[sx] Why are sx-doms so common in typology communities?

[1487610420]

perception bias and mistyping

 

[Peter Deadpan]

The majority of people are Sp first, and So is the next overall most common instinct. That's because humans, like all animals, are primarily concerned with survival, and humans happen to be a social species. Therefore, the bigger picture represents a preference for Sp > So > Sx, which is also syn-flow and thus representative of working together to survive.

The order of instinctual stacks from most common to least common is as follows:
Sp/So
So/Sp
Sp/Sx
So/Sx
Sx/Sp
Sx/So

So, if you think you are Sx-first, you might want to reconsider and delve deeper into research and introspection because the statistics say otherwise.

 

[Mind Maverick]

I also wonder if sp/sx'ers don't self-mistype as sx-dom. I know I did, I feel like my sp-dom centers around keeping the sx in check, feeling like it's the defining part of me.

I know it's old af, but I'm curious about this. Elaborate?

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I know it's old af, but I'm curious about this. Elaborate?

Qlip left the forum cry, but he and I are similarly typed, and I agree with his sentiment here. However, we're both 4s, so we naturally seek an intangible sort of intensity or at least something external to us to fulfill us, which is often perceived as a romantic interest or perhaps an intense experience to pull us out of our perceived misery.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Qlip left the forum cry, but he and I are similarly typed, and I agree with his sentiment here. However, we're both 4s, so we naturally seek an intangible sort of intensity or at least something external to us to fulfill is, which is often perceived as a romantic interest or perhaps an intense experience to pull us out of our perceived misery.

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense to me when you put it that way because I can relate to it coming from the opposite end. As a 9 I loathe certain kinds of intensity (particularly in the emotional realm, as it disturbs the inertia / inner peace), and it can be a bit tricky examining 9 and IV-only Sx descriptions because of that. (I was actually just now writing a post which said this though, now it's going to be a bit redundant, but oh well.)

 

[Obfuscate]

i have no idea, but i would guess that sx doms (like myself) often are very focused on what makes other people tick and obtaining a clear understanding of others... close connections are based on mutual understanding and respect...

 

[Peter Deadpan]

i have no idea, but i would guess that sx doms (like myself) often are very focused on what makes other people tick and obtaining a clear understanding of others... close connections are based on mutual understanding and respect...

Not to shite on you or your knowledge, but mutual understanding and respect fall into the realm of the social instinct. The sexual instinct is actually more about objectification (plugging into a "fix", like a drug) and doesn't involve any goal of reciprocation.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Not to shite on you or your knowledge, but mutual understanding and respect fall into the realm of the social instinct. The sexual instinct is actually more about objectification (plugging into a "fix", like a drug) and doesn't involve any goal of reciprocation.

deleted, [MENTION=10808]bechimo[/MENTION] said it better.

 

[rav3n]

Not to shite on you or your knowledge, but mutual understanding and respect fall into the realm of the social instinct. The sexual instinct is actually more about objectification (plugging into a "fix", like a drug) and doesn't involve any goal of reciprocation.

Can you expand on this, including providing which enneagram expert forwards this view? The reason I ask is that it's not something that I've heard of before and am curious where I might find the information within context.

 

[Luminous]

The Enneagram Institute defines them as:

Sexual (aka “Attraction”) Instinct

Many people originally identify themselves as this type because they have learned that the Sexual types are interested in “one-on-one relationships.” But all three instinctual types are interested in one-on-one relationships for different reasons, so this does not distinguish them. The key element in Sexual types is an intense drive for stimulation and a constant awareness of the “chemistry” between themselves and others. Sexual types are immediately aware of the attraction, or lack thereof, between themselves and other people. Further, while the basis of this instinct is related to sexuality, it is not necessarily about people engaging in the sexual act. There are many people that we are excited to be around for reasons of personal chemistry that we have no intention of “getting involved with.” Nonetheless, we might be aware that we feel stimulated in certain people’s company and less so in others. The sexual type is constantly moving toward that sense of intense stimulation and juicy energy in their relationships and in their activities. They are the most “energized” of the three instinctual types, and tend to be more aggressive, competitive, charged, and emotionally intense than the Self-Pres or Social types. Sexual types need to have intense energetic charge in their primary relationships or else they remain unsatisfied. They enjoy being intensely involved—even merged—with others, and can become disenchanted with partners who are unable to meet their need for intense energetic union. Losing yourself in a “fusion” of being is the ideal here, and Sexual types are always looking for this state with others and with stimulating objects in their world.

Social (aka “Adaptive”) Instinct

Just as many people tend to misidentify themselves as Sexual types because they want one-on-one relationships, many people fail to recognize themselves as Social types because they get the (false) idea that this means always being involved in groups, meetings, and parties. If Self-Preservation types are interested in adjusting the environment to make themselves more secure and comfortable, Social types adapt themselves to serve the needs of the social situation they find themselves in. Thus, Social types are highly aware of other people, whether they are in intimate situations or in groups. They are also aware of how their actions and attitudes are affecting those around them. Moreover, Sexual types seek intimacy, Social types seek personal connection: they want to stay in long-term contact with people and to be involved in their world. Social types are the most concerned with doing things that will have some impact on their community, or even broader domains. They tend to be warmer, more open, engaging, and socially responsible than the other two types. In their primary relationships, they seek partners with whom they can share social activities, wanting their intimates to get involved in projects and events with them. Paradoxically, they actually tend to avoid long periods of exclusive intimacy and quiet solitude, seeing both as potentially limiting. Social types lose their sense of identity and meaning when they are not involved with others in activities that transcend their individual interests.

