• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Is it even possible to be a SX/SO with strong self-pres?

B

brainheart

Guest
Actually I read some interesting blurb the other day about how that's more of an so/sx thing - the clinging - and sx-doms (especially sx/sp) can actually need less time with their partners, but the time they do have has to be super super connected. I am not an expert on that particular topic but I thought it was an interesting look at it.

Yes, this is very true (for sx/sp anyway). Not nonsense at all. Quality definitely trumps quantity.
 

HongDou

navigating
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
5,191
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
/jumps into thread after prolonged hours of stalking

Actually I read some interesting blurb the other day about how that's more of an so/sx thing - the clinging - and sx-doms (especially sx/sp) can actually need less time with their partners, but the time they do have has to be super super connected. I am not an expert on that particular topic but I thought it was an interesting look at it.

[MENTION=15607]The Great One[/MENTION], actually I agree with this as well. I cling to people I'm interested naturally because I want to maintain my connection with them for as long as possible. I always want to hang out and make sure our relationship is in a good standing and building a solid foundation. Others can see this as invasive or suffocating because if I feel a disconnect in communication it will stress me out and I'll try to repair it as fast as possible.

With sx/sp it seems more like if the chemistry is there, there's nothing to worry about. If there's a rift in communication it's more interpreted as incompatibility and not attended to (so-last maybe). As an so/sx I'll bend over backwards trying to make a relationship work, constantly talking to them and not letting them escape my grasp.
 

The Great One

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
3,439
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
6w7
/jumps into thread after prolonged hours of stalking



The Great One, actually I agree with this as well. I cling to people I'm interested naturally because I want to maintain my connection with them for as long as possible. I always want to hang out and make sure our relationship is in a good standing and building a solid foundation. Others can see this as invasive or suffocating because if I feel a disconnect in communication it will stress me out and I'll try to repair it as fast as possible.

With sx/sp it seems more like if the chemistry is there, there's nothing to worry about. If there's a rift in communication it's more interpreted as incompatibility and not attended to (so-last maybe). As an so/sx I'll bend over backwards trying to make a relationship work, constantly talking to them and not letting them escape my grasp.

Well I also read that sx/sp were generally comfortable with clingy lovers, while sp/sx were not. Interesting, I will have to do some investigating.

On a side note, I feel like I just can't get the same intensity from a so/sx that I can a sx dom. Take for example in a group setting, it seems the so/sx types tend to bounce around everywhere and tend to talk to everybody where the sx doms will tend to just focus on having an intense conversation with just one person.
 

HongDou

navigating
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
5,191
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Well I also read that sx/sp were generally comfortable with clingy lovers, while sp/sx were not. Interesting, I will have to do some investigating.

It could be that sp/sx is generally more sensitive to personal space?

On a side note, I feel like I just can't get the same intensity from a so/sx that I can a sx dom. Take for example in a group setting, it seems the so/sx types tend to bounce around everywhere and tend to talk to everybody where the sx doms will tend to just focus on having an intense conversation with just one person.

Lol this reminds me of our Skype call the other night. If you want to get that intensity from an so/sx I suggest having them alone with you. I'd say we can be very responsive to the intensity that sx-doms are searching for if we're in the mindset for one-on-one time. Although making the first move on your part is important as it assures us that we're not breaking any social barriers by starting off very intensely. If a guy didn't really do anything I wouldn't either because there's always that lingering fear that if I do say something I'll be disrupting what we have between us already. This is how it works for me at least.

In response to the OP, I have no idea what your actual instincts are because we haven't chatted long enough (you're clearly ENTP though) but I will say that self-preservation is a necessity for survival. I may suck at it but I do need to take care of myself if I don't want to fall into bad health. I have to admit that I'm used to people taking care of me, and the second week of college I actually got sick because I was having trouble keeping up with my physical needs but even if I do know how to take care of myself to an extent that doesn't mean I'm not sp-last. I mean, if I want to live a healthy life I gotta do something to some extent haha. But physical danger is simply something I don't consider when making decisions.
 

The Great One

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
3,439
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
6w7
[MENTION=17131]Chanaynay[/MENTION]

It could be that sp/sx is generally more sensitive to personal space?

That's the thing though, I don't really need that much personal space. I also don't mind clingy lovers. The only time that they annoy me is when I am trying to get work done and yet they want to spend time together. That is unacceptable, and they must allow me to finish my work.

Lol this reminds me of our Skype call the other night. If you want to get that intensity from an so/sx I suggest having them alone with you. I'd say we can be very responsive to the intensity that sx-doms are searching for if we're in the mindset for one-on-one time. Although making the first move on your part is important as it assures us that we're not breaking any social barriers by starting off very intensely. If a guy didn't really do anything I wouldn't either because there's always that lingering fear that if I do say something I'll be disrupting what we have between us already. This is how it works for me at least.

lol yes, our skype convo is what made me bring this up.
 

