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

[ubiquitin]

I can't say that I agree with any of this.

What have you seen instead? I would be interested in understanding what you have observed and how it differs.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I don't know about both kinds of sx, bu it would make a lot of sense to me if these places attracted those who were specifically sx/sp.

I think this kind if environment makes it easier to have curated interpersonal actions, and I think it gives people a lot better conditions to both move headlong in intimacy and vulnerability but also completely withhold/withdraw it, as they wish. And, as I understand it, and at least as I feel it as someone who identifies as sx/sp, those are the ideal social circumstances for an sx/sp.

 

[Neokortex]

[MENTION=29478]Neokortex[/MENTION] - I don't remember making any promiseâ„¢ to you. Although I'll take your word that we had an agreement somewhere over something, I doubt is was for interaction forever everywhere though.

As far as my "cusses" go, well, I don't care.

Well, perhaps you should care, it really changes the perceived tone of your message. Doesn't affect the overall morale of the forum positively, either.
Here's your promise that at the time pretty much came across as an ultimatum.

I've already decided I will be completely ignoring any response you give me, so do so at the risk of wasting your own breath and suffocating in silence.
No one can hear you in space.

and later...

[...]That's as nice as I can be right now, so I'm just gonna go. Deuces.

[you don't mention me here but in the context of the other posts, it is clear that the first part of your post, that I omitted, is addressing me]

Where the fuck are you from? The 1950s?

[I didn't include it but here you're breaking your promise the 3rd time by directly referring to my post to someone else]

Fact: McKinney Boyd is the name of the high school.
Fact: Larissa Martinez is the name of the young lady.

1+1=2. Fact+Fact = Facts. Plural.

You're not bad with names, you're bad with facts. I'm tired of people playing that "waaaaah you're taking a jab at me" game to avoid what they are putting down on paper. Focus, man. Focus.

@Jaguar Do you have an Enneagram 8? Please do notify me in advance because my E1 is easily triggered by them and I don't want to precipitate this thread into type wars, do you?

As for the poor being stupid innately, I come from ten generations of near poverty and have a graduate degree in the sciences and make six figures. Because I am innately intuitive and have aspergers I simply didnt "see" what it was I should have become. My foster daughter, an entj, came from the same back ground and can "see" this. She was destined to be a drug dealer and stripper. Placed in a different environment, given different expectations and different stimuli, within a year she has been redirected and will now be a dentist. The poor become what they see around them unless for some reason they can see past that-ie being intutive can help.

Are you an ENTP?

@ubiquitin I was referring to the one's who can't "cocoon out," don't have the chance or don't see the chance to place themselves into a different environment. I'm doubtful of your reasons (intuition, asperger), it takes a lot of luck and people's help too (thus, I wouldn't centralize the agency on one individual). I don't know about the U.S. but here people can make "six figures" even without any college degree. It starts out with mastering a vocation. We have a surplus of people with theoretical degrees and lack of specialized "technicians." The latter have a good head start. Then, with time they make their own enterprise and climb out from "working class" to be "parvenu."

My observation of a first world country is that most SJW are middle to upper middle class college age kids or educated working millennials. The working class in america are too busy trying to pay their bills, somehow afford health care, and get out of debt to bother "fighting" moral battles. To be blunt, most of them coudlnt give a shit and think the SJW are a bunch of whiny crybabies, if they even understand what SJW stands for. Perhaps this differs in Europe however.

As for SJWs and the intellectual elite..., they are not the same. Sure, they are on university like this lady but judging from their behavior, they also use the pretext of cultural theories (from Cultural Studies; Women's Studies) to derive authority from and justify their violence/authoritarianism. So what their lashing out suggests is insufficient impulse control, that which some psychological experiments (that The Social Animal cites) associate with working class conditions (inadequate/improper parental care, "nurtured by the street," etc.). As well as insufficient understanding of the theory (pseudo feminists, etc.). Whereas what I advocate is the extension of studies; what I deem "educated" for Typology is beyond 5 years of "undergrad +grad" (+an intellectual, theoretical attitude, instead of social opportunism) since most arrivistes can afford that, there's no guarantee that they will retain or develop that knowledge further. University has become very commercial, a status symbol desired for the sake of it.

