[sx] Sx first, initiate first?

[sulfit]

On the other hand, Sx/Sp women, if I ask my gut, it says I may have seen some, although, not recognized at the time, in the company of guys. These tomboyish girls or "witches" are not seen much among fellow wome but they somehow always have male bodyguards, charmed away fellows on their side, as their tie back to the social world - that's how I'd imagine you to get a reputation or just some impromptu bad opinions about a healthy amount of relationships. Otherwise it would be the other stereotype which is about the Sp blind spot, involving veneral diseases, chameleon-ness of identity, etc.

You might not be identifying Sx/sp women then. Girls with "tomboy" traits are over-represented with Sp/so stacking. Jem is a good example of this:

So/sp can have a bossy angry attitude associated with masculine traits.

"Witch" stereotype is closer to what So-last women get branded. But the "surrounded by male bodyguards and charmed away fellows on their side" is minutely descriptive of Sp/sx that establishes a network of relationships (SX-second) that ultimately protects them and provides other perks. Could be family members, could be romantic partners, men, friends, their children, acquaintances, so on. The Sx/sp's don't seem to have a cohesive network of relationships like this even if their total count of relationships is high.

 

[Neokortex]

You might not be identifying Sx/sp women then. Girls with "tomboy" traits are over-represented with Sp/so stacking. Jem is a good example of this:

So/sp can have a bossy angry attitude associated with masculine traits.

"Witch" stereotype is closer to what So-last women get branded. But the "surrounded by male bodyguards and charmed away fellows on their side" is minutely descriptive of Sp/sx that establishes a network of relationships (SX-second) that ultimately protects them and provides other perks. Could be family members, could be romantic partners, men, friends, their children, acquaintances, so on. The Sx/sp's don't seem to have a cohesive network of relationships like this even if their total count of relationships is high.

Jem... and the Holograms??? xDDD

I'm yet to discover how extensive a social network an Sp/Sx can have, although I doubt it's larger than the Sp/Sos'. In case of Sx/Sps I think the relationships are haphazard, changeable, there's no stability but temporary "quickfixes," the reason for endless wandering.
And Sp/Sos being tomboyish? I doubt it. They have this air to them that they don't wanna touch something to contract some slimy disease. They're organized, have it all together, keep proximity (spacial boundaries), modest but more formal clothing, resourcefulness, hand cleaning tissue up their sleeve, etc. Women I think are closer to this kooky geeky but formal stereotype, the student with jumper and glasses. Like this girl I've met on an Erasmus party, said she's not drinking but looking after the others, as she's been studying to be a nurse (some ISFJness there) but also in terms of sexuality she didn't uncover much but was rather reserved behind the party facade of attractiveness. A lot of the social subtypes' norms about how to portray sexual availability has no conscious presence/intimacy behind it, So types can be more ironic, self-imitative ("I feel like a bitch tonight") about it. And the masculine traits you refer to I think are more about this passive-agression of a possible repressed E8.

 

[chubber]

Sexual 5 - Seeking Intimacy/Intensity
Udit Patel This Is My World (Ichazo's "Confidence")

Sexual Fives focus their hoarding in the area of intimate relationships. The combination of instinct and type are at odds here: the Five defense is to withdraw, while the sexual instinct demands intimacy and connection. Most Sexual Fives live in an uneasy truce between these polar influences, but they seek to resolve this tension by slowly inviting prospective intimates into their own secret world. Sexual Fives are primarily focused in their imaginations, but they believe that most others would find their thoughts and preoccupations dark and even frightening. At the very least, they are certain that others will find them odd or eccentric. Nonetheless, they want to share their perceptions and hidden worlds and secretly hope to have a deep connection with a single soul, a mate for life, who can understand them and their sometimes bizarre views of reality. Intimacy for them entails finding someone else who will explore the surreal vistas of their inner world. They also look to their partner for some degree of help in dealing with people and the practical affairs of life. They hope that their partner will run interference for them and give them confidence to navigate the external world. If Sexual Fives are disappointed in love, they may retreat and remain unattached for long periods of time, even years.

LifeExplore

Intimate Fives trust only a few people but then do so totally. Friendship is based on the sharing of confidences. Intimacy is equivalent to exchanging secrets. Can go from enigmatic, deliberate distance to intense, unguarded openness. Seductive invitation to sharing secrets; seek a total merging. When entranced can be a little kinky.

 

[Redbone]

Sexual 5 - Seeking Intimacy/Intensity
Udit Patel This Is My World (Ichazo's "Confidence")

Sexual Fives focus their hoarding in the area of intimate relationships. The combination of instinct and type are at odds here: the Five defense is to withdraw, while the sexual instinct demands intimacy and connection. Most Sexual Fives live in an uneasy truce between these polar influences, but they seek to resolve this tension by slowly inviting prospective intimates into their own secret world. Sexual Fives are primarily focused in their imaginations, but they believe that most others would find their thoughts and preoccupations dark and even frightening. At the very least, they are certain that others will find them odd or eccentric. Nonetheless, they want to share their perceptions and hidden worlds and secretly hope to have a deep connection with a single soul, a mate for life, who can understand them and their sometimes bizarre views of reality. Intimacy for them entails finding someone else who will explore the surreal vistas of their inner world. They also look to their partner for some degree of help in dealing with people and the practical affairs of life. They hope that their partner will run interference for them and give them confidence to navigate the external world. If Sexual Fives are disappointed in love, they may retreat and remain unattached for long periods of time, even years.

LifeExplore

Intimate Fives trust only a few people but then do so totally. Friendship is based on the sharing of confidences. Intimacy is equivalent to exchanging secrets. Can go from enigmatic, deliberate distance to intense, unguarded openness. Seductive invitation to sharing secrets; seek a total merging. When entranced can be a little kinky.

This is good [MENTION=20044]chubber[/MENTION]. Where did you find this? I know I've read it before... Never mind! I found it. Thanks for the reminder though.

 

[Chad of the OttomanEmpire]

So I have a question for the Y generation, as me also being part of it. I have a strong Enneagram 6, so I'm somewhat conservative when it comes to getting to know people. But is it just my experience that rather the only way to make acquaintances for an So blind spot is to star doing it yourself? To pull myself up by the bootstraps, to reach out alone for waiting yielded no results? Going up to people and accosting them. We live in this overtechnologized world and nobody really bothers, in a sense everyone has become an "introvert" when it comes to socializing in the outside world from sources other than your best friend's friend's circles.

Hi. Sorry if this is like a month old, I just got back after months and months of...ugh...nvm. I'm sx-first and I have some ideas about this.

And is it annoying only to me that people are unable to call on the phone, they'd rather text all the time? Do you find yourself waiting for that stage when you actually get to call the newly met person and he returns it, so both can hear each other's voices? But before that you find yourself almost being the sole initiator, akin to being clingy or desperate and receiving delayed half responses only?

Honestly, no. I don't like to let myself be pathetic enough to be "desperate" for one other person. I would probably NOT obsess about hearing their voice over the phone. I'm someone who would rather text than interrupt someone, I don't like talking at all, I like face-to-face interactions. (Though to be fair, constantly having to type or text every single interaction is really really wearing.)

I really don't think this has much to do with sx-first though. Any of it. It sounds more like being young and obsessing over a crush, and will vary with temperament and life experience. I personally have never done any of this.

And the girls? The supposedly "weaker sex?" Do you proclaim to be Sx-first when basically waiting for the guy to do the job? How do Sx-first women initiate if at all? What's with that addiction to "peak experiences," "intensity," "experimentation," "taking risks," "recklessness-" what's with all these "macho" qualities when it comes to women? Is there such thing as "gender****" at all?

I am a girl.

I don't like the language used to describe sx-firstness, because I feel I am, like my life, boring. I don't see these words as being overly "macho", though. You know, something as simple as moving to the next town to start a family could be "taking a risk" under the right circumstances, and that's something women can certainly do. So is trying out a new religion, or learning a new language. Those things count as experimentation. It doesn't all have to be some glamorized thing about sex drugs and driving cars too fast down the wrong way of the road for the "thrill".

In response to your other questions, I find that I do NOT take the initiative with potential partners. This has nothing to do with me being a girl. Actually some serious shit happened to me at an early age that really makes me question why the hell anyone would want to be near me at all. As an adult, that perception is still there. I'd say I am extremely reticent about taking the initiative.