The Great One

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
3,439
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
6w7
[MENTION=17131]Chanaynay[/MENTION]

In response to the OP, I have no idea what your actual instincts are because we haven't chatted long enough (you're clearly ENTP though) but I will say that self-preservation is a necessity for survival. I may suck at it but I do need to take care of myself if I don't want to fall into bad health. I have to admit that I'm used to people taking care of me, and the second week of college I actually got sick because I was having trouble keeping up with my physical needs but even if I do know how to take care of myself to an extent that doesn't mean I'm not sp-last. I mean, if I want to live a healthy life I gotta do something to some extent haha. But physical danger is simply something I don't consider when making decisions.

Yeah after our conversation the other day, it was very apparent to me that I am not sp last. You don't seem to care at all about physical danger or being physically hurt. In fact, all you seemed to care about was about whether you were going to be emotional hurt. To me, these concepts were foreign. I personally could care less if I am emotionally hurt, all that I care about is whether I am physically hurt. The only way that I can be emotionally hurt, is if I am in love with a woman and she then leaves me. That would emotionally hurt me.
 
B

brainheart

Guest
Well I also read that sx/sp were generally comfortable with clingy lovers, while sp/sx were not. Interesting, I will have to do some investigating.

On a side note, I feel like I just can't get the same intensity from a so/sx that I can a sx dom. Take for example in a group setting, it seems the so/sx types tend to bounce around everywhere and tend to talk to everybody where the sx doms will tend to just focus on having an intense conversation with just one person.

Sx/sp and so/sx are both syn-flow. Syn-flow types tend to be more giving and flexible in relationships. For this reason I think a sx/sp will be more comfortable with someone others may see as clingy. Sp/sx is contra flow and they are more likely to push others away who are too needy. I've seen sx/so types also say they hate clingy.

In a group setting you will not get the same intensity from a so/sx because they have too many things/people distracting them. But if you can get them alone they will be plenty intense.
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Yes, this is very true (for sx/sp anyway). Not nonsense at all. Quality definitely trumps quantity.

Yes! You were the one who first mentioned this to me a while ago. I couldn't remember where I'd heard it before! Thank you brainheart! :)
 

The Great One

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
3,439
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
6w7
Sx/sp and so/sx are both syn-flow. Syn-flow types tend to be more giving and flexible in relationships. For this reason I think a sx/sp will be more comfortable with someone others may see as clingy. Sp/sx is contra flow and they are more likely to push others away who are too needy. I've seen sx/so types also say they hate clingy.

In a group setting you will not get the same intensity from a so/sx because they have too many things/people distracting them. But if you can get them alone they will be plenty intense.

Just in the past few days, I've heard so much about this syn-flow and contra flow stuff. Where can I find more information about it.
 

Avocado

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 28, 2013
Messages
3,794
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
:phantom:
So, I'm unpleasant to be around because I am So/Sp?
 

The Great One

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
3,439
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
6w7
:phantom:
So, I'm unpleasant to be around because I am So/Sp?

Not exactly. It's just that I don't feel the same intensity when I'm around so/sp people that I do with others. This mostly applies to relationships though, not friendships.
 

Avocado

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 28, 2013
Messages
3,794
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Not exactly. It's just that I don't feel the same intensity when I'm around so/sp people that I do with others. This mostly applies to relationships though, not friendships.

I tend to act even more friendly than usual when I like somebody (I've had a really low libido lately, so this is a reflection...).
I'm friendly with everyone, though, so my advances tend to go unnoticed...

I really need to take intensity lessons...
 

The Great One

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
3,439
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
6w7
I tend to act even more friendly than usual when I like somebody (I've had a really low libido lately, so this is a reflection...).
I'm friendly with everyone, though, so my advances tend to go unnoticed...

I really need to take intensity lessons...

I didn't say that they weren't friendly, I just said that they weren't intense.
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
So, I'm unpleasant to be around because I am So/Sp?

Quite the contrary, I think So/Sps are some of the most pleasant people to be around usually... there is neither the self-focus of the Sp-dom nor the intensity demand of the Sx-dom, plus more smoothness than So/Sx... So/Sp seem generally natively tactful and rarely infringe on others' privacy.

So/Sp just seem to have what I would call a "privacy wall"... it's like unless you are close (sometimes even if you are close!) you can only go so far with them and they'll gently, smoothly redirect conversation and draw it back out to less private topics. To someone with Sx in a higher position this can be frustrating because they desire the satisfaction they get from raw exposure and are trying to push exactly towards that place So/Sp is moving away from. For example, I LOVE my 9w1 So/Sp coworker and we have really pleasant, engaging conversation, totally Social who-what-when-where-why, but rarely do we talk about personal deep feelings or drives or passionate desires or intensity of experience. For her that sort of opening up is uncomfortable (she has literally said this before). I always look forwards to interacting with her but I do wish we had a deeper friendship, since we seem very compatible.

