Multiple Enneagram Subtypes/Instincts What are activities that you would associate with each enneagram variant?

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

do you eat them after? honest question

Yes. Better than milk, it is.

 

[Luv Deluxe]

I agree. I don't know nearly as many sx-doms as I thought I did when I first got into this, myself included! I do also think it is harder to mistype than the other variants, especially sx/so. Sx/sp and sp/sx can seem fairly similar to me at times and harder to distinguish when the two are close, or with certain enneatypes.

If you originally typed yourself as sx-dom, how did you come to change your mind about it? What made you realize or feel as though you're so-dom instead? I think that would make a very interesting/enlightening contribution to the conversation.

Oh, and that first bit you quoted, about the social instinct and extroversion...that was Sanjuro, actually.

You've made some great points and it's nice to see a social's perspective on this! I think each instinct has a sort of caricature that distorts things on a superficial level. It would be very frustrating to have the gossip rag stereotype. I have a coworker who watches Entertainment Tonight and loves following all of the workplace gossip, but she's terrible at actually reading others and interacting with them in any kind of deep, meaningful, mutually beneficial way. Many would probably mistype her at so-dom, when I would guess she's actually a somewhat unhealthy sp-dom (based on completely different behaviors and her apparent motivations for them).

Everywhere I've gone, I've seen this. There aren't any statistical studies or anything, but most seem to agree that sx-doms aren't very common IRL. (I personally have never really met anyone that fulfills the criteria claimed to be sx-dominance, but that's just me).

I have met a couple people who fit the picture of sx-dominance, and these have been the precious few whose energies have been in the same ballpark as my own. They are intense people.

One woman (a type 6) would meet The Great One's criterion of needing a sexual partner for deep bonding and fulfillment, but her flavor of attachment is still different from the friends I wrote of before. She's married now, but prior to this, changed lovers often - at her own doing and without remorse. She shares my overwhelming fear of the Spark Fizzle, and has such a magnetic personality. By her own admission, it was almost impossible to control herself at the prospect of someone new to try out, while the chemistry was intoxicating (even if only for a while).

The other woman I'm thinking of (a type 4) is one of my adventure buddies. Sex and being sexy are very important to her, but she has been single by choice almost all of her life. She'd love to meet someone exciting enough for her, but she's already high off the fumes of her own career pursuits and won't settle for somebody "just okay."

MOST women I've met have been eager to find someone to "complete" them--speaking as a woman myself, there's a very pervasive sentiment that you're nothing without a partner in life. Most women seem to go in for this, too, yet I doubt all of them are sx-doms. Actually, most of them seem to be sp-doms or soc-doms who want future security and/or stability, and look to a partnership to help them do just that--be secure and/or socially acceptable.

These same ladies could read about sx-firsts needing someone to "complete" them and be all confused.

That's what I think.

Yes! This, all over. All over the place.

This is one of the reasons that I feel alienated from a lot of the ladies I know. The women I wrote about earlier - not in this post, but the previous one - would definitely fall into this somewhat generalized but nonetheless applicable category. They want security, they want to feel loved, they want to be accepted by their peers, they want permanence, they want their big day with the dress and the cake and all that other stuff that is absolutely not on my agenda.

I'm in trouble with that first group of girls as we speak. Actually, this story might be a way to illustrate the nature of my sx-dom energy versus theirs, as well as some differences and similarities in drive and motivation.

One of my good friends, a type 1 (pretty sure she's sp-dom) has a crush on a guy we met together one drunken Friday night in June. She rapidly became very attracted to him in spite of the fact that she could also acknowledge their distinct lack of compatibility. She's not seeking marriage or children but she craves meaningful, long-term bonding; she knew she'd have difficulty separating emotion from sex. She tends to be very disciplined and serious, strategic in everything she does, so this was a whole painful episode of cognitive dissonance for her.

This guy is good-looking - blonde, athletic, free-spirited and fun. He's also totally cavalier. To say the least. For me, not a problem. For my friend, kind of a huge problem. I wasn't into him like she was, though, and could respectfully back off and encourage her to "put shots on goal" as I call it. She hung out with him several times, just the two of them, and each time she was hoping for a little somethin' somethin' which never materialized. Recently, she began flirting and going on dates with a couple of other guys, but all the while, her crush apparently persisted.

