windoverlake
New member
- Joined
- May 2, 2015
- Messages
- 403
- MBTI Type
- INFJ
I've noticed in my smattering of friends who are sx-first, there was some kind of 'traumatic' event (or constellation of events) in their early childhoods that would leave the individual with a sense of not being seen/heard in a 'fundamental' way. Even in cases where the child will have bonded 'adequately' on some other level with a nurturing figure/parent(s), if the child's idiosyncratic, fingerprint-unique requirements were never met (whatever they may be, a very young child is unlikely to be able to articulate this, hence need goes unfulfilled), that 'lack' might be what develops the primary instinctual variant. The second place variant is the support and what I think of as the 'lifeline' to personal individuation. My theory there is that it's the key that unlocks both the first and last variants, so that there will be free and easy travel in all directions, and so forth until actualisation.
Tonally, I'd sketch it out like:
First instinct = lump in the throat, want to cry, can't breathe, feels like drowning
Second instinct = constantly full oxygen tank, invisible and weightless, source of renewal, heaven-sent but taken for granted (and it is); mechanism of survival; I chose the oxygen tank because I think it's important to see it as a tool, a mechanism that was developed and determined by environment
Last instinct = the air we breathe, basically in the background but when we lack 'fresh air' or are in a place where the 'air seems fresher', we become aware of it.
I had a very early experience where I realised I could not communicate with my parent(s) in the way I needed to communicate; that early experience was the birth of that need. I was young enough that it's possible that I didn't know how, but I'd also propose that I didn't want to communicate, because instinctually I knew they couldn't receive it because they simply were not built/developed that way. I didn't think that then; at the time I just realised I had to 'find a different way' to get across what I needed to get across, so I found an analogy that worked and was 'understood' sufficiently to reach a semblance of 'understanding'. But their understanding that didn't mean I felt understood; in fact, the opposite.
I don't begrudge my parents and we have a good relationship, insofar as the players' capacities deem possible. I was always well-cared for in other sp ways, and I'd say sp is how my parents show their love. It was certainly not enough in a holistic sense, though, but that's why as an sx/so my so-second has buttressed my sx-first needs. Even though I'm introverted, I remain aware of the 'standard' that never got met. I'm often mistaken for an extravert, though that was more in my younger days. Now that I've got a better handle on my boundaries I can enjoy people and know when I've enjoyed them enough.
As an sx/so my standards when it comes to a trusted lover/partner are unbreakably idealistic. I truly am someone that would rather live and die alone than be with someone that doesn't get me, and get my fully. The fully part is the unbreakable part. I fear being with someone that gets me, then one day doesn't. When similar things have happened, in even very 'light' and 'small' ways, in both romantic or platonic scenarios, I have to retreat and overhaul everything - it's that affecting to me. In this vein, it's not so much my heart will 'know' when I've found this right person for me, but my body will know (sp), because my sp needs have always been met. I won't even have to ask, nor will they. And in some ways, I really feel I'm searching for someone who knows this kind of experience just as well, just as thoroughly; someone with whom I can communicate without explanation. But, and a big but, I am not looking for someone to heal or balance me, as that's something each unto themselves; it's my job to better myself. Anyway, the hunch is that this person is simply the right person for me just because, and I'm the right person for them just because.
I think most of my sx-first friends are sp-second, because I don't know anyone else that fits into the sx/so stacking as I know it. And to illustrate further, my sx/sp friends also seek but they seek in sp-ways; the way I am with developing social relationships and friendships, sx/sp is with romantic partners. sx/sp (and sp/sx) are quick to move into a domestic situation with a romantic partner; I haven't noticed much deviation when factoring in MBTI. Also, sx/sp are decidedly, and significantly, more reticent when it comes to revealing personal information. It's taken time for me to discover that they had a 'trauma' early in their lives, is one example.
Continuing this sketch just a bit further, using myself:
INFJ sx/so
Early experience of 'trauma' = Ni / sx-first
Response & development to early 'trauma' = Fe / so-second
I'm not sure how this same experience would translate for, say, an ISFP sx/sp. I would imagine that the so was rejected, or perhaps the Se function naturally gravitated to sp, therefore that stacking took place.
