Multiple Enneagram Subtypes/Instincts What are activities that you would associate with each enneagram variant?

[The Great One]

What activities do you associate with each of the enneagram variants? Personally, this is how I see it:

Social activities:

-Building social contacts
-Working hard to establish one's place in the group
-Keeping track of what's going on in the world: celebrity gossip, world news, checking to see what's going on in your friends' and families' lives, etc.

Sp activities:

-Working
-Going to college to further ones education for career purposes
-Maintaining security
-Maximizing comfort
-Maintaining ones health

Sx activities:

-Bonding with close friends and family
-Actively searching for a mate
-Having sex
-Bonding with your significant other through quality time, sex, etc.
-Engaging in activities that you are passionate about and that are intense

Do all agree with these, and also please feel free to add more activities.
[MENTION=5684]Elfboy[/MENTION]
[MENTION=10496]skylights[/MENTION]
[MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION]

You all may want to check out this thread.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Oh... I thought you meant them numbers.


For ennegram 5s, there is only one answer, and that is masturbating into a bowl of corn flakes.

On topic here, I agree with the Sx activities. This is why I decided I was sx/sp rather than sp/sx, because I cared about most of those things more. Sx might also include art/movie-watching/music listening/food appreciation. It doesn't fit terribly well under the other two categories...

 

[Chad of the OttomanEmpire]

It's mostly good, but...

Sp activities:

-Working
-Going to college to further ones education for career purposes
-Maintaining security
-Maximizing comfort
-Maintaining ones health

...what would you classify the bolded as? I think I maximize my comfort by staying out of the rain and cold, wrapped up in a blanket and eating chocolate cake, but I am eminently certain I am not sp-first. I'd go into more detail for those.

That, and not all sexuals have sex. Other than that, it's a fair summary of the instincts.

 

[OrangeAppled]

"Bonding" is more of the social instinct. Searching for a mate can fall under social also - there are many motives in finding a mate that have more to do with social things or a sense of a "niche" with another person.
Sx instinct is more fickle - not about lasting bonds (on its own). It's more about "attraction" & "climax" than anything substantial. I think a lot of so-dom think they are sx-dom.

I find a lot of this too literal over all though. It's more like WHY someone does something, not what they actually do. Sp-dom can be more about maintaining independence than comfort or health, and they can engage in indulgence and recklessness, and generally not look very responsible. Unlike the sx drive, this is about CONTROL, whereas sx seems more about the engagement with some other force.

 

[The Great One]

It's mostly good, but...


...what would you classify the bolded as? I think I maximize my comfort by staying out of the rain and cold, wrapped up in a blanket and eating chocolate cake, but I am eminently certain I am not sp-first. I'd go into more detail for those.

That, and not all sexuals have sex. Other than that, it's a fair summary of the instincts.

About 99% of the sx doms that I have met are into sex. I mean, I guess if one was an sx dom and was repeatedly raped as a child, then they may not be that into sex, but they would still be into deep bonding with another individual. I believe that there is a strong correlation between sex and the sx variant because SX likes to get close to people fast, and what activity could be more intense and more intimate than sex? I mean really.

"Bonding" is more of the social instinct. Searching for a mate can fall under social also - there are many motives in finding a mate that have more to do with social things or a sense of a "niche" with another person.
Sx instinct is more fickle - not about lasting bonds (on its own). It's more about "attraction" & "climax" than anything substantial. I think a lot of so-dom think they are sx-dom.

I find a lot of this too literal over all though. It's more like WHY someone does something, not what they actually do. Sp-dom can be more about maintaining independence than comfort or health, and they can engage in indulgence and recklessness, and generally not look very responsible. Unlike the sx drive, this is about CONTROL, whereas sx seems more about the engagement with some other force.

I don't agree with any of the bolded. I personally don't believe bonding to be a social activity at all. In fact, if you talk to many of the sp/so and so/sp people they will in fact tell you that it takes them a long time to get close to people and that their relationships often cultivate after elongated periods of time. In fact, most of the sp doms will in fact tell you that they keep people at an arm's length. However, if you talk to most of the sx doms they will tell you that they generally get close to people very quickly and many an sx dom can meet someone in a day and feel like they have known them their whole life.

Also, how can you possibly say that sx is not about lasting bonds? For instance, look at many of the Sx/sp people and they will generally tell you that they are looking for that one "perfect mate" that will complete them. I agree though, that sx/so bonds don't tend to be as long lasting.

 

[OrangeAppled]

About 99% of the sx doms that I have met are into sex. I mean, I guess if one was an sx dom and was repeatedly raped as a child, then they may not be that into sex, but they would still be into deep bonding with another individual. I believe that there is a strong correlation between sex and the sx variant because SX likes to get close to people fast, and what activity could be more intense and more intimate than sex? I mean really.

This applies to most human beings.

I don't agree with any of the bolded. I personally don't believe bonding to be a social activity at all. In fact, if you talk to many of the sp/so and so/sp people they will in fact tell you that it takes them a long time to get close to people and that their relationships often cultivate after elongated periods of time. In fact, most of the sp doms will in fact tell you that they keep people at an arm's length. However, if you talk to most of the sx doms they will tell you that they generally get close to people very quickly and many an sx dom can meet someone in a day and feel like they have known them their whole life.

Bonding quickly and lasting bonds are not the same thing. Consider the idea of "attracting" and "climax" again.

Also, how can you possibly say that sx is not about lasting bonds? For instance, look at many of the Sx/sp people and they will generally tell you that they are looking for that one "perfect mate" that will complete them. I agree though, that sx/so bonds don't tend to be as long lasting.

Because sx is frequently described as being fickle and leaving one stimulation that has grown dull in search of the next high.
So is about creating & sustaining niches with people, whether on a larger, social scale or more personal one. This does not have to be about social circles or work, but can include intimate relations with family & romantic partners.

No person is one instinct, so of course sx types are tempered by the so or sp instinct. Just as sx last for an so/sp can mean a person seeks niches which are comfortable & slow to build, not intense & quickly-formed (but perhaps quickly burnt out also). A lasting attachment does not mean depth or intensity anyhow, but many people seek some to cement the connection, even if intensity is not their main drive.

Your argument doesn't include great possibility of people mistyping & being mistyped. You have a circular reasoning here:
"My criteria for X classification is correct because the people I evaluated with said criteria & defined by said criteria fit said criteria". But if the criteria is wrong, then you have a problem with your classifications. The people may fit the criteria, but that criteria may not apply to that particular classification. If much of what you put under sx is really so, then all those people you type (or who self-type) as sx may simply be typed incorrectly.

The WHY is very important in typing people also. Similar behaviors can be engaged in for very different reasons.

 

[Luv Deluxe]

I don't agree with any of the bolded. I personally don't believe bonding to be a social activity at all. In fact, if you talk to many of the sp/so and so/sp people they will in fact tell you that it takes them a long time to get close to people and that their relationships often cultivate after elongated periods of time. In fact, most of the sp doms will in fact tell you that they keep people at an arm's length. However, if you talk to most of the sx doms they will tell you that they generally get close to people very quickly and many an sx dom can meet someone in a day and feel like they have known them their whole life.

Wouldn't so-doms be more concerned with their place within the framework of their group or culture on some level? If they live in an area that places more emphasis on pairing off and having kids, could such a "bonding" lifestyle be more important to them? I know many so-doms who are very happy with traditional, married life (and who would also appear to be starry-eyed romantics when compared to me). I don't actually have a solid opinion on this; just throwing it out there for consideration.

Also, how can you possibly say that sx is not about lasting bonds? For instance, look at many of the Sx/sp people and they will generally tell you that they are looking for that one "perfect mate" that will complete them. I agree though, that sx/so bonds don't tend to be as long lasting.

While I'm sure that's true for many of them, I think this ignores the (probably substantial) pool of sx-doms who are not seeking a soul mate, and who indeed may not even believe in such an idea. I think that's the area [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] was getting at, and I would guess that it's just as common as the variety who need that perfect other person to "complete" them.

I think many sx-doms have a less idealistic approach, one that enables them to attract, attach, and let go more rapidly than might be expected of a hopeless romantic.

I tend to feel very anxious when a partner tells me he's "comfortable" in his relationship with me. I know that it's intended to be an expression of contentment, but for me, it's also foreshadowing the inevitable decay of attraction. Maybe that's my 7 talking, but I don't exactly feel compelled to stick it out for the long haul if we've already reached the apex of our excitement. In other words, I tend to fixate on energy, not so much on bonding (which I don't worry about, since I assume it will happen organically if the energy persists).

One could make the argument that the self-preservation in an sx/sp would foster a desire for the safety and comfort of, say, married life with the One, but I think it could also function in reverse. It's really about looking out for yourself first, controlling your own personal security. If you're more of a romantic, then sure, it might drive you to seek a soul mate. However, I'm sure there are plenty of sx/sp individuals who are just fine getting off and getting out, because it keeps them safe in a very different way.

I find a lot of this too literal over all though. It's more like WHY someone does something, not what they actually do. Sp-dom can be more about maintaining independence than comfort or health, and they can engage in indulgence and recklessness, and generally not look very responsible. Unlike the sx drive, this is about CONTROL, whereas sx seems more about the engagement with some other force.

I agree! There is a lot of emphasis on what, not enough on why. Sx-doms can be workaholics if they're really into and strongly identify with their occupations, for example. (If one's work is only an act of bringing home the bread and butter, then this will probably not be the case.)

In fact, I think there's an excessive focus on sex and relationships insofar as sx-doms are concerned; it's true that sex is a huge slice of the pie, but the instinct to passionately fixate on anything tends to be ignored in favor of the idea that its main drive is relationships alone. It's about intensity, energy, chemistry. You can still have all of that without a soul mate on the agenda.

 

[The Great One]

[MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION]

This applies to most human beings.

What particular aspect of this applies to most human beings specifically? That was a very vague statement.

Bonding quickly and lasting bonds are not the same thing. Consider the idea of "attracting" and "climax" again.

Well you have a point here. I almost see sx last bonds almost like Ned Stark and Lady Stark in "Game of Thrones". The two really didn't have chemistry in the beginning and slowly developed chemistry over time and eventually developed passion and feelings towards one another. While on the other hand, Sx last bonds tend to happen a lot slower than sx first bonds. Sx doms can damn near meet someone the same day and then be in love with them. While Sx last bonds can take months or even years to develop that sort of passion.

Because sx is frequently described as being fickle and leaving one stimulation that has grown dull in search of the next high.
So is about creating & sustaining niches with people, whether on a larger, social scale or more personal one. This does not have to be about social circles or work, but can include intimate relations with family & romantic partners.