This past Wednesday, Blondie asked me to grab some drinks with him. He'd asked both of us, actually, and my friend declined, saying she was too tired from the long workday she'd had. I had originally planned on staying in as well, but I thought of all the fun I could potentially get up to and I just couldn't resist.

So, long story short - my friend had tried to advance things with this guy on several occasions, but nothing had happened. The very first time I hung out with this dude alone, we ended up in bed. By some divine intervention, I managed to summon enough presence of mind to put the brakes on before going...there.

Immediately, I felt really bad for how much jealousy and hurt this could potentially inspire in my friend, who really does mean the world to me. She felt attracted to this guy and couldn't make it happen; my attitude was "meh, whatever" and it very nearly did. Granted, I was drunk and confused by her recent dates with other dudes, but I thought I'd be up-front and tell her, get it off my chest and be honest.

I'm thinking the overall situation might be pretty typical for an sx-dom swimming in a pool of socials and self-preservations. Without even trying, the energy focuses itself like some kind of unconscious beast that just barrels into people and interests and situations full-force, slowing down only in afterthought or during a lucky moment of restraint. Consciously seeking sex is one thing, but I think there's a unique element at play when, while not even trying, those intense developments blossom so easily. That's probably a manifestation of sx.

 

[Avocado]

I look like an Sp/So under stress, but if I can relax…
I go back to So/Sp.

From how I would describe my stacking, it makes me INFJ-ish at times. I still look predominately ENFP, but I could see myself being really confused on MBTI if I was core 9w1, rather than 7w6 with a strong 9w1 fix. 9w1 turned out to be too mellow to be me, but pure 7w6 is a little too confident and self-assertive.

 

[The Great One]

Great One, I don't know how to say this nicely--simply put, you just don't understand the instincts.

"Sexual" is not about "sex". Social is not about "being social". This is the reason so many people mistype as sx/sp at first--they like sex, and they're not good at being social. There's far, far more to each of the instincts than this. Every time you invoke my tortured lack of a sexual life as proof I'm not sexual-first, that a) reminds me of my own inadequacies (so stop!) and b) makes me take your opinions on my instincts less seriously.

Riso and Hudson are foremost experts on this subject; I recommend you read their words:

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/articles/nartinstvar.asp#.UhBg0tJHIfU

Your dominant instinct gives you neuroses and problems revolving around it--you can overindulge it, or become extremely rejecting of it. Now, I am open to having my mind changed (in part because I DON'T see myself as being someone so desperate to be in a relationship that I'll cling to the first person I come across). Argue whatever you want to about my instincts, but show me that
- you understand the full implications of each instinct, and that
- my life reflects a neurosis around it.
Don't just say that I'm not sexual because I am a loner and haven't been promiscuous. That's not good enough.

I would be so bold as to say that it is in fact you who doesn't understand the variants. Also, I am correct in my theory that the sx lasts tend to take a long time to get close to people, but yet sx doms bond with people very quickly. Check out this thread that I made some time ago...

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56469

In that thread basically all the sx last types confirm this theory. For instance I said.....

I've heard that it's very hard for people with an SP/SO or SO/SP variant to get close to people. Is this true?

In answer to this, I got the following responses...

[MENTION=6643]Fluffywolf[/MENTION] said...

I imagine it will require much time. But if both people are of Sp/So or So/Sp, then they will be able to give each other that time.

An Sx dom with an Sp/So or So/Sp partner is probably not particularly esy to maintain though.

[MENTION=15004]Mia.[/MENTION] said..

INFP sx/sp: "So lately I've been trying to think of some new creative ways we can connect."
ESTJ so/sp: ".... dear Lord have mercy...."

[MENTION=10653]Such Irony[/MENTION] said...

It is for me. Can't speak for others.

[MENTION=4050]ceecee[/MENTION] said...

Yes, very hard.

As you can see there is definitely a correlation between sx and how fast you get close to people.

Also, again I didn't say that all social firsts are the types that "work a room" per say. However they definitely tend to be like this in general if they are extraverts: they like to get into the social sphere, find out what's going on in the world, find out what's going on in the community, etc

 

[The Great One]

[MENTION=13973]AntiheroComplex[/MENTION]

Am I all that unusual, then, because I resist falling in love? I can recognize the addictive high I'm feeling in my head, the electricity in my skin, and I want more of it - to experience it so completely that I forget the constant seeking.