That brings me to the next point, that your dominant instinct isn't necessarily something you're good at doing. It can be a major self-esteem concern and a lifelong area of difficulty and pain. It is for me. Consequently I've tended to be very insular when it comes to relationships. Some sx-firsts are like this...abstinent or promiscuous, seeking intensely or avoiding intensely.

But again, I don't think that there is anything that says women canNOT take the initiative in a relationship. In my limited experience with cross dressing, I'd say that they're actually more likely to do so than men. Cause the only time I've actually ever been hit on was when I dressed as a man one Halloween. By a woman.

In short, I guess the instinct is more complex than that. It's not a matter of, Oh that person is initiating sex, must be sx-first. There are reasons a sx-first might NOT initiate, too. And reasons people of other instincts might/might not, too.

 

[Starry]

^Super happy to see [MENTION=18576]Sanjuro[/MENTION] and appreciate her reminding me there was something I was asked to provide in this thread.

[MENTION=10082]Starry[/MENTION] [MENTION=5223]MDP2525[/MENTION] [MENTION=19719]Forever[/MENTION]

Okay, people, in case the intro was misleading:

This thread is about checking if ones indicating Sx-first really have the theory right. And also, checking the theory: how far women can go with intiating to strange men? Say, a bar, a café, a library, and you're having a dry spell and out of options from your friends circle. How daring can you get, to open up to or have a stranger open up to you? And IRL stuff, not tinder, forum, chat. I wanna read stories about penetration, risk taking, riding the waves. Like I'm an introvert an awkward in groups but I'm left to my own devices so I gotta have my eyes open for girls and approach them bc they're not coming to me for sure, no matter how Sx-dom they think they are on the forums...

Neokortex, the above is odd to me and I will go ahead and admit that it takes quite a lot for me to notice and subsequently proclaim something as being odd. I mean, I find normal things to be odd all the time. My meaning here is to say it is so very rare I find odd things to be so peculiar.

It seems to me that you are first attempting to discover if all the forum chicks that type themselves as sx-dom understand the theory and are thus accurately typed/truly sexual dominant...and from there are interested in hearing of their risk-taking with strange men...so you...a supposed sx dom...can approach the risk-takers subsequently making things less risky for you? Does any of this make sense to you?

sx is one of those traits that is more likely to be mistyped on forums...but this is often due to the misconceptions you, yourself, have presented above. Sanjuro does well to correct much of what you put forth but for example for me...

The primary intimate relationship is so sacred in my mind... I don't "initiate with strange men" because I'm having a "dry spell" and the thought of that kinda makes me feel like throwing up. I will initiate with someone that I have fallen for over time and feel deeply connected with. I will talk to interesting strangers if I'm interested in what they are saying at the time...but I never do this as a means to a sacred end.

 

[Neokortex]

Neokortex, the above is odd to me and I will go ahead and admit that it takes quite a lot for me to notice and subsequently proclaim something as being odd. I mean, I find normal things to be odd all the time. My meaning here is to say it is so very rare I find odd things to be so peculiar.

I don't know what your standards are.

It seems to me that you are first attempting to discover if all the forum chicks that type themselves as sx-dom understand the theory and are thus accurately typed/truly sexual dominant...and from there are interested in hearing of their risk-taking with strange men...so you...a supposed sx dom...can approach the risk-takers subsequently making things less risky for you? Does any of this make sense to you?

I guess it does... I mean I didn't make this thread to hit on them or anyone right away. I'm interested primarily in the ratios. Reason is that on PerC I had my first shock when I realized the other INFPs are not like me. I tend to value the gut sphere more, whereas the "ethereal," "transcendetal" INFPs seem to value emotions more and overlook their earthly / animalistic natures. Then the thought came that if we were able to isolate the truly Sx-doms then probably we could at least exchange information more efficiently, without anyone getting outraged right away over being asked some taboo/private questions.

The primary intimate relationship is so sacred in my mind... I don't "initiate with strange men" because I'm having a "dry spell" and the thought of that kinda makes me feel like throwing up. I will initiate with someone that I have fallen for over time and feel deeply connected with. I will talk to interesting strangers if I'm interested in what they are saying at the time...but I never do this as a means to a sacred end.

If you call it sacred, then you may also belong to the emotion-valuers. There are deep stuff to be experienced in emotional intimacy, as well as deep, dark and raw realities discovered underlying our private, corporeal existence. Think about a marxist take on romance and wanting to have children.

Honestly, no. I don't like to let myself be pathetic enough to be "desperate" for one other person. I would probably NOT obsess about hearing their voice over the phone. I'm someone who would rather text than interrupt someone, I don't like talking at all, I like face-to-face interactions. (Though to be fair, constantly having to type or text every single interaction is really really wearing.)

I really don't think this has much to do with sx-first though. Any of it. It sounds more like being young and obsessing over a crush, and will vary with temperament and life experience. I personally have never done any of this.

Naaa, you're exaggerating. Big time. I used the phrase "akin to being clingy or desperate" meaning that you're not. At all. But rather annoyed by the other not being able to be more straightforward with you, you want some kind of a resolution. What I'm trying to get to here is not the tendency but the ability to do it the old way. One thing is that you're accommodating others by also having a smartphone and chat apps but when you want intimate relationships you won't hide behind that, it's between you and him and you stand upright for who you are and what you want.

I don't like the language used to describe sx-firstness, because I feel I am, like my life, boring. I don't see these words as being overly "macho", though. You know, something as simple as moving to the next town to start a family could be "taking a risk" under the right circumstances, and that's something women can certainly do. So is trying out a new religion, or learning a new language. Those things count as experimentation. It doesn't all have to be some glamorized thing about sex drugs and driving cars too fast down the wrong way of the road for the "thrill".

You can put it that way ofc, although it is harder then to pinpoint Sx there. To measure it somehow I say your interactions with a stranger. Everyone can enter a state of "flow" when immersing into some activity but empirically, Sx-dom is supposed to stand in stark contrast with Sx-last when it comes to intragroup or 1-on-1 interactions.

In response to your other questions, I find that I do NOT take the initiative with potential partners. This has nothing to do with me being a girl. Actually some serious shit happened to me at an early age that really makes me question why the hell anyone would want to be near me at all. As an adult, that perception is still there. I'd say I am extremely reticent about taking the initiative.

Well, I'm sorry to read that about your past.

That brings me to the next point, that your dominant instinct isn't necessarily something you're good at doing. It can be a major self-esteem concern and a lifelong area of difficulty and pain. It is for me. Consequently I've tended to be very insular when it comes to relationships. Some sx-firsts are like this...abstinent or promiscuous, seeking intensely or avoiding intensely.

You can have an unhealthy attitude about Sx, making you to avoid it but I also read that the only way to find balance is if one tends after their blind spot, which is rather that "lifelong area of difficulty and pain." I read once, I guess from someone claiming to be overweight, that they withheld their Sx, kept their sensuality away from interactions. But that can also fall under sexual frustration. Everyone has Sx but a lot of people self-impose repression, they are self-deprecating for a common goal, to fit in with a group or bc they are afraid from losing support of their social sphere. Sx means that in average one is more experimental about the social sphere, they are more assertive of their intimate specificities (instead of full conformism) and by that they stand out from the crowd.

But again, I don't think that there is anything that says women canNOT take the initiative in a relationship. In my limited experience with cross dressing, I'd say that they're actually more likely to do so than men. Cause the only time I've actually ever been hit on was when I dressed as a man one Halloween. By a woman.

That's eeeh, limited experience. What I have is also limited experience of being accosted and I don't deviate much from masculine beauty ideals. What I rather find that most people follow social scripts and they're too much used to that or afraid of following me outside of those systems.

In short, I guess the instinct is more complex than that. It's not a matter of, Oh that person is initiating sex, must be sx-first. There are reasons a sx-first might NOT initiate, too. And reasons people of other instincts might/might not, too.

See if you can do it. There's nothing complex in that.

 

[Chad of the OttomanEmpire]

Naaa, you're exaggerating. Big time.

Not a damn bit. I've felt this way my entire life--I'm not wasting my time on this "romance" bullshit. Legitimately sorry if you perceive that I'm exaggerating but--I could fairly argue that you're exaggerating your misperceptions of sx-first.

I used the phrase "akin to being clingy or desperate" meaning that you're not. At all. But rather annoyed by the other not being able to be more straightforward with you, you want some kind of a resolution.

