Instinct variants - recognizing social lasts
What are key indicators of a person having so last in their instinctual stacking?
Possibly dumb question: does so-last imply less-than-stellar social skills?
I would think not, since many more factors go into a person than just their instinctual stacking, but I'm new to this and would like some input....
Well social types main focus is on networking, their focus is on developing networks with people in order to aid them in survival. A good example of the "social instinct" in nature is a school of fish working together to form a larger fish... that kind of cooperative spirit in order to survive is what the social instinct is. Of course its a little different in humans, its usually concerned with building networks to be connected to people, to be connected to a society, so you can cooperate together in order to prosper.Originally Posted by SoapOfSapphire
Social types have good social skills in so far as those skills help them develop networks. The nature of those networks is determined by the secondary type (sp or sx).
However the interesting thing is sexual types are also likely to have strong social skills, but theirs is not focused on building networks, but on developing intimate 1-to-1 relations with others. This is like, a strong friendship, a strong romance.... what is typically referred to as bonding (for example male bonding) and/or chemistry (for example in a dating situation).
THAT ANSWERS ABOUT HOW SOCIAL INSTINCT RELATES TO "SOCIAL SKILLS"
Now onto what So last means.... it means your focus in life is mostly on Sp and Sx motivations... you have So motivations.... but you tend to ignore them..... they take a backseat.... your aware that building social networks is a smart idea.... but your not focused on it that much, your focus is on Sp and Sx matter first and subsequently by the time you find yourself realizing something valuable in the realm of So instincts.... your a little "behind" compared to others, your a little slower in that area, What an So person picked up immediately and obviously, took you a little longer, so effectively your probably not to efficient at this approach to things, but it does mean alternatively your probably highly efficient and quick with the Sp and Sx stuff.
As an example, you may be working this job for two years and realize, hey the boss is promoting all his buddies that he plays golf with, you know if I knew this I would have just picked up golf and joined in on his little group to get promoted. Thats what a sp and sx person may realize after some time, whereas a social instinct type may have noticed this right off the bat and either chose to find a different job where they fit in better with the scene or begin to take golf lesson and implant themselves into the golf group so they could spend more time with the boss to discuss matters.... they would be highly aware of the networking around them and pick up on the trends and operate in that network/scene.
I like HaveLucidDream's explanation, but I'd just like to add: So is the desire to establish and maintain social connections. So-lasts are most likely to lose contact with those that aren't really close to them. I'd imagine that most So-lasts would feel that maintaining such contacts would be a waste of time and energy since they are prioritizing on Sp and Sx. I tend to think of So-firsts as social network whores (Myspace, Facebook, etc.) So-firsts tend towards getting themselves out there. So-lasts view these things as draining or unimportant unless necessary for Sp or Sx ends.
I tend to think of the tertiary instinct as a place of apathy. Even if one understands the importance, "it's just not worth the effort."
I don't think that is the case, Az. I think I'm so/sx, but I follow your pattern of basically losing contact with everyone who either doesn't contact me first or who doesn't have some emotional place in my life, aside from catching up from time to time. Then again, there is user Ssmall who also follows the same (or a similar?) pattern to me, and self-types as so-last, so I'm not sure.
I think "losing contacts" is possibly more of a weak sx thing, since I tend to basically be a stable part of whatever community I'm in (eg, my WoW guild, or the boards here), and most of my contacts that I spend time talking to will be a part of that community themselves (eg various forum members or my guild leader).
Hmmm, that makes sense. It seems that Sx-firsts would be more likely to try to keep the bonds which they have established, tho not really care about establishing more contacts especially in the case of Sx/Sp. While say, So/Sp would be strongly part of their networks, but not likely to keep contact with individuals which are not part of that.
Maybe a better way of describing So-lasts are like lone wolves who have their close friends, but aren't really part of anything even if they are a participant. So-lasts may have a good amount of friends, but will still likely consider themselves loners since they aren't inclined toward trying to belong anywhere.
From ocean-moonshine's instinct page.