However, I fear falling in love with people. To be honest, I'm not sure that it's ever happened. "Love" feels like a foreign concept, a word that romantics like to assign to their primal desire for sex. I think I've felt love before, but it's such a heavy word and I would never apply it too readily. It's much easier to enjoy the chemical buzz and leave it at that. (If the chemistry is long-lasting, so magnetic that it almost hurts, then I will begin to attach...but I tend to repress and struggle against it even while it's happening. I'm terrified of giving in because it feels like surrendering my happiness to somebody else.) Any chance that this could be some manifestation of sx/sp?

I do seek lovers, but my approach feels divergent from those that I see others frequently using.

I have a number of female friends who seem to need romantic relationships, in the most traditional sense of the word. If a reasonably attractive guy gives them any sort of attention, boom - they're suddenly obsessed. Sounds like a pack of sx-doms on the surface - maybe - but their energy is very different from my own...so much so that they've often come across to me as uptight and even prudish whenever my essence apparently comes on too strong for their liking. Which is often.

For example: we might be at some venue or party, relaxing in mixed company, when I notice that I've earned judgmental stares from one or more of them. Sometimes I ask about it later and am usually met with responses like, "Well, even the way you walk is suggestive," or, "It's a mystery to me how you can be so blatantly sexual - no way would I have the confidence for that." Most of the time I don't realize what I have specifically done to merit those comments; I'm just being myself. This happened several times in the last week alone, so I'm kind of venting about it.

These women will pursue the attention of the men they're interested in, hoping to cultivate happily-ever-after seeds. They sometimes (frequently) put a lot of work into this goal with ultimately nothing to show for it. I, on the other hand, might not even be consciously aware of how quickly I'm engaging someone. It feels so natural, light and easy and fun. Sometimes, before I've really thought about what's happening...well, things progress. I can form friendships quickly, and that absolutely includes non-platonic ones.

When my female friends do pair off, they typically hang most of their hopes and expectations on their boyfriends (even if they don't readily acknowledge it). They're also hoping the relationship lasts as long as possible; for them, that's ideally forever, as long as the sailing's smooth. They tend to be dumped more often, too. I enter relationships with the acceptance that they are most likely finite, and I almost always initiate the break-ups.

One could argue that these women are sx-dom individuals, but their attachment style screams of codependency in contrast with mine (which looks more like an intense hunger, desire for desire's sake, some kind of restless addiction).

The fact of the matter is that you still chase after intimate encounters and are addicted to the rush of falling in love, but aren't quite ready for a full-on relationship. However, we should note that you still get close to people easily and crave that closeness. You fit the "Riso-Hudson" description of the sexual 7 to a T. The sexual 7's tend to love to fall in love. They fall in and out of love easily. In addition, they often fear having full-on, long lasting love relationships because they tend to have the "grass is greener" policy and fear long-term commitment because they always think that there may be someone better for them down the road.

With all of that in mind, would these aforementioned friends of mine really qualify as sx-dom? I feel as though they are more likely so-dom, knowing them as I do, but their desperation to find men who complete them would be a symptom of the sexual instinct (according to some of the brief, simplified definitions offered here).

If an almighty need to bond with that special someone forever and ever OMG SO ROMANTIC YAY is the sole criterion for sx first...I think of women like those in my sample, aaaaand I consequently don't think of the sexual instinct at all. That's why I've been so quick to debate the integrity of this particular trait. (I do have one codependent friend who is definitely sx-dom, but it's an energy/fixation thing - and even if it's difficult to put into words, it's very easy to spot the difference between her and the others.)

I never said that the bond had to last forever. Many Sx bonds don't even last that long. However, the need to create strong bonds between yourself and others is still there. Also, I say that this need to strongly bond with someone also comes in the form of a romantic relationship because this is one of the strongest bonds that one can form. It didn't say that it always comes in this form, but I would say that it is EXTREMELY common for it to come in this form.

 

[Avocado]

http://personalitycafe.com/type-7-forum-enthusiast/6080-type-7-subtypes.html
I was just looking this over.
This shows how core type can effect variants.
7 makes things look more Sx in general, so even an Sp/So 7 or So/Sp 7 will have a certain fun-loving, intimate flavor to them. I take it my view of Sx is correct, but even I am not on solid footing.

 

[Vilku]

sp sx: reading science
so sx: joking around
sx so: oh, he she is too busy achieving that.. whatever, so he she cant socialize now it seems!
so sp: do they ever introspect?
sp so: they are busy doing the chores, good luck finding time from their schedule to socilize with em.
sx sp: must be busy fantasizing, if you wonder why he she is absent.

 

[Luv Deluxe]

The fact of the matter is that you still chase after intimate encounters and are addicted to the rush of falling in love, but aren't quite ready for a full-on relationship. However, we should note that you still get close to people easily and crave that closeness. You fit the "Riso-Hudson" description of the sexual 7 to a T. The sexual 7's tend to love to fall in love. They fall in and out of love easily. In addition, they often fear having full-on, long lasting love relationships because they tend to have the "grass is greener" policy and fear long-term commitment because they always think that there may be someone better for them down the road.

Sometimes I don't even chase. It just happens...like in the long story I vomited above, regarding how I got into trouble with my type 1 sp/so friend this week over a guy she'd liked for two months.

If I do chase, it's sort of unconscious, a side effect of repeatedly putting myself in fun or exciting situations that may or may not lead elsewhere. Maybe I do, a little. I don't think I chase for love, though, it'd be for the high. (Maybe I would chase for "love" if my experiences with it had been better? Something about that idea still makes me feel yucky, though.)

Nonetheless, I can't argue with anything else in your paragraph. It's pretty much bang-on.

I never said that the bond had to last forever. Many Sx bonds don't even last that long. However, the need to create strong bonds between yourself and others is still there. Also, I say that this need to strongly bond with someone also comes in the form of a romantic relationship because this is one of the strongest bonds that one can form. It didn't say that it always comes in this form, but I would say that it is EXTREMELY common for it to come in this form.

Also probably fair.

There is a noticeable difference between a true sx-dom and their romantic pursuits versus socially reinforced ideas of the lovesick female, though. I know plenty of lovesick ladies. Most of them are obsessed with dating and marriage in one way or another, actually. However, their motivations, perspectives, energies, personalities, and methods are radically different from what I'd call sx-dom.

That's no doubt why I've been hung up on that point. When I hear "bonding with a partner," my mind skips automatically to that type of girl - the one who waits by the phone for her one-night stand to call her, or wonders why her boyfriend of nine months doesn't want to propose to her, and who overall doesn't get very excited about anything beyond gaining some sense of stability and value out of having a relationship. I know those girls; they're so and sp.

Same for guys. I bet there are a lot of emotive Romeos running around who would qualify as romantic without necessarily qualifying as sx-dom.

So, I think we might actually be arguing the same thing. Your point being that one can't be sx-dom if he or she lacks those magnetic bonding powers, my point being that love-seeking behavior can't be the sole feature.

Perhaps it could be phrased like this: all sx-doms seek to bond intensely with someone or something other than themselves, but not all who seek intense bonds are sx-dom. Something like that, maybe?

 

[brainheart]

[MENTION=18576]Sanjuro[/MENTION]

Well the fact that you can get close to members of your own gender fast makes it more believable that you actually are an sx dom now. However, I can't really judge you sexually and relationship-wise because I don't know you personally, and you could have had some type of psychological traumas or whatnot that resulted in this. I will say that it's VERY strange for an sx dom to be like this though.

I don't think you understand what it's like to be a double withdrawn type (4w5 and 5w4) and be a sexual dom. The instinct manifests quite differently than it does in a more assertive type. Sure, a sexual 4w5 will be a more assertive 4w5, but they are still withdrawn. Fours withdraw to get attention. They hope someone will notice that they are being quiet or brooding- think of a kid hiding in a closet, hoping his parents will notice he isn't around and then search for him. The desire is to be able to say, 'Oh, they took the trouble to look for me. They must love me,' although it usually plays out as 'They didn't try to look for me. They must hate me.' Alternately, fives withdraw to feel safe. Others are a threat, so they detach from others in an attempt at quelling their fears. Other people are intrusive and overwhelming, so they hide in the closet in an effort to get some breathing room.

Fours operate under the delusion that they are flawed, they don't possess qualities others have. Fives, meanwhile, feel they lack the knowledge others seem to possess which allows them to operate 'out in the world', so they spend large portions of time trying to acquire that knowledge, so they'll be ready.

For the 4w5 and the 5w4, all of these issues are combined. A sexual four feels their dominant instinctual flaws acutely and hopes their ideal someone will seek them out, while a sexual five thinks that if they know more about their sexual instinctual urges they will then be able to partake in them, but those urges/ the needs of the love interest can also feel overwhelming.

If you'd like a personal example, a fellow 4w5 sx/sp friend and I talk about how we are oversensitive to sexual feeling. Sometimes it can make for the most divine of sacred experiences, but usually it plays out as feeling like the needs of our lovers are too much and that their caresses feel exploitive and dangerous. We have both wondered if we were sexually violated when we were younger but blocked it out of our minds, but we also both know we weren't, that it's just how our neuroticisms operate. Fours and fives are both avoidant* types as well. So there is a lot of withdrawing and avoiding, even in sexual doms.


*avoidant: (of behaviour) demonstrating a tendency to avoid intimacy or interaction with others

 

[Chad of the OttomanEmpire]

I would be so bold as to say that it is in fact you who doesn't understand the variants. Also, I am correct in my theory that the sx lasts tend to take a long time to get close to people, but yet sx doms bond with people very quickly. Check out this thread that I made some time ago...

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56469

In that thread basically all the sx last types confirm this theory. For instance I said.....



In answer to this, I got the following responses...

[MENTION=6643]Fluffywolf[/MENTION] said...



[MENTION=15004]Mia.[/MENTION] said..



[MENTION=10653]Such Irony[/MENTION] said...



[MENTION=4050]ceecee[/MENTION] said...



As you can see there is definitely a correlation between sx and how fast you get close to people.

Also, again I didn't say that all social firsts are the types that "work a room" per say. However they definitely tend to be like this in general if they are extraverts: they like to get into the social sphere, find out what's going on in the world, find out what's going on in the community, etc

Come on, man. Your research on this board is only one *limited* set of responses, not necessarily representative of the larger population, and many people may actually be mistyped.

Anyway, now you're talking about "getting close to people"--I assume you mean in an emotional or psychological way--but you started out telling me I wasn't a sx-first because you don't seem to think I have enough sex/limerence--and hopefully we can both agree that the sx instinct revolves around a lot more than sex.

So...you're just gonna have to hit me with a better argument. I currently see no reason to move off my current stacking.

 

[The Great One]

[MENTION=13973]AntiheroComplex[/MENTION]

Sometimes I don't even chase. It just happens...like in the long story I vomited above, regarding how I got into trouble with my type 1 sp/so friend this week over a guy she'd liked for two months.

If I do chase, it's sort of unconscious, a side effect of repeatedly putting myself in fun or exciting situations that may or may not lead elsewhere. Maybe I do, a little. I don't think I chase for love, though, it'd be for the high. (Maybe I would chase for "love" if my experiences with it had been better? Something about that idea still makes me feel yucky, though.)

Nonetheless, I can't argue with anything else in your paragraph. It's pretty much bang-on.

Well if this high and excitement is not from love then what else could it be from? What causes all of this excitement that you have?

Perhaps it could be phrased like this: all sx-doms seek to bond intensely with someone or something other than themselves, but not all who seek intense bonds are sx-dom. Something like that, maybe?

I agree that sx doms need to bond intensely with someone. I have heard that the intense bond can also be with just "something" but I'm not sure I believe it. In fact, I am still investigating that right now. If this is true though, I believe that it's extremely rare.

 

[The Great One]

[MENTION=7140]brainheart[/MENTION]

For the 4w5 and the 5w4, all of these issues are combined. A sexual four feels their dominant instinctual flaws acutely and hopes their ideal someone will seek them out, while a sexual five thinks that if they know more about their sexual instinctual urges they will then be able to partake in them, but those urges/ the needs of the love interest can also feel overwhelming.

If you'd like a personal example, a fellow 4w5 sx/sp friend and I talk about how we are oversensitive to sexual feeling. Sometimes it can make for the most divine of sacred experiences, but usually it plays out as feeling like the needs of our lovers are too much and that their caresses feel exploitive and dangerous. We have both wondered if we were sexually violated when we were younger but blocked it out of our minds, but we also both know we weren't, that it's just how our neuroticisms operate. Fours and fives are both avoidant* types as well. So there is a lot of withdrawing and avoiding, even in sexual doms.

But the point here is that you STILL do crave that intimacy with another human being though.
[MENTION=18576]Sanjuro[/MENTION]

Come on, man. Your research on this board is only one *limited* set of responses, not necessarily representative of the larger population, and many people may actually be mistyped.

Anyway, now you're talking about "getting close to people"--I assume you mean in an emotional or psychological way--but you started out telling me I wasn't a sx-first because you don't seem to think I have enough sex/limerence--and hopefully we can both agree that the sx instinct revolves around a lot more than sex.

So...you're just gonna have to hit me with a better argument. I currently see no reason to move off my current stacking.

Ok so I'm starting to believe that my initial theory that people that don't like sex are sx last was wrong. Everyone likes sex. However, the fact that you still don't crave intimacy in general kind of makes me think that you're sexual last, but I could be wrong. I'm now doing a more thorough investigation into the variants.

 

[skylights]

If you originally typed yourself as sx-dom, how did you come to change your mind about it? What made you realize or feel as though you're so-dom instead? I think that would make a very interesting/enlightening contribution to the conversation.

Well, [MENTION=10082]Starry[/MENTION] on here was the first one to really point it out to me and say, no, I don't think that's right, and she said it in a way that I could relate to. If she sees this and has some extra time to write then I'd welcome her thoughts on why she knew I wasn't sx/so. I would love to post part of her PM to me, I'll have to ask her for permission first - but I think I'd be all right to paraphrase that basically she observed that I tend to pull in archetypes and universals into relating in the intimate realm, but basically that I tend to start with the big realm and move from there into the intimate one, and that's not really sx energy. I had attributed that previously to Ne, but she made some other really good related points, and that made me start exploring and wondering.

Since I was as young as I can remember, I was searching for the perfect something to "complete" me, I have experienced strong limerence and heartache, and tend to feel very deep bonds with things, so for those reasons I really thought I was sx/so, first prioritizing the connections then prioritizing the group. It was in part a misunderstanding of definition - I didn't understand that Social could be involved in connections/bonding, too, perhaps even more so than Sexual, and that Sexual was more about within than between, more about looking at one another than being with one another - and I definitely still feel a strong degree of relation to the Sexual instinct.

Regardless, at one point, I read this REALLY excellent entry on the variants. What got me was the very, very bottom post - "Posted by DigitalCrash – 09 Apr 2008 : 2:56:06 PM" - where the instincts were likened to forms of energy - sx/chemical, so/mechanical, and sp/potential. I'm not really much one to associate with "mechanical" anything - it conjures images of wrenches and me staring confused at large engines - but it was this:

Therefore, the social type focuses on society as a whole, and… well… social problems. That is – your job, your school, whether you have homework to do, whether you don’t have homework to do, how well are you doing in life, how well are other people doing in life, how well are you doing in life compared to how other people are doing in life, your role, etc.

It compells you to desire to interact with others, and focus on the interactions between you and others, as well as the interaction between you and… things even. It’s a thought that’s very… gear-like. Very… mechanic.

There’s always movement. They are aware of also the interactions between others and others, and others and the environment as well as themselves and others and themselves and the environment. It’s being aware of interactions in general. How everything interacts with each other. That’s what makes it very gear-like. One gear affects another, and their aware of how they can harm and help this whole entire process (of interacting with others and stuff).

When they lose someone, they feel that a gear was just lost. They can’t interact with it anymore, and it’s gone. That something’s missing (and they know what it is).

Sx-firsts, on the other hand, aren’t as aware of the interactions between them and others and the environment, rather… their more aware of the chemistry. So while the so-firsts are more “mechanical”, the sx-firsts are more “chemical”.

Focusing on sx-first issues involve: Am I close to my gf/bf? Am I close to my family? How much in common do we all have? Do I really like this thing? Am I attracted to it? Is that person attracted to that other person? etc.

They’re more aware of the bonds and the chemistry between them and people, as well as environment, and other people and other people, as well as other people and the environment. They really like being close to their intimates, and are generally passionate about things.

Likewise, they fear that those chemical bonds could be broken, and when they are, they are emotionally hurt. They feel literally separated, and ripped away from the other person or object.

This description totally blew me away with how accurate it was in terms of how I see and feel things, though I've never really likened it to gears before - I see it more like spiderwebs, or ripples, more "soft" and flexible relationships, but a huge interconnection of relationships nonetheless, and I do focus on that more than I focus on the connections between individual points.

