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

[Peter Deadpan]

Now, this is what I do not understand. For example, to me, what's so glorified/good about soulmates? There are different nuances and levels of depth and experience that can be gained from joining wide social circles and having a wide social influence. I do not see how this is negative in any way, because it is meaningful to me (and that is why I even do it). People do whatever is meaningful to them (to attain their goals, self-expression, whatever it is). Be it joining 10 clubs or finding their ultimate true love. Either are / can be positive things.

But I understand what you are saying. At first, I as doubting soc for the very same reason, and because I am an introvert.
Yet, from these alone, I do not see how it puts sx on a 'higher hierarchy' than soc or sp, or how it makes it any more special, or if it ties back (even as a factor) to the thread title: a reason many mistype as sx.

It's merely because people both misunderstand and glorify Sx. Also, So-blind people tend to wear the badge arrogantly, especially the image types, and especially 4s.

I just shoved all my people under the bus.
Someone has to say it.

 

[cascadeco]

It's merely because people both misunderstand and glorify Sx. Also, So-blind people tend to wear the badge arrogantly, especially the image types, and especially 4s.

I just shoved all my people under the bus.
Someone has to say it.

It is true, though, whether intended or not. That does come across in many of those threads.

 

[Lady Lazarus]

I would be fine with being a social dom. I don't have any ego attachments to types at this point so on the level of preferences I don't care what I am. Intellectually though I am invested and care to figure out what I am. Because it would be ridiculous of me to claim I am not invested. That is, I'm not attached, but I am invested.

 

[Earl Grey]

I think introverts will often have more trouble relating to typical so- descriptions, since introversion is tied to 1:1 and 1:1 is often emphasized in sx comments on the forum. I mean, I know that I do. So that is why I often relate to much of what is spoken of in so-last threads. I think it is probably mostly for introvert reasons, for me at least. However, too, I think too much emphasis is placed in the understanding of sx on its ties to people only, as I don't think the driver is specifically a people thing; it can be anything.

I *did have trouble with soc descriptions initially. I am a bit odd for an introvert honestly and if someone comes to me saying I am an E, I wouldn't entirely balk at it. You are sp/so, yes?
Personally I initially thought I couldn't have been soc, but ended up as it by process of elimination. Even for things other than people, I am very non-sx.
This groups and 1 on 1 thing really is very confusing, despite myself falling into the stereotype of preferring groups over 1 on 1. Whatever 1 on 1 actually implies, since anyone can talk 1 on 1 if and when the situation calls for it.

It's merely because people both misunderstand and glorify Sx. Also, So-blind people tend to wear the badge arrogantly, especially the image types, and especially 4s.

I just shoved all my people under the bus.
Someone has to say it.

Wow, I never actually saw it. Mostly because I haven't dove as deeply into instincts as I have enneagram types themselves.
That's hardly shoving them under the bus, you're just relaying what they said / did. FWIW I'd regard them as fairly unhealthy examples of their types.
Thank you for the honesty.

[ Still doesn't understand what the glory point of sx is ]

 

[cascadeco]

I *did have trouble with soc descriptions initially. I am a bit odd for an introvert honestly and if someone comes to me saying I am an E, I wouldn't entirely balk at it. You are sp/so, yes?
Personally I initially thought I couldn't have been soc, but ended up as it by process of elimination. Even for things other than people, I am very non-sx.
This groups and 1 on 1 thing really is very confusing, despite myself falling into the stereotype of preferring groups over 1 on 1. Whatever 1 on 1 actually implies, since anyone can talk 1 on 1 if and when the situation calls for it.




Wow, I never actually saw it. Mostly because I haven't dove as deeply into instincts as I have enneagram types themselves.
That's hardly shoving them under the bus, you're just relaying what they said / did. FWIW I'd regard them as fairly unhealthy examples of their types.
Thank you for the honesty.

[ Still doesn't understand what the glory point of sx is ]

I don't list anything other than sp-dom simply because given everyones' understanding on this site as to what so- and sx- is, I relate just as much to sx-aux. But yes, I think most other people would type me as sp/so. Personally in reading descriptions I can relate to some elements of so-, and some of sx-. The only clear thing to me is my strong sp-, but if we're looking at the more 'raw' element of sx-, sp/so is probably more reflective of me.

 

[cascadeco]

Re 'glory point' of sx, that's pretty easy from my pov, you'll see comments referring to sp/so and so/sp being 'boring' and any number of bland superficial adjectives pretty commonly on here. Sx is like the N of enneagram, and those who identify as so-last often cite not being able to 'connect' with sx-last.

 

[Earl Grey]

Re 'glory point' of sx, that's pretty easy from my pov, you'll see comments referring to sp/so and so/sp being 'boring' and any number of bland superficial adjectives pretty commonly on here. Sx is like the N of enneagram, and those who identify as so-last often cite not being able to 'connect' with sx-last.