I think the bold implies a need for reciprocation.

 

[Obfuscate]

Not to shite on you or your knowledge, but mutual understanding and respect fall into the realm of the social instinct. The sexual instinct is actually more about objectification (plugging into a "fix", like a drug) and doesn't involve any goal of reciprocation.

sure, so dom are focused on how that operates in a group context... calling it a "fix" works right into what i am saying.. what sort of junkie doesn't have a laser focus on how to satiate their addiction? the methods i mention are very effective in obtaining a "steady supply"... so doms (in my experience) often focus on the fast and superificial methods of creating comraderie... sx doms (in my experience) are more likely to put in substantial effort in cultivating a small number of well developed relationships...

 

[FemMecha]

I think sx-doms are assumed to be people focused on sex and connection, and lots of lonely people are online, so it could even be influenced by stuff like that and not abstract and complex in terms of understanding theory.

 

[cascadeco]

I think sx-doms are assumed to be people focused on sex and connection, and lots of lonely people are online, so it could even be influenced by stuff like that and not abstract and complex in terms of understanding theory.

Very true; I'd say most people who actively forum (at least in this sort of forum) are those who lack many 'meaningful' connections irl (however they define that personally), and seek to find comfort or hope for understanding, common ground, or closeness/connection online. So yeah, lots of lonely people.

 

[rav3n]

Very true; I'd say most people who actively forum (at least in this sort of forum) are those who lack many 'meaningful' connections irl (however they define that personally), and seek to find comfort or hope for understanding, common ground, or closeness/connection online. So yeah, lots of lonely people.

As a sample size of one, that's not why I forum. The social aspect isn't part of my reasoning for active foruming since my husband, parts of my family and decades long friendships take care of that aspect.

 

[cascadeco]

As a sample size of one, that's not why I forum. The social aspect isn't part of my reasoning for active foruming since my husband, parts of my family and decades long friendships take care of that aspect.

Well, tbh when I wrote what I wrote I wasn't even thinking of the social aspect, I was thinking more of the draw for 'connection' and lonely people, maybe especially introverts, seeking that online. And, I think psychology/relationship forums especially will draw in a higher percentage of those who lack people irl. I definitely wouldn't say it applies to everyone, though.

 

[rav3n]

Well, tbh when I wrote what I wrote I wasn't even thinking of the social aspect, I was thinking more of the draw for 'connection' and lonely people, maybe especially introverts, seeking that online. And, I think psychology/relationship forums especially will draw in a higher percentage of those who lack people irl. I definitely wouldn't say it applies to everyone, though.

Fair enough. Prior to retirement, I was seeking knowledge of myself since I would soon become a retired empty nester. That's when I learned about MBTI and have stuck around since MBTI wasn't the only theory being bandied around. As a generality, my focus is on theory, rather than people, whether it's typology, political, scientific, etc.

 

[1487610420]

I'm sx af tho

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Can you expand on this, including providing which enneagram expert forwards this view? The reason I ask is that it's not something that I've heard of before and am curious where I might find the information within context.

The comment I was writing just disappeared somehow on my phone, and I'm tired, so I'm gonna keep it concise.

I've read this in many places, but I'll leave you with one resource that I can't really criticize much. He cites his sources on the bottom of the home page.

The Three Instincts - Enneagram Universe

Social:
"Possible examples of thoughts: Who are we? What do we have in common? What connects us? Are we an item? How close are we? Are we close enough that I can call them after 9 pm? Will anyone be there for me? Does that person have germs? Why isn’t she responding to my text? Why can’t I find anyone to hang out with? Did my boss get me a birthday card? Why can’t we spend quality time? Do I have these people under control?

Concrete examples: Asking a person how they are, active listening, friendships and close bonds, family, power seeking, group leading, group control, teaching, lecturing, imparting, social media, providing, making a difference, making an impact."

Sexual:
"Possible examples of thoughts: Is this exciting to me? Do I crave it? Do they crave me? How deep can I penetrate this? Why aren’t they hooked on me? Will they be turned off if I do this?

Concrete examples: Pushing a person’s boundaries, trying to get a rise out of someone, invading their comfort zone, locking someone into you."

As you can see, connection is not the same as chemistry. That's why I refer to sexuals as "seeking an outlet to plug into." They want juice. Socials on the other hand are looking for connection and reciprocity of care. That's not to say sexuals don't care about their intimates or want to be cared about, but social blinds drastically neglect to nurture their connections.

You can think of it similarly to (one of) the descriptions of Fe vs Fi, the space between vs. the space within. Fe wants things between people to be cohesive, and Fi wants inner cohesion. Similarly, social wants the space between people to be mutually supported, and sexual wants to feel enlivened by the other.

That is why Sp/Sx has been loosely accused of being the most selfish/self-centered instinctual stack. It's using Sx to meet the needs of Sp, so it's using seduction and objectification to serve self-preservation, which very roughly translates into "I'm willing to use you for juice in order to meet my need for security."

Vampires are a wonderful archetypal example of Sp/Sx, seducing a vixen in order to suck her blood and continue to thrive.

Now obviously, some people like that sort of thing, and none of the above means that sexuals don't care about their relationships, it just that they measure the health in terms of "juice" and not reciprocity of care.

 

[Starry]

Not to shite on you or your knowledge, but mutual understanding and respect fall into the realm of the social instinct. The sexual instinct is actually more about objectification (plugging into a "fix", like a drug) and doesn't involve any goal of reciprocation.

Um...I guess my massive, seemingly lifelong goal of reciprocity kicks me out of the sx dom camp...

 

[Starry]

I'm sx af tho

I am social dom af dude whoo