share much of the emotional, personal, private details with each other with acceptance, kindness, lack of harsh judgment, and where we can help each other grow. Where we spend an adequate amount of time together sharing details of our lives and ourselves. For romantic relationships, I want all that, plus a physical and, for lack of a better word, spiritual, closeness in regards to sex and complete trust and kindness regarding emotional nakedness.

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    what will you settle for
    As close as I can get. What else can one do? My answer to this is still a work in progress.

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    and what is your ideal in that area?
    My ideal is what I described above, plus that spark, that connection that happens when looking into each others' eyes, that intense breathless magnetic pull that makes me want to consume and be consumed, the memory of which stays with me for the rest of my life, which draws me ever toward.
    ✦ᏖᏒᎥᎮ ค ℓιɬɬℓɛ Ꮭıɠɧɬ ʄคŋɬคʂɬıƈ✦
    -: ✦ :-
    ƒ O ᖇ G E ᗪ I ᑎ ƒ I ᖇ E ❋
    -: ✦ :-

    ★ᴅᴏɴ'ᴛ ꜰᴇᴇᴅ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇᴇʟꜱ★
    -: ✦ :-
    h n g ⊱9w1✶S✶5w4✶X✶2w1⊰ g h t
    Aka ✧ąŋɠɛƖıƈ Ꮭυɱıŋơų§ ıŋƈąŋɖɛ§ƈɛŋɬ ąυཞą ơʄ ąƖცıðŋ ɖðცɛཞɱąŋ✧
    Likes highlander liked this post

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    359 sp/sx
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    2,410

    Default

    3 sp/sx here. Ideally, mutual benefit, focus on growth, concise communication w/ purpose, quality time with spurts of alone time, consistency. I honestly don't mind abrasiveness and political incorrectness... (he could be crude and controversial) as long as he showed me consistency and care through actions.... I struggle a lot with people's wishy-washyness and emotional reactivity. So probably an NTJ w/o significant emotional issues or an NTP with some direction. 3,5, or 7 and probably not So-dom.

  4. #4
    Doubtful But Well Meaning RadicalDoubt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    613 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    What is your enneagram instinctual subtype
    I am most likely a sp/so, or at least that's what I've typed for the last 5 years. 6w5 as well if you find that helpful for context.
    how do you describe intimacy in a relationship?
    I define the intimacy of my relationships (assuming you're talking generally and not exclusive to romantic) by the level of mutual comfort me and the other person have with one another and the amount of information/knowledge we both are willing to share to one another or have about each other. In the "most intamate" relationship by my own definition, I should be capable of sharing all facets of myself with the other person without fear and they should be able to do the same. The amount of time it takes me to become drained by interacting with such a person should be extensively long, or at least considerably longer than less intamate relationships. I genuinely want to interact with this person and am genuinely interested in them as a whole rather than just forcing myself to interact for the sake of being healthy (because socializing is healthy).

    That is what do you want in that area, what will you settle for and what is your ideal in that area?
    I mean, talking about ideal, in addition to above, communication is a big one. Also knowing when a person wants and needs space is a big one in an intamate relationship, an intimate relationship can not be clingy to me. Additionally, being that'd id probably genuinely gain energy from being around someone Im intamate with, it'd be cool if they were adventurous and willing to actually do things (ie. Travel, eat interesting food), although I'm most willing to bend here because most people are far more picky than myself. I'm willing to bend a lot for relationships in general just because I am in a severe lack of them. I'm more willing to bend in other relationships if I have at least one that satisfies the level of intamacy that I require to maintain personal satisfaction, but I'd probably not consider those other relationships to be super "intamate."
    Likes highlander, Luminous liked this post

  5. #5
    Demon King Tenebris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    2,599

    Default

    Sp dom

    Ah, intimacy is something I actually avoid and desire at the same time. The hedgehog dilemma kinda deal. I would desire complete understanding with someone, as well as accepting each other's flaws. Mostly connections of the metaphysical variety, than physical intimacy.
    Omnivariant

  6. #6
    Tea. Earl Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,611

    Default

    What is your enneagram instinctual subtype?
    My enneagram is 538 / 539 (likely 538). I'm either sp or soc dom, both are equally likely depending on what kind of source you're reading. According to most stacking descriptions, I'd be so/sp, but according to the theory that your 'stronger' IV is the second one which is used to support the first, I'd be sp/so.