So back to SJWs and Typology. Typology is also a form of status or virtue signalling (the way smartphones were when they first appeared, since not everyone could afford them). I, personally, have no experience with working class SJWs, yet that still doesn't preclude the possibility that (upper) working class can afford a bachelor degree. If my semester at the States is of any indication, I've had quite a mixed bunch as colleagues on the courses I was enrolled on - and this was a uni in the Rust belt. So cheap places expect cheap people taking large student loans in desperate attempts to meet the requirements for upward mobility.

Like, the houses these students were renting were in such bad condition - I don't know if this "just" the "party harder" aspect of American mentality, but it seems that they didn't have time or energy to clean up the chaos on their front porches. But I have a feeling that on Harvard or Stanford the conditions are better. Whereas in Europe we have less (people don't live in houses) but that less is in better condition, overall.

And SJW, then, can also be a form of upward aspiration, using these Isms to show enough of an education to justify their activism, claim to authority, power and entry into higher classes. People have to keep up with times, they can't say that they don't have a presence on the Internet or they don't know about popular psychology or popular activist topics (which make up "general culture/education") because then they are looked at as working class not showing the promise of "getting better." Hence, people social loaf around these forums as a way to show that promise that they are not sinking but they are ascending (by being able to dabble in what the elite does or had done). So you might have Aspergers but it's a rhetorical slippage to assume that working class people do too, so as to exonerate them from "upward mobility practices" (maintaining a social image that shows them interested in upper class preoccupations). No, I'm an INFP (although not the "classical" one).

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Lol

Yeah, that statement was for the moment. Do with it what you will because idgaf.

 

[Jaguar]

@Jaguar Do you have an Enneagram 8? Please do notify me in advance because my E1 is easily triggered by them and I don't want to precipitate this thread into type wars, do you?

Typism.

 

[Chad of the OttomanEmpire]

Typism.

Yeah he did this to me once too.

 

[Neokortex]

Typism.

Well, I did my best in trying to be a Marxist and populist and reach down to the poor underdog. But damn, they bite back so hard, I can't take it anymore. Gotta find them middle class people in some other trendy and smart topic/forum that's still not taken over and trashed by the malevolent, sarcastic, undisciplined, guile, violent, conniving of the plebs. Better PR next time, folks!

 

[Mind Maverick]

For a moment I was thinking it would make sense for TypoC to be more Soc IV blind since it's a smaller community, but as a Soc IV blind myself I feel more comfortable in larger forums like PerC. The larger crowd adds a sense of invisibility. I like TypoC more in some ways, though.

 

[Phoenix]

I'm Sx/So and I personally found myself online seeking strong connections and bonding as well as being part of a shared community (Sx/So).

At the same time, the ability to withdraw and not get too connected and involved and being able to detach every now and then is a huge bonus compared to IRL relationships. So the intimacy, merging, connection, belonging can be maintained more easily.

 

[Venus Rose]

Not to beat the dead horse, but there is a lot of mistyping. In fact, I would argue that perhaps Sx is the most mistyped all personality types - even more than the dreaded N bias.

People have basically created this image of Sp being cold and fastidious, and So being sad and desperate. Who would want to be those, when you can be passionate and sensual?

I am actually quite sick of the glamorization of sx. I lived almost the entire last decade believing I was inherently undesirable and there is no way in hell anyone could even be superficially attracted to me, let alone on a deeper level.

I don't believe that anymore, but your primary instinct is your area of vulnerability. Not all of it is pretty and glamorous.

 

[Venus Rose]

I just wonder if I am the one getting it wrong... Because if I went by this common understanding, then I'd type as sx-dom. So I start to think maybe I am creating a "spin" to type a certain way. I admit, I have a knee-jerk against being sx-dom precisely because of its "popularity". But the sx 4 is also very extreme, like a hotel room trashing rock star type, and I feel too withdrawn to be that "out there". Plus, I find a certain vulgarity in being a rebellious cliche or competitive in romance; it's "beneath me" (but I'd associate that with so 4...?).

