Multiple Enneagram Subtypes/Instincts Social Last Support Group

[1487610420]

I often instantly regret adding Facebook "friends", particularly work folk. I also get annoyed by all of their overly shiny group photos and their shallow conversations. I look forward to regular purges. My list stays around 100 people total.

I'd honestly rather see pictures of food. Or emo solo selfies.

Sometimes I'm temporarily blinded by the reflection off of their teeth.

 

[Typh0n]

Emo dad memes are still around, lol?

 

[1487610420]

Emo dad memes are still around, lol?

they get better with age

 

[Neokortex]

I definitely believe that, especially now that I have done hiring for a while.

It's not necessarily nepotism (though I wouldn't dismiss that completely), so much as known quantities and hiring efficiency. Hiring is like 2% of my responsibilities, I don't want to use 20% of my time doing it if I can help it. It is a pain in the ass to sift through a bunch of resumes, interview people, call references, etc. And even after doing all that, you can still totally miss.

Yeah, part nepotism, part pressure of the speed of capitalism. Where efficiency means do whatever they want, as fast as they want just to get your paycheck at the end of the month. And let others worry about the social entropy. When the accumulated side-effects of all the hasty decisions surface later. So many operate in this way, yet only an unfortunate few are accounted for the fault of the silent collective. Some scapegoats are more innocent than others.

We did a job posting last month, and probably 100 applications rolled in. I was carefully combing through them, interviewing folks,mostly finding dud after dud. But then I found someone in the pile we knew (she had worked several years with one of the managers at another company) and we just immediately hired her and rejected the other 99 people, rather than trying to be "fair".

If I had known that person was looking for work, we wouldn't have even bothered with the posting (and sometimes we don't) and would have just reached out to her.

Not without consulting that managers of yours first, with whom she had worked with at another company, right? If I were you and if that was possible I'd complain about being overloaded compared to the amount of time your HR work requires to be properly done. Bc I can imagine some people doing it just like that only so they'd have more spare time for themselves.

I just hired a young lady on my team because she made a great impression on me, and she happened to be connected to some people who I trust. I sort of found an "opening" for her that you wouldn't see on any job board haha

If an excellent worker you've worked with for 5 years tells you they know the perfect candidate, 9/10 you hire that person. It just works better! I'm sure you miss on great candidates sometimes, but I do believe it works better.

Bolded: an excellent coworker is not always an excellent psychologist. Environment may change performance & attitude. Funny thing, an ENTP acquaintance of mine used to complain about the "dumb blond" HR people, yet he's the one now offering to recommend me if I needed a job in the capital.

 

[Neokortex]

So I started that process and now have gotten promoted, but it just annoys me... it's a necessary evil to function in a group, I guess. Because people gravitate towards what and who they know and who seems to fit the best in the group, and unless you play the game somewhat, people will always pick folks they relate to best. Once they know you and sense you are part of the group, then your skillset comes into play.

I am not saying it is inauthentic.

Yeah but what if due to over-emphasizing emotional harmony, fitness with the group they neglect an accurate view of what skillset is required for the position and whether that person really has it or not. That's what I mean by a possible cause of social breakdown, social entropy. People having friend-fest at workplace but they constantly having to cheat, distort reports to compensate for the bad functioning.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yeah but what if due to over-emphasizing emotional harmony, fitness with the group they neglect an accurate view of what skillset is required for the position and whether that person really has it or not. That's what I mean by a possible cause of social breakdown, social entropy. People having friend-fest at workplace but they constantly having to cheat, distort reports to compensate for the bad functioning.

Anything in life (and any variant) is open to abuse, right?

 

[Neokortex]

The things that I have no interest in is nearly endless, work politics, social pecking orders, making appearances, Coachella, Instagram, the easily offended, in-grouping, out-grouping, remembering names, responding to texts immediately, etc, etc, etc.

My last job, and the one before it was rife with people who were above questioning because of title, labyrinths of ass kissing just to be able to do your job well, and the constant pressure to take the company on as a religion, and selling trinkets as a holy act. It's all way too much.

I'm quite social (not a social last) but I can still relate to this. Being social does not automatically mean that you are a vapid idiot who only cares about climbing the social ladder or Instagram. That sort of personality has nothing to do with "type".