I figured. Sounds like extreme memefication honestly, something like how some self-typed INT- would use their own type descriptions to explain away/make excuses for their poor social skills, but in a way that tries to make it sound like a shining gold badge of pride to cover up insecurity. When viewed that way, I can't see it as anything less than pathetic, and those who perpetuate are really giving their own type a bad rep.

It needs to die. No really, nothing special about it, if this is really all it is.

 

[cascadeco]

I figured. Sounds like extreme memefication honestly, something like how some self-typed INT- would use their own type descriptions to explain away/make excuses for their poor social skills, but in a way that tries to make it sound like a shining gold badge of pride to cover up insecurity. When viewed that way, I can't see it as anything less than pathetic, and those who perpetuate are really giving their own type a bad rep.

It needs to die. No really, nothing special about it, if this is really all it is.

Well I mean I think it ties to the notion of sx- holding the monopoly on intimacy and 'connecting deeply'. Thus, sx-last would then not have that motivation. Which is why I feel there has to be something more distinctive about the *nature* of the impulse vs purely the desire for 1:1 bonding. Which is what [MENTION=31348]Peter Deadpan[/MENTION] was trying to get at, I think.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I *did have trouble with soc descriptions initially. I am a bit odd for an introvert honestly and if someone comes to me saying I am an E, I wouldn't entirely balk at it. You are sp/so, yes?
Personally I initially thought I couldn't have been soc, but ended up as it by process of elimination. Even for things other than people, I am very non-sx.
This groups and 1 on 1 thing really is very confusing, despite myself falling into the stereotype of preferring groups over 1 on 1. Whatever 1 on 1 actually implies, since anyone can talk 1 on 1 if and when the situation calls for it.




Wow, I never actually saw it. Mostly because I haven't dove as deeply into instincts as I have enneagram types themselves.
That's hardly shoving them under the bus, you're just relaying what they said / did. FWIW I'd regard them as fairly unhealthy examples of their types.
Thank you for the honesty.

[ Still doesn't understand what the glory point of sx is ]

I think 4s who do this are displaying the typical compensatory elitism that stems from their desire to romanticize their deficiencies. Translation: They twist their sense of being different inside out and use it as part of the image they construct, one which doesn't participate in the "basic and simple and shallow practice of normal socialization" because they are "above that" and "can't be understood" anyway.

The elitism in 4s is compensatory and the image they craft is as phony as that which they criticize, especially with 4w3s.

All personas are crafted, 4s just see this more and use it as an opportunity to be different and "special".

 

[Earl Grey]

Well I mean I think it ties to the notion of sx- holding the monopoly on intimacy and 'connecting deeply'. Thus, sx-last would then not have that motivation. Which is why I feel there has to be something more distinctive about the *nature* of the impulse vs purely the desire for 1:1 bonding. Which is what @/Peter Deadpan was trying to get at, I think.

Time to clear these misconceptions. This does not even make sense to begin with, and this is coming from an sx-blind who supposedly doesn't like intimacy or only likes all those nice little fluffy shallow faker social interactions, based off these stereotypes.

Also, as with anything else, preference =/= skill, those who have those misconceptions need to understand this as well.

I think 4s who do this are displaying the typical compensatory elitism that stems from their desire to romanticize their deficiencies. Translation: They twist their sense of being different inside out and use it as part of the image they construct, one which doesn't participate in the "basic and simple and shallow practice of normal socialization" because they are "above that" and "can't be understood" anyway.

The elitism in 4s is compensatory and the image they craft is as phony as that which they criticize, especially with 4w3s.

All personas are crafted, 4s just see this more and use it as an opportunity to be different and "special".

Ah! This made it click in my head. I understand every type (even those not in the image triad) has a persona they polish or maintain for whatever the reason, so I never understood why or in what manner it is such a big deal with 4s. I had this floating around in my head, you put it very succinctly in a way I can understand (and this totally explains the elitism). Thank you.

 

[Starry]

All personas are crafted?...bs. Unless crafted means constantly stopping yourself from saying what you want to say.

Peter I think too much 4 is going into your explanations

 

[Earl Grey]

All personas are crafted?...bs. Unless crafted means constantly stopping yourself from saying what you want to say.

Peter I think too much 4 is going into your explanations

It's a very definition of a persona itself. If it is not crafted, then it is simply personality extraverting itself.
And rather, it is freely saying what you want to say, just not what you truly would have said; being selective to craft the persona you wanted. What you explained is restraint; it is not necessarily deliberate crafting / deliberate selectiveness (which is what goes into polishing a persona).

 

[Starry]

It's a very definition of a persona itself. If it is not crafted, then it is simply personality extraverting itself.
And rather, it is freely saying what you want to say, just not what you truly would have said; being selective to craft the persona you wanted. What you explained is restraint; it is not necessarily deliberate crafting / deliberate selectiveness (which is what goes into polishing a persona).