Link.When the social instinct is least developed, the individual is going to find it difficult to see why it is important to form social connections or to cultivate multiple relationships. This, in turn, can lead to a certain amount of social isolation. And, as we all must find a niche in the larger whole, those whose social instinct is least developed, can find it difficult to negotiate the needs of the social realm which make this possible. Those whose social instinct is last in the instinctual stacking, find interdependence difficult and dependence on others barely tolerable. But all human beings are interdependent, and sometimes, dependent - when they are, for instance, young, weak, sick, old or dying. Those whose social instinct remains undeveloped are trying to attain a type of independence and self-sufficiency which is not possible for human beings. This “false independence” almost certainly leads to unnecessary suffering and impoverishment of experience.
Whoever wrote that description must really dislike so-lasts.
I really don't think so, they seem to tell it as it is, they point out things about sx-last, so-last and sp-last in a physiological way. I don't see any biased at all.
(D)IEE~FI-(C)SLE~Ni E-5w4(Sp/Sx)/7w8(So/Sp)/9w1(sp/sx)
I do think this tells it like it is, but I think its getting critized because if you look at it, its basically saying....
"sx and sp types are doomed to unnessicary suffering - have a nice life"
and thats just ummmm, errrrr, a little bias to believe one set of instincts is just well naturally doomed to suffer while the other will prosper. Why don't sp last types suffer, why don't sx last types suffer, why do any types have to be doomed to suffer almost certainly. Why can't it just be a simple matter of using what you got to make up for what you don't have? Why can't it just be a matter of specialization, instead of a matter of musical chairs and whoever gets up and doesn't have a social instinct loses.... the end lol.
Also on closer inspection, what about sx leading types... aren't those types good at sharing themselves with good and giving others the oppurtunity to share themselves back.... a la intimate relationships... in that case one would believe they are masters of interdependance in only one on one cases, developing strong intimate bonds.... however this article seems to suggest sx and sp types are just independant loners.
The other thing is the article can make sense if its saying this only exclusively about this "false sense of independance" but it doesn't make sense saying sx/sp types will have the most trouble getting out of this "false sense of independance" because essentially they suck at interdependance and dependance. Especially for the reason I mentioned above... the sx instinct is another people focused instinct.... so it tends to mean almost every individual at least is working with some people focused instinct not being dead last, and therefore should have some skills at dealing with people. If so is last, then they are poor at developing connections to society (aka bad with networks). If sx is last, then they are poor at developing connections to others than are intimate. If sp is last, then they are poor at developing the skill of perservation nessicary to survive... while they may rock socially, they still will need food/wealth/shelter/job/etc from others and may find it helpful to use their social skills to find an sp dominant.... conseqentially the sp dominant is desired by so/sx leading and they can trade their needs to maximize their prosperity. This whole idea makes more sense, because it implie a natural interdependancy inherently exists, and that intuitively the goal of survival will naturally lead each type to trade skills with each other to maximize their prosperity and minimize their suffering. Blah blah blah etc etc etc I feel like I am rambling....
ask for clarification if this is confusing.
Last edited by male; 12-21-2009 at 11:59 AM.
Heh, sounds very like me.Those whose social instinct is last in the instinctual stacking, find interdependence difficult and dependence on others barely tolerable.
Looking for an Archnemesis. Willing applicants contact via PM.
ENFp - Fi 7w6 sp/sx
The Ineffable IEI
The Einstein ENTp
johari nohari
http://www.mypersonality.info/ssmall/
Well I'm biased
K I've figured out what I don't like about that description from
Introduction to Instinctual Subtypes - the enneagram ...info from the underground
Basically, its that it seems more like a nugget of self-help wisdom for people that have problems adapting socially - ala the loner independant types.... However it doesn't seem like a nuggest of wisdom concerning what it means to be so-last.
In fact its very crude and unsophisticated in its treatment of what the social instinct means.... It simply assuming social instinct people are socially gifted... the end. But that is a crude perspective, I wish I could pop out a convincing argument as to why its crude, but its just so obvious and simplistic, its so surface based, nothing really enlightening about it that brings to light the layer beneath it revealing underlying reasons.
I think that you're making a bigger deal out of it than you need. The only difference between the So-last and the other two is that they explicitly say that So-last will suffer.
When the instinct for self-preservation is last in the instinctual stacking, the individual will often be somewhat ungrounded or seemingly “immature.” Such individuals often have a hard time focusing on issues such as financial security or the commitment to the development of practical skills. Sometimes, issues of health are ignored. In the more extroverted types, individuals who are self-pres last, often find it difficult to develop “inwardness.”Isn't this also suffering in a way? The author just didn't explicitly say so.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.