That just sounds core 6 as fuck, needing further resolution because people aren't being straightforward.

What I'm trying to get to here is not the tendency but the ability to do it the old way. One thing is that you're accommodating others by also having a smartphone and chat apps but when you want intimate relationships you won't hide behind that, it's between you and him and you stand upright for who you are and what you want.

How do you know if I even have a smart phone?

No idea what you mean by the bolded part, but as I said I prefer face to face interactions as many of the older generation do.

You can put it that way ofc, although it is harder then to pinpoint Sx there. To measure it somehow I say your interactions with a stranger. Everyone can enter a state of "flow" when immersing into some activity but empirically, Sx-dom is supposed to stand in stark contrast with Sx-last when it comes to intragroup or 1-on-1 interactions.

Strangers have little to do with it. Group interactions have little to do with it. If anything, it's how you interact with what captivates you--sx lasts tend to postpone it. Sx firsts tend to live by it. But the instinct has more to do with having your passions captivated, how you live your life, and the values you hold...rather than a simple thing like "how you interact with strangers", which no part of instinct theory ever touches upon and no theorist mentions as being a determinant of instinct.

Well, I'm sorry to read that about your past.

Thank you.

You can have an unhealthy attitude about Sx, making you to avoid it but I also read that the only way to find balance is if one tends after their blind spot, which is rather that "lifelong area of difficulty and pain."

You "read" about it. Good. I've actually experienced it.

Actually the blindspot is just that--an area of life you're blind to the importance of. You are right in saying that the last instinct is not an easy area either, but it really is because of neglect. You're sometimes forced to deal with it, and yes it can feel uncomfortable, humiliating, or even painful. But that's a minimum of your life, and it's readily gotten over in favor of the needs of the other two.

The dominant instinct is the one you're focused on by default. It is generally not an easy area. If it is too easy, you are probably mistyped. Every theorist says that. It's an area of ego concern, self-esteem, angst, obsession, struggle, and insecurity. No one says the dom instinct is easy for you. The most it may do is appear as a strength (overcompensation?), but it is quite the opposite--a very damaged area of your psyche.

You yourself type as sx-first, and this entire thread is a paean to the difficulties an area of it is causing you.

I read once, I guess from someone claiming to be overweight, that they withheld their Sx, kept their sensuality away from interactions. But that can also fall under sexual frustration.

No offense, man, but a lot of what you've written on this thread honestly falls under "sexual frustration" too. You're not getting girls, and you want to know how to work those wild sx-first 20-somethings. Woo hoo, so hawt.

I am not overweight, if that's what you are implying. Quite the opposite. While I can easily see you as sx-first due to your hangups, I see no reason for you to insinuate I am some overweight sexually frustrated sx-last. Sorry, but that's the distinct impression I am getting. Discount me, so your own paradigm can work.

If I am wrong in my assessment of your implications, by all means correct me. But I, as well as many others, are getting that from your responses.

Everyone has Sx but a lot of people self-impose repression, they are self-deprecating for a common goal, to fit in with a group or bc they are afraid from losing support of their social sphere.

Absolutely nothing to do with it in my case. For me, the damage is to the instinct itself--sexuality, desirability, the concept of someone wanting to get close to me. I'm honestly sorry if you see me worried about losing support of my supposed "social sphere", because 1) I don't have one and 2) that's not what I've been talking about at all so I don't know where you're getting that. Again, it actually sounds like a core 6 concern.

Sx means that in average one is more experimental about the social sphere, they are more assertive of their intimate specificities (instead of full conformism) and by that they stand out from the crowd.

I'd argue that sx means "experimental about life", not the social sphere. I'm not sure where you are getting the information about sx being experimental in the "social" sphere. If you're experimental there, that indicates social-second, as your secondary instinct is the one that is most experimental...at least according to mainstream Instinct theory, which you've implied you understand better than me.

That's eeeh, limited experience. What I have is also limited experience of being accosted and I don't deviate much from masculine beauty ideals.

Well that is fair enough. My experience is limited. So is yours. So it's a matter of my word against yours.

What I rather find that most people follow social scripts and they're too much used to that or afraid of following me outside of those systems.

So how does this relate to sx-instinct?

See if you can do it. There's nothing complex in that.

Why don't you see if YOU can do it. You're clearly failing at it if your other posts are any indication, except you're trying to blame it on "chicks not being sx-first". Look within. The problems--and their solutions--are there.

 

[Neokortex]

Not a damn bit. I've felt this way my entire life--I'm not wasting my time on this "romance" bullshit. Legitimately sorry if you perceive that I'm exaggerating but--I could fairly argue that you're exaggerating your misperceptions of sx-first.

You were exaggerating about how "desperate" I must be for favoring phone calls over text messages. And waiting for that time when the other would quit beating around the bush.

That just sounds core 6 as fuck, needing further resolution because people aren't being straightforward.

When people aren't being straightforward they usually leave one door, even if they close others. It's a liminal status. You can perceive that as being clingy for resolution or you can take that as wanting to spare time and effort. :-/

http://personalitycafe.com/enneagram-personality-theory-forum/118168-resource-thread-instinctual-variants-stackings-post2985517.html#post2985517

On the down side however, sexual subtypes tend to struggle with issues of neediness and dependency, as they tend to feel that they need relationships in order to reclaim lost or inaccessible portions of the self. In addition, the merging tendency, when taken to extremes, can lead to an inability to protect important boundaries. And the desire for intensity of experience can lead sexual subtypes to take unnecessary risks, to be somewhat impatient and to grow bored or frustrated with mundane reality.

How do you know if I even have a smart phone? No idea what you mean by the bolded part, but as I said I prefer face to face interactions as many of the older generation do.

Well, if you usually text instead of calls, then that's a modern generation approach. The bolded part means that it is easier to be sneaky with texting than with calls.

Strangers have little to do with it. Group interactions have little to do with it. If anything, it's how you interact with what captivates you--sx lasts tend to postpone it. Sx firsts tend to live by it. But the instinct has more to do with having your passions captivated, how you live your life, and the values you hold...rather than a simple thing like "how you interact with strangers", which no part of instinct theory ever touches upon and no theorist mentions as being a determinant of instinct.

Haha, and you give authority to theorists over experiences? Well, I tell you, they all have to do with it. Based on the theory Sx can be anything if it means wasting your energy on something to get high. But the only thing that narrows it down, is maybe that particular Enneagram that is associated with it. Otherwise, I see myself get high on all kinds of things (especially as a core 4) and I like to get high on women as well.

You "read" about it. Good. I've actually experienced it.

Actually the blindspot is just that--an area of life you're blind to the importance of. You are right in saying that the last instinct is not an easy area either, but it really is because of neglect. You're sometimes forced to deal with it, and yes it can feel uncomfortable, humiliating, or even painful. But that's a minimum of your life, and it's readily gotten over in favor of the needs of the other two.

The dominant instinct is the one you're focused on by default. It is generally not an easy area. If it is too easy, you are probably mistyped. Every theorist says that. It's an area of ego concern, self-esteem, angst, obsession, struggle, and insecurity. No one says the dom instinct is easy for you. The most it may do is appear as a strength (overcompensation?), but it is quite the opposite--a very damaged area of your psyche.

You yourself type as sx-first, and this entire thread is a paean to the difficulties an area of it is causing you.

Naaa, there's more to your blind spot than just neglect. It's actually the very reason why you have it's opposite as dominant in the first place.
"The dominant instinct is the one you're focused on by default. It is generally not an easy area. If it is too easy, you are probably mistyped."
No, actually you're focused on both. They're not separable. And I'd say the blind spot is the damaged area and the dominant is the area of overcompensation that can go bad if gone out of control.

No offense, man, but a lot of what you've written on this thread honestly falls under "sexual frustration" too. You're not getting girls, and you want to know how to work those wild sx-first 20-somethings. Woo hoo, so hawt.

No offense miss, but this is more reflective of you, I think. Ya know, Eight being the lustful type and all. DDD I mean about the stuff you write, about Sx not being the easy area... for me it's rather Sx having trouble with the social norms. The only uneasiness is to assert it in a way that they won't call me a madman. But I don't feel like a madman, because I know that everyone's just like me. Except when Sx 1 rage gets out of hand, then I'm a psychopath, haha. D But then again, people are also psychopaths. But I've never blamed my Sx, I've always feared my So blind spot.

