What is your instinctual variant stacking, and which stacks have you had the most/least problems getting along with?
Instinct stackings in relationships
What is your instinctual variant stacking, and which stacks have you had the most/least problems getting along with?
Last edited by Clumsy; 06-29-2012 at 10:41 PM.
I do think there's something to be said about intertype relations between instinct stackings. I've said this a billion times before, but from what I've observed instinct stacking has a great chance of determining the quality of a relationship than socionics alone. I had always envisioned it like this, similar to what numbers posted:
Sx/Sp: Sx/Sp (Identical) > Sp/Sx (Mirror) > Sx/So (Comparative) > So/Sx (Supervisor) / Sp/So (Supervisee) > So>Sp (Conflictor)
Just flip the variables to fit the other stackings. I do find that all of my best friends are either Sx/Sp and Sp/Sx > Sx/So.
Last edited by Galen; 09-07-2011 at 07:17 AM.
Instinct stackings in relationships
Do you prefer being with someone who shares your first instinct? Is it too much of a good thing (overwhelming, exhausting), or you wouldn't have it any other way?
Is it better long term if your significant other has your first instinct as their middle (and you have their first as your middle)?
What's your stacking and which stacks do you prefer?
sp/so and so/sp are very bad for relationships with me ime. I'm not sure which of those two is worse. The others work fine. I felt most connected in a relationship with an sx/so E7. It was pretty much an effortless relationship for me as he had more than enough energy, interest, and initiative. I never had time to even think about anything re. our relationship - which was also part of the problem in it. I think I emphasized/became more sp in that relationship, to balance us out better. Good article (in 3 parts): http://enneagrammonthly.com/2011/10/...onship-part-1/
I've noticed that stackings are complimentary, and that so and sp seem to be total opposites. Ie, if you're so first, it would be hard to get along with an sp first because your'e focused on different things. With sx it doesn't seem to be quite so drastic with either type.
Anyway, I'm sx/sp and I have dated people who were dominant in all the variants and I much prefer the sx-first. We "get" each other's motivations and relationship styles. We just know where we're both coming from and put the same emphasis into the relationship, in the sense that we're both very intensely one-on-one focused on each other. But my sample size is two, so it's quite small!
My parents are duals, but one is an so/sx and one is an sp/sx. It's caused annoyance.
IMO the most compatible stacks are ones that share the first but differ in the second; sx/sp with sx/so, sp/so with sp/sx, so/sx with so/sp. This forumla ensures that partners share their biggest priorities, but can cover for each other's weaknesses when necessary.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
On paper this should make sense, but I can't help but think that the secondary instinct would get in the way too much. At least in my experience I've always gotten along best with other sx/sps, and while sx/sos can be great company I always end up feeling drained after extended exposure with them.Originally Posted by Gilly
Hmm, in my experience my life "direction" and priorities tend to be pretty similar to sx/sps, I never really feel spiritual or ideological dissonance with them. They have a grounding feel to them, without being restrictive. There is an element of me melting their "cold hearts" and them sort of intrinsically feeding my desire to get my shit together.
sx/sos are always the most attractive initially, but I feel like it's not as, umm...sustainable.
so/sx is a whole different story...I like some of them but they tend to seem a bit...i don't know, kind of superficially vacuous; not that they really are dumb or shallow, its just kind of the vibe I get. sp/sx are just frustrating for me.
Any sx last just feels totally distant and boring. I can relate to sp/sos superficially but so/sps are just kind of total aliens to me, they are the least interesting and most...spite-inducing.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Very informative link. Thanks, squark!
I wouldn't say sx/sp or bust, but almost all my close relations have been with them. there's more initial friction, unspoken boundary clashes can just as easily enliven as fuck things up, but yeah, there's always a very implicit seal. sx/so's are probably 'better' for me overall, just by opening me up and rehashing boundaries I may have taken too seriously. the only other type I can actively appreciate is sp/sx. they're nexus recharges.
