Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Instinct Stackings: What It Means to Be SX-Last

  1. #1
    Killer of DJA's Fun fen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    TIM
    SEE-Fi 9w1 so/sx
    Posts
    1,148
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Question Instinct Stackings: What It Means to Be SX-Last

    What does it mean to be sx-last?
    I know it doesn't mean you don't like one-on-one interaction. -.-
    And that's all I keep reading from places.
    And it's dumb.

    So what is it actually like?
    And I would hide my face in you and you would hide your face in me, and nobody would ever see us any more.


  2. #2
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    maybe not disliking the 1 on 1 interaction by itself but the aspect of intimacy and personal depth to it. a preference for handling 1 on 1 relations in socially formal terms..?

    2 cents from an enneagram non-believer.

  3. #3
    Killer of DJA's Fun fen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    TIM
    SEE-Fi 9w1 so/sx
    Posts
    1,148
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hmmmmm okay.
    That helps a good deal I think.
    And I would hide my face in you and you would hide your face in me, and nobody would ever see us any more.


  4. #4
    Restricted user
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,078
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:50 AM.

  5. #5
    fka lungs ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,630
    Mentioned
    635 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    I tend to see Sx as an emphasis on the Self, a kind of intensive self-awareness in the phenomenological sense:

    Basically, phenomenology studies the structure of various types of experience ranging from perception, thought, memory, imagination, emotion, desire, and volition to bodily awareness, embodied action, and social activity, including linguistic activity. The structure of these forms of experience typically involves what Husserl called “intentionality”, that is, the directedness of experience toward things in the world, the property of consciousness that it is a consciousness of or about something. According to classical Husserlian phenomenology, our experience is directed toward—represents or “intends”—things only through particular concepts, thoughts, ideas, images, etc. These make up the meaning or content of a given experience, and are distinct from the things they present or mean.

    The basic intentional structure of consciousness, we find in reflection or analysis, involves further forms of experience. Thus, phenomenology develops a complex account of temporal awareness (within the stream of consciousness), spatial awareness (notably in perception), attention (distinguishing focal and marginal or “horizonal” awareness), awareness of one's own experience (self-consciousness, in one sense), self-awareness (awareness-of-oneself), the self in different roles (as thinking, acting, etc.), embodied action (including kinesthetic awareness of one's movement), purpose or intention in action (more or less explicit), awareness of other persons (in empathy, intersubjectivity, collectivity), linguistic activity (involving meaning, communication, understanding others), social interaction (including collective action), and everyday activity in our surrounding life-world (in a particular culture).

    I think the common approach of defining Sx in terms of intimacy is a bit narrow and kinda misses the point. As few individuals would say they don't seek intimacy, though different stacks may have differing characterizations of what intimacy means to them, affinities which often center around activities and interaction styles typifying of the 1°-instinct. Meaning that the phenomenological preoccupation of Sx likewise implies a manner of intimacy-seeking in that same field of awareness, of desiring to 'get into peoples heads' and so forth. On the one hand, I think this can tend to impart high empathy to Sx; on the other hand, those who don't share this same proclivity, esp. Sx-lasts, may find such mode of interpersonal engagement to be rapacious or psychologically invasive.
    ive seen sx described as an intense inward focus before which confuses me because i would think that should be more associated with sp.
    i've tried reading the phenomenology definition a few times and my head is spinning.
    how does an emphasis on the Self imply a desire to get into other peoples heads?

    this whole post is just confusing me

  6. #6
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    I tend to see Sx as an emphasis on the Self, a kind of intensive self-awareness in the phenomenological sense:

    Basically, phenomenology studies the structure of various types of experience ranging from perception, thought, memory, imagination, emotion, desire, and volition to bodily awareness, embodied action, and social activity, including linguistic activity. The structure of these forms of experience typically involves what Husserl called “intentionality”, that is, the directedness of experience toward things in the world, the property of consciousness that it is a consciousness of or about something. According to classical Husserlian phenomenology, our experience is directed toward—represents or “intends”—things only through particular concepts, thoughts, ideas, images, etc. These make up the meaning or content of a given experience, and are distinct from the things they present or mean.

    The basic intentional structure of consciousness, we find in reflection or analysis, involves further forms of experience. Thus, phenomenology develops a complex account of temporal awareness (within the stream of consciousness), spatial awareness (notably in perception), attention (distinguishing focal and marginal or “horizonal” awareness), awareness of one's own experience (self-consciousness, in one sense), self-awareness (awareness-of-oneself), the self in different roles (as thinking, acting, etc.), embodied action (including kinesthetic awareness of one's movement), purpose or intention in action (more or less explicit), awareness of other persons (in empathy, intersubjectivity, collectivity), linguistic activity (involving meaning, communication, understanding others), social interaction (including collective action), and everyday activity in our surrounding life-world (in a particular culture).

