Based on school:
Sp/So
So/Sx
So/Sp
Sp/Sx
Sx/Sp
Sx/So
How prevalent do you think each of the stackings are?
Based on school:
Sp/So
So/Sx
So/Sp
Sp/Sx
Sx/Sp
Sx/So
Sp/So - self-effacing
So/Sx - clown, 'relatable', always wants to interject with something
So/Sp - high-maintenance, cold, 'normal', perfect, probably has all their shit together
Sp/Sx - contained, doesn't give a shit
Sx/Sp - real, look like they've seen some shit
Sx/So - hot
Last edited by suedehead; 12-09-2014 at 02:59 PM.
On personality forums, there's a greater proportion of SX/SP and SX/SO stackings than you'd find out in the real world. I also think some of those those typing as SX first as likely mistyped. It's the special snowflake syndrome. In the real world, I'd say SP/SO, SP/SX, and SO/SP are more prevalent, followed by SO/SX, then SX/SP, and the rarest being SX/SO. I don't have statistics- I'm going from my own observations.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Omg I tend to meet a high proportion of sp's, sx-last, etc. Maybe in in the real world sx gets you killed or something lmao.
(or maybe it's just the people I know...)
On a serious, note I wonder if SX firsts and/or SP lasts do have a shorter life expectancy- more likely to take risks, jump into situations head-on without thinking, negligent of their health, etc. SX/SO/SP in particular, I see as the live hard, die young lifestyle.Originally Posted by lemontrees
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Haha yeah! the sx/sp's I know have relatively more low-key lifestyles
Sp last does catch up with you- the cumulation of the things you neglect. That's probably true of all the instincts, but sp to me is most directly related to basic survival (although it's more than that.)
I can't think of anybody from high school who I can safely call Sx/Sp. Hell, I probably only know one Sx/Sp irl right now.
Last edited by Galen; 12-09-2014 at 08:02 PM.
I think the stackings are poorly defined; evidenced by the amount of study and analysis required just to get to a conclusion, that still may be wrong.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I know a lot more Sx/So:s than Sx/Sp:s. Though it's probably just because they're so noticeably intense and extroverted and Aquagraph tends to make friends with them so I meet them too. I don't think I know any other Sx/Sp:s irl.Most of my friends are So/Sx, Sp/So or Sx/So.
With Sx/Sp I picture people who don't mince their words, live and die by their relationships, get into fights, don't trust people and don't put up with bullshit anywhere. I feel like I've grown up around a lot of people like that...sexual sixes, but I guess that could be anyone who's volatile or reactive.
I don't know man, trying to pick out prevalences of personality types from the whole population of Earth is like looking for a magnetic charge in a cubic foot of liquid. Stuff's gonna be flowing in and outta there, it'll be neutral and then charged and then oppositely charged and balancing and unbalancing and again and again and again.
"luk, imma ili. im so rare. thas why socity reject me. not becuz imma self-unawar asshