[so] Being so/sx

[Lia_kat]

I generally only like this subtype if they're gut types (with particular disdain for 4s, 6s and 7s of this subtype).

How come? Curious..

 

[EJCC]

Just to whine a little bit:

I have so many friends who I want to get to know better, and I just don't have the time or the energy.

If I drop off the map, it's (probably) not because I don't like you -- it's because you fell off my radar.

It sounds bad, but... :/

 

[Elfboy]

How come? Curious..

Social 4: perpetually over-dramatic, "woe is me" and victim playing
Social 6: hyper rules, authority and bureaucracy oriented (think the military of most countries)
Social 7: pretentious, pseudo-spirtual hippies who are actually charlatans talking out of their asses

Edit: I'm adding Social 5 to the list too, because they glorify the shit out of being intellectual for its own sake as the pinnacle of existence.

 

[Yama]

Social 6: hyper rules, authority and bureaucracy oriented (think the military of most countries)

The so/sp 6 is a lot more authority-focused than the so/sx 6, which cares more about connection with individuals than with organizations and groups like the so/sp 6. This is actually a major reason why when I (&friends) decided I'm not sp-first, it made more sense for me to be so/sx than so/sp (because so/sx is much lighter). That, and so/sx is synflow while so/sp is contraflow.

Six Stacks | The Enneagram ...info from the underground.



Also, popping in to say hello. It's been a few days but my mind is still boggled over this whole sp-last thing. Please tell me more about this.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

For me:

I spread myself thin, socially. I'm friendly with a whole lot of people, and bad at maintaining contact with many of them, but that doesn't keep me from trying. It's a constant struggle to not completely fall off the map with everyone who isn't in my immediate vicinity.

I'm good at being in small to medium-sized groups. Groups where I can guarantee that I like everybody. I have a hard time being in groups of people where I don't like everybody. When I was younger, I tended to not be a member of any group because I liked to curate my group, only hanging out with the people I liked. The problem was that that wasn't all that sustainable in the long run, because those people had their own groups that they were loyal to -- whereas the only commonality of my group was me.

Needless to say, all the social-first things are true: I view things in terms of groups, hierarchies, power dynamics. I'm pretty stereotypically social-first in that I follow politics pretty closely, I almost feel like I have a moral obligation to know what's going on in the world, and to help out in any way I can (social-first 1 reporting for duty). And sexual-second... it's tough because as a Te-dom I'm not that touchy-feely, but I resonate a lot with sp-last descriptions (I burn myself out on the regular), and I put a lot of energy into my top two love languages (Acts of Service and Quality Time).

I never felt like I have an issue with maintaining close relationships. Actually if a relationship it is not close is not a real relationship for me. So I either have very close friends or just people I came across, but nothing in between.
I remember when I dated my ex, he usually said stuff like; "My friends are your friends too." But I never saw it like that, because if there is a lack connection between me and others, I don't think they are my friends.
When I really want someone to be my friend, I make as much effort as I possibly can to establish a deep bound between us, I don't forget people. And usually I feel like I am comfortable with what I have, with friends that I already have and I don't feel the need to make new ones. I more prone to make an older relationship deeper than to establish a completely new one.

Maybe I am sx first

 

[EJCC]

I never felt like I have an issue with maintaining close relationships. Actually if a relationship it is not close is not a real relationship for me. So I either have very close friends or just people I came across, but nothing in between.
I remember when I dated my ex, he usually said stuff like; "My friends are your friends too." But I never saw it like that, because if there is a lack connection between me and others, I don't think they are my friends.
When I really want someone to be my friend, I make as much effort as I possibly can to establish a deep bound between us, I don't forget people. And usually I feel like I am comfortable with what I have, with friends that I already have and I don't feel the need to make new ones. I more prone to make an older relationship deeper than to establish a completely new one.

Maybe I am sx first

This does sound sx-first, yeah.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

This does sound sx-first, yeah.

You just made me doubt my whole stacking lol thanks EJCC

 

[Yama]

I spread myself thin, socially. I'm friendly with a whole lot of people, and bad at maintaining contact with many of them, but that doesn't keep me from trying. It's a constant struggle to not completely fall off the map with everyone who isn't in my immediate vicinity.

I'm good at being in small to medium-sized groups. Groups where I can guarantee that I like everybody. I have a hard time being in groups of people where I don't like everybody.