While I am very extroverted and often surrounded by people I still feel alone because I find what most people want to talk about to be insignificant and depressing.

Not sure I'm actually social last, but I hate networking too, and I'm terrible at it (since I don't do any of it). I also never schmoozed when I had an office job; actually I don't even do it in a non-office job. I too avoid instagram and things similar to it...

Was the notion of a support group for the unsociable intended irony?

Let's just say it was bonus irony, I chuckled to myself after I created the title. But, I don't think they're actually contrary to each other, the actual instinct stackings, sx/sp, sp/sx aren't really the same as being classically anti-social. As far as this being a real support group, I mean, it is one, if you consider the Random Thread a raucous party, and Type Me threads as tap dance performances.

Ironic alright, although to me it comes off more like patronizing. Even if that wasn't the intent. It's exactly because of extreme groupishness (herd-mentality, conformism, "bus to Abilene effect") is why we have the quoted and enlisted stuff to complain about. As a 6, appealing to structures, I don't mind the idea of support group or an institution that dispatches or matches one person to a "mentor" or helper. Yet when it comes to extroverts and their love of groups, I just can't help but wonder how they thought that creating the ultimate enterprise will ever put an end to capitalism. "Let's help the poor fellas out," right?, "let's make a group for these asocial people."

Y'know, odd thing is that the "cause" of an extrovert claiming to be So blind spot was able somehow to "rally" a lot of Socials into the thread (Aux./Dom & mistypes). And I've always wondered why my threads didn't last as long... And these socials say they have the very same issues. If they hate it too what "we" hate, then who's to be faulted? Who's to remunerate? And y'know what? I think it's the one who presents his/herself as recognizing the "cause," as willing to initiate a support group for the downtrodden, disenfranchised asocials and by that implies, pretends as if s/he was outside of it all. Because for all my 4 yrs spent on typology, in which I couldn't find a group where people gathered as "asocials" (not really the best term, but meh) were actually intimacy-seekers or (any group whatsoever where people fit its label, be it introvert, core-fix Enneagram 4, INFP, etc.), I'm having a hard time taking this initiative seriously. As a contra-flow type, after all those 8 yrs on the forum - what kept you believing? In groups? In online communication? How come you're only "coming out" now? (for duuh, if that ain't why I joined typology in the 1st place?) But one thing I could always agree on w/ typology members is that we all have the capacity to recognize that we all boil in the same Kaka, even if we have diff. views on who's more responsible to it than others. And "don't like hierarchies" - weren't all revolutions about not-liking-the-then-current-hierarchies? And didn't they all end, through some uncanny magic, in the ones most hating hierarchies getting on top of the newly established hierarchies? Some animals being more equal to others and all?

They happen time to time, these wounds on the fabric of the social, when responsibility is exposed, when, if only for a split second, the culprits, the covertly complicit ones are (the loudest, more publicly present, active majority) publicly unmasked. Yet the very next moment culture quickly shifts, to cover it up, to change the meanings, standards of reference. Newspeak comes in and instead of radical and brutal changes in organization, social structure (that "fixing it" theoretically would require), culture adapts to accommodate the world for the persistence of the incongruities of life.

There's no support for So blind spots, except for the rare instances when two matching out of their subtypes stumble upon each other. That enables them to validate each others' disenfranchisement. Otherwise, normally, we're pushed under the social noise. So we have to be loud, write as long as I did here and make an idiot of ourselves (hence the peacockiness) but even that's no guarantee that the So blind spot "baited" wouldn't be repelling/competitive.

So aux.'s can be really conscious/reflective of the enlisted social problems. Might as well look into Sp/So.