I know this is an old post and maybe your views might have changed, but I just wanted to comment anyway. I am actually very withdrawn myself and nowhere close to "hotel room trashing rock star type," in fact, that image seems to resonate most with maybe 7 and/or 8 sx/so.
There is not really anything in the sxso descriptions that necessitates this either. For instance, their energy is described thus:

Expression: intense, outer-focused
Energy: intense energy expressed outwards, assertively
Behavior: intense, assertive, sultry and aggressive
Mindset: "If I can maintain position and inclusion in the group/world, I can keep up and escalate all this merging/intensity."

But you can be those things without being a "hotel room trashing rockstar." Here's an example of a 5w4 sx/so, and he comes across somewhat awkward, actually, and I can connect with that. It's not all "smooth and sparkling and charming energy," basically. With a withdrawn type like 4 and 5, when that combines with sx/so that need not mean they are very extroverted, or even resemble the "rockstar" archetype by any means. I at least, don't.

I am aware more of enviousness in myself, but when I was less aware, I feel like the resentment came through less (but then there's the conundrum of me having been less aware). It took me some time to accept the "vices" as a legit part of enneagram, which now I see as essential to its foundation & understanding types; but I balked at the idea of being "envious". In allowing it to surface, it's being expressed more by me, but I think this is important to moving past it. The sx 4 is the most openly envious, apparently to the point of being competitive, which I am not. But angry & resentful, yes. The hostility the sx 4 can have is what I can relate to.

I am not openly envious either, nor do I try to harm someone out of malice/vengeance, or on purpose at all. I don't think that description applies to everyone.

I guess I'd ask sx 4s how they'd describe their envy being open & even shameless, their competitiveness, & their making others "suffer", etc. I still fancy myself as more contained, although I "endure silently" far less.

I am actually full of shame, quite shy, can be withdrawn, and am not competitive. I can become jealous, yes, and that jealousy can consume me so much it's hard for me to literally see anything else. I panic. It becomes the full focus of my attention. But I withdraw, feeling like I must be not good enough anyway...but I don't try to upstage or "become the best" and I actually think this kind of thing is more in line with 3 influence. I barely have any 3 influence. I only feel angry when rejected (romantically) because the pain is overwhelming, but I do not attempt to harm the other by saying vicious things or try to "denigrate" them or anything like that. I just don't do those things. And I am not even an angry person otherwise, so...yeah. I most definitely do not resemble type 8.

Though I must say I do not "endure silently" nor "contain it" either. Basically I do not attempt to seriously harm someone, or be cruel on purpose, but the other person is likely going to know I am hurt because of how strongly I react.

 

[Tomb1]

They aren't more popular in typology communities...they are more popularly mistyped as in typology communities.

 

[Venus Rose]

Sx doms as social justice warriors.. that kind of makes sense. We care deeply about things and we don't hold back.

I don't agree or disagree with you but I would just like to offer a counter-point. I see "social justice warriors" as caring deeply, and engaging on a consistent basis, with the social issues they are involved with. SX has this thing about wanting "charge," and so I actually think that they might attempt to cause change (with sxso anyway), but they likely not going to stick or be committed to being consistently involved. It's an energy thing, it builds up and "explodes/discharges" and social change seems kind of hard to come by and the whole process probably gets stagnant and boring and repetitive at times. At which point, the sx dom might lose interest. Maybe they will come back to it...but yeah, I hope you get what I am saying.

 

[Luminous]

I am actually quite sick of the glamorization of sx. I lived almost the entire last decade believing I was inherently undesirable and there is no way in hell anyone could even be superficially attracted to me, let alone on a deeper level.

I don't believe that anymore, but your primary instinct is your area of vulnerability. Not all of it is pretty and glamorous.

Yes, a thousand times yes.

 

[Venus Rose]

I am usually not super-skeptical of people's self-typings and such. I might suggest a different type should I see a reason for it, but I am not particularly interested in..."calling out bullshit" so to speak, since I tend to trust what people usually say anyways. Besides, if someone types a certain way because they want to look like that, then I guess that's on them. You cannot really achieve anything productive out of such typings; and that's their decision. I am more drawn to people who want to open up and be honest.

I am also skeptical of "stats" because they are never backed up, just said with an air of authority. For example, the idea that "sx lasts are the most common"; they may or may not be, I don't know. But I do tend to get a little baffled when such things are seemingly pulled out of thin air, or perhaps based on "personal experience," but that kind of 'stats' can't be backed up.

Anyways, I was mostly thinking that people constantly referring to their issues around romance and rejection does not necessarily mean they aren't sx dominant. Sx is tied to being attuned to chemistry, wanting charge etc. but one of the most salient ways this manifests in reality is in the realm of romance. I have actually never met another sx dom who wasn't as triggered and upset by rejection as I can be. Others can be as well, I don't mean to undermine that. But with your dominant instinct, the damage can be really serious, and hard to deal with or get over. Even the smallest of things can cause you to be become scared/upset when it comes to this. You often overreact.

And it's pretty easy to differentiate between heart types who might relate to sx for heart type reasons, and sx dominants. In person, at least. Instincts are specially apparent in person. I can't describe the "reason" behind it, just that I get a strong intuition or vibe wrt whether or not they might be sx doms.

Edit: oh and, with regards to the title question, I do notice a lot of people type as sx/sp, even surpassing other stackings, at times. I don't know if that is due to mistyping or not, but I am a little skeptical there. I have seen this on a few polls on this forum for instance, and also a short survey I did (sample was any and everyone on typology forums but I cut it short at 45 people; at the moment I was feeling a little impatient lol), in which the majority were sx/sp. This does have me a little confused.

Some of the descriptions you provided are a bit imbalanced and biased (Soc descriptions are broad and describe highly specific things, Sx descriptions are short and vague).
To begin with, I disagree with the way the author interpreted "connections" as being almost strictly Soc, it's a very limited view.

I completely agree. The context is very important and the person's body language, focus of attention, "vibe" etc. even though vague, can potentially point to instincts. Sx can also care about connections and I don't understand the black and white "connection is social and if you describe sx using that word you are describing social"...

Edit: For example, I personally don't use "connection" to describe sx (I don't have a word for that specific thing I seek, yet), but I had an IEI sx/sp friend for whom that was her go-to word when she was referring to this sx specific bond or relationship that she seeks. I agree with her self-typing as sx/sp.

My main issue with it is that most of those are very common and trivial concerns ("Who are we?", "How close are we?", "Why isn't she responding to my text?"). And some are just weird ("Does that person have germs?" Seriously...?). I can see how some of those can be chalked up to the Social instinct, but the issue is those are such common human experiences that they can be interpreted however you want. Feeling lonely ("Why can’t I find anyone to hang out with?") is not a Soc thing, worrying how those who are close to you perceive you or feel about you ("Why isn't she responding to my text?") is not a Soc thing -- those are common human experiences. In my view, instincts should describe common, basic drives and focuses, but never highly specific behaviours; the drive behind those behaviours are the most important (this should be applied to all of Enneagram literature, imo).

Hmm, I see what you are saying. My guess would be that they are tapping into Social's need to be seen and recognized and being part of a group that appreciates them, when they refer to those behaviors. For instance, a social dominant may become anxious if 'lack of text response' to them indicated that they were somehow not part of the social circle, that they were seen in a negative light, or that 'people were thinking negative thoughts about them.' Based on my interactions with SO doms...

I'm okay with most of those, although friendships and close bonds are definitely not exclusive to Soc and I'm unsure whether those should even be related to instinctual variants in any way (just like the source claimed that love and intimacy are not instincts).

Yup, yet again, just because someone is talking about friends and sx and doesn't mean they are automatically talking about the social instinct.

Your source contradicts your claims:

Yes, absolutely. Lack of reciprocation can indicate to the sx dom that they might not be desirable enough and that can be extremely upsetting/triggering.

Sx's need for chemistry can be one-sided, but it doesn't have to be, there's no logic behind that. "Chemistry" rarely happens without some sort of connection, you could say chemistry is an impression or reaction towards someone else, while connection is something that can be build on top of it and used to reinforce it. Yes, chemistry and connection are not the same, but those two can definitely coexist and often do.

Yeah, one of the most obvious ways the sexual instinct can manifest is in the realm of romance/relationships.

I've seen the words emotional "juice" being used to describe Sx and I must say it's vague af and confuses people (chemistry or emotional intensity are better words to describe it). What if the emotional high the Sx person gets from their relationship is related to how much they feel cared about?