4w3-5w6-8w7
That's what I see in a lot of so/sx types, it's like they skim the surface of what they interact with/focus on but don't take it any deeper. Sp/Sxs can be a nice reprieve from the sideshow that is the so primary, but I ultimately end up getting frustrated with their lack of active engagement. It's as if the intensity I'm looking for is there, they're just too afraid to let it loose.
Agreed, lol.
Dad: IEE 2w1 so/sx
Mom: SLI 5w6 sp/sx
I never thought about it. I guess I could see how they go together. I know some so last extroverts and their duals, they both test introverted.
I think you'll get along better if your stackings are either identical or are part of the same flow. By flow I mean that certain stackings seem to have a sort of synergy, such that when they come in contact they are more in sync with each other: they draw and direct instinctual energies in the same direction. Stackings that are not part of the same flow direct that energy opposite to each other, which wears them out. It is as if they give each other jolts. Their interaction to me looks similar to pulling some fabric in opposite directions - it builds up a static charge and at some point gives both an unpleasant shock. A few observations I've made led me to suspect this and later encountered posts by dfgray and a few other people on other forums describing the same thing so guess I am not the only one seeing this.
Basically, the instincts can be arranged into two flows or currents. First current is so->sx->sp->so, while the second one runs so->sp>sx->so, in the opposite direction from the first one. The first current carries three stacking with it: sp/so sx/sp so/sx. The second current carries the other three: sp/sx sx/so so/sp. Thus the two flows are:
1st current: sp/so-->so/sx-->sx/sp-->sp/so
2nd current: sp/sx-->sx/so-->so/sp-->sp/sx
People with stackings that are part of the same flow will have more synchronous interaction since they are aiming their instinctual energies in the same direction. I've added a short excerpt about it at the bottom of this article link along with dfgray's samsara interpretation of the stacks.
Do you ever feel like there's too much push/pull with this stacking (sx/sp)? Too much uncertainty/intensity? Can you talk about your experiences with the other dominant variants?
Why is sp/sx really bad in your opinion?
He is just mad that I wont have sex with him, thus no sp/sx joy ride. I tend to have better relations with sp dominants, however, so he may be correct. Also, I think I'd get bored with a sp/so over a sp/sx. Sx secondary seems to have enough punch to it without being overwhelming. So dominants seem to really piss me off when it comes to relating in the way I prefer.
Honestly -
I think any two people can be successful in a relationship with enough hard work. But it does seem that when two people possess the same/similar instinctual stacking, it makes things much easier, and it seems the two people are closer. If I could choose the perfect relationship, it would be with an sx-dom (preferably sx/so, since I am sx/sp). So by my theory, I would say stick with the same dominant and change up the sec. That adds enough variety to be interesting, and someone needs to take care of the least-developed one for you. lol......
I think instinctual variants matter oh-so-much when choosing relationships. Time spent can be so enjoyable when two people share the same dominant, vs. being bored and/or lonely and frustrated as each person takes care of their own needs.
I've found the same thing. So/sx can't connect on the same level as sx-doms can.... it always leaves me wanting more but there's no "more" to have. I often end up with so-doms tho---- I must be masochistic lol. There's passion missing and maybe that's the key. Love and passion are such different concepts.
Last edited by jet city woman; 03-27-2012 at 09:03 AM.
I'm an sp first and that's probably what I'm looking for. Sx sounds cool too. I don't know I just think the best relationship for me is a weird blend of independence and wanting to be really close. So just sounds like a bunch a people oriented social conformist status focused bullshit. Then again, my enneacomprehension is just slightly above being mentally retarded
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
I know this is taking your entire post out of context, but I have to disagree. Part of it depends on what it means for a relationship to be successful, and I just think that given the levels of complexity that exist not just within a single person (instinct stacking, religion, politics, etc ad infinitum) but between any two people, that in many relationships there will be tremendous obstacles to block the path towards mutual happiness. When these obstacles are so huge so that the effort to move past them defeats the purpose of the relationship in the first place, I don't see how that relationship could be considered successful.
I don't doubt it will be difficult to achieve for many couples, but I do think any two people can have a successful relationship, given enough hard work (with some exceptions, of course, such as brain damage or comatose lol)...... forgot to mention those, sorry. I think the word "success" is subject to interpretation in this case, and yes, if obstacles are large enough, it takes persistence and determination.