ENTP (judging by her demeanor, reserved, solid Sp/So, perhaps 6w5)

In a study group I was put in at uni there was one girl who fit in with rest (whereas I stood out), wasn't on the forefront when it came to decisions, had the more cautious, laid-back vibe, totally non-sexual, was actually more outspoken against smartphones than me. (I still don't have one and I've already resigned talking people out of owning one and I wasn't even jiving with the group well so didn't want to lose more on status by wasted critique). Whereas this other, ISFJ seeming girl, she had more Sp/So vibe, if fabricated - had beautiful room decoration, a brand new coffee machine to serves us, yet when I couldn't resist to point out the possible social appeal behind it, she got really mad at me.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Ironic alright, although to me it comes off more like patronizing. Even if that wasn't the intent. It's exactly because of extreme groupishness (herd-mentality, conformism, "bus to Abilene effect") is why we have the quoted and enlisted stuff to complain about. As a 6, appealing to structures, I don't mind the idea of support group or an institution that dispatches or matches one person to a "mentor" or helper. Yet when it comes to extroverts and their love of groups, I just can't help but wonder how they thought that creating the ultimate enterprise will ever put an end to capitalism. "Let's help the poor fellas out," right?, "let's make a group for these asocial people."

Y'know, odd thing is that the "cause" of an extrovert claiming to be So blind spot was able somehow to "rally" a lot of Socials into the thread (Aux./Dom & mistypes). And I've always wondered why my threads didn't last as long... And these socials say they have the very same issues. If they hate it too what "we" hate, then who's to be faulted? Who's to remunerate? And y'know what? I think it's the one who presents his/herself as recognizing the "cause," as willing to initiate a support group for the downtrodden, disenfranchised asocials and by that implies, pretends as if s/he was outside of it all. Because for all my 4 yrs spent on typology, in which I couldn't find a group where people gathered as "asocials" (not really the best term, but meh) were actually intimacy-seekers or (any group whatsoever where people fit its label, be it introvert, core-fix Enneagram 4, INFP, etc.), I'm having a hard time taking this initiative seriously. As a contra-flow type, after all those 8 yrs on the forum - what kept you believing? In groups? In online communication? How come you're only "coming out" now? (for duuh, if that ain't why I joined typology in the 1st place?) But one thing I could always agree on w/ typology members is that we all have the capacity to recognize that we all boil in the same Kaka, even if we have diff. views on who's more responsible to it than others. And "don't like hierarchies" - weren't all revolutions about not-liking-the-then-current-hierarchies? And didn't they all end, through some uncanny magic, in the ones most hating hierarchies getting on top of the newly established hierarchies? Some animals being more equal to others and all?

They happen time to time, these wounds on the fabric of the social, when responsibility is exposed, when, if only for a split second, the culprits, the covertly complicit ones are (the loudest, more publicly present, active majority) publicly unmasked. Yet the very next moment culture quickly shifts, to cover it up, to change the meanings, standards of reference. Newspeak comes in and instead of radical and brutal changes in organization, social structure (that "fixing it" theoretically would require), culture adapts to accommodate the world for the persistence of the incongruities of life.

There's no support for So blind spots, except for the rare instances when two matching out of their subtypes stumble upon each other. That enables them to validate each others' disenfranchisement. Otherwise, normally, we're pushed under the social noise. So we have to be loud, write as long as I did here and make an idiot of ourselves (hence the peacockiness) but even that's no guarantee that the So blind spot "baited" wouldn't be repelling/competitive.

So aux.'s can be really conscious/reflective of the enlisted social problems. Might as well look into Sp/So.

ENTP (judging by her demeanor, reserved, solid Sp/So, perhaps 6w5)

In a study group I was put in at uni there was one girl who fit in with rest (whereas I stood out), wasn't on the forefront when it came to decisions, had the more cautious, laid-back vibe, totally non-sexual, was actually more outspoken against smartphones than me. (I still don't have one and I've already resigned talking people out of owning one and I wasn't even jiving with the group well so didn't want to lose more on status by wasted critique). Whereas this other, ISFJ seeming girl, she had more Sp/So vibe, if fabricated - had beautiful room decoration, a brand new coffee machine to serves us, yet when I couldn't resist to point out the possible social appeal behind it, she got really mad at me.

You have horrible Ne and Fi for an "INFP". You have completely failed to see the various possibilities of individual experience and perception. Also, I'm pretty sure no one here sees you as an intellectual authority, so you may as well give up the act.

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.

 

[neko 4]

As someone who has social last, I don't even do Facebook or Instagram or Twitter. They're all a waste of my time. I don't want to share my life with random people through social media.

 

[Qlip]

I had two close friends a year ago, both of them have become distant. Not because of them in themselves, just my life stuff. Now I have zero close friends, not counting my SO.