I never felt like I have an issue with maintaining close relationships. Actually if a relationship it is not close is not a real relationship for me. So I either have very close friends or just people I came across, but nothing in between.
I remember when I dated my ex, he usually said stuff like; "My friends are your friends too." But I never saw it like that, because if there is a lack connection between me and others, I don't think they are my friends.

I can actually relate a lot to both of these. I'm friendly with everyone (my only qualification for whether I like someone or not is if they're nice to me, and my definition of nice basically just means "not mean") but I am really, really bad at maintaining contact. I have my close friends, who I keep in regular contact with, and then I have friends who are my friends because we were friends in elementary and high school but we rarely ever talk (seriously really bad at maintaining these friends), and then strangers. I haven't been able to make any non-online friends in many years because of how poor I am at maintaining budding friendships. Then they just end up kinda dying (this may also be where my introversion plays in). It's like I have friends and then friendly strangers and then strangers and not really any in between.

I also prefer small groups to large groups and one-on-one. Small groups are small enough for me to feel comfortable participating, but one-on-one can be extremely intimidating to me if I don't know the person well.

 

[EJCC]

Revisiting this.

I never felt like I have an issue with maintaining close relationships. Actually if a relationship it is not close is not a real relationship for me. So I either have very close friends or just people I came across, but nothing in between.
I remember when I dated my ex, he usually said stuff like; "My friends are your friends too." But I never saw it like that, because if there is a lack connection between me and others, I don't think they are my friends.

I do relate to this, but I usually phrase it much more optimistically.

My hierarchy is as follows:

1. Very close friends
2. Friends
3. Friendly acquaintances

The generous phrasing in #3 is because a lot of the time, the only thing stopping those people from being friends is the amount of time I can commit to them. I only have so much energy for friend time, and sometimes those missed friendship opportunities make me sad.

When I really want someone to be my friend, I make as much effort as I possibly can to establish a deep bound between us, I don't forget people. And usually I feel like I am comfortable with what I have, with friends that I already have and I don't feel the need to make new ones. I more prone to make an older relationship deeper than to establish a completely new one.

Not sure if I relate to this.

 

[Yama]

Not sure if I relate to this.

^Perhaps that's where introverted so vs. extroverted so plays in? I'm also the type to generally say that I'm fine with the friends I have rather than constantly looking to expand (because that sounds exhausting to me).

 

[magpie]

That, and so/sx is synflow while so/sp is contraflow.

This may not be the thread for it, but would you mind explaining synflow and contraflow?

 

[Yama]

This may not be the thread for it, but would you mind explaining synflow and contraflow?

I am still learning about it myself, but there is a handy dandy thread here I can link you to that I've been using!

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/instinctual-subtypes/80335-syn-flow-contra-flow-instincts.html

I am definitely synflow. I think you are contraflow. sp/sx is contraflow, so that works!

 

[magpie]

I am still learning about it myself, but there is a handy dandy thread here I can link you to that I've been using!

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/instinctual-subtypes/80335-syn-flow-contra-flow-instincts.html

I am definitely synflow. I think you are contraflow. sp/sx is contraflow, so that works!

thanks. "Seething belligerent outsiders" lol yes that's me.

 

[Pionart]

Girrrrrrl, you so/sx

 

[thoughtlost]

Can I clear the air a bit on this Instinctual stuff? [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION] asked some very good/wise questions, which need to be answered. Instincts is kind of a pet topic of mine, not because I'm an expert, but because I have an unending curiosity around the topic. Instincts is actually a lot more simple than all of these descriptive notions I see spewed all over the Internet. Instinctual stack signifies emotional needs. If one studies Claudio Naranjo, this is pretty clear. In the following the word "need" could be interchanged with "desire" (as these are not always healthy "needs", more like things we believe we "need").

SO - vocal, needs to contribute (usually verbally) to a group dynamic. This manifests in a slightly different way for each core, but the theme maintains.

• So/Sx - Verbal contribution + depth of connection, need for intimacy and intensity. Lack of need for security, caution or boundaries.
• So/Sp - Verbal contribution + protection/safety and concern with resources. Lack of desire for depth, intense intimacy.

SP - closed off, needs to ensure (emotional) safety before proceeding. This manifests in a slightly different way for each core, but the theme maintains.