I am not overweight, if that's what you are implying. Quite the opposite. While I can easily see you as sx-first due to your hangups, I see no reason for you to insinuate I am some overweight sexually frustrated sx-last. Sorry, but that's the distinct impression I am getting. Discount me, so your own paradigm can work.

If I am wrong in my assessment of your implications, by all means correct me. But I, as well as many others, are getting that from your responses.

I do see one reason, though: you haven't given me info about your Sx before you became avoidant, abstinent. And you said you were a boring person...

I don't like the language used to describe sx-firstness, because I feel I am, like my life, boring. I don't see these words as being overly "macho", though. You know, something as simple as moving to the next town to start a family could be "taking a risk" under the right circumstances, and that's something women can certainly do. So is trying out a new religion, or learning a new language. Those things count as experimentation. It doesn't all have to be some glamorized thing about sex drugs and driving cars too fast down the wrong way of the road for the "thrill".

... and described Sx experimentation without the subversive potential of Sx.

http://personalitycafe.com/enneagram-personality-theory-forum/118168-resource-thread-instinctual-variants-stackings-post2985517.html#post2985517

SX blind spot - subvert the fiery energy, tame the fire, don’t honor your passions, procrastinate and postpone if you need to, avoid anything stimulating. Inertia. They may fear of being a boring, bland person, without passions, be afraid of having 'no juice', and feel flattered that someone wants to spend time with them.

I mean you can be Sx but if you hold abstinence over your Sx qualities until the end of your life or or you narrow down your Sx qualities to a very few and general cases, then you mostly likely aren't.

Everyone has Sx but a lot of people self-impose repression, they are self-deprecating for a common goal, to fit in with a group or bc they are afraid from losing support of their social sphere.

Absolutely nothing to do with it in my case. For me, the damage is to the instinct itself--sexuality, desirability, the concept of someone wanting to get close to me. I'm honestly sorry if you see me worried about losing support of my supposed "social sphere", because 1) I don't have one and 2) that's not what I've been talking about at all so I don't know where you're getting that. Again, it actually sounds like a core 6 concern.

"no part of instinct theory ever touches upon and no theorist mentions;" "Absolutely nothing to do with it in my case." - is there never any "in-between?" And, e-hm "While I can easily see you as sx-first due to your hangups;" "Legitimately sorry if you perceive that;" "I'm honestly sorry if you see me worried about..." What hang-ups?? And why sorry? Is this an often used choice of words at your place or have I just been missing out on an air condescension there? And not having a social sphere... and by that I meant a group where you belong... well, then wait to see what that unidentified person wrote about Sx/So 8s, haha

http://personalitycafe.com/enneagram-personality-theory-forum/118168-resource-thread-instinctual-variants-stackings-post2985989.html#post2985989

This subtype of Eight manifests as the alpha male and alpha female. They demand everyone's attention, and usually get it. They can be very charismatic. The assertive energy of the Eight combines with the assertive energy of the sexual instinct. With the self-preservational instinct least developed, this subtype has a lot of extroverted energy. This type isn’t afraid to go after what they want in life. The fixation on lust and the emphasis on control combine with great intensisty. At times, it’s almost as if their energy gets ahead of them, which can cause problems. They often have a vision of the future, but they have their blind spots too. They can harness a tremendous amount of energy for change, but at the same time be unaware of the fallout they might encounter because of their sometimes excessive self-assertion.

I'd argue that sx means "experimental about life", not the social sphere. I'm not sure where you are getting the information about sx being experimental in the "social" sphere. If you're experimental there, that indicates social-second, as your secondary instinct is the one that is most experimental...at least according to mainstream Instinct theory, which you've implied you understand better than me.

You're right there. I wasn't specific enough. Bot Sx-doms are more experimental about the social sphere... meaning that they bring a transformative quality due to their own heightened self-awareness. The Sx/Sp about their own self-awareness and Sx/So about their deeper insights into group dynamics. Confer the following excerpts...

http://personalitycafe.com/enneagram-personality-theory-forum/118168-resource-thread-instinctual-variants-stackings-post2985517.html#post2985517

(sx blind spot)When the sexual instinct is least developed, the personality can lack a certain charisma and momentum. Such personalities often do not form truly intimate relationships, as they don’t feel driven to do so; consequently, their personal relationships can suffer from a lack of attention. As there are aspects of ourselves which we can only see when in close relationship to others, those whose sexual instinct remains undeveloped might find it difficult to cultivate some forms of self-awareness. (...)

(so-dom unhealthy)In less balanced personalities, this can lead to a need to conform to the standards of the group in order to achieve acceptance. Social subtypes can sometimes fail to focus on the needs of the self as they are searching for their identity in terms of the larger whole.

Well that is fair enough. My experience is limited. So is yours. So it's a matter of my word against yours.

Yours against mine?? D What if most of the guys I know have all limited experience with women being initiative, direct and straightforward to them? D Gotta make some phone calls D

So how does this relate to sx-instinct?

Well, ya know. The experimentation you talked about a while back. I quoted you. Ring a bell?

Why don't you see if YOU can do it. You're clearly failing at it if your other posts are any indication, except you're trying to blame it on "chicks not being sx-first". Look within. The problems--and their solutions--are there.

Okay, it's not my intent to be condescending or anything but eeehm... Maybe, perhaps, even for a little bit, theories may be a bit farther away from what your real strengths are? And the world needs people like that, don't get me wrong, but uuhm... to answer your proposal: I've been doing it the whole time. And I've been looking within as well, that's the abstract attention path of the Sx/Sp pattern. If you meant spiritually, then I have to agree, all of our problems and their solutions - are to be found within.

 

[Neokortex]

Not a damn bit. I've felt this way my entire life--I'm not wasting my time on this "romance" bullshit. Legitimately sorry if you perceive that I'm exaggerating but--I could fairly argue that you're exaggerating your misperceptions of sx-first.

Wait. Wait... I've missed this one. What " 'romance-' bullshit" ? Who talked here about romance? Or "romance?" DDD Did just calling by phone turn romantic overnight? DD Gimme yo #! xDDDD

 

[Chad of the OttomanEmpire]

You were exaggerating about how "desperate" I must be for favoring phone calls over text messages. And waiting for that time when the other would quit beating around the bush.

No, I'm not saying you are personally desperate. I'm saying I disagree with the wording and I wouldn't want it attributed to me.

Haha, and you give authority to theorists over experiences? Well, I tell you, they all have to do with it. Based on the theory Sx can be anything if it means wasting your energy on something to get high. But the only thing that narrows it down, is maybe that particular Enneagram that is associated with it. Otherwise, I see myself get high on all kinds of things (especially as a core 4) and I like to get high on women as well.

Actually, I give credence to theory inasmuch as it checks out with my personal experiences, not vice versa. But that being said, I do listen to the cannon and make it a point to read published works so that I have a clear idea of what the theoretical premises are to begin with. I do not disagree with what you say in the bolded, as long as we remember this is figurative.

Can you explain to me your thoughts about how core 4s are especially prone to getting high on all kinds of things? I was under the impression it was a bit different but I want to hear your take.

Naaa, there's more to your blind spot than just neglect. It's actually the very reason why you have it's opposite as dominant in the first place.
"The dominant instinct is the one you're focused on by default. It is generally not an easy area. If it is too easy, you are probably mistyped."
No, actually you're focused on both. They're not separable. And I'd say the blind spot is the damaged area and the dominant is the area of overcompensation that can go bad if gone out of control.

Actually, practitioners usually state that the dominant instinct is in fact damaged. See these words, for example, published on Enneagram Monthly:

There are three fundamental instincts in human existence: the self-preserving (survival), the social and the sexual. You are governed by every one of these instincts, of course, but one of them will dominate your life. The instinct dominating you is the one that is the most DAMAGED of the three, where you are the least in touch with your essence, where you have the least access to that effortless flow the Zen archer uses to hit his target without aiming. In a three-party system, it is the one which carries the voice. In a family with three children, it is that crippled child who needs the most attention. It is where you are leaking essence the most dangerously. It is where you waste the most energy, while resisting the flow of essence. But just as you can change your enslaving passion into liberating virtue, your gravest deficiency can turn into the greatest fulfillment, and your most damaged instinct can become your most healed. Free-flowing instinct is pure energy.