    How do you describe intimacy in a relationship?
    I'm a bit blind (haha) in terms of intimacy. It's less about being afraid of it or rejecting it than me legitimately not noticing. Imagine a really socially awkward introvert missing social cues, it's something like that. I miss the 'cues', apparently. When I hear intimacy I think the common (?) image of what intimacy is, what first comes to mind is something more to sensuality and bodily pleasure than emotional intimacy or chemistry.

    That is what do you want in that area, what will you settle for and what is your ideal in that area?
    I pretty much flit here and there. I'm very content with a very low baseline of 'sx' brand of intimacy. If anything I often feel most people are too entitled, intrusive, and imposing, while they think I am too cold, distant, impersonal, and accidentally neglectful (in others' eyes, anyway). I mostly want whoever it is (sx or not) to leave me in my sp castle and not barge in. That'd be perfect. I barely have desires of 'please divulge to me more' or ... whatever sx is.

    It's mostly me pushing others away, I'm a very hands-off partner. Basically to me, people in general are already so clingy that I needn't expend any energy to increase the amount of intimacy I already get.
    Non mi snudare senza ragione.
    Non mi impugnare senza valore.

  7. #7
    Give me a fourth dot. The Tsarevich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    MBTI
    NeTi
    Enneagram
    478 sx/sp
    Socionics
    :-( None
    Posts
    1,033

    Default

    Sexual first. I find the question somewhat interesting, because I am taking a class with Russ Hudson, and he basically just said that intimacy per se is a "heart" feeling and not actually related to the sexual (or any) instinct--sexual itself being more about "sexual energy".

    I am actually inclined to agree. Being the person I am, I don't personally have much mental energy to spare trying to suss out an "ideal" relationship. It seems to me that this might have more to do with core enneagram type and other things (like cultural ideals) than instinctual stacking. I'm at a stage in my life where I simply want everyone to go the fuck away so I can sit on my rocking chair, watching the lines form on my face and continuing with the inner work. Only special people get close, and I don't think there are any in the real world.

    And that's about it.
    *Need enneagram questionnaire?
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ml#post2218641
    Likes highlander liked this post

  8. #8
    The Bat Man highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    21,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Tsarevich View Post
    Sexual first. I find the question somewhat interesting, because I am taking a class with Russ Hudson, and he basically just said that intimacy per se is a "heart" feeling and not actually related to the sexual (or any) instinct--sexual itself being more about "sexual energy".

    I am actually inclined to agree. Being the person I am, I don't personally have much mental energy to spare trying to suss out an "ideal" relationship. It seems to me that this might have more to do with core enneagram type and other things (like cultural ideals) than instinctual stacking. I'm at a stage in my life where I simply want everyone to go the fuck away so I can sit on my rocking chair, watching the lines form on my face and continuing with the inner work. Only special people get close, and I don't think there are any in the real world.

    And that's about it.
    Interesting . I would define it more like @Luminous . Sx isn't about sex per se, but I do think it is about a need for deep connection . At least that is how I understood it .

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  9. #9
    ∂ιѕﻭяα¢є∂ ¢σѕмσηαυт Luminous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    952 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    5,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Tsarevich View Post
    Sexual first. I find the question somewhat interesting, because I am taking a class with Russ Hudson, and he basically just said that intimacy per se is a "heart" feeling and not actually related to the sexual (or any) instinct--sexual itself being more about "sexual energy".

    I am actually inclined to agree. Being the person I am, I don't personally have much mental energy to spare trying to suss out an "ideal" relationship. It seems to me that this might have more to do with core enneagram type and other things (like cultural ideals) than instinctual stacking. I'm at a stage in my life where I simply want everyone to go the fuck away so I can sit on my rocking chair, watching the lines form on my face and continuing with the inner work. Only special people get close, and I don't think there are any in the real world.

    And that's about it.
    Is it like the description on this site? In the Raw: Enneagram Instinctual Variants and Subtype Stackings (2008 Riso/Hudson Training Notes & Discussion) – by ~lee~ | | The RunningFather Blog

    Also, does he define intimacy? Really, I think it could apply to all the variants... sp - sharing home and physical resources, sx - sharing that energy, spark, and magnetic fascination (maybe we could call this spiritual resources?), so - sharing social resources like contacts, providing support in the form of traditional social constructs (like attending weddings and funerals). A certain amount of intimacy is going to be required to share resources, as long as they are limited.

    Sexual – is NOT one-on-one. One-on-one—romance—is a heart issue. This is sometimes mistaken for an instinctual choice. In Nature, sexual reproduction helps to genetically diversify the species—conduces to survival. Russ calls this instinct “attraction.” It’s aggressive, competitive, single-minded, on display, the animal finds smells, stimulation. Use of energy is intensely creative, fiery, go-get-it, a life-and-death matter. E.g. salmon swimming upstream to mate and die.