Haha whoops you’re right. *Someone* is not fully awake. Also I may have allowed my jealousy of those that can craft stuff interfere with my understanding haha (but I do think too much 4 is going into Peter’s explanations)

 

[1487610420]

Haha whoops you’re right. *Someone* is not fully awake. Also I may have allowed my jealousy of those that can craft stuff interfere with my understanding haha (but I do think too much 4 is going into Peter’s explanations)

probably 100% 98.567% of anyone's feedback is conditioned by their pov

 

[Earl Grey]

probably 100% 98.567% of anyone's feedback is conditioned by their pov

And everyone thinks they are the ones within the 1.433% that doesn't do this.

 

[Starry]

Well I mean I think it ties to the notion of sx- holding the monopoly on intimacy and 'connecting deeply'. Thus, sx-last would then not have that motivation. Which is why I feel there has to be something more distinctive about the *nature* of the impulse vs purely the desire for 1:1 bonding. Which is what [MENTION=31348]Peter Deadpan[/MENTION] was trying to get at, I think.

I may be messing this up too but since I lack a crafted persona...haha (I don’t really give a rip) but the objectification is still bothering me as I see it as the opposition of pair bonding really. I don’t see sx doms as having a monopoly on these things...I see it as the primary consideration...what comes before all else. What you do best and what you are most likely to fuck up because the stakes are so high...

 

[Starry]

probably 100% 98.567% of anyone's feedback is conditioned by their pov

You wise bastard you (you are one of those people that need to speak more and yes...I do what I accuse Peter of doing which is why I feel comfortable telling her straightforwardly)

 

[1487610420]

You wise bastard you (you are one of those people that need to speak more and yes...I do what I accuse Peter of doing which is why I feel comfortable telling her straightforwardly)

I recommend this doc

 

[cascadeco]

I may be messing this up too but since I lack a crafted persona...haha (I don’t really give a rip) but the objectification is still bothering me as I see it as the opposition of pair bonding really. I don’t see sx doms as having a monopoly on these things...I see it as the primary consideration...what comes before all else. What you do best and what you are most likely to fuck up because the stakes are so high...

I suppose the reason intimacy and 'deep connection' is tied so much with people's idea of sx is because most people who are sx dom DO desire it, so it is a huge focus. I guess I think since sx does not always tie to another person, I feel it should be spoken of in terms that remove the people-element, but it's probably unavoidable since most sx people want the people element too.

Sure, sx could align with focusing on and searching for, to the exclusion of everything else, a unique pair bond, but I think this confuses the nature of it in contrast with so-, since sx- to me seems to be more about a lasered-in honing into someone or something; to me that is where the 'objectification' comes in. Again, because it doesn't have to be about a person.

I think another issue at play when it comes to any of these instincts is that me as a non-sx-dom will view from the outside how sx dom appears to me; or at the very least, how I feel it contrasts with me; obviously I don't know the internal workings, intentions, drives, or rationalizations going on within the sx person. Same goes for people viewing sp or so- from the outside.

 

[Starry]

I suppose the reason intimacy and 'deep connection' is tied so much with people's idea of sx is because most people who are sx dom DO desire it, so it is a huge focus. I guess I think since sx does not always tie to another person, I feel it should be spoken of in terms that remove the people-element, but it's probably unavoidable since most sx people want the people element too.

Sure, sx could align with focusing on and searching for, to the exclusion of everything else, a unique pair bond, but I think this confuses the nature of it in contrast with so-, since sx- to me seems to be more about a lasered-in honing into someone or something; to me that is where the 'objectification' comes in. Again, because it doesn't have to be about a person.

I think another issue at play when it comes to any of these instincts is that me as a non-sx-dom will view from the outside how sx dom appears to me; or at the very least, how I feel it contrasts with me; obviously I don't know the internal workings, intentions, drives, or rationalizations going on within the sx person. Same goes for people viewing sp or so- from the outside.

This is good cascade.


Okay so one of the problems I think I'm seeing here is... Because the sexual instinct was so poorly named...in our efforts to clarify over and over again..."sx is not about sex"...it looks like we've gone too far and made it seem like it's not about people either or something? We don't necessarily "plug in" to people in the same way we plug into other experiences. Let me see if I can explain this... Intimacy is intense...it just is. To stand naked...whether literally or figuratively or both in front of someone else and be real...no crafted personas to turn to. To be your most beautiful and ugliest self all at the same time and experience acceptance while simultaneously accepting all of another...that's hardcore shit man. <-And if that's your juice of choice but you currently don't have that...that's when you might turn to other things for juice. You are constantly looking for truth. Many of us get to pushing other people's buttons because we actually want them to drop their personas and show us what is real. We might put ourselves to some strange test or extreme conditions because we want to find our own bottom...what is the most pure about us?

Most sx doms aren't in relationships because what we want most is often too much for us. I can't tell you how many times I've walked around and thought "Oh look at all the normal people enjoying relationships...too fucking bad I'm an sx dom wth?" And yet it is when I finally make it into this kind of partnership...that's when I feel I am home. That's when I feel most myself...most normal and balanced. idk I might not be explaining this well.

But the sx instinct has everything to do with other...intimate others.