However, you must work with the instincts separately, entirely on their own and independently of the enneagram, in order to recognize which is the one ruling you and how your particular delusional system operates. You might want to rank them, from most to least damaged; it is useful to know such things about oneself.

That's pretty generally accepted among enneagram practitioners. If you would like to try to prove me wrong, by all means, but I do understand the theory regardless of what you might suggest.

No offense miss, but this is more reflective of you, I think. Ya know, Eight being the lustful type and all. DDD I mean about the stuff you write, about Sx not being the easy area... for me it's rather Sx having trouble with the social norms. The only uneasiness is to assert it in a way that they won't call me a madman. But I don't feel like a madman, because I know that everyone's just like me. Except when Sx 1 rage gets out of hand, then I'm a psychopath, haha. D But then again, people are also psychopaths. But I've never blamed my Sx, I've always feared my So blind spot.

Again, you're going to have to explain exactly what Sx-first has to do with having trouble in the social realm in your case. I'm serious, I'm not seeing the connection. Please be specific--are there examples of how this works for you?

I do see one reason, though: you haven't given me info about your Sx before you became avoidant, abstinent. And you said you were a boring person... ... and described Sx experimentation without the subversive potential of Sx.

http://personalitycafe.com/enneagram-personality-theory-forum/118168-resource-thread-instinctual-variants-stackings-post2985517.html#post2985517

I mean you can be Sx but if you hold abstinence over your Sx qualities until the end of your life or or you narrow down your Sx qualities to a very few and general cases, then you mostly likely aren't.

Sx isn't about having lots of sex. That's all I care to say about it. It may be that we are having parallel conversations where you think I'm saying one thing about myself, but I'm saying something quite different.

"no part of instinct theory ever touches upon and no theorist mentions;" "Absolutely nothing to do with it in my case." - is there never any "in-between?" And, e-hm "While I can easily see you as sx-first due to your hangups;" "Legitimately sorry if you perceive that;" "I'm honestly sorry if you see me worried about..." What hang-ups?? And why sorry? Is this an often used choice of words at your place or have I just been missing out on an air condescension there?

No condescension intended. I don't understand why I can't say I'm sorry if.... and that's not seen as a genuine expression of sorriness. "I don't want you to see me as ___ and I apologize if you do". I don't think it's that condescending. And yes, I see this entire thread as an expression of a hangup--you're fed up with girls who won't hit on you, and now you're taking it out on women who type as sx-first. There are no sx-first women, because if there were, they'd get it on with you right then and there, swinging from the chandalier. That's the distinct impression I am getting.

And not having a social sphere... and by that I meant a group where you belong... well, then wait to see what that unidentified person wrote about Sx/So 8s, haha

http://personalitycafe.com/enneagram-personality-theory-forum/118168-resource-thread-instinctual-variants-stackings-post2985989.html#post2985989

A) Who says I'm an 8?
B) You were just questioning whether I put theory over experience. I am going to ask you the same. The Oceans Moonshine blurb you cite there is but one example from an obscure corner of the internet. Not a bad source, but not the final verdict on how your instinctual stacking may manifest. It's a blurb, something to reflect on and take into account, but not the ultimate authority.

You're right there. I wasn't specific enough. Bot Sx-doms are more experimental about the social sphere... meaning that they bring a transformative quality due to their own heightened self-awareness. The Sx/Sp about their own self-awareness and Sx/So about their deeper insights into group dynamics. Confer the following excerpts...

http://personalitycafe.com/enneagram-personality-theory-forum/118168-resource-thread-instinctual-variants-stackings-post2985517.html#post2985517

I am still not sure I see the connection that you do, but I thank you for sharing anyway.

Yours against mine?? D What if most of the guys I know have all limited experience with women being initiative, direct and straightforward to them? D Gotta make some phone calls D

What if most girls I know say the opposite??

We could be on opposite corners of the globe, have different cultural traditions, or whatever else. Each person has a different experience, which is THE important lesson from the enneagram. One person's word against another, worlds collide, greater tolerance and understanding and all.

Well, ya know. The experimentation you talked about a while back. I quoted you. Ring a bell?

Yes, but just like "experimentation" doesn't have to be wild and/or sexual, it also doesn't necessarily have to come from a place of sx-first. I am sorry, but you will have to give a very clear example of how sx experimentation can run amok in the social sphere for you, or a lot of people won't quite see the connection the way it's written.

In that regard, the most I'd say about the sx-subtypes I have known is that they were indeed eccentric, but not habitually into breaking out of the social system for its own sake. The one exception to this would be my sx/soc 6w5 father because, well, he rebelled against everyone.

Okay, it's not my intent to be condescending or anything but eeehm... Maybe, perhaps, even for a little bit, theories may be a bit farther away from what your real strengths are? And the world needs people like that, don't get me wrong, but uuhm...

I may quite fairly say, Two can play at that game. Back at you.

Something I find interesting in this particular case is that according to my understanding of the theory, I quite honestly can see and accept you and your circumstances as a sx-subtype, in addition to seeing myself the same way despite ostensible differences. Your understanding, though, doesn't seem to account for mine, presumably because what I explain about mine doesn't agree with yours word-for-word. I'm not telling you a right and wrong here, or a lesson you're supposed to learn. Just food for thought.

Wait. Wait... I've missed this one. What " 'romance-' bullshit" ? Who talked here about romance? Or "romance?" DDD Did just calling by phone turn romantic overnight? DD Gimme yo #! xDDDD

"Romance" in the English language can range from cutesy-frilly nonsense, to "loving feelings and courtship", to "romantic encounters" ie, sex. Much of which does pertain to the themes you've raised. I don't believe there was anything off about my choice of words, but if you'd like to continue mocking me, I will pull out of this discussion very quickly.

 

[Neokortex]

A) Who says I'm an 8?

Methinks. It's on your tag. But now I'll also assert it. I hate 8s but after learning some more it seems to me that this whole long debating (arguing?) comes down to your 8 hiding its weaknesses. (and me being naive to fight against it) And it got sooo complicated that I even lost the woods for the tree.

And yes, I see this entire thread as an expression of a hangup--you're fed up with girls who won't hit on you, and now you're taking it out on women who type as sx-first. There are no sx-first women, because if there were, they'd get it on with you right then and there, swinging from the chandalier. That's the distinct impression I am getting.

Women had never been (intended to be) the main focus here. Rather the idea of social subtypes being more compromising (conforming) and thus using technology as a form of relating because their Sx blind spot would not make the risks that earlier generations did. But I don't think this applies to you since 8s are very good at making risks. I watched this video and this . I felt it wasn't worth continuing this conversation for I needed some more research to back it up and also that strong confrontation I was getting from you. Like, there still are discrepancies and things I find I can complement your knowledge with but since I hate 8s and you might become defensive (=offensive) again, I won't go the trouble. You can call me sensitive/over-reacting but in-between your lines the 8 dynamic is easily recognizable.

So it's not big research but I thought I'd share the "anecdotal truth" that came out of my inquiries. Over the winter holiday I asked a couple of acquaintances, old friends about their experience with women.
E8-3w2-6 ENTJ
E9-- ISFP
E9-3 ISFJ
E...Sx/So 6? IXXJ
E6-3 ESFP

Generally, all of them said that it's rare for women to initiate. However, the ISFJ and ENTJ in particular had more instances of that happening. ISFJ pointed out that when he was working out he used to have more women come up to him and a few cases sounded exceptional while others didn't entail as much risk from the women's part. Then I remembered that ENTJ and ISFP have as much athletic, muscular body types as ISFJ. IXXJ, although very social, is as lanky & lean as me and could be also because of his gender role bias but he couldn't recollect any cases. ESFP has been having a long term relationship and his and ISFP's comments consolidated the idea that earlier in high school (8-10th grades) it was more common for girls to initiate.

I think 8 can be easily mistaken with Sx qualities, there may be an overlap there. And when some are stronger on the 5 side of 8, compensating the 5 introversion with 8 (acting tough) could be the reason for the appeal of Sx. Of course I'm not insinuating anything... My reason for making this thread was another 8 girl who acted tough then was not willing to call me back. Because of my 1ness I'm also keen on being aware of power relations and the physical/biological energy state of the other. Hence I find this discrepancy btw the bravado of the 8 and the physically weaker sex trying to attract attention bot not in a straightforward way. Even if making this thread had something to do with whining about women, the more important thing that can come out of that is the recognition of what women's boundaries are, biologically determined, when it comes to taking risks. She was lucky with me being a 1, had I been an 8 I'd have slapped her face right away after her messing around with me passive-aggressively. "Confrontation intimacy" is just not my thing.

 

[Chad of the OttomanEmpire]

^I realize I'm responding like 4 months after the fact. I have no real desire to continue this discussion. But for the record I'm simply going to say,

A) Actually Hypersensitive and Over-reacting are not generally words I assign people, and were not anything that went through my head in the course of this discussion. I might, however, say you're a good candidate for can dish it out but not take it. People gave their opinions, and you questioned and dismissed them, sometimes rather offensively. I then asked you some very serious questions that you didn't answer; instead you mocked my ability to understand the theory and told me I was being confrontational and offensive. Fine. Let's just stop talking.

B) Sx-first has no appeal for me whatsoever. I'd far rather be sp- or soc-first.

C) Since you're into unsolicited typings, I'll respond in kind: I think you're a 6.

 

[Neokortex]

^I realize I'm responding like 4 months after the fact. I have no real desire to continue this discussion. But for the record I'm simply going to say,

A) Actually Hypersensitive and Over-reacting are not generally words I assign people, and were not anything that went through my head in the course of this discussion. I might, however, say you're a good candidate for can dish it out but not take it. People gave their opinions, and you questioned and dismissed them, sometimes rather offensively. I then asked you some very serious questions that you didn't answer; instead you mocked my ability to understand the theory and told me I was being confrontational and offensive. Fine. Let's just stop talking.

Ending the thread with this doesn't shed a favorable light on my social image. I went back, & thru in-detail, tried to integrate missed parts. Here are the answers to the serious questions that I didn't answer at the time.

And yes, I see this entire thread as an expression of a hangup--you're fed up with girls who won't hit on you, and now you're taking it out on women who type as sx-first. There are no sx-first women, because if there were, they'd get it on with you right then and there, swinging from the chandalier. That's the distinct impression I am getting.

First, I'd like to dispel this confusion. The "swinging from the chandelier" bit I took as hurtful, it's a strong exaggeration. I don't want to get into the who inflicted first game but there was something already in the beginning that I found "off" about your approach, as well as [MENTION=13973]Luv Deluxe[/MENTION] 's.
" I don't like to let myself be pathetic enough to be "desperate" for one other person." --- I'm sure I won't be able to get this across... but the culture I'm coming from has a different set of pre-established values. If I think of Western countries, it makes sense why one can say your lines with pride. But in my culture's logic, the 1st post is a valid complaint. Maybe except not the part about women, since, as we know it, they are the "weaker sex." (-traditionally; not trying to sound, degrading, tho) So for the record: someone in another forum during a similar argument over Sx/Sp used the same "male hangup" rhetoric on me. But that time it wasn't even remotely about women. That makes me believe this is a general "mansplaining" female critique. Following the 1st post, this thread was meant to address a wider, very common concern about alienating youth. Still, there is an overlap between that and how people have become easily dispensable in the initial getting-to-know phase of courtship/flirting. That impersonality I believe is not just owed to big city rush, alienation, smart phone tech's but also to certain social strategies of sizing up new individuals with the least effort, by online behavior/profile which of course is anything but the particularism that intinct. theory suggests of Sx-doms. Sx/Sos, however, may ghost people, as I read it in the lead-up to this post.

But again, I don't think that there is anything that says women canNOT take the initiative in a relationship. In my limited experience with cross dressing, I'd say that they're actually more likely to do so than men. Cause the only time I've actually ever been hit on was when I dressed as a man one Halloween. By a woman.

That's eeeh, limited experience. What I have is also limited experience of being accosted and I don't deviate much from masculine beauty ideals. What I rather find that most people follow social scripts and they're too much used to that or afraid of following me outside of those systems.

So how does this relate to sx-instinct?

Well, ya know. The experimentation you talked about a while back. I quoted you. Ring a bell?

Yes, but just like "experimentation" doesn't have to be wild and/or sexual, it also doesn't necessarily have to come from a place of sx-first. I am sorry, but you will have to give a very clear example of how sx experimentation can run amok in the social sphere for you, or a lot of people won't quite see the connection the way it's written.

It doesn't have to be experimentation per se. Already being different and less conforming can make people raise their brows. It's like being an illegal alien in one's own home country. Now at this point I've already left behind instinct. var. theory. But if you're still interested in what I meant, according to my interpretation of it, So blind spots and Sx/Sos are more aware of the discord between the social expectations and individual's private reality. Experimentation means that this awareness doesn't quite allow one to take fully granted the way local group-culture acts as a filter/negotiator with a more wider culture of tact/civility/politeness and manifest the group-culture with zeal. So/Sx-es are also somewhat aware of this and both them and Sx/Sos are the best in conforming to the group-culture, whereas Sx/Sp-s are the worst.

E.g.: authority issues. I got kicked out of a factory bc I wore eye-protective glasses. Actually, it wasn't allowed to be worn in areas not designated as dangerous but I still managed to appease the workers by telling them that it's drought that hurt my eyes (true) and the case didn't get up to a superior. I did my work just fine, still it wasn't the lack of the glasses that troubled anyone but like the gloves I brought to wear, it irritated some that I was overly protective of myself. There was one particular worker who treated others very rudely but that didn't stop me to ask questions from her in a non-direct way that pointed out the ambiguity of her orders.

In that regard, the most I'd say about the sx-subtypes I have known is that they were indeed eccentric, but not habitually into breaking out of the social system for its own sake. The one exception to this would be my sx/soc 6w5 father because, well, he rebelled against everyone.

Integrity is enough to make one look "rebelliously stubborn." I think, if the people I've met were Sx/Sos, according to the theory, they don't really try to break out of the system, they are rather suave and smoothly try directing people to ideas of other possible cultures, rule-sets. Create their own system politician-wise. Hence, probably more prone to have their group be against a larger group.

But the only thing that narrows it down, is maybe that particular Enneagram that is associated with it. Otherwise, I see myself get high on all kinds of things (especially as a core 4) and I like to get high on women as well.

Can you explain to me your thoughts about how core 4s are especially prone to getting high on all kinds of things? I was under the impression it was a bit different but I want to hear your take.

I left out "being" in "especially as [being] a core 4." I meant that having Sx orientations in more than one Enneatype and a 4 in the rest of the Enneatypes (in my case 9 so 4 so 6 so 6 sp/sx 1 sx/sp 7w8 ?) allows for some "extra juice" since 4 is known to be very immersive in emotions - its own emotions mainly and is said to be a "processor" of others pain, sorrow.

I was hitting on a girl during my assignment at a local high school as being contracted to the local NGO, when she decided to leave momentarily. Another girl dropped by and was cunning to persuade me back into the building to buy a soda. In hindsight she comes off as a heart-type So/Sx. First she complimented me about my integrity/intelligence which caught me completely off guard, I think even by now she's still the 1st & only, but then started relating the accident of her ex from earlier that year, the way he'd been jogging alone at dawn along the country road, when had got hit by a car, leading to his untimely, sordid death. And for a split second, (even though, as a 4w3 I'm narcissistic enough not to empathize) it felt like I was the guy getting hit by the car (I jog as well). It felt like, by her brief description, that what she values in me and did in her ex is that lonewolf, against-the-grain quality. And suddenly I broke down into deep sobs. I couldn't explain it. I was the guy dying with his wretched hardheadedness. But then doubts started creep in so I stopped, wtf? she did say she'd been over mourning, but then a few secs later it came back and I was shaking hard so she had to support me, guide me out. When parting I even reached to her hand as if completely mesmerized by her (average) beauty but she kept telling she had to leave, so I just stood there, the memory of that other girl slowly coming back. Some of these empathy moments happen in my dreams.

I'd argue that sx means "experimental about life", not the social sphere. I'm not sure where you are getting the information about sx being experimental in the "social" sphere. If you're experimental there, that indicates social-second, as your secondary instinct is the one that is most experimental...at least according to mainstream Instinct theory, which you've implied you understand better than me.

Again, you're going to have to explain exactly what Sx-first has to do with having trouble in the social realm in your case. I'm serious, I'm not seeing the connection. Please be specific--are there examples of how this works for you?

Before Enneagram, I tried finding ways to prove that me being different was not pathologic, my difference was only seen to be unhealthy because society itself was unhealthy. When I read this Instinct theory, it made sense. There are the ones who invest in fitting in, obliged to naturalize state of affairs, toxic conditions, social pyramid and gaslight the "others" lagging behind. Then I realized I'm also compromising on my emotions, so it's not all that simple. Instinct. var. theory had a moment of... lucidity, so to speak, when still in its earnest phase, but as any theory, unable to capture the dynamic, not providing more than snapshots, it will be/has to be replaced by yet another new subculture. Conf.: Debord's recuperation, Marcuse's repressive tolerance. And what me and the lonewolves're doing may be complete and utter nonsense in the great scheme of things. If there was a "revolution" (socio-, psychological breakthrough), if there was a final overthrowing/update of/to a system that fixed humanity or just the local society's injustice, then humans would cease to exist. I see Ennegram, typology now as a form of status/virtue signaling. It bleeds into the self-help movement of "self-imrovement"/"soul searching" in line with high ideals of "authenticity" and "transparency," which today is more adequate for promoting one's upward social mobility than, say, jewelry, buying a monster truck. There's as much future to typology, as one subculture being as good as the other.

 

[Neokortex]

And as for the mess-up with [MENTION=13973]Luv Deluxe[/MENTION]... I was getting both tired and annoyed and got "lost among the weeds" but reading back I realize I didn't miss out on much. In fact some questions I targeted her with were really good, that she had to either carefully avoid or some could directly decline answering. I didn't purposefully attempt to be imposing or vexing, but truth be told, I hold my own negative stereotypes about "ESTPs." Ultimately I feel that, though, perhaps I should've listened to them more instead of extending the convo and slide into stickler-mode.

Pertaining to the topic at hand:

Yeah, I used the word "romantic" because I tried to differentiate between the notions of romantic love and sexual energy, which for me are separate. Even if I feel excited by someone, if they don't call me back (or text, as is much preferred) - I just mentally move onto the next thing, which is easy for me to do since it takes longer for romantic feelings to develop. I think everybody wants to be texted back, but I'm not inclined to sit around and be sad about it if that doesn't happen. (If I don't know you very well, and you're not giving me the high I want, I'll find someone who will.)

-- maybe I'm explaining too much into it but the overall attitude of this suggest suggests that she's not only able to move on fast by being used to no feedback of resolution, but also, she may not text others back when they don't peak her interest. From an E6 perspective, Batman vanishing during a dialogue is grit, but a whole society playing the cool is conniving class/cast separation.

And the feature argument:

Haha, homely hobbies? What would that entail, in your opinion? Crocheting? Watercolors? Decorating my living room?
No, I like a thing and I make it my life, end of story. It's enticing, exciting, wouldn't-know-who-I-am-without-it kind of juice. If you can't realize that people don't need to be a focus there (though they absolutely can be), then I don't know what to tell you. Read more, I guess.

Again, the underlying attitude. I think there is some credit to the idea that "ESTP's" excel at strategically employing their Fe. Half of her process was empathic anticipation gauging what I value in/think of as "Sx/Sp", then mirroring it back; the other half was anchoring it to the social reality. She offered help, right, but as if a visibly atheist woman posed as a believer, regurgitated the lofty ideals/values of a given religion, and then emphatically asserted that she's a real deal and one shouldn't expect for more. My stubbornness and lack of empathy was right there to be used to ground that mock indignation. Not that I cared about marriage or religion, but I do come across often the same inconsistency of outer self-confidence coupled with a body-/paraverbal language shouting "I'm good enough, make up your mind already!" Since I've realized Sx/Sp is just that: an ideal- reading back I do seem terribly naive, bamboozled. She used the theory to complement/enforce a socially timely, preferred "independent (+authentic+uncorrupted) woman" image. Her underlying attitude gave away the absence of that original place where that "Sx/Sp" I was expecting ought to have come from, hence my annoyance. Contrary to the above quoted: freedom, real independence wouldn't be a perpetual ideal, a stable, characteristically core yearning of the "Sx/Sp" if it was possible to be achieved. The ones who still believe in it haven't really tried. One's pursuit can be anything if there's no way of foregoing the people. Not to put all the blame on her, ofc, it's a long historical trend, women went where man has gone, in each new era, they also had to update "themselves" to fit the emerging social classes (e.g. flappers), fit for upward social mobility, to look fresh, challenging, mysterious. Without it the species wouldn't have survived. But when a man wakes up from women's promises, it's hard not to feel an existential dejection or anger. The masquerade is different but the same old story behind it still lacks origin, explanation, teleology. It's two sided: not all women are good with and willing cultural transition but if we don't protect our women, hehe, someone else will.

 

[Luv Deluxe]

And as for the mess-up with [MENTION=13973]Luv Deluxe[/MENTION]... I was getting both tired and annoyed and got "lost among the weeds" but reading back I realize I didn't miss out on much. In fact some questions I targeted her with were really good, that she had to either carefully avoid or some could directly decline answering.

You sure about that? I didn't avoid anything (besides the detailed pornographic adventures you were apparently after), and have otherwise been pretty up-front. Nicer than I'd like to be, even. It's my suspicion that you simply didn't like what you read, because it was well-articulated and didn't fit with your preconceived ideas. This was never a thread for discussion; this was all about you seeking affirmation.

I didn't purposefully attempt to be imposing or vexing, but truth be told, I hold my own negative stereotypes about "ESTPs." Ultimately I feel that, though, perhaps I should've listened to them more instead of extending the convo and slide into stickler-mode.

Why are we talking about ESTPs again? What do they have to do with us, or with this thread? I can sure act like an ESTP when I'm drunk, but beyond that, I'm afraid you're pretty confused. Thought we cleared that up ages ago, but as with literally everything else in this thread, I guess not.

maybe I'm explaining too much into it but the overall attitude of this suggest suggests that she's not only able to move on fast by being used to no feedback of resolution, but also, she may not text others back when they don't peak her interest.

I'm not "used" to no feedback - it's just that if I happen to not get it, I move on. Simple, yes? Who cares - if they don't like you, they don't like you. Someone else does. If anything, I think having plenty of options and a lot of interest has built my confidence to the point where guys have to work harder to be more interesting to me. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Guys like you - specifically, guys who feel threatened by this approach to the point where they've gotta broadcast it to the heavens - try to put girls like me down. That is something I'm used to, I'm afraid.

Soooo, yeah. I guess you're gonna have to step it up if you genuinely hope to persuade me of anything.

Again, the underlying attitude. I think there is some credit to the idea that "ESTP's" excel at strategically employing their Fe. Half of her process was empathic anticipation gauging what I value in/think of as "Sx/Sp", then mirroring it back; the other half was anchoring it to the social reality. She offered help, right, but as if a visibly atheist woman posed as a believer, regurgitated the lofty ideals/values of a given religion, and then emphatically asserted that she's a real deal and one shouldn't expect for more.

Your ESTP fixation aside, none of your analysis matches what I actually felt in talking to you. I'm sorry you want to see it that way, and I can't change your mind - obviously - so you'll see what you'd like to see. However, let the record show that your interpretation of why I said anything I said doesn't line up with my end of it; I felt genuinely sorry for you, and still do.

As for what you think of Sx/Sp, I have no idea. You're so all over the place that it'd be hard to gauge much, if I had still wanted to by the time you'd become mocking and dismissive. And suppose I had tried to connect with you and offer REAL INSIGHT in a considerably diplomatic way (which I did) - wouldn't that indicate higher Fe? Honestly, I don't really care that much at this point.

See above: this thread was never meant for genuine discussion. It's all about you.

Not that I cared about marriage or religion, but I do come across often the same inconsistency of outer self-confidence coupled with a body-/paraverbal language shouting "I'm good enough, make up your mind already!"

Make up your mind about what? I know what I want. Get on board, or don't. For example: if you want marriage with me, then don't get on board.

She used the theory to complement/enforce a socially timely, preferred "independent (+authentic+uncorrupted) woman" image. Her underlying attitude gave away the absence of that original place where that "Sx/Sp" I was expecting ought to have come from, hence my annoyance.

Can you describe my underlying attitude? In full detail, and specifically how it doesn't fit your specific, personal interpretation of what an Sx/Sp woman should look like?

Contrary to the above quoted: freedom, real independence wouldn't be a perpetual ideal, a stable, characteristically core yearning of the "Sx/Sp" if it was possible to be achieved. The ones who still believe in it haven't really tried.

According to you, of course.

One's pursuit can be anything if there's no way of foregoing the people. Not to put all the blame on her, ofc, it's a long historical trend, women went where man has gone, in each new era, they also had to update "themselves" to fit the emerging social classes (e.g. flappers), to look fresh, challenging, mysterious.

Ahh, so you think I'm trying to look mysterious. It must be an act, because it cannot be real. No woman, surely, would ever act like this! She says she doesn't want marriage and children, but she surely does, because it's what all women want! I HAVE DECIDED SO.

Dude, check yourself. I get that you feel lonely and overlooked and - special(?) somehow, but don't take it out on women like me. I felt compelled to be way nicer to you before you kept making far-flung interpretations of my psychological perspective (because it's so alien to what you've personally experienced), and especially before you stepped back into this ring, having learned nothing. I'm normally not a dick, I swear, but I'm kinda feelin' like you earned it, here and there.

But when a man wakes up from women's promises, it's hard not to feel an existential dejection or anger.

Would it help if I told you I only identify as a woman (female) physically, biologically? Or would that really blow your mind and be unacceptable on an entirely new scale?

It's two sided: not all women are good with and willing cultural transition but if we don't protect our women, hehe, someone else will.

Not all women are good with cultural changes, true. But some of us are goddamn revolutionaries.

Now, as I've said before, I'm probably not going to hang around in this thread since you're not processing anything I'm saying, and the whole thing is probably a waste of my time. It's been almost a year, seriously. Come back with something fresh, or don't expect me to respond.

My takeaways from this entire thing:
1. There is probably some kind of cultural divide here? Maybe? I'm American, so that brands me as a completely different animal for some people - and an undesirable one, at that. (While I have strong opinions about the current state of...everything, I'm not ashamed of being an American; I am what I am, but I recognize that some cultures perceive values here to be a bit superficial, or ultimately detrimental to whatever they feel is the proper crux of social survival.)

2. You definitely still don't understand how instinctual variant theory works as applied to Enneagram and tritype theory. I don't even subscribe to the tritype thing anymore, but...seriously. Wow. You have one core Enneagram type, then if you're into tritype theory, you've got a type in each fixation of trouble (head, heart, gut). Your instinctual variant is your instinctual variant throughout.

3. Sx-dominance can manifest in many different ways, as demonstrated in the somewhat polarized versions of it that [MENTION=18576]Sanjuro[/MENTION] and I feel. While this doesn't make our personal experiences any less real, I would hope that it opens your eyes insofar as how the instinct can appear in different people.

4. Women like me intimidate you. It's easier for you to pretend my behavior is an act of some kind than to accept that it's very real, and that yes, a lot of girls like me won't be interested in guys like you. I'm sorry. BUT! The good news is, there is someone who will love the everloving dick out of you, and you'll be elated when you find her. My last, parting bit of advice to you is to not get lost within your own head, to not over-analyze other people, and to let them teach you who they are - to let your connection be real, organic, and genuine. You'll be happier that way, I think.

You're irritating as balls, Neokortex, but your enthusiasm is fun, and I stand by what I've said before - I really hope you find happiness. Everyone deserves that, and life is short. Go get it.

 

[Neokortex]

It's my suspicion that you simply didn't like what you read, because it was well-articulated and didn't fit with your preconceived ideas. This was never a thread for discussion; this was all about you seeking affirmation.[...]

And suppose I had tried to connect with you and offer REAL INSIGHT in a considerably diplomatic way (which I did) - wouldn't that indicate higher Fe?[...]

I felt compelled to be way nicer to you before you kept making far-flung interpretations of my psychological perspective (because it's so alien to what you've personally experienced), and especially before you stepped back into this ring, having learned nothing. I'm normally not a dick, I swear, but I'm kinda feelin' like you earned it, here and there.

With some of the points you raise I agree to a degree. You were initially diplomatic and I did have less diplomatic ways of disagreeing (I lost my patience once). But you rubbed me in the wrong way as soon as you started to empathize. Somewhere along that process you lost cultural sensitivity and started judging me by your own culture's values. In your previous post you do the same and some other strategies. So the topic at hand was "Sx/Sp", and since we - theoretically - share that "type," or at least its core characteristics, you tried to look for similarities we might have and tried to relate. That's all well. However, you stepped into my shoes with importing your cultural value judgments and presented them as natural, insisting even now that they are. So in a way, your helping is an insult to my cultural heritage. We're beyond "Ennegram" or "Sx/Sp" territories now.

As to be clear: I've never asked for your help, I only asked questions. And I expected an intelligent discussion. I turned informal and deviated from more diplomatic ways because I was trying to tease you to come out of your culture-biased self-representation. I thought you'd get my humor. But it looks like I expected more dissociation, abstraction from you, than was possible.

Here's something I encourage you to take a look at: "competitive altruism."

"Competitive altruism" has been first noted among animals:
Roberts G, Competitive altruism: from reciprocity to the handicap principle. Proc Biol Sci. 1998; 265: 427-431.

Hardy, Charlie L., and Mark Van Vugt. "Nice Guys Finish First: The Competitive Altruism Hypothesis." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32, no. 10 (2006), 1402-1413. doi:10.1177/0146167206291006. (don't see any attachment option, you can get it off libgen).

and:

Griskevicius, Vladas, et al. "Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93, no. 1 (2007), 85-102. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.85. (libgen)

or a shorter article: http://www.economist.com/node/9581656

What I'm saying is that there's a reason why people empathize without being asked for it. They may unconsciously do it but empathy/help creates obligations, forms societies, group synchronies (see: mirror neurons in socialization, "affective attunement").
And by that entailed obligation (not to offend the helper), you disallowed me to criticize your act of applying your culture's preconception on me. And that is coercive.

What I know about American culture, from history, from my time in the U.S. is that

they want(ed) to spread "democracy," come with offering help to the lesser (developed) nations (e.g. Truman's doctrine to "save" Greece from Communism, while still bringing in their multinational corporations, taking over, privatizing local's industry; Marshall plan, etc.).
when in fact it's a foreign diplomacy hiding imperialistic, aggressive, self-imposing, etc. motives. Compared to U.S.' inability to respect exterior cultures and spreading their cult. globally, inland they provide a homogenizing melting pot, ready to americanize, "mcdonaldize out" differences (except, ofc N vs. S conflict, racial conflicts, etc). Add to that a permissive upbringing and no wonder their current youth is self-entitled, narcissistic.

Part of what I see in your posts is the same thing I see in my father or my ex-uni colleague/friend, who both fit under "ESTP," more or less. It's as if you needed something tangible to hold on to, a stable religion/job/mission/identity and project that outward as a "larger than life" persona, superman, wonderwoman, whtvr, as to receive people's liking/feedback, reinforcing it to be more tangible to not feel lost. Whereas no identity/concept/ext. framework is ever stable. I guess my "Fi" "gives that for me. What it doesn't, tho, is the enterprising nature of "Ti," that is, exploiting social capital, people's belief in the projected persona/image ("expertise"/"helpfulness''/ ''dexterity, fixerupper"/"exemplary American" or the opposite "u.ground alt. revolutionary 'Sx/Sp' American'').

I also feel that I'm the one who really should be indignant about the way you treated me, but at the same time I value vulnerability higher, and I know if there weren't people who were too sure about themselves, then there wouldn't be nations, armies, wars, as well as welfare, convenient services, technology of leisure for me to enjoy (at the expense of others), etc.. Problem is when it gets too much. Hence I'd argue for a neomarxist take on the current "independence" / capitalist/neoliberalist trends, instead of mixing personality typologies with their cultural/historical context. So the take-away is, for what it's worth, not to empathize with people when they don't ask to. If you're aggressive, just be aggressive, that way, you may avoid a # of conflicts. DD

Oh, and "revolutionary" or "revolution" is known already to be a fallacy. A lot of the "extrovert" leaders of our '89 revolution to overthrow Russian communism were smuggled back into the new republic to become first grade politicians with enormous wealth. Communism provided poor jobs for all when capitalism doesn't bother as much with high unemployment (NGOs, civic orgs take up that role partially). To read more on the falseness of "oppression vs. resistance" dichotomy:
Mbembe, A. "The Banality of Power and the Aesthetics of Vulgarity in the Postcolony." Public Culture 4, no. 2 (1992), 1-30. doi:10.1215/08992363-4-2-1.