(With politics or religion, I find that these "obstacles" offer much topic for argument lol......) Open-mindedness helps anyone to get along with more people than not, so it helps me to start there.
Well even within this ambiguousness surrounding what "success" is and how it's achieved lies another possible barrier between any two people. If one person's conception of success is the "get married, live in a house with our 3.2 children who will grow up to be doctors and lawyers, man has a steady career while the woman takes care of the home" and the other is "screw society, run away to the wilderness, build a log cabin on top of a hill, fend for ourselves and live every day fucking until we're sore," then I can't possibly imagine how the two visions will be reconciled without one person being dissatisfied with the situation.
Right, which is why they can easily stand in the way between two people and a successful relationship.
Compromise. Most successful relationships involve some sort of compromise.
In my case, I enjoy argument obv, so it works for me. If two people don't, I'm sure they can find a way to get along regardless of differences in political or religious views. I've seen it happen.
Well of course, but if that includes compromising one's basic life goal to the extent that it can't even be achieved then why would he or she want to bother with the relationship in the first place?
Some relations are a lot of work, other relations do the work for you. Not sure how important stacking is tho, although I've only been been able to interact with Sx types easily.
I think you are speaking of a situation where someone isn't "all-in", ie unwilling to compromise, grow, or understand the other. If two people aren't willing to put in the hard work, then there's no successful relationship to be had. It takes willingness, but my point is, it's very possible. Two people must be committed to making each other happy, and making someone happy does not include them giving up their life goal. My point being that if I love someone, I am willing to compromise ALOT, and work hard, and that's what it takes.
You're not reading what I'm saying. I'm readily admitting that most relationships require some form of effort and compromise to work. But to say that ANY two people can have a successful relationship, regardless of their backgrounds, experiences, life goals, and desires, is naive at best. Compromise is only worth it if the end result is greater than the effort put into it.
How sure are some of you when it comes to your own stacking. I mean, did you take a test or just know it?
It simply seems that you lie on the side of pessimism. I lie on the side of optimism "anything is possible". lol.... It really has nothing to do with naivete. Whether the effort is worth the rewards or not depends on the people involved. If they think it is, then it is.
I don't know. I am un-typed as of yet.
He's gay.
I don't see what's pessimistic about what I'm saying.
This is entirely what I'm getting at. What is deemed as being worth the effort is entirely contingent on the individuals in question. If one is willing to change religions, or anything else for that matter, so that the relationship can work, then that compromise is not more important than achieving the end goal, as I've been saying the whole time.
lol. You're pessimistic imo.
We agree here.
So this is your idea of what is right for you. This will be different for everyone..... people define their own happiness and standards or lack thereof.
No one has to change religions for a relationship to work. Two people can come together regardless of differences in religion or political beliefs. I've seen it happen, and with ease. It's a possibility, which is what I've been saying the whole time. lol...... No one has to give up their goals to make a relationship work.
I think that many people choose easier options, and that makes sense. But that doesn't take away possibility. I think an adaptable personality such as mine may believe they can adapt to almost any scenario and any person, and that prob helps to build my views, whereas someone who is more rigid may not understand this pov.
I understand your point. I simply think any two people for the most part, can make a relationship work given enough effort, hard work, and dedication. Of course willingness must be involved lol..... This doesn't mean any two people will choose to try to make it work, for various reasons.
Last edited by jet city woman; 03-27-2012 at 11:21 PM.
I can agree with that, although I think it has to come from both parties. I mean that's quite of an one sided relationship, if it doesn't.
Anyway, take your fill and will of love as ye will. Love conquers all.
The test is as useful as a Socionics test. Personally, I use long-term patterns and predictive qualities.
Oh, Absurd, I forgot one part. I cannot recall if it was online or from one of my books, but there is a key for type + wing + stacking. I think, if I recall correctly, mine is called "Extended Family." It is a good way to see the relativity and patterns found in and between specific Etypes.
That works.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