(My usage of the word 'trauma' needs to be clarified, because trauma can take place even when there isn't outright, obvious, undeniable abuse. Though it's not always determined by culture, in certain cultures emotional and psychological abuse is not considered abuse; only physical, bodily harm would be 'legitimate' abuse: a beatdown, say, but not name-calling or taunting. Point being, these cultures would not consider 'not being seen/heard in a way fundamentally vital to that child' indicative of trauma. Just wanted to point out why I put quotation marks around trauma, and some other words/phrases.)
Tonally, I'd sketch it out like:
First instinct = lump in the throat, want to cry, can't breathe, feels like drowning
Second instinct = constantly full oxygen tank, invisible and weightless, source of renewal, heaven-sent but taken for granted (and it is); mechanism of survival; I chose the oxygen tank because I think it's important to see it as a tool, a mechanism that was developed and determined by environment
Last instinct = the air we breathe, basically in the background but when we lack 'fresh air' or are in a place where the 'air seems fresher', we become aware of it.
I had a very early experience where I realised I could not communicate with my parent(s) in the way I needed to communicate; that early experience was the birth of that need. I was young enough that it's possible that I didn't know how, but I'd also propose that I didn't want to communicate, because instinctually I knew they couldn't receive it because they simply were not built/developed that way. I didn't think that then; at the time I just realised I had to 'find a different way' to get across what I needed to get across, so I found an analogy that worked and was 'understood' sufficiently to reach a semblance of 'understanding'. But their understanding that didn't mean I felt understood; in fact, the opposite.
I don't begrudge my parents and we have a good relationship, insofar as the players' capacities deem possible. I was always well-cared for in other sp ways, and I'd say sp is how my parents show their love. It was certainly not enough in a holistic sense, though, but that's why as an sx/so my so-second has buttressed my sx-first needs. Even though I'm introverted, I remain aware of the 'standard' that never got met. I'm often mistaken for an extravert, though that was more in my younger days. Now that I've got a better handle on my boundaries I can enjoy people and know when I've enjoyed them enough.
As an sx/so my standards when it comes to a trusted lover/partner are unbreakably idealistic. I truly am someone that would rather live and die alone than be with someone that doesn't get me, and get my fully. The fully part is the unbreakable part. I fear being with someone that gets me, then one day doesn't. When similar things have happened, in even very 'light' and 'small' ways, in both romantic or platonic scenarios, I have to retreat and overhaul everything - it's that affecting to me. In this vein, it's not so much my heart will 'know' when I've found this right person for me, but my body will know (sp), because my sp needs have always been met. I won't even have to ask, nor will they. And in some ways, I really feel I'm searching for someone who knows this kind of experience just as well, just as thoroughly; someone with whom I can communicate without explanation. But, and a big but, I am not looking for someone to heal or balance me, as that's something each unto themselves; it's my job to better myself. Anyway, the hunch is that this person is simply the right person for me just because, and I'm the right person for them just because.
I think most of my sx-first friends are sp-second, because I don't know anyone else that fits into the sx/so stacking as I know it. And to illustrate further, my sx/sp friends also seek but they seek in sp-ways; the way I am with developing social relationships and friendships, sx/sp is with romantic partners. sx/sp (and sp/sx) are quick to move into a domestic situation with a romantic partner; I haven't noticed much deviation when factoring in MBTI. Also, sx/sp are decidedly, and significantly, more reticent when it comes to revealing personal information. It's taken time for me to discover that they had a 'trauma' early in their lives, is one example.
Continuing this sketch just a bit further, using myself:
INFJ sx/so
Early experience of 'trauma' = Ni / sx-first
Response & development to early 'trauma' = Fe / so-second
I'm not sure how this same experience would translate for, say, an ISFP sx/sp. I would imagine that the so was rejected, or perhaps the Se function naturally gravitated to sp, therefore that stacking took place.
(My usage of the word 'trauma' needs to be clarified, because trauma can take place even when there isn't outright, obvious, undeniable abuse. Though it's not always determined by culture, in certain cultures emotional and psychological abuse is not considered abuse; only physical, bodily harm would be 'legitimate' abuse: a beatdown, say, but not name-calling or taunting. Point being, these cultures would not consider 'not being seen/heard in a way fundamentally vital to that child' indicative of trauma. Just wanted to point out why I put quotation marks around trauma, and some other words/phrases.)