And of course once I made that realization a number of other "ohhhh"s fell into place, like understanding why I never felt very intense while many other sx-doms on the forum were reporting how much they related to that, and why the so/sx energy seemed to describe me better.

Oh, and that first bit you quoted, about the social instinct and extroversion...that was Sanjuro, actually.

Sorry, fixed it

You've made some great points and it's nice to see a social's perspective on this! I think each instinct has a sort of caricature that distorts things on a superficial level. It would be very frustrating to have the gossip rag stereotype. I have a coworker who watches Entertainment Tonight and loves following all of the workplace gossip, but she's terrible at actually reading others and interacting with them in any kind of deep, meaningful, mutually beneficial way. Many would probably mistype her at so-dom, when I would guess she's actually a somewhat unhealthy sp-dom (based on completely different behaviors and her apparent motivations for them).

Thank you for the compliments and thank you for recognizing that! Yes, it is a misleading stereotype, I think, though I do understand its origin. One of my good friends in college spent tons of money on "gossip magazines", as she called them, and I am fairly certain she was an sx/so, actually; the person I know best now who is most into them is probably an so/sp. So while I don't deny it probably has some association with so, I don't think it's a steady indicator, nor that it has much bearing on anything, really.

I have met a couple people who fit the picture of sx-dominance, and these have been the precious few whose energies have been in the same ballpark as my own. They are intense people.

Yes... I can think of a handful in my life... they are INTENSE people. I have an aunt who has very dynamic energy... she bounced in and out of school and has worked a number of high-profile jobs, including personal shopper for Prada and now is a high-end real estate agent in NYC... she's really fashionable, really loud, really energetic, all personality... has been married a number of times, her current husband is probably sp/sx. Then I have coworker who is super intense, the way she looks at you BORES into you, she's really into social activism and calling out corrupt charities... she was married to a man and they had a business together, but they had a very unfriendly breakup. Then my college best friend for a few years, who was a track star and slept around like crazy and partied like crazy and worked out like crazy... she transferred to another school, got a whole bunch of big colorful tattoos, and just got married to her highschool sweetheart, and they drove off in an old stripped sports car.

This is one of the reasons that I feel alienated from a lot of the ladies I know. The women I wrote about earlier - not in this post, but the previous one - would definitely fall into this somewhat generalized but nonetheless applicable category. They want security, they want to feel loved, they want to be accepted by their peers, they want permanence, they want their big day with the dress and the cake and all that other stuff that is absolutely not on my agenda.

I fall into that category! I know quite a few girls who do. However, interestingly, it's not as many as I would have suspected. I also know quite a few girls who are interested in marriage but not kids, and some who aren't interested in settling into one steady relationship at all, at least not now if ever.

I'm thinking the overall situation might be pretty typical for an sx-dom swimming in a pool of socials and self-preservations. Without even trying, the energy focuses itself like some kind of unconscious beast that just barrels into people and interests and situations full-force, slowing down only in afterthought or during a lucky moment of restraint. Consciously seeking sex is one thing, but I think there's a unique element at play when, while not even trying, those intense developments blossom so easily. That's probably a manifestation of sx.

I think it's also a little "jarring" to those of us who don't operate at that energy level - where you get it from and how you keep it going. It's sort of fascinating.

IMO, I can understand why your friend would be upset, but to some extent, chemistry is not something that can be controlled, and if it arose automatically between the two of you but not between him and her, then that's not necessarily something that is your fault any more than your eye color.

I think it's kind of strange on her part that she recognized the lack of compatibility and still tried to get him interested anyway. Not really fair to play "well if I can't have him than no one will"...

I have to run right now but I intend to be back later with some more thoughts on instinct and relationships.

I agree that sx doms need to bond intensely with someone. I have heard that the intense bond can also be with just "something" but I'm not sure I believe it. In fact, I am still investigating that right now. If this is true though, I believe that it's extremely rare.

Theoretically - and I see this play out, I think - it should be with anything that can serve as stimulation and provide feelings of risk and reward. Artistic performance, physical engagement, and so on...

Though perhaps personal relationships tend to be the most stimulating because of how incredibly dynamic and responsive people are, and how much the chemistry of attraction heightens feeling.

 

[Starry]

Well, [MENTION=10082]Starry[/MENTION] on here was the first one to really point it out to me and say, no, I don't think that's right, and she said it in a way that I could relate to. If she sees this and has some extra time to write then I'd welcome her thoughts on why she knew I wasn't sx/so.

I haven't read this thread so I don't know how appropriate my comments are here...but I think the above had more to do with your ability to understand what I was saying as opposed to how I said it haha! When you see an individual's dominant variant being expressed in a very practical way overtime it becomes easy to identify it and discuss. With you it was almost like 'social variant energy' needed to be acknowledged prior to being able to see its more practical application in your daily life. <--that's trickier and it makes perfect sense to me how you could mistake sx for so in this instance. But yah...you have that all-inclusive, expansive, universal energy of the social-dom (blanket energy).

 

[PeaceBaby]

Everyone likes sex.

Exactly. SO MANY PEOPLE confuse sx-first with wanting or liking or craving sex. It's not about that.

Here are little blurbs about 'unheathly' examples of the variants:

Unhealthy Self-Preservation types eat and sleep poorly or become obsessed with health issues. They often have difficulty handling money and may act out in deliberately self-destructive ways.

In their imbalanced, unhealthy forms, these types (social) can become profoundly antisocial, detesting people and resenting their society, or having poorly developed social skills.

In their neurotic forms, this type (sexual) can manifest with a wandering lack of focus, sexual promiscuity and acting out, or just the opposite, in a fearful, dysfunctional attitude toward sex and intimacy. Sexual types, however, will be intense, even about their avoidances.

Do you see here how outwardly manifested behaviour could make determining a variant difficult?

 

[Chad of the OttomanEmpire]

Ok so I'm starting to believe that my initial theory that people that don't like sex are sx last was wrong. Everyone likes sex. However, the fact that you still don't crave intimacy in general kind of makes me think that you're sexual last, but I could be wrong. I'm now doing a more thorough investigation into the variants.

That's cool. I still think I am what I say I am, but you go ahead and continue researching. Happy investigating!

 

[Galena]

I hit on so/sx after claiming sx/so for a while by following [MENTION=10496]skylights[/MENTION]'s same journey, who questioned her stacking at about the same time.

so/sx/sp is believable to me because that's the way my priorities play out when I'm in action.

 

[Luv Deluxe]

Well if this high and excitement is not from love then what else could it be from? What causes all of this excitement that you have?

If love can be synonymous with passion, then yes, it's love. I imagine though that we have mostly been discussing a very specific type of love - that is, the romantic love felt between two people. If we go with a generalized sense of overwhelming passion, that's your answer.

It feels like a deep, unresolvable craving that comes from within. The type of energy you don't even have to think about. It conjures and fuels itself, unbidden, and there's nothing you can do about it. All you feel is want, and this can be applied with gusto to anything that makes you tick. To everything that makes you tick, honestly.

This has been my personal experience, anyway.

I agree that sx doms need to bond intensely with someone. I have heard that the intense bond can also be with just "something" but I'm not sure I believe it. In fact, I am still investigating that right now. If this is true though, I believe that it's extremely rare.

I'm glad you've decided to investigate further. Keep an open mind.

I like the way I've decided to define it: all sx-doms need to bond intensely with someone or something, but not all who seek intense bonds are sx-dom.

If all who crave a powerful partnership are governed by the sexual instinct, then almost everybody I've ever known is sx-dominant. My personal opinion is that sex and relationships actually drive everything, be it sports, music, other miscellaneous entertainment, or the little minutiae that flood everyday life. Remove the desire for sex, and you generally remove society's will to live (minus those who truly identify as asexual, celibate, and so on).

Again, I recognize that this is definitely my opinion. Even so, there has to be something else. Another ingredient. I'm voting for deep, passionate intensity as it appears in one's energy - so hard to describe it, but you'd know it when you see it. Magnetism, competition, escalation, zero to ninety in three seconds flat.

Show me somebody who craves love but lacks the aforementioned demeanor, and I'll show you somebody who is probably not sx-dom.

 

[skylights]

I hit on so/sx after claiming sx/so for a while by following @skylights's same journey, who questioned her stacking at about the same time.

so/sx/sp is believable to me because that's the way my priorities play out when I'm in action.

 

[Stansmith]

So activities (for me)

-Shopping

-Texting people

-Hobbies

-Working out

-Hanging out

I can't relate to the whole community service or party-planning type vibe that people give So-firsts. I always feel kind of secluded and "within" myself, and I prefer small groups or one-on-one interaction as a leisure/entertainment-thing.