I understand from all the literature that I need some local replacements. I need a plan for that. In my mind it starts:

• Step 1: Hangout at the library.
• Step 2: ???

 

[Magic Poriferan]

This is about social last people in general, but I was thinking about how being sx first and so last often seems like a very difficult concept to explain to people for some reason. Does it seem that way to anyone else?

 

[Lexicon]

This is about social last people in general, but I was thinking about how being sx first and so last often seems like a very difficult concept to explain to people for some reason. Does it seem that way to anyone else?

I’m sp/sx, but I could see how some might confuse the sx desire for connectedness as more of an so trait, or closely linked. It’s all about scale, if put simply. Micro vs macro.

 

[cascadeco]

This is about social last people in general, but I was thinking about how being sx first and so last often seems like a very difficult concept to explain to people for some reason. Does it seem that way to anyone else?

I don't think it's difficult; I mean, I suppose it might be difficult if one thinks of sx only in terms of 'connecting', but it's my understanding that that's not what it is, that it's more about intensity/highs, which when it comes to people can mean trying to find that 'high' via connecting with the person and seeking a special/intense bond, but it has little to do with social bonding / interpersonally connecting and understanding. (which is why sx can be tied to any sort of 'high' / hobby / experiences, outside of people specifically)

 

[1487610420]

 

[Luminous]

I’m sp/sx, but I could see how some might confuse the sx desire for connectedness as more of an so trait, or closely linked. It’s all about scale, if put simply. Micro vs macro.

I don't think it's difficult; I mean, I suppose it might be difficult if one thinks of sx only in terms of 'connecting', but it's my understanding that that's not what it is, that it's more about intensity/highs, which when it comes to people can mean trying to find that 'high' via connecting with the person and seeking a special/intense bond, but it has little to do with social bonding / interpersonally connecting. (which is why sx can be tied to any sort of 'high' / hobby / experiences, outside of people specifically)

The difference in these definitions means everything for me in determining my type. The idea that I would use people for obtaining a high, without actually wanting interpersonal connection, is contrary to what I am. That is what you mean, Cascadeco? For an sx-dom, the high from connecting is more important than the actual connection?

 

[cascadeco]

The difference in these definitions means everything for me in determining my type. The idea that I would use people for obtaining a high, without actually wanting interpersonal connection, is contrary to what I am. That is what you mean, Cascadeco? For an sx-dom, the high from connecting is more important than the actual connection?

I think [MENTION=22480]brainheart[/MENTION] has articulated this best, and I am merely summing up (maybe inaccurately) what I gleaned from her. But I believe (?) sx is about the intensity possibly moreso than the connection (don't get me wrong -- One can achieve the Intensity by having a connection; however I believe sx-doms especially can have difficulty once that initial high wears off)

But I mean... one of the main things to keep in mind too is that sx is not only tied to people. It can be anything.

Edit: Too, this will play out differently based on other aspects of ones' character, whether it be values, Fe/Fi, etc etc. But I think bare-bones enneagram theory, sx is more about the intensity/narrowed focus, not connecting per se.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I personally don't relate to that thing about the high wearing off. I always tend to keep my interpersonal eggs (?, or is it marbles? can't remember - that "Don't keep all your ___ in one basket" idiom) in too few baskets, but I never really get sick of or bored with the baskets. If that makes sense.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I get bored with baskets occasionally. Very on/off, especially when stressed or unhealthy.

Sx is not about reciprocation in the way that So is. So wants to foster a sort of tether between 2 or more people and severing that would be upsetting because then they'd just sorta be free-flowing and unsupported. Sx wants to cast and reel at will. Sp doesn't really wanna do anything, it just wants to "be", but in comfort. Sx without So doesn't wanna hit a snag when casting because then they'd be stuck and the game wouldn't be fun anymore. They don't wanna be obligated to reciprocate via tether. While they do enjoy merging with a special other (assuming they aren't asexual/aromantic), there is still a 2-sided coin quality to them, giving them the characteristic on/off thing.

I feel like I had more to say, but my kids won't stfu despite it being 37 minutes after bedtime, and now I lost my train of thought.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

(the last half of that was for both Sx/Sp and Sp/Sx)

 

[Agent Washington]

When ppl you haven't met have heard about you because some outgoing So type has talked shit about you to everyone...