• Sp/Sx - Need for protection/safety + depth of connection, need for intimacy and intensity. Lack of need to verbally contribute to a group dynamic.
• Sp/So - Need for protection/safety + verbal contribution to a group dynamic. Lack of desire for depth, intense intimacy.

SX - Intense need for intimacy and depth. This manifests in a slightly different way for each core, but the theme maintains.

• Sx/Sp - Need for intense intimacy and depth of connection + need for protection/safety. Lack of need to verbally contribute to a group dynamic.
• Sx/So - Need for intense intimacy and depth of connection + verbal contribution to a group dynamic. Lack of need for security, caution or boundaries.

This stuff is pretty darn straight forward, and very apparent in people if you watch for it. It should be noted that a "first" instinct usually needs to be met before the individual would progress to the auxillory need. The stack is a prioritization of needs.

I made some info graphics on my blog about core specific instincts (according to Naranjo and Ichazo) which can be very helpful, if anyone is interested.

I wanted to quote you because I am still trying to figure out instincts I guess. I'd rather start with this description since it's simpler.

If I am understanding this correctly, verbal contribution is not something I am feel like I am good at. I never feel like I can carry a successful conversation with people, whether it's one person or more. At the same time, I am not shy and some of my biggest worries is that I am saying something that offends people because I am not the best at shutting up. So sometimes, I can leave an interaction thinking that person hates me because I am obnoxious and I don't feel like I give people enough person/psychological space. I tend to think that people would like me better if I was this extremely quiet/shy/hidden person who truly is a wallflower... but I bring too much attention to myself and really worry that I scare people away.

I definitely have the opposite problem, compared to some of what I hear on typoc. Some people come off cold (IRL) and distant (and that's why they struggle in social situations) and I've NEVER gotten that opinion in real life. I struggle in another way. I love connecting and stuff, but I feel like I scare away the people I want to connect with. I remember my 7th grade teacher wanting me to talk to this new student (she thought we would bond because I appeared shy and so did the new kid), but as soon as she put us together I was like all "I REALLY LIKE CHEESE! DO YOU LIKE CHEESE? CHEESE IS AWESOME. HI MY NAME IS THOUGHTLOST... I REALLY LIKE CHEESE."

...lucky for me, the new kid also really liked cheese.

Anyway, this is one part of my personality that I hate because I don't feel like it's a likeable/respectable quality to have.

 

[Yama]

Can I clear the air a bit on this Instinctual stuff? [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION] asked some very good/wise questions, which need to be answered. Instincts is kind of a pet topic of mine, not because I'm an expert, but because I have an unending curiosity around the topic. Instincts is actually a lot more simple than all of these descriptive notions I see spewed all over the Internet. Instinctual stack signifies emotional needs. If one studies Claudio Naranjo, this is pretty clear. In the following the word "need" could be interchanged with "desire" (as these are not always healthy "needs", more like things we believe we "need").

SO - vocal, needs to contribute (usually verbally) to a group dynamic. This manifests in a slightly different way for each core, but the theme maintains.

• So/Sx - Verbal contribution + depth of connection, need for intimacy and intensity. Lack of need for security, caution or boundaries.
• So/Sp - Verbal contribution + protection/safety and concern with resources. Lack of desire for depth, intense intimacy.

SP - closed off, needs to ensure (emotional) safety before proceeding. This manifests in a slightly different way for each core, but the theme maintains.

• Sp/Sx - Need for protection/safety + depth of connection, need for intimacy and intensity. Lack of need to verbally contribute to a group dynamic.
• Sp/So - Need for protection/safety + verbal contribution to a group dynamic. Lack of desire for depth, intense intimacy.

SX - Intense need for intimacy and depth. This manifests in a slightly different way for each core, but the theme maintains.

• Sx/Sp - Need for intense intimacy and depth of connection + need for protection/safety. Lack of need to verbally contribute to a group dynamic.
• Sx/So - Need for intense intimacy and depth of connection + verbal contribution to a group dynamic. Lack of need for security, caution or boundaries.

This stuff is pretty darn straight forward, and very apparent in people if you watch for it. It should be noted that a "first" instinct usually needs to be met before the individual would progress to the auxillory need. The stack is a prioritization of needs.

I made some info graphics on my blog about core specific instincts (according to Naranjo and Ichazo) which can be very helpful, if anyone is interested.