But they aren't close, intense, and deep nitches like an sx dom.
[MENTION=13973]AntiheroComplex[/MENTION]

Wouldn't so-doms be more concerned with their place within the framework of their group or culture on some level? If they live in an area that places more emphasis on pairing off and having kids, could such a "bonding" lifestyle be more important to them? I know many so-doms who are very happy with traditional, married life (and who would also appear to be starry-eyed romantics when compared to me). I don't actually have a solid opinion on this; just throwing it out there for consideration.

They would could go after relationships for social reasons as opposed to sexual reasons. However, they would be doing it in order to fit into the social mold and for reasons of social prestige rather than doing it because they were longing for intimacy or because they were finding someone to complete them. In addition, I also know people that are sx last that very happy with traditional, married life and I'll use my grandparent's relationship as an example. My grandmother and grandfather were both sp/so and both got married for security reasons. My grandfather was a business executive for a large motor company and was a private investor as well, and my grandmother was a stay-at-home mom. My grandfather would go out there and make all the money and provide the family with security, and the grandmother would raise the children. Both of the grandparents provided security for one another and both loved each other very much. However, they didn't bond right away, but eventually came to love each other. I noticed that their relationship never had much passion, or intimacy, but it had security and that's what kept them together, and they were very happy.

While I'm sure that's true for many of them, I think this ignores the (probably substantial) pool of sx-doms who are not seeking a soul mate, and who indeed may not even believe in such an idea. I think that's the area [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] was getting at, and I would guess that it's just as common as the variety who need that perfect other person to "complete" them.

I think many sx-doms have a less idealistic approach, one that enables them to attract, attach, and let go more rapidly than might be expected of a hopeless romantic.

I tend to feel very anxious when a partner tells me he's "comfortable" in his relationship with me. I know that it's intended to be an expression of contentment, but for me, it's also foreshadowing the inevitable decay of attraction. Maybe that's my 7 talking, but I don't exactly feel compelled to stick it out for the long haul if we've already reached the apex of our excitement. In other words, I tend to fixate on energy, not so much on bonding (which I don't worry about, since I assume it will happen organically if the energy persists).

One could make the argument that the self-preservation in an sx/sp would foster a desire for the safety and comfort of, say, married life with the One, but I think it could also function in reverse. It's really about looking out for yourself first, controlling your own personal security. If you're more of a romantic, then sure, it might drive you to seek a soul mate. However, I'm sure there are plenty of sx/sp individuals who are just fine getting off and getting out, because it keeps them safe in a very different way.

I've heard this, and to me this is a truly ridiculous idea. Sx doms about 99% of the time (from what I have observed,) are constantly chasing after intimacy and relationships. Sx doms need someone to be close to, and they need someone to complete them. Now that special person may not be a lover, so to say, but they at least need like a very special friend or something to be close to. Sx needs to bond! I still say though, that the sx doms that don't need lovers nor relationships are as rare as the white siberian tiger though.

I agree! There is a lot of emphasis on what, not enough on why. Sx-doms can be workaholics if they're really into and strongly identify with their occupations, for example. (If one's work is only an act of bringing home the bread and butter, then this will probably not be the case.)

In fact, I think there's an excessive focus on sex and relationships insofar as sx-doms are concerned; it's true that sex is a huge slice of the pie, but the instinct to passionately fixate on anything tends to be ignored in favor of the idea that its main drive is relationships alone. It's about intensity, energy, chemistry. You can still have all of that without a soul mate on the agenda.

This is another thing that I always thought was total bullshit about sx doms: that they really need to be really passionate about their careers to get into them. Hell, I'm sure that there are several sx lasts that could easily say that they are passionate about their careers. This in no shape or form says anything about whether someone is an sx dom or not.

 

[OrangeAppled]

What particular aspect of this applies to most human beings specifically? That was a very vague statement.

Most of it, except wanting fast connections, perhaps.

Most humans are into sex & want close bonds with other humans, unless abused (or something) & even then they may still want the closeness.

But they aren't close, intense, and deep nitches like an sx dom.

For sx second I think they certainly can be. There are different way to be close & deep also. And my point about people injecting some intensity to stabilize bonds by deepening them stands. It may not be the focus for an sx last, and they may not get there easily or quickly, but it doesn't mean their life is kept devoid of it. I mean, even when sp or so is last, people still have to function in those areas too, if not at the very least to not have them interfere with our main drives.

They would could go after relationships for social reasons as opposed to sexual reasons.

This is too literal again.

However, they would be doing it in order to fit into the social mold and for reasons of social prestige rather than doing it because they were longing for intimacy or because they were finding someone to complete them.

Why do people seek prestige or to FIT a mold at all? Is that not the niche-seeking I spoke of? Perhaps they are not longing for intense intimacy, but maybe a kind which is comforting, which signals they have a FIT somewhere. Core type & Jungian type is always go to give some more of a one-on-one focus than a group focus, even if social first & sx last.

In addition, I also know people that are sx last that very happy with traditional, married life and I'll use my grandparent's relationship as an example. My grandmother and grandfather were both sp/so and both got married for security reasons. My grandfather was a business executive for a large motor company and was a private investor as well, and my grandmother was a stay-at-home mom. My grandfather would go out there and make all the money and provide the family with security, and the grandmother would raise the children. Both of the grandparents provided security for one another and both loved each other very much. However, they didn't bond right away, but eventually came to love each other. I noticed that their relationship never had much passion, or intimacy, but it had security and that's what kept them together, and they were very happy.