    I think the common approach of defining Sx in terms of intimacy is a bit narrow and kinda misses the point. As few individuals would say they don't seek intimacy, though different stacks may have differing characterizations of what intimacy means to them, affinities which often center around activities and interaction styles typifying of the 1°-instinct. Meaning that the phenomenological preoccupation of Sx likewise implies a manner of intimacy-seeking in that same field of awareness, of desiring to 'get into peoples heads' and so forth. On the one hand, I think this can tend to impart high empathy to Sx; on the other hand, those who don't share this same proclivity, esp. Sx-lasts, may find such mode of interpersonal engagement to be rapacious or psychologically invasive.
    I don't know that I would call it "self-focus;" that does sound more like sp primary, or at least sx influenced by sp. sx in itself is more about generally seeking intensity and ego-dissolution, as one would meld with a partner or an intense experience and lose one's sense of self; in that sense I think it's actually the opposite of self-focus. But it's always inherently contradictory, because the instinct is seeking to put the self in this state of dissolution, and I can see where that would tie in with the idea of phenomenological self-awareness, in terms of understanding how things affect oneself, but that seems like a more detached manifestation or surrogate for the actual instinctual direction of the sx instinct.
    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...

  7. #7
    Restricted user
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,078
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:50 AM.

  8. #8
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    I’m not referring to ego, only a certain preoccupation with one’s experiential awareness; the intensity-seeking you speak of is symptomatic of that IMO.
    I mean I do relate to what you are describing here, but I'm not sure its necessarily sx-related; I've always thought it had more to do with Se-seeking.

    I think intensity-seeking is a characteristic of both Se super-id and sx primary, but the way you are describing it has a perceptual lens factor to it that I would ascribe more to socionics functions than deeper, internal instinctual mechanisms.
    Last edited by Gilly; 12-07-2012 at 10:17 PM.
    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...

  9. #9
    ■■■■■■ Radio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,574
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i've wondered if the "melding" aspect, or dissolution and losing one's sense of self is more sx/so (being sp-last) rather than sx/sp (being so-last).

  10. #10
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,451
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In case what I have to say isn't interesting enough, I'd recommend watching this video for a great overview of the instincts:

    Bear with their sandpaper-like delivery, there's good info abound.


    I think it's important to remember that Sx-last does not automatically imply having zero capacity for Sx-style interaction. As I, and the Katherine/David Fauvres of the world, understand instinct theory, each instinct is formed out of a basic method of survival found in humans as well as most every other animal on earth. If one of these instincts were to completely evaporate from a person's drive for survival, you'd be left with an irreparably unbalanced individual.

    Beyond talks of one-to-one vs group interactions, which in my observation is actually a good way of understanding a person's type although it's generally difficult to convey the nuances that each instinct possesses, I find it best to think about instincts as means of expending energy within one's environment. Without going into too much detail on the other instincts, Sx in this way would be akin to a laser-like use of mental attention. Perhaps moreso than simple focus, there's a certain density of concentration that comes with Sx-style interaction, as if the individual is taking all of his/her mental energy and trying to squeeze it through a funnel. It's the same sort of principle whereby covering part of a water hose with your thumb both decreases the available surface area for outward flow and increases the pressure. Sx-types are naturally very comfortable with this sort of focus and concentration of psychic energy, but they're also very receptive to this sort of energy coming back to them in return; when they do find such a source of concentrated energy, they can quickly lock into it and develop a sort of closed feedback loop, where both sides are being constantly stimulated by each other's energy output. I personally have quite a bit of experience with this feedback loop phenomenon, and each time I get into it is with fellow Sx-primaries (although this isn't to say that it will happen with *all* Sx types, simply that they're most receptive to it).

    So for Sx-last types, I find that they simply have no idea how to deal with people on this hyper-focused energy feedback level, and will instead revert back to their primary instinct style without any real promise of connection without heavy compromise. Now as @fenryrr rightly pointed out, this doesn't mean that Sp|So types are incapable of dealing with people on an individual basis; they simply have a different means of doing so.

    I kind of figure that when So>Sx types try to get to know somebody on an individual basis, they've allocated in their own heads that the other person is now a part of their circle of friends, even if he or she has no relation to anybody else in this circle. In this way, they satisfy their Social instinct by "making rounds" if you will, touching base with lots of different people at once and checking in to see if there's still some internal feeling of solidarity between everybody. I find that my So-primary friends will sometimes check up on me just to see how things are doing, and once we've exchanged small-talk they'll just slink right away and not talk with me for another couple of months until they want to check in again. As an Sx-primary, this tends to get on my nerves because their reason for interacting with me can come across as very selfish, as if they have no real intention of getting to understand me on a level that feels significant.