Exactly, wanting to be cared for does not equal Social; someone's "sx blueprint" may be such that care/nurture and sexuality become intertwined. It's not automatically "social."

 

[Amberiat]

I am actually quite sick of the glamorization of sx. I lived almost the entire last decade believing I was inherently undesirable and there is no way in hell anyone could even be superficially attracted to me, let alone on a deeper level.

I don't believe that anymore, but your primary instinct is your area of vulnerability. Not all of it is pretty and glamorous.

That's relatable. For me it served as motivation for self-improvement though, it wasn't the biggest motivator per se, but it definitely helped.

 

[Veebee]

Perhaps seeking a connection intense enough to fulfil them. The ultimate intensity is inner intensity. Seeking inner intensity through self knowledge might lead them here and then the possibility of a connection with similar persons might keep them coming back.

 

[RedAmazoneFriendZone]

I don't know if it is "convenient" to ask in this post : Can we switch subtype throughout our life ? If someone read about this...

Some enneagram teachers told me so (they are Fabien Chabreuil and his wife, wrote books and organise conferences etc), but well I'm still questioning myself.

I think I was more sx in my youth. Now that I feel more sp. But it probably has to do with the way I am living and feeling much more grounded and secure.

We can consciously work on instinct for sure, but ....can we switch, and which theory in this case would illustrate such a thing ?

 

[Neokortex]

Edit: oh and, with regards to the title question, I do notice a lot of people type as sx/sp, even surpassing other stackings, at times. I don't know if that is due to mistyping or not, but I am a little skeptical there. I have seen this on a few polls on this forum for instance, and also a short survey I did (sample was any and everyone on typology forums but I cut it short at 45 people; at the moment I was feeling a little impatient lol), in which the majority were sx/sp. This does have me a little confused.

I second that. Over at that evolove mbti+instincts dating site the same applies. I chose a type to search on, e.g. ENFJ, and it allows also to search by instinct stack (that users indicate). And who wouldn't have guessed, So/Sps are but a tiny minority and Sx/Sps are the vast majority, followed by Sx/Sos. And most profiles, Sx included, are built up by clichés such as liking to hike, to travel, to do yoga, then flix and chill,... and my favorite of all: being into "deep" stuff and "deep discussions", even if their intro is just a bland 1 or 2 liner. All just fillers, nothing particular. Here's one I culled from the masses of redundant dollops: Project Evolove - Myers Briggs dating - Sign-in Required - INFJ7707 (oh, and btw, they love the "INFJ" type a lot! there are way more INFJs than any of the other types D). If anyone reads this girl's "About me" text, they'd feel how penetrating it is... she must be some Sx 2, although it's as if there were some traces of 4 there. A bit rambly, but damn! These people are so hard to come by...

+ I also second your clarification you did on the other forum... It's rare to come across people with nuanced/intuitive/abstract insight into these... patterns of personality and behavior.

 

[Venus Rose]

Don't remember what I said on here earlier lol, feel too embarrassed to look through them right now
maybe im not very observant but im not sure I see "so common" for sx dom types; seems like a pretty good representation of several different types

I don't fully buy the eschewing of the Fauvres' conception (well, not their conception, their research I guess) of the SX dom type as being all about the beloved; if you know sx-doms, you can see that that is almost...it's their essence. It's their theme (and a strong, bright, burning flame at that almost as if it is ALL they are about, it defines them, I totally understand what Fauvres are saying. It is so obvious and so intuitive I am really put off by the authoritarian one-track-mind view of what sx or what anything at all is; sure there will be some who might not relate all that well to sx=beloved but in general I have observed it to be the case. REGARDLESS of enneatype. They need not be heart-type, yet I can connect to them on that very visceral level knowing SX stuff destroys them as much as it does me). I am curious to see if in application the Fauvre chart would actually mis-type several people as people have themselves claimed (after all we only have a certain amount of insight into ourselves, we may not see what others see). Also in the instincts booklet she has mentioned several of those sx=addiction, peacocking ideas that get thrown around as an authoritarian representation of SX (as if that is all there is to it), so I don't think her work is by any means incomplete.