Personally, I would chose So-last based on these descriptions. It seems that the bit about suffering was just for emphasis because just saying something like "they want to be separate from groups and can't.. sad day" doesn't compare to not being able to develop inwardness or self-awareness. Most typology descriptions are little overdone, but I think it is necessary to express some underlining issues revolving around the type even if it's not as big as they make it sound.
Sp-last fail at stability and doomed to financial suffering.
Sx-last fail at close personal bonds and are doomed to lack of intensity.
So-last fail at society and are doomed to interdependence with other people.
For most people, I doubt they would consider themselves 'doomed' and 'fail' is a strong word, but they draw a picture so you can understand it better.
I am not making a big deal out of it, I just think its a poorly written description. I think its not particularly illuminating or insightful personally and is overly negative in its presentation.
I would be impressed if they provided greater explanation/reasoning/motivation for their claims and attempted to present it in a less negative light, thats all.
Sp-last seems objectively bad, sx-last seems kind of neutral, but so-last seems... "why doomed"? The article at least seems to say that interdependence is a good thing.
I'm not sure that so is much about office/school politics. It seems to me that it's more connected to caring about societal issues "at large", considering a society to be a whole block separate from its single components and kind of "having its own will and wants" (although this could be also partially intertwined with aristocracy in the socionics sense), and being able to fulfill them. I know I can't think in those terms, I can't bring myself to pay attention to this kind of stuff; when I deduce something related to the above concepts, I always proceed from the bottom; basically, from individuals I know personally.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Yep I am working from Top to Bottom as usual with this stuff, but I didn't mean just office/school politics networking... I mean understanding the social flow and surfing it.
Thats the part I am talking about that seems negative; sure I mean the thing to take away from it is... interdepedence good, social instinct development good, and independance/isolation bad.... but thats not particularly illuminating no offense.
The thing is an so-last will always be underdeveloped compared to what they would be if they were so-first; so it seems based on that description like an so-last type is well frankly misprioritizing their focus if that is the greatest source of suffering - ala if "An undeveloped social instinct leads to unnecessary suffering" , the natural solution is to devleop a social instinct. However they forget to mention why its alright for an so-last type to not re-prioritize their focus. Why its ok to be so-last, why thats perfectly fine. They forget to mention that for every instinctual stacking everyone has one last and that the goal isn't to be the best at what you suck at, but its to make up your deficiency with your strengths, its to play to who you are and not to who you are not. Thats the problem with this article... its like it wants to tell you to play to who you are not or face the consequences, which to me seems self-defeating. You can't play to who you aren't, so your left to face the consequences, and even if you could play to who you aren't, then you'll be a different stacking and have another instinct last... everyone is going to have to be last at something, no one is 100% all powerful and perfect, so their needs to be some consolation here besides just "unnecessary suffering". Sure sx and sp dominant types are likely to suffer social isolation from time to time, but its not so much a permanent thing as a challenge, and it doesn't seem unnecissary, it seems a natural cost of having strengths in sx and sp.
Maybe I am being overly nitpicking, but thats what I do.... its seems like an ok article on the surface but something about it just doesn't feel right imho, and personally I am just curious to explore the reasons as to why it doesn't feel right.... so possibly I am make a big deal out of it, but who cares its perfectly within my rights to take a deeper look at something that seems a little off, if you don't care to, no one is forcing you to.
Last edited by male; 12-22-2009 at 09:25 AM.
I understand what you're saying and I agree. I was just saying I didn't think it was worth the effort, but if you want to put it in, by all means go ahead and I look forward to what you come up with.
It just seems that he's emphasizing that So-lasts want a type of independence that is unattainable. You'd have to become a forest hermit. Also, I don't recall him saying anything good about the other lasts. IMO, you're last instinct is just negative, but for every last instinct, you have a first and second, and that's where the benefits comes in.
Yea yea, the funny thing is I did get carried away.
I honestly didn't even care too much orginally when I read that, but I get all sensitive about people saying I over-analyze stuff.
I do over-analyze stuff, but I mean ultimately there is no optimal benchmark for the level of analysis something requires.
Anyways I lost my context, this was orginally about sapphires question, and I was about to hijack this thread with my argumentative attitude.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote