so/sp interactions with other variants - ESPECIALLY SX

[PeaceBaby]

A trend that marks these people who have "taken something from you" as SX, apparently. Hence this thread requesting that SXs justify their "socially inappropriate" behaviour.

No, no that's not it. I didn't even consider what SX was before last week, never gave the variants a whiff of contemplation of how they would fragrance my relationships in the world.

I am still trying to understand what SX looks like IRL. So I am throwing out provocative examples to see what sticks and what doesn't.

I have never labelled anyone's behaviour as an attribute of SX. I haven't yet even as I write this.

I don't know enough about it to draw any firm conclusions so far.

And when I understand the variants better, I will adjust my own responses to compensate, both for the needs of the people in my life and my own. That is my way. More tools in my toolbox of understanding.

Who do you think is jumping to judgments/conclusions, really...?

I still feel you are, because you are interpreting everything I say through this lens, this lens that assumes I am or have already been going around judging all this negative behaviour as SX behaviour.

Again, I'm not offended in the least by anything you've said. Even the unsolicited advice. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. We are coming at this with very different sets of values and assumptions and perhaps we'll never be able to understand the other's perspective, but we should aim to respect it, at least.

I am glad you are not offended and I do respect your viewpoint, and I would hope if nothing else is clear, that is.

I wasn't trying to make any accusations here against SX.

 

[Salomé]

In really intense connections, it's sometimes as if the other person and I are the only ones who exist at that moment. Nothing that's going on around us even gets noticed or paid attention to.

I really miss that.
Once you've experienced it once, nothing is ever the same. Nothing else can compare to it.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Too, if there are any NF, SP or SJ types out there with SX as the dominant variant, please read my first post and tell me how you relate to it ... tell me what kind of information you are looking to share when you say you want depth, that special intimacy.

I have received a great deal of NT feedback, which I appreciate, but this thread is skewed now away from a balance of multiple perspectives.

 

[runvardh]

Too, if there are any NF, SP or SJ types out there with SX as the dominant variant, please read my first post and tell me how you relate to it ... tell me what kind of information you are looking to share when you say you want depth, that special intimacy.

I have received a great deal of NT feedback, which I appreciate, but this thread is skewed now away from a balance of multiple perspectives.

I tried, but many of the NTs have already said much of what I could say while my actual posts expand on those views to flesh out what mine is.

 

[PeaceBaby]

^ kitteh, are you interested more in intellectual topics of depth or depths of emotional experience?

What level of personal interaction are you looking for? Or does the whole emotions aspect kind of seem ... like too much information?

 

[runvardh]

^ kitteh, are you interested more in intellectual topics of depth or depths of emotional experience?

Select groupings from both. I'm an F and a 4 to the core, and when I'm invested in a person enough the emotional becomes important - their well being, my well being. There are certain levels to it, an SO always gets, and is expected from them, the highest level of emotional intimacy (though what I expect varies). I'm also of higher than average intelligence which along with w5 I have to use my head sometimes or I feel sluggishly atrophied and can even lead to depression.

What level of personal interaction are you looking for? Or does the whole emotions aspect kind of seem ... like too much information?

I require smaller groups to one on one interaction. The emotions aspect can depend on my mood swings, especially since I'm so used to others not caring about mine. This is part of why I stratify my relationships by how much investment is mutually beneficial. It's only too much information when I can't expect similar tolerence from the other side.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Here’s an example of what I’d consider personal: there’s another member here I haven’t interacted with very much who doesn’t make it available to leave messages on their public wall. I think this person is kinda interesting and I’m curious why- something tells me it’s a reason I can relate to. Asking this person through a pm (though we haven’t interacted much) is what I’d consider getting personal. On the other hand: starting a thread and delving into the theoretical reasons why people don’t make it available to post on their wall is what I’d consider wanting ‘deeper’ conversation that isn’t necessarily personal.

So where does sx fall in there?

I don't see much difference between the two. (And I'd classify both as personal rather than deep). I'd ask if I was curious. I don't care if someone thinks I'm being "too" personal. They can always ignore me or tell me to MMOFB. I won't take offense.

There are so many associations with the word ‘deep’ it’s hard to work around. The way I’m personally using it in this thread, I think, is to describe some inclination to delve farther into something than most people (focusing in on a certain behavior, feeling curiosity about the motivation). But yeah, normally I wouldn’t begin to consider starting a thread- asking people why they don’t like getting public messages- as something ‘deep’ in itself.

Also: I didn’t mean to imply I’d start the thread as some passive-aggressive attempt to get that particular person’s answer (it *seems* like that’s how it was read?). It would feel slimy to start a thread if circumstances were such that it might be clear to someone it was about them, or even if it were fueled by curiosity of one person in particular. I was referring to the act of redirecting my curiosity from the single person to ‘people in general’; it seems less personal, but just as ‘deep’ (equally intended to delve/explore feelings). But then I guess those ‘people in general’ who answered might be giving personal answers, so I don’t know.

Maybe the tendency to shift the curiosity about one person to ‘people in general’ is an sp trait, though. It’s something that happens when I’m not comfortable with keeping the intensity of the focus on the one person. The need to test the water by dipping my toes in it first is really strong for me; people are so diverse, and they come with so many of their own ‘rules’ about how to get along with others, I am wholly distracted by trying to gleam someone’s ‘rules’ before trying to delve into their feelings one-on-one. I mean, we all have our own rules and expectations to a certain extent- I’d just prefer to deal with people whose rules and expectation most closely match my own; because I usually mirror someone’s rules (while dealing with them) and it’s exhausting to mirror rules that aren’t in line with my natural inclination. I’d rather not deal with the conflict that can ensue when someone gets offended because of ‘rules’ I didn’t anticipate; I’m getting the impression this conflict doesn’t bother sx doms as much.

 

[Salomé]

Also: I didn’t mean to imply I’d start the thread as some passive-aggressive attempt to get that particular person’s answer (it *seems* like that’s how it was read?). It would feel slimy to start a thread if circumstances were such that it might be clear to someone it was about them, or even if it were fueled by curiosity of one person in particular.

And I didn't mean to accuse you of that.
I was responding to Jennifer's comment, and I was thinking about the "Tell a member..." thread. I think posting in that thread because you are afraid to confront the person in question directly is pretty weak. I can think of a few other examples too. Always makes me roll my eyes.

Maybe the tendency to shift the curiosity about one person to ‘people in general’ is an sp trait, though. It’s something that happens when I’m not comfortable with keeping the intensity of the focus on the one person. The need to test the water by dipping my toes in it first is really strong for me; people are so diverse, and they come with so many of their own ‘rules’ about how to get along with others, I am wholly distracted by trying to gleam someone’s ‘rules’ before trying to delve into their feelings one-on-one. I mean, we all have our own rules and expectations to a certain extent- I’d just prefer to deal with people whose rules and expectation most closely match my own; because I usually mirror someone’s rules (while dealing with them) and it’s exhausting to mirror rules that aren’t in line with my natural inclination. I’d rather not deal with the conflict that can ensue when someone gets offended because of ‘rules’ I didn’t anticipate; I’m getting the impression this conflict doesn’t bother sx doms as much.

I think this is prolly more about T vs F rather than SX...
I'm not one to shy away from conflict, but then I rather enjoy it. It has it's own "intensity".

 

[runvardh]

Morgan... there are things you say that oft bring about a feeling most intense, but is neither anger nor disgust as far as I can tell. Sometimes I feel the need for a cold shower though...

 

[INTPness]

Morgan... there are things you say that oft bring about a feeling most intense, but is neither anger nor disgust as far as I can tell. Sometimes I feel the need for a cold shower though...

Morgan seems to have a sharp INTP edge to her. And by no means is that an insult. There's just not much fluffiness.

Are you a really strong T on the T/F dichotomy, Morgan?

 

[Salomé]

Morgan... there are things you say that oft bring about a feeling most intense, but is neither anger nor disgust as far as I can tell. Sometimes I feel the need for a cold shower though...

Bad kitteh.

Morgan seems to have a sharp INTP edge to her. And by no means is that an insult. There's just not much fluffiness.

Are you a really strong T on the T/F dichotomy, Morgan?

I think I have pretty well-developed Fi, but everything yields to Ti-dominance. My Fe is sub-zero.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

And I didn't mean to accuse you of that.

Yeah, my bad. On second read, it took the turn later.

I think this is prolly more about T vs F rather than SX...
I'm not one to shy away from conflict, but then I rather enjoy it. It has it's own "intensity".

Eh. Maybe. Half the Ts I know irl are more conflict-avoidant than I am. It'd be nice if more sx dom Fs would chime in. I'm curious what kind of difference the F makes.

 

[Totenkindly]

Eh. Maybe. Half the Ts I know irl are more conflict-avoidant than I am.

It's definitely funny -- T's seem to either be really immune to the emotion reverb and fighting without being fazed by it, or they're conflict-avoidant. I'm not sure if there's any sort of TP/TJ slant or not there. I let myself enter conflict a lot more now than I used to, but inside I don't really ever like it because it's associated with risk of loss. I'm okay only if the context is entirely impersonal; if there is any personal element, I get wigged out.

I'd be interested in seeing more F sx voices here too, which is why I've mostly just been lurking now for awhile.

I think I have pretty well-developed Fi, but everything yields to Ti-dominance. My Fe is sub-zero.

I'm guessing that probably is the root of any communication issues we've had. My Fe far outweighs my Fi, although I've had to get better at the latter. It really does cause a clash.

 

[Salomé]

It's definitely funny -- T's seem to either be really immune to the emotion reverb and fighting without being fazed by it, or they're conflict-avoidant.

I'm of the opinion that conflict-avoidant Ts are mistyped.
Or at least - their T-bias is not strong, so what you are seeing is their F.
Same difference.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm of the opinion that conflict-avoidant Ts are mistyped.
Or at least - their T-bias is not strong, so what you are seeing is their F.
Same difference.

The first one is a possibility.
I honestly don't know.

At the least, it's definitely the F thing coming out... Instead of just saying what I think, it's getting conflicted with not wanting to sunder/damage the relationship. And "relationship" is not in reference to a specific invested relationship, it's the assumption that we are all connected in some way whether we like to admit that or not.

 

[Tallulah]

I think lots of introverted Ts assess whether it would be worth it to enter into a conflict, time and energy-wise. And don't want to invite the emo-response from those they enter into a conflict with. And also a lot of the time are satisfied in their own heads that they're right, so don't feel compelled to prove it to others. All of which is a pretty textbook, logical T thing, to me.

 

[INTPness]

I think lots of introverted Ts assess whether it would be worth it to enter into a conflict, time and energy-wise. And don't want to invite the emo-response from those they enter into a conflict with. And also a lot of the time are satisfied in their own heads that they're right, so don't feel compelled to prove it to others. All of which is a pretty textbook, logical T thing, to me.

I relate to this. I don't consider myself either conflict avoidant or "ready and willing for conflict." I'm somewhere in between. And it really depends on the situation. I've learned to "pick my battles" more wisely. I see injustices (in the workplace, etc.) and they infuriate me, but I have to decide if that particular injustice is "worth" losing my job over. Do I want to speak out when I see my boss completely walking all over (verbal onslaught, even abuse at times) the ESFJ female that I work with? Yes, I have lots to say to him. However, I can't necessarily fight her battle for her. If I fight her battle for her, then I'm out the door, getting a new job that will inevitably have some other random injustice going on. So, I fight the battle from behind the scenes, in a more subtle manner.

I also don't like engaging in battles that I know will get extremely messy and hairy. I don't want to expend the energy unless it's a cause that I absolutely will not compromise on.

So, for any given conflict, I'm always "weighing":
(a) really, how important is this issue in the grand scheme of things? If it's petty stuff, I'm not getting involved. There's just no need.
(b) if I get involved in the conflict, what are the positives/negatives that can happen? Am I prepared for those changes?
(c) how messy can it get? can it potentially get messier and more consuming than it's worth? Energy management!
(d) is this even a battle than I can win?

I can take quite a bit, but when something gets too personal or if it's just something I cannot stand to watch anymore, then it has become a situation where I will readily enter the conflict. And I'll get results. And it's not always pretty. In the back of my mind, however, I'm always thinking, "don't be that arrogant, beligerent NT that everyone hates. Try to bring some diplomacy to the table."

 

[PeaceBaby]

Half the Ts I know irl are more conflict-avoidant than I am. It'd be nice if more sx dom Fs would chime in. I'm curious what kind of difference the F makes.

I too would like to hear from F sx-doms, although I doubt at this point in the thread anyone will jump in.

I could start a new one ... ummm, I don't think I'm ready for that!

-----

As for me, I don't like conflict, but when I'm in it will work fervently and energetically to find resolution to it. Finding common ground again is the satisfying part. Open issues that I can sense exist but don't have the entry or opportunity to solve are difficult to bear. Once I am trying to solve a conflict, I am "all-in", there's no weighing at that point, we are in this to solve it and I'll use everything at my disposal to get there. I can become impatient though, and sometimes need to remember people need alone-time to process, like a time-out of sorts.

I'm guessing that probably is the root of any communication issues we've had. My Fe far outweighs my Fi, although I've had to get better at the latter. It really does cause a clash.

Do you mean between myself, Morgan and you? If that's your reference specifically, I think I understand where it derailed somewhat now - I was making statements to be provocative, to test the edges of what SX looks like, but those seemed like accusations, even conclusions, to you and Morgan.

What is interesting is that most people didn't take them as accusations ... but they touched a nerve in you both. As I read more of the SX threads, I do see this common complaint that SX is seen as a "taking" predilection. So I can now appreciate the consequent sensitivity to my statements. Like throwing gas on the flame.

An added nuance: For me, I care a great deal about not offending anyone, so being misunderstood feels very frustrating, and that frustration distances you from me in this situation too because you see it as an emo-outburst, as I further strain to be understood.

Perhaps then, Te kicks in for me to try to use the most efficient ways to clarify myself. Thus I can come off as more brusque than usual.

Or something like that ...

If that's not your reference here, my apologies for bringing it back up again. Although I am happy to revisit it, to hopefully clear the air.

I'm of the opinion that conflict-avoidant Ts are mistyped.
Or at least - their T-bias is not strong, so what you are seeing is their F.
Same difference.

Well, enneagram type 9 is not uncommon for INTP's, for example - this would lead them to try to maintain the peace as well, like myself. This wouldn't necessarily mean their T-bias is weak. Although it would be interesting to examine.

 

[Totenkindly]

Do you mean between myself, Morgan and you?

I was referring to Morgan.

If her assessment is correct, then Fe/Fi could be an issue between you and me, but between you and her, some other factor is also coming into play.

Since it's relevant, I'll mention I've been talking to the INFP I broke up with recently, and it came out that in our relationship, he had wanted someone who would actually challenge and push on him more; meanwhile, I usually became inwardly agitated when he would make strong statements and push on things, I like more external agreement in my relationships... or at least things couched in emotionally neutral terms. He would often zing off Fi value judgments and I would sort of rankle; I directly blame my lopsided Fe thing for that, if I was completely T I shouldn't have had an issue and would have simply laughed at him or cut down his ideas if I disagreed. (And sometimes I could laugh at it, but other times it just really unsettled me.)

So yes, Fe and Fi can play differently and relate differently, and that can cause misunderstandings.

If that's your reference specifically, I think I understand where it went wrong now - I was making statements to be provocative, to test the edges of what SX looks like, but those seemed like accusations to you and Morgan.

I'm not sure how you define provocative, I (and I won't speak for Morgan) perceived them as unnecessarily divisive rather than trying to build communication/consensus. I think from what she has said, she took them a different way.

What is interesting is that most people didn't them as accusations ... but they touched a nerve in you both. As I read more of the SX threads, I do see this common complaint that SX is seen as a taking predilection. So I can now appreciate the consequent sensitivity to my statements. Like throwing gas on the flame!

I'm not sure it was SX. You might be mislabelling the issue in the communication here. Three people don't make a generalized use case.

An added nuance: For me, I care a great deal about not offending anyone, so being misunderstood feels very frustrating, and that frustration distances you from me in this situation too because you see it as an emo-outburst, as I further strain to be understood.

I agree with that.

AND:

Perhaps then, Te kicks in for me to try to use the most efficient ways to clarify myself. Thus I can come off as more brusque than usual.

THAT.

I actually thought alot about that specifically, the other day. I felt like you launched into Te mode in order to crunch your way through and "manage the situation" -- you just tried to get more and more control over it, and make decisive statements about what I was doing and what was happening -- and that approach just irritated me further.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I'm not sure it was SX. You might be mislabelling the issue in the communication here. Three people don't make a generalized use case.

Agreed, again I'm not drawing a conclusion, just looking at a possibility. Most SX's here in this thread didn't take the same path of interpretation.

-----

I feel like Morgan and I are at a place of resolution now. I don't feel like that with you, we haven't got there yet.

When I mean provocative, I mean emotionally compelling, engaging, stimulating ... but of course, "provocative" can also irritate. Statements that live at the edges help define the center for me. Does that make sense to you, help you see what I mean? (I can think in the interim of an example to clarify that.)

I felt like what I didn't want to be read into my statements was being done so. It seemed that this aspect of the thread was spiralling out of control, and I was being accused of making derogatory conclusions about SX and being labelled a hypocrite. It felt very disturbing to me.

Te is not the prettiest function at my disposal, but it has a place - although here it wasn't as facilitative as I would have hoped.

But then too, did I receive the "benefit of the doubt"? I felt like no one was concerned about offending me either at that point, just interested in making judgements about what I was saying - and although these interpretations were speculation, they read as fact.

It would be easier and logical in these scenarios if someone would ask me to clarify. "Hey PB, do you really think SX people are 'takers'?" The answer to that is NO! Of course not! I'm not that biased or "black & white".

But I want to understand the motivations behind that SX drive to connect, see what it feels like, to try to put real parameters around the variant itself. I try to explore it in all the Fi ways I can, including wrapping scenarios around the feeling to try to replicate what the actual intensity is like.

I knew I irritated you, and in doing so would have to wait a couple of days to re-approach this.

But hopefully we are coming closer and closer to understanding each other better.