Incidentally, the privacy thing is true of both Sx-lasts, but So/Sps tend to be even more evasive than Sp/Sos, who may briefly open up a bit more, but who also tend to dislike the intensity unless it is couched in "safe" Sp and So (in other words, Sp and So concerns are taken care of, so they feel more free to engage Sx). Sp/Sos just tend to be more direct and immediate about changing the conversational topic and steering away from private concerns.

-

[MENTION=15607]The Great One[/MENTION], I've been looking into flow too. There isn't much info I've found online besides that one page. It's an interesting concept and I'm still trying to understand it. I think the most valuable to me has been this:

so/sx - including, associating, affiliating, networking, incorporating, interconnecting, introducing, unifying, linking, bonding, annexing, cooperating, receiving
sx/so - excluding, eliminating, dividing, separating, contradicting, subverting, confronting, rebuffing, ridiculing, challenging, interrupting, reforming, rupturing

sx/sp - intensifying, escalating, rising, surging, enlivening, invigorating, accelerating, stimulating, energizing, vitalizing, reviving, animating, inspiriting
sp/sx - dulling, calming, quieting, grounding, descending, lowering, dampening, numbing, desensitizing, exhausting, deadening, extinguishing, making still

sp/so - conserving, protecting, maintaining, preserving, supplying, repairing, sustaining, stewarding
so/sp - utilizing, employing, implementing, expending, exercising, spending, capitalizing, expropriating

You can see the difference fairly clearly here, in that all the "syn-flow" orientations - the upper of each pair - are "gathering" orientations, which tend to collect diffuse energy into wholes. All of the "contra-flow" orientations - the lower of each pair - tend to take that tense, gathered energy, break it up, and diffuse it back into the world. Neither is better or worse, of course, as both mechanisms are necessary to keep life flowing. We need both people who build up and break down, or we can never create anything and we can never renew anything. I think the reason "contra-flow" is described as "compelled against people" is because its natural impulse is to take formations and to open them up. I would argue that the "anti-humanistic" sentiment linked with contraflow in the article is not correct, and is a misunderstanding - perhaps the writer is synflow. I do like the description of "change catalysts", because contraflow people break down or use up existing structures. I don't think it is so much that synflows are "deeply human" and that contraflows are "compelled against" as that I am inclined to take diffuse energy and capture it, whereas others are inclined to take already-captured energy and utilize it.

I think there are some overall patterns of relations that are described well by that article, though it's hard for me to think that instinct flow orientation is an overwhelming component of most relationships when faced with all of the other variables that may be present.

Perhaps the sx/sp versus sp/sx contrast can be useful to your determination of your stacking. Try to ignore the negative/positive connotations and just look at the energy movement (I think that will be easier for a T)...
 

The Great One

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
3,439
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
6w7
[MENTION=10496]skylights[/MENTION]

I really don't relate to the sp/sx description at all though.
 

The Great One

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
3,439
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
6w7
Do you feel like sx/sp fits you best overall?

This is gonna sound really crazy but I felt like I related to a mix between the sp/so stuff and the sx/so stuff. I know that makes no sense at all, but I do. This is what I relate to in the bolded under each description....

sx/so - excluding, eliminating, dividing, separating, contradicting, subverting, confronting, rebuffing, ridiculing, challenging, interrupting, reforming, rupturing

sp/so - conserving, protecting, maintaining, preserving, supplying, repairing, sustaining, stewarding

I know that so much of this is contradictory, but then again, I'm a very contradictory person.

EDIT: If you would like I can explain this all in detail. Would you like that?
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
:laugh:

Contradiction is inherent in 6. No surprise there.

My typical impulse is to say that I'd like more info, but I feel like you need less info, not more. Ne 6 likes avoiding answers too much, this I know. Turn to your Ti to answer this one, not Ne. Given the parameters, what makes the most objective sense?

Ie, when you have problems in all three areas, which do you prioritize?

Intensity first, then relationships, then self-maintenance?
Intensity first, then self-maintenance, then relationships?
Relationships first, then intensity, then self-maintenance?
Relationships first, then self-maintenance, then intensity?
Self-maintenance first, then intensity, then relationships?
Self-maintenance first, then relationships, then intensity?

I think it'd be valuable to pare it all down, totally, forget all the associations. Just really understand the core of each instinct and determine which one you always seek to resolve first, then which one you'll indulge when you feel relatively comfortable with life, then which one you almost never attend to unless you have a very explicit reason, and typically because one of the other instincts is dragging it into play.

Maybe if you think this period in time is warping your Sp instinct, flash back to the most recent time you feel it wasn't affected. Still, your instincts should stay steady, even given external influence. That last instinct will be dragged in when it has to be but you will probably be fairly aware that it was dragged and it didn't come willingly.
 
Top