Haha, so/sx with 6 sounds like a contradiction. No wonder I mistyped as sp/so for so long.

 

[Galena]

The way the so/sx type manifests varies behaviorally, but in general it is one I like a lot and often admire.

 

[small.wonder]

I wanted to quote you because I am still trying to figure out instincts I guess. I'd rather start with this description since it's simpler.

If I am understanding this correctly, verbal contribution is not something I am feel like I am good at. I never feel like I can carry a successful conversation with people, whether it's one person or more. At the same time, I am not shy and some of my biggest worries is that I am saying something that offends people because I am not the best at shutting up. So sometimes, I can leave an interaction thinking that person hates me because I am obnoxious and I don't feel like I give people enough person/psychological space. I tend to think that people would like me better if I was this extremely quiet/shy/hidden person who truly is a wallflower... but I bring too much attention to myself and really worry that I scare people away.

I definitely have the opposite problem, compared to some of what I hear on typoc. Some people come off cold (IRL) and distant (and that's why they struggle in social situations) and I've NEVER gotten that opinion in real life. I struggle in another way. I love connecting and stuff, but I feel like I scare away the people I want to connect with. I remember my 7th grade teacher wanting me to talk to this new student (she thought we would bond because I appeared shy and so did the new kid), but as soon as she put us together I was like all "I REALLY LIKE CHEESE! DO YOU LIKE CHEESE? CHEESE IS AWESOME. HI MY NAME IS THOUGHTLOST... I REALLY LIKE CHEESE."

...lucky for me, the new kid also really liked cheese.

Anyway, this is one part of my personality that I hate because I don't feel like it's a likeable/respectable quality to have.

So, what I'm hearing you say is that you do have a need to verbally contribute, hence the "not the best at shutting up" bit. Being So-first isn't about being graceful, or saying the right thing, it's about a natural urge to vocally contribute-- and often this means talking too much, or too readily. Even your comments about thinking over your words and conversations later, feeling like you stuck your foot in your mouth, or that someone probably thinks _________ about you-- that is so the Social instinct. I'm not clear on which Enneagram core type you presently subscribe to, but regardless, you are definitely not SO-last from your description.

I do understand your feelings on that topic, being SO-auxillory myself. I've definitely over-shared, or talked over people and felt so stupid after leaving. That said, my oversharing tends to be also overrly vulnerable/personal which is arguably my Sx blending with the over-verbal of SO. I have also observed this tendency even more that myself in friends who are So-first-- talking over people, always being the first comment or give advice (even if what they say is totally random or off the cuff, the point is to contribute something).

Does that help?

 

[thoughtlost]

So, what I'm hearing you say is that you do have a need to verbally contribute, hence the "not the best at shutting up" bit. Being So-first isn't about being graceful, or saying the right thing, it's about a natural urge to vocally contribute-- and often this means talking too much, or too readily. Even your comments about thinking over your words and conversations later, feeling like you stuck your foot in your mouth, or that someone probably thinks _________ about you-- that is so the Social instinct. I'm not clear on which Enneagram core type you presently subscribe to, but regardless, you are definitely not SO-last from your description.

I do understand your feelings on that topic, being SO-auxillory myself. I've definitely over-shared, or talked over people and felt so stupid after leaving. That said, my oversharing tends to be also overrly vulnerable/personal which is arguably my Sx blending with the over-verbal of SO. I have also observed this tendency even more that myself in friends who are So-first-- talking over people, always being the first comment or give advice (even if what they say is totally random or off the cuff, the point is to contribute something).

Does that help?

Hahaha, yeah that totally helps. I am definitely an "over-sharer" of some sort, and it always made me feel like an extrovert because I just can't shut my mouth up. Even when I am NOT talking... I still feel like I am "contributing my energy" to others. Does that make sense?

It's cool that this instinct theory can explain this (and that you relate!!). I am enneagram 6, by the way.

 

[EJCC]

I do understand your feelings on that topic, being SO-auxillory myself. I've definitely over-shared, or talked over people and felt so stupid after leaving. That said, my oversharing tends to be also overrly vulnerable/personal which is arguably my Sx blending with the over-verbal of SO. I have also observed this tendency even more that myself in friends who are So-first-- talking over people, always being the first comment or give advice (even if what they say is totally random or off the cuff, the point is to contribute something).

Oh god that resonates *so much*. Definitely reinforces me being so/sx.