    We live in a sea of magnetism—attraction/repulsion—we don’t control this, or what we are drawn to. Most being-drawn doesn’t lead to the sexual act. We’re turned or not. It is what it is. You can’t fight mother nature. Attraction is smarter than social needs. Russ and Gayle gave the story of how someone has shown that arranged marriages conduce to a more stable society but one which is more susceptible to being wiped out by epidemics. Attraction has an unconscious intelligence. (pheremones).

    In relationship, there’s desire for endless engagement and fascination. One is captivated energetically by someone or something. Not after domestic simplicity. One can have the sexual instinct operating with friends—being in the heat. Stimulated, energized.

    All instincts play into sexuality. Self-pres is the body-to-body part—cuddling, autonomic regulation, sensuality. Sexual—waves of energy—riding the waves, force between the people. Doesn’t need to be actively physical. Social—sharing of energy. Affection, bridge between the primal instinct and emotional life. In good sex, all three instincts combine—warmth (self-pres), energy (sexual), affection (social).
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Interesting . I would define it more like @Luminous . Sx isn't about sex per se, but I do think it is about a need for deep connection . At least that is how I understood it .
    I think I should add to my answer that for romantic relationships, I am not going to feel fulfilled, and really can't even see myself entering one, if I don't feel energetic sparks beforehand. And even with other relationships, the more sparks, the better-the more that relationship is going to get my attention and be important to me.
    ✦ᏖᏒᎥᎮ ค ℓιɬɬℓɛ Ꮭıɠɧɬ ʄคŋɬคʂɬıƈ✦
    -: ✦ :-
    ƒ O ᖇ G E ᗪ I ᑎ ƒ I ᖇ E ❋
    -: ✦ :-

    ★ᴅᴏɴ'ᴛ ꜰᴇᴇᴅ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇᴇʟꜱ★
    -: ✦ :-
    h n g ⊱9w1✶S✶5w4✶X✶2w1⊰ g h t
    Aka ✧ąŋɠɛƖıƈ Ꮭυɱıŋơų§ ıŋƈąŋɖɛ§ƈɛŋɬ ąυཞą ơʄ ąƖცıðŋ ɖðცɛཞɱąŋ✧
    Likes highlander liked this post

  10. #10
    Give me a fourth dot. The Tsarevich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    MBTI
    NeTi
    Enneagram
    478 sx/sp
    Socionics
    :-( None
    Posts
    1,033

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luminous View Post
    Is it like the description on this site? In the Raw: Enneagram Instinctual Variants and Subtype Stackings (2008 Riso/Hudson Training Notes & Discussion) – by ~lee~ | | The RunningFather Blog

    Also, does he define intimacy? Really, I think it could apply to all the variants... sp - sharing home and physical resources, sx - sharing that energy, spark, and magnetic fascination (maybe we could call this spiritual resources?), so - sharing social resources like contacts, providing support in the form of traditional social constructs (like attending weddings and funerals). A certain amount of intimacy is going to be required to share resources, as long as they are limited
    Yes, it's exactly what he said in that link, except in about 3 hours' worth of depth. He never defined intimacy per se, but he did caution against defining the sx-instinct as "intimate" or "one-to-one", saying that those concepts are independent of instinctual stackings. He seems to think that much of sx isn't properly defined and overlaps with social, and also tends to feed people's narcissism. If you've read my critiques of sx in the past, you know what he was angling at.

    I should probably listen to the course again and take further notes to share. The basic premise is already out there on the internet, but the course itself includes practices and detailed information. In my opinion, his work has the ring of truth and cuts through much of the confusion people have about the instincts. I also took a course with Katherine and felt like Russ's was superior--but that's a topic for another thread.
    *Need enneagram questionnaire?
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ml#post2218641
    Likes highlander liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-28-2016, 01:05 PM
  2. Video: Enneagram Instinctual Subtypes TV show with Katherine and David
    By highlander in forum Typology Videos and RSS Feeds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-13-2014, 05:04 PM
  3. [Inst] Enneagram Instinctual Subtypes and Love
    By highlander in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-29-2014, 03:37 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-28-2014, 03:17 PM
  5. [Enneagram] Enneagram Instinctual Subtypes
    By highlander in forum Typology and Psychology Book Reviews
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-16-2014, 08:17 PM

Tags for this Thread

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