    As to what @Ashton and @Gilly are saying about self-focus, I would argue that all three instincts are self-focused in their own ways; after all, each instinct is meant as a means for one's own survival. Sp perhaps comes off moreso than Sx or So, since it's most concerned with the well-being of the physical self and one's perceived space. This I imagine is what gives average/unhealthy Sx/Sps the label of being "brooding," where the desire to expend one's energy finds no external outlet and is instead witheld; I also imagine that So/Sps have their own variant on this, but I haven't seen any literature or posts about it so I can't really say.


    @Radio I definitely identify with the idea of melding with the holy "other," and I remember talking about that very notion when I was first discovering the tribulations of relationships.

  11. #11
    Restricted user
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,078
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:51 AM.

  12. #12
    Restricted user
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,078
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:51 AM.

  13. #13
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    I’d have to know what people really mean when they say ‘melding’… but yeah, I know for myself that I don’t want to necessarily combine with someone to a point that our essential persons collapse into each other as a singular amalgam. I’d still want to retain an individuality, and they theirs.

    For me it’s more about wanting to apprehend what the other person’s experience is like, as closely as possible… it’s why I’ll often ask someone things like “what are you thinking?” or “what are you feeling?” or “how do you react to <x>?" etc. Because I’m basically seeking increased access to explore and understand their states.
    Again I can relate to wanting to understand what makes others tick, kind of reaching into other people's heads and suchbut I guess the way you're wording it just doesn't describe the actual subjective experience of the instinct , but more its actual purpose or something. I don't really think it through on that level I guess; I experience it as being just more actively aware of my own and others' attractiveness, or interestingness, or and whether or not I basically want to have anything to do with them or not, if they have that something I look for, and do I have what they look for, rather than a desire to have "access" to people's inner states, that just sounds more potentially manipulative. But maybe this is sx 3 vs sx 8? *shrug*
    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...

  14. #14
    Restricted user
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,078
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:46 AM.

  15. #15
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Allow me to preface my statements by saying I read nothing in this thread. I also am probably sp/so niner wing uno yahtzee tango. I prefer one on one interaction to being in a group just shouting out random shit the instant it percolates to the top of my cerebrum like some people do. There are few things I despise more than being made the center of attention, especially for being good at stuff because aww shucks. I'm easily made self conscious. Contradictoralily, I want to feel really close to someone that I can say anything to but I have an ironclad desire to hold pretty much everyone at arms length and rarely go into detail with what I'm actually thinking. Not too trusting until I've known people a while even though I think most people are not dickheads but in fact beautiful snowflakes that want to be treated nice and treat others nice. My first instinct is to do things on my own, even when perfectly qualified other people are around. I distrust everything anybody says if I think they want me to do something/sell me on something. Do not want big parties with lots of people I don't know. Not kidding you, but I used to be so bad at initiating with other people that I'd literally play it cool and quiet until I'd known them like six months before I started making jokes and cursing. I'm not so polite and standoffish these days.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fenryrr View Post
    What does it mean to be sx-last?
    I know it doesn't mean you don't like one-on-one interaction. -.-
    And that's all I keep reading from places.
    And it's dumb.

    So what is it actually like?
    Quote Originally Posted by labster View Post
    maybe not disliking the 1 on 1 interaction by itself but the aspect of intimacy and personal depth to it. a preference for handling 1 on 1 relations in socially formal terms..?

    2 cents from an enneagram non-believer.
    Nope, Enneagram stuff says every single instinct variant deals with and can deal with one on one interactions.

  17. #17
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,451
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Radio View Post
    i've wondered if the "melding" aspect, or dissolution and losing one's sense of self is more sx/so (being sp-last) rather than sx/sp (being so-last).
    Actually I've been reconsidering this, and I find that this notion of melding probably makes more sense as a depiction of Sx by itself without being moderated by any other instinct. Again, the idea here is that people need to fulfill all three instincts for emotional well-being, so to just possess one instinct in the psyche to the extent that the other two are absent would likely result in a horribly imbalanced and desperate person. In the case of overwhelming Sx, such a person would likely obsess over "merging" or intense intimacy and not even consider the possibility of any other way to live. This is of course simply a caricature, and if such a person does exist he's hopefully in a mental institution or dead. In the cases of both Sx/Sp and Sx/So, there's going to be some degree of moderation in how the Sx desire is fulfilled within the context of other conflicting desires. With Sx/Sp, you have the oft-described push/pull dynamic between wanting that connection and needing to maintain one's own space; likewise with Sx/So and needing to return to some group dynamic.

  18. #18
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    What I’m trying to do is develop better angles to crystallize the process abstractly, so greater perspective(s) on the actual experience itself might be acquired.
    See in my experience trying to formulate anything about my experience of intensity usually winds up backfiring, at least in terms of either not producing what I want to produce, or just kind of spoiling it with an overtone of contrivance.