Yes - security, or a FIT or NICHE somewhere (and your grandparents sound like products of their generation). But I think some sx last might still want closeness as a sign of security. It's not about intensity than feeling connected in a comfortable way. These bonds are not all dry & dull. The so instinct can make people very playful and vibrant.

I've heard this, and to me this is a truly ridiculous idea. Sx doms about 99% of the time (from what I have observed,) are constantly chasing after intimacy and relationships. Sx doms need someone to be close to, and they need someone to complete them. Now that special person may not be a lover, so to say, but they at least need like a very special friend or something to be close to. Sx needs to bond! I still say though, that the sx doms that don't need lovers nor relationships are as rare as the white siberian tiger though.

We're back to square one & the circular reasoning.... Chasing after the initial high, yes, but motivation to sustain & feel completed (find a niche!!!) is more related to the more "stabilizing" so instinct. sp/sx and sx/sp are said to be the most fickle in relationships because of this (the push-pull).

 

[Avocado]

About 99% of the sx doms that I have met are into sex. I mean, I guess if one was an sx dom and was repeatedly raped as a child, then they may not be that into sex, but they would still be into deep bonding with another individual. I believe that there is a strong correlation between sex and the sx variant because SX likes to get close to people fast, and what activity could be more intense and more intimate than sex? I mean really.



I don't agree with any of the bolded. I personally don't believe bonding to be a social activity at all. In fact, if you talk to many of the sp/so and so/sp people they will in fact tell you that it takes them a long time to get close to people and that their relationships often cultivate after elongated periods of time. In fact, most of the sp doms will in fact tell you that they keep people at an arm's length. However, if you talk to most of the sx doms they will tell you that they generally get close to people very quickly and many an sx dom can meet someone in a day and feel like they have known them their whole life.

Also, how can you possibly say that sx is not about lasting bonds? For instance, look at many of the Sx/sp people and they will generally tell you that they are looking for that one "perfect mate" that will complete them. I agree though, that sx/so bonds don't tend to be as long lasting.

If that is the case, I am So/Sx, rather than So/Sp. I just have doubts about Sx becuase I aviod aggression and I tend to at least try and make decisions that will form a safety net I can use to e the ideal father in the future—close to my progeny, always present, warm, caring, cheerful, and fun. I wish to have children that will follow their own dreams, think their own thoughts…all while having a peaceful, cheerful home to fall back on in hard times.

I just couldn't jive with the idea of So/Sx taking such big risks…
I tend to calculate rather or not a move is worth it in the long run.

Of course, the lifestyle of a great author or artist still beckons to me. To settle the rift between my need for fulfillment and my need for fun and my need for security, I plan to teach high school. It will fulfill all three to some extent. I can create projects for the kids that let them be imaginative, I'll get summers off to be a family man/writer/artist, and I'll have a steady income to balance out the ups and downs of the art business.

 

[Avocado]

[MENTION=15607]The Great One[/MENTION]
What do you think…

 

[The Great One]

[MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION]

Most of it, except wanting fast connections, perhaps.

Most humans are into sex & want close bonds with other humans, unless abused (or something) & even then they may still want the closeness.

I don't buy it. In fact, if you reference this thread...

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/enneagram/53183-what-really-like-sexual-last.html

You will see that most of the sexual lasts will tell you that they are very uncomfortable with closeness and intimacy. In addition, I find that many sx last types really could give less of a damn about sex at all.

For sx second I think they certainly can be. There are different way to be close & deep also. And my point about people injecting some intensity to stabilize bonds by deepening them stands. It may not be the focus for an sx last, and they may not get there easily or quickly, but it doesn't mean their life is kept devoid of it. I mean, even when sp or so is last, people still have to function in those areas too, if not at the very least to not have them interfere with our main drives.

You raise a good point though. I would like to see how sexual firsts and sexual seconds compare when it comes to intimacy and closeness needs. This intrigues me.

This is too literal again.

No it's not. It explains that there are different reasons for wanting a relationship other than just for intimacy. One has to take this into consideration when considering one's variants.

Yes - security, or a FIT or NICHE somewhere (and your grandparents sound like products of their generation). But I think some sx last might still want closeness as a sign of security. It's not about intensity than feeling connected in a comfortable way. These bonds are not all dry & dull. The so instinct can make people very playful and vibrant.

No they are pretty dry in my opinion. They lack that passion that the sx variant carries.
[MENTION=18694]Magic Qwan[/MENTION]

If that is the case, I am So/Sx, rather than So/Sp. I just have doubts about Sx becuase I aviod aggression and I tend to at least try and make decisions that will form a safety net I can use to e the ideal father in the future—close to my progeny, always present, warm, caring, cheerful, and fun. I wish to have children that will follow their own dreams, think their own thoughts…all while having a peaceful, cheerful home to fall back on in hard times.

I just couldn't jive with the idea of So/Sx taking such big risks…
I tend to calculate rather or not a move is worth it in the long run.

Of course, the lifestyle of a great author or artist still beckons to me. To settle the rift between my need for fulfillment and my need for fun and my need for security, I plan to teach high school. It will fulfill all three to some extent. I can create projects for the kids that let them be imaginative, I'll get summers off to be a family man/writer/artist, and I'll have a steady income to balance out the ups and downs of the art business.

Yeah everything you just said here sounds sx last. You sound so/sp.

 

[Luv Deluxe]

I've heard this, and to me this is a truly ridiculous idea. Sx doms about 99% of the time (from what I have observed,) are constantly chasing after intimacy and relationships. Sx doms need someone to be close to, and they need someone to complete them. Now that special person may not be a lover, so to say, but they at least need like a very special friend or something to be close to. Sx needs to bond! I still say though, that the sx doms that don't need lovers nor relationships are as rare as the white siberian tiger though.

Hahaha! Nah, I do need lovers, but I'm definitely not that person who can't be single, or who needs to hold somebody's hand on every trip to the gas station.

I do know several sx-doms who are completely enamored with and dependent upon their relationships with the people in their lives. I don't like to rely on others for my happiness, so I fill myself up with my interests instead. At the same time, without those interests, my job, and yes, the handful of people I've got on my radar, I wouldn't know who I was because I've so completely merged with these sources of energy.

Still, it's energy. It's not a romantic quest for Prince Charming.

However...will I act out and seek a way to satisfy my hunger when I feel depressed about the bonds that I do have? Yes.

This is another thing that I always thought was total bullshit about sx doms: that they really need to be really passionate about their careers to get into them. Hell, I'm sure that there are several sx lasts that could easily say that they are passionate about their careers. This in no shape or form says anything about whether someone is an sx dom or not.

Agreed, being passionate about one's career doesn't make someone an sx-dom; however, this person could be an sx-dom. Being intensely identified and "in love" with a cause or an occupation - or shit, even a hobby (which, with this kind of magnetized focus, could likely become part of one's job) - is a way for an sx-dom to bond with something that doesn't necessarily have to be a person.

I will add that, for me at least, there is always some kind of sexual undercurrent there, even in those driving interests that don't initially seem sexual. For example, ice hockey. If you're an sx-dom and hockey's one of your fuel sources, getting a great goal is probably going to feel kind of orgasmic. You'll feel very, very sexy. Something down there in your gut is behind the love of your interest/hobby/occupation, and that something is probably connected to how desirable you feel doing it. Yeah, it's fun. It's also sexy fun.

The endgame doesn't have to include hunting down a mate, though - at least, not a permanent one. I simply like to feel attractive and attracted all the time; finding "the one" doesn't have to be a part of that.

So, I guess "bonding" isn't such a bad word. Sx-doms do need to bond to something, I will absolutely say that; my point here was simply that another person doesn't always have to function as the primary or sole source of excitement, and that it doesn't have to be all flowers and true love and eternity.

 

[Chad of the OttomanEmpire]

About 99% of the sx doms that I have met are into sex. I mean, I guess if one was an sx dom and was repeatedly raped as a child, then they may not be that into sex, but they would still be into deep bonding with another individual. I believe that there is a strong correlation between sex and the sx variant because SX likes to get close to people fast, and what activity could be more intense and more intimate than sex? I mean really.

I can get close to members of my own gender fast without having to have sex with them. I can get immerse myself in an art project, or spirituality, or a profound life experience without having sex. I can obtain a sense of unity and oneness with the universe or other human beings without having sex. This is far more what the instinct is about than just being "promiscuous". Just like socials aren't necessarily sociable, into networking, or social climbers--indeed, some are adamantly bitter about such things.

Yes, the sx-instinct ties into "sex", but so do other aspects of our lives. Many non-sexual firsts are really into sex as well. In fact, I'd say most human beings. Most animals in general. What we're looking at in terms of enneagram instincts is neurosis--what instinct makes you neurotic? (Not, what instinct makes you happy). The focus on "having sex" as a criterion for determining instincts is the reason that many initially mistype as sx-first.

Also, how many sx-doms do you know? I was under the impression they are quite rare.

 

[The Great One]

[MENTION=13973]AntiheroComplex[/MENTION]

Hahaha! Nah, I do need lovers, but I'm definitely not that person who can't be single, or who needs to hold somebody's hand on every trip to the gas station.

I do know several sx-doms who are completely enamored with and dependent upon their relationships with the people in their lives. I don't like to rely on others for my happiness, so I fill myself up with my interests instead. At the same time, without those interests, my job, and yes, the handful of people I've got on my radar, I wouldn't know who I was because I've so completely merged with these sources of energy.

Still, it's energy. It's not a romantic quest for Prince Charming.

However...will I act out and seek a way to satisfy my hunger when I feel depressed about the bonds that I do have? Yes.

See you do it too. You actively seek out lovers like most Sx doms and have that craving. I've noticed that with the sx last types, they tend to not put that much emphasis on this, and they tend to kind of take it or leave it.

So, I guess "bonding" isn't such a bad word. Sx-doms do need to bond to something, I will absolutely say that; my point here was simply that another person doesn't always have to function as the primary or sole source of excitement, and that it doesn't have to be all flowers and true love and eternity.

It is about 99% of the time though.
[MENTION=18576]Sanjuro[/MENTION]

I can get close to members of my own gender fast without having to have sex with them. I can get immerse myself in an art project, or spirituality, or a profound life experience without having sex. I can obtain a sense of unity and oneness with the universe or other human beings without having sex. This is far more what the instinct is about than just being "promiscuous".

Well the fact that you can get close to members of your own gender fast makes it more believable that you actually are an sx dom now. However, I can't really judge you sexually and relationship-wise because I don't know you personally, and you could have had some type of psychological traumas or whatnot that resulted in this. I will say that it's VERY strange for an sx dom to be like this though.

Just like socials aren't necessarily sociable, into networking, or social climbers--indeed, some are adamantly bitter about such things.

Most socials are into these types of things though, and that goes double for the extraverts. The so doms that don't typically seem like so doms are the social 5's. They tend to be very out of touch with the social world and generally try to develop some skill in order to help them to find their place in society and often times to be accepted.

Yes, the sx-instinct ties into "sex", but so do other aspects of our lives. Many non-sexual firsts are really into sex as well. In fact, I'd say most human beings. Most animals in general. What we're looking at in terms of enneagram instincts is neurosis--what instinct makes you neurotic? (Not, what instinct makes you happy). The focus on "having sex" as a criterion for determining instincts is the reason that many initially mistype as sx-first.

From the research that I have done, the sx lasts don't tend to be very into sex. However, if they are, I've found that it's generally more for purposes of pure hedonism rather than for bonding purposes. If the sx last types do have sex for reasons of connection, I've noticed that they don't bond nearly as quickly with the individual that they are having sex with, as the sx first types. It seems like sx first types can fall in love with someone in just a matter of days. Then, the sx seconds can fall in love with someone in a few months. Finally, the sx lasts tend to take many months or even years to fall in love. It seems as though the stronger your sx is, the faster that you bond to someone or something.

 

[Chad of the OttomanEmpire]

Well the fact that you can get close to members of your own gender fast makes it more believable that you actually are an sx dom now. However, I can't really judge you sexually and relationship-wise because I don't know you personally, and you could have had some type of psychological traumas or whatnot that resulted in this. I will say that it's VERY strange for an sx dom to be like this though.

Most socials are into these types of things though, and that goes double for the extraverts. The so doms that don't typically seem like so doms are the social 5's. They tend to be very out of touch with the social world and generally try to develop some skill in order to help them to find their place in society and often times to be accepted.

From the research that I have done, the sx lasts don't tend to be very into sex. However, if they are, I've found that it's generally more for purposes of pure hedonism rather than for bonding purposes. If the sx last types do have sex for reasons of connection, I've noticed that they don't bond nearly as quickly with the individual that they are having sex with, as the sx first types. It seems like sx first types can fall in love with someone in just a matter of days. Then, the sx seconds can fall in love with someone in a few months. Finally, the sx lasts tend to take many months or even years to fall in love. It seems as though the stronger your sx is, the faster that you bond to someone or something.

Great One, I don't know how to say this nicely--simply put, you just don't understand the instincts.

"Sexual" is not about "sex". Social is not about "being social". This is the reason so many people mistype as sx/sp at first--they like sex, and they're not good at being social. There's far, far more to each of the instincts than this. Every time you invoke my tortured lack of a sexual life as proof I'm not sexual-first, that a) reminds me of my own inadequacies (so stop!) and b) makes me take your opinions on my instincts less seriously.

Riso and Hudson are foremost experts on this subject; I recommend you read their words:

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/articles/nartinstvar.asp#.UhBg0tJHIfU

Your dominant instinct gives you neuroses and problems revolving around it--you can overindulge it, or become extremely rejecting of it. Now, I am open to having my mind changed (in part because I DON'T see myself as being someone so desperate to be in a relationship that I'll cling to the first person I come across). Argue whatever you want to about my instincts, but show me that
- you understand the full implications of each instinct, and that
- my life reflects a neurosis around it.
Don't just say that I'm not sexual because I am a loner and haven't been promiscuous. That's not good enough.

 

[Luv Deluxe]

See you do it too. You actively seek out lovers like most Sx doms and have that craving. I've noticed that with the sx last types, they tend to not put that much emphasis on this, and they tend to kind of take it or leave it.

From the research that I have done, the sx lasts don't tend to be very into sex. However, if they are, I've found that it's generally more for purposes of pure hedonism rather than for bonding purposes. If the sx last types do have sex for reasons of connection, I've noticed that they don't bond nearly as quickly with the individual that they are having sex with, as the sx first types. It seems like sx first types can fall in love with someone in just a matter of days. Then, the sx seconds can fall in love with someone in a few months. Finally, the sx lasts tend to take many months or even years to fall in love. It seems as though the stronger your sx is, the faster that you bond to someone or something.

Am I all that unusual, then, because I resist falling in love? I can recognize the addictive high I'm feeling in my head, the electricity in my skin, and I want more of it - to experience it so completely that I forget the constant seeking.

However, I fear falling in love with people. To be honest, I'm not sure that it's ever happened. "Love" feels like a foreign concept, a word that romantics like to assign to their primal desire for sex. I think I've felt love before, but it's such a heavy word and I would never apply it too readily. It's much easier to enjoy the chemical buzz and leave it at that. (If the chemistry is long-lasting, so magnetic that it almost hurts, then I will begin to attach...but I tend to repress and struggle against it even while it's happening. I'm terrified of giving in because it feels like surrendering my happiness to somebody else.) Any chance that this could be some manifestation of sx/sp?

I do seek lovers, but my approach feels divergent from those that I see others frequently using.

I have a number of female friends who seem to need romantic relationships, in the most traditional sense of the word. If a reasonably attractive guy gives them any sort of attention, boom - they're suddenly obsessed. Sounds like a pack of sx-doms on the surface - maybe - but their energy is very different from my own...so much so that they've often come across to me as uptight and even prudish whenever my essence apparently comes on too strong for their liking. Which is often.

For example: we might be at some venue or party, relaxing in mixed company, when I notice that I've earned judgmental stares from one or more of them. Sometimes I ask about it later and am usually met with responses like, "Well, even the way you walk is suggestive," or, "It's a mystery to me how you can be so blatantly sexual - no way would I have the confidence for that." Most of the time I don't realize what I have specifically done to merit those comments; I'm just being myself. This happened several times in the last week alone, so I'm kind of venting about it.

These women will pursue the attention of the men they're interested in, hoping to cultivate happily-ever-after seeds. They sometimes (frequently) put a lot of work into this goal with ultimately nothing to show for it. I, on the other hand, might not even be consciously aware of how quickly I'm engaging someone. It feels so natural, light and easy and fun. Sometimes, before I've really thought about what's happening...well, things progress. I can form friendships quickly, and that absolutely includes non-platonic ones.

When my female friends do pair off, they typically hang most of their hopes and expectations on their boyfriends (even if they don't readily acknowledge it). They're also hoping the relationship lasts as long as possible; for them, that's ideally forever, as long as the sailing's smooth. They tend to be dumped more often, too. I enter relationships with the acceptance that they are most likely finite, and I almost always initiate the break-ups.

One could argue that these women are sx-dom individuals, but their attachment style screams of codependency in contrast with mine (which looks more like an intense hunger, desire for desire's sake, some kind of restless addiction).

Which leads me to this:

Also, how many sx-doms do you know? I was under the impression they are quite rare.

I have also read this several times, and I believe it. Most publications will devote a paragraph or two as a sort of disclaimer, warning that many people like to declare themselves sx-dom because almost everybody loves sex, and almost everyone loves to feel sexy. In reality, this is a very shallow glimpse of the overall drive of a highly complicated instinct.

With all of that in mind, would these aforementioned friends of mine really qualify as sx-dom? I feel as though they are more likely so-dom, knowing them as I do, but their desperation to find men who complete them would be a symptom of the sexual instinct (according to some of the brief, simplified definitions offered here).

If an almighty need to bond with that special someone forever and ever OMG SO ROMANTIC YAY is the sole criterion for sx first...I think of women like those in my sample, aaaaand I consequently don't think of the sexual instinct at all. That's why I've been so quick to debate the integrity of this particular trait. (I do have one codependent friend who is definitely sx-dom, but it's an energy/fixation thing - and even if it's difficult to put into words, it's very easy to spot the difference between her and the others.)

But hey, could both of these approaches exist as flavors of the sexual instinct, influenced by core Enneagram type and broader instinctual stacking? Possibly.

I'll be honest, though - I have rarely met anybody whose energy flows and directs itself as mine does. I can be decidedly withdrawn, but once I've switched on, I'm almost too much for the people around me.

I think it really is more unusual than most will admit to themselves, and I also think it's very hard to miss an sx-dom upon encountering one in person.

 

[skylights]

In relation to the thread as a whole, I think it's important to note that any variant can do any activity for a number of different reasons, so it might be likely to find two people of completely different stackings performing the same activities for different reasons - not to mention that we all bear some degree of all the instincts, and may well be different stackings and still performing the same activities for the same reasons. The instincts are instincts, after all, things that we are biologically programmed for at our animal-brain levels, so in essence they are really all activities that we feel some degree of compulsion to do. As has been noted, we all desire some degree of intimacy and stimulation... we all look at our place in the greater context... we all keep track of our resources... we are all sx, so, and sp... just in different orders.

That said, particularly likely activities, as related to variant:

Social

- Keeping up with who, when, and where
- Inviting and introducing
- Intentionally avoiding certain events or people
- Merging groups with one another, or making specific connections
- Keeping an eye out for the good of everyone involved
- Playing mediator between parties
- Getting involved with community-level or larger organizations or projects

Self-Preservational

- Performing upkeep on possessions - house, car, etc.
- Keeping close track of financial expenditures, income, and assets
- Eating, sleeping, having sex, etc. when and how it feels most needed
- Keeping a safe, comfortable, and well-provisioned home
- Ensuring they have all the resources they need - clothes, food, etc.
- Keeping an eye on others' resources and resource use
- Providing resources for others

Sexual

- Outfitting/adorning themselves to be attractive or striking
- Engaging interesting/attractive people in conversation or activities
- Engaging in intense activities and immersive experiences
- Performing through some creative outlet (art, music, writing, photography, etc.)
- Following the most interesting/engaging train of energy
- Cyclically assert then withdraw
- Very focused push and pull of energy

Interesting discussions, guys, I'm glad to be reading.

Just like socials aren't necessarily sociable, into networking, or social climbers--indeed, some are adamantly bitter about such things.

Most socials are into these types of things though, and that goes double for the extraverts.

Yes and no, I think. It's a little more nuanced than that, in my opinion. Extraverts are of course compelled to engage with their environment, so we are inherently driven to find a stir anywhere we are. In terms of socials, though, I do think that you (TGO) have a little bit more of a "superficial" impression of so-first than I think is the reality, probably because it does lend itself to "shallow" stereotypes of things like gossip, social climbing, celebrity watching, and other less-than-sophisticated tendencies. I suspect that most social dominants probably will go through learning phases of cliquishness just like sx will go through broody overdramatism and sp will go through only-i-can-do-this-right-ism, but it's not really a fair representation of the mature instinct.

In reality, I think most so-firsts will be socially attuned, naturally aware of hierarchies, clear on the benefit of getting to know certain people, and natively seeing paths to navigate social channels - thus lending them towards socializing, networking, and rising in hierarchy if they choose to do so. But I myself find a lot of distaste in the idea of "social climbing" in terms of using connections to personally get ahead without regard to others - the social instinct also comes with a degree of awareness of group health and benefit, and a social dominant should be particularly aware of exactly how they're screwing anyone over if they do so. I am a social creature but I am not the "social butterfly" type - I like to be around crowds, but not in the middle of them, and I like to cooperate, but in structured group organizations. I also find most celebrity attention very distasteful... I think humanitarian leaders ought to be famous and their work and philosophies popularized, not entertainment stars getting glorified or trashed for their clothing or who they sleep with. I couldn't care less.

In summary, I think the social instinct has a "gossip magazine" reputation, but I think it's far more like international politics.

Like any instinct, it has the good, the bad, and the ugly.

I think it really is more unusual than most will admit to themselves, and I also think it's very hard to miss an sx-dom upon encountering one in person.

I agree. I don't know nearly as many sx-doms as I thought I did when I first got into this, myself included! I do also think it is harder to mistype than the other variants, especially sx/so. Sx/sp and sp/sx can seem fairly similar to me at times and harder to distinguish when the two are close, or with certain enneatypes.

From the research that I have done, the sx lasts don't tend to be very into sex.

You will see that most of the sexual lasts will tell you that they are very uncomfortable with closeness and intimacy. In addition, I find that many sx last types really could give less of a damn about sex at all.

Haha, well, from personal experience, I don't know if that's quite true! I think they do give a damn about sex and are into it, it just may be in a different way than sx-first caring - putting less importance on it. And being uncomfortable of course does not necessarily mean not wanting - it often means not feeling competent, confident, or secure. The ENFP 9w1 so/sp that I mentioned earlier does desire to be in an intimate relationship, but she struggles with feeling really uncomfortable when potential partners begin to draw close. It's her own instincts saying "don't get hurt", I guess, and her having to overcome that to achieve the sort of relationship she desires. I think our instincts are far more unconscious than conscious, and more like perspectives than decisions. An sp/so I know enjoys sex and does desire it with some degree of regularity, but also I think tends to prioritize most other things over it - so it's not a case of not caring, but a case of feeling like other needs take precedent, with sex being somewhat self-indulgent recreation. I think many of us tend to feel that way about our last instinct - that it's sort of frivolous and trivial compared to our other needs. We might still recognize that its effects are important, but the process feels like a relative misuse of time when there's so much else to do. "Indulging" it can make us superego-affected types (9w1, 1w2, 2w1, 2w3, 5w6, 6w5, 6w7, and 7w6) in particular feel guilty.

However, if they are, I've found that it's generally more for purposes of pure hedonism rather than for bonding purposes. If the sx last types do have sex for reasons of connection, I've noticed that they don't bond nearly as quickly with the individual that they are having sex with, as the sx first types.

Well, I think for some sex doesn't have to be a means of deepening connection to be desirable or worthwhile. In addition to that, it can also be about the enjoyment, the release, the comfort, the compatibility, the partnership, the give-and-take, the power exchange, and probably any other number of factors I haven't thought of. I think with sp and so, there's less a focus on more-more-more/deeper-deeper-deeper and the "spark", and more a focus on "let's keep this going" (sp) and "let's keep on the same plane together" (so). Non-sx-firsts will probably be more hesitant to deepen to quickly for concern that deepening faster than we are comfortable with can throw the relationship balance and security off, as well as jeopardizing our personal lives. So when we have sex, we might not want to be pushing that. For myself, I find curling up together and "pillow talking", especially talking about a shared idealized future together, to be the deepest level of bonding/intimacy, and mostly enjoy sex as pleasurable release.

Also thanks for the mention TGO

 

[Chad of the OttomanEmpire]

I have also read this several times, and I believe it. Most publications will devote a paragraph or two as a sort of disclaimer, warning that many people like to declare themselves sx-dom because almost everybody loves sex, and almost everyone loves to feel sexy. In reality, this is a very shallow glimpse of the overall drive of a highly complicated instinct.

Everywhere I've gone, I've seen this. There aren't any statistical studies or anything, but most seem to agree that sx-doms aren't very common IRL. (I personally have never really met anyone that fulfills the criteria claimed to be sx-dominance, but that's just me).

With all of that in mind, would these aforementioned friends of mine really qualify as sx-dom? I feel as though they are more likely so-dom, knowing them as I do, but their desperation to find men who complete them would be a symptom of the sexual instinct (according to some of the brief, simplified definitions offered here).

If an almighty need to bond with that special someone forever and ever OMG SO ROMANTIC YAY is the sole criterion for sx first...I think of women like those in my sample, aaaaand I consequently don't think of the sexual instinct at all. That's why I've been so quick to debate the integrity of this particular trait. (I do have one codependent friend who is definitely sx-dom, but it's an energy/fixation thing - and even if it's difficult to put into words, it's very easy to spot the difference between her and the others.)

Again, I agree with this. MOST women I've met have been eager to find someone to "complete" them--speaking as a woman myself, there's a very pervasive sentiment that you're nothing without a partner in life. Most women seem to go in for this, too, yet I doubt all of them are sx-doms. Actually, most of them seem to be sp-doms or soc-doms who want future security and/or stability, and look to a partnership to help them do just that--be secure and/or socially acceptable.

These same ladies could read about sx-firsts needing someone to "complete" them and be all confused.

That's what I think.

 

[pinkgraffiti]

Oh... I thought you meant them numbers.


For ennegram 5s, there is only one answer, and that is masturbating into a bowl of corn flakes.

do you eat them after? honest question