    Because I think it’s fairly useless to attempt to self-describe one's own psychological terrain… from the mere vantage point of one's own psychological terrain; it's a myopically obfuscatory POV, often corrupted by preconceptions & expectations, as well as regurgitative interference from perception looping in upon itself—e.g., why I dislike when people give portrayals of themselves in terms of Socionics, and rather prefer observing their situationally spontaneous reactions where they’re not attempting to self-describe, nor referencing theory…
    Yeah I get this too, any time someone tries to "talk about their functions" it reminds me of Joy going on about "I used Te today when blah blah blah..."

    That is to say, there needs to be another abstracted perspective present—as a kind of functional reference point apart from both one’s experience and the applied descriptive construct (in this case, IVs)—in order to effectively mediate a more clear and convincing relation between the two.
    Yes, I agree completely. I think it's important to always be kind of simultaneously involving while also expanding upon understanding of any kind of phenomenological construct, just because overusing any terminology tends to both make its meaning stale as well as making it too easy to confuse overly-abstracted similarities for the "same thing."

    Yes, it’s like this for me too, and I’ve spoken of it before—the shit about passively scanning groups of people for which if any exude stimulating presences, or have a certain spark in their eyes conveying prospects of connection, and which occasionally bleed over into sobering moments of mutual recognition with random individuals you’ll never see again.

    Stuff I think everyone’s heard described of Sx a million times over from multiple sources… blah blah blah… plus I question its meaningful explanatory value.
    I don't, and I find it to resonate with what I internally attribute to the sx instinct. It's obviously not just that, but I think the ideas of attraction and merging form the basis for an understanding of the sx instinct as a kind of natural internal magnetism, in an almost literal sense and not just "sx people attract others naturally" or something.

    It's selective for people close to me, or those I desire closeness with because they happen to strike me as interesting and galvanize my curiosity enough to seek that. I’m not that concerned with the inner lives of every casual stranger or acquaintance and what not, if that’s what you were thinking.

    Though of course I’ll still run fluid mental models of just about everyone, reflexively corroborating synthetic composites of what their person must be like, how they’re likely to respond under various conditions, etc. And sometimes I’ll elicit a reaction out of someone of some sort, just to shade in gaps and key details—that could be considered manipulative, I suppose. But I won’t query most people directly about the contents of their inner experience unless they’re worth it to me. This I don’t see as manipulative.
    I dunno. I would never feel comfortable with anyone trying to figure me out this much, it just sounds kind of intrusive. I mean I model others' behavior without even really thinking about it to a certain extent, but I don't want anyone groping at my strings and trying to tug on them; I notice that shit and it feels creepy to me.

    Maybe.
    Well the whole aspect of our differences in you having an abstracted approach to the sx instinct seems like it might come from Te/Fi valuing, and having a head triad wing, and a likely 5 fix, vs. me being Fe/Ti, my primary type being double-image, not to mention sp-last vs. your so last, kind of brings it into context IMO.
    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...

  19. #19
    ■■■■■■ Radio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,574
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post
    Actually I've been reconsidering this, and I find that this notion of melding probably makes more sense as a depiction of Sx by itself without being moderated by any other instinct. Again, the idea here is that people need to fulfill all three instincts for emotional well-being, so to just possess one instinct in the psyche to the extent that the other two are absent would likely result in a horribly imbalanced and desperate person. In the case of overwhelming Sx, such a person would likely obsess over "merging" or intense intimacy and not even consider the possibility of any other way to live. This is of course simply a caricature, and if such a person does exist he's hopefully in a mental institution or dead. In the cases of both Sx/Sp and Sx/So, there's going to be some degree of moderation in how the Sx desire is fulfilled within the context of other conflicting desires. With Sx/Sp, you have the oft-described push/pull dynamic between wanting that connection and needing to maintain one's own space; likewise with Sx/So and needing to return to some group dynamic.
    interesting. maybe as (assumed) so-last, the sx/so's tendency to revert back to some group dynamic doesn't make sense to me. it pulls me out of my comfort zone. when i cross the boundary of intimacy and whatnot i want to revert back to being alone and asserting my own sense of self, just to make sure i'm not losing it. the two people i'm with most of the time are sx/so and so/sx; i often feel as though they are more comfortable with each other than i am in their company, as if they balance each other's needs and i am the awkward third wheel. the sx/so's and i both share the same push-pull bullshitting but whereas i suddenly want to be alone and away from any intruding thought, or person, he goes back to more so-like environments [where likely there is no onus placed on him to ~reveal~ himself per se], which made me wonder if sx/so's aren't as ginger-ish about intimacy and don't cross-check to see if their real selves are still there every other step as sx/sp's do -- but maybe are, and it's just different.

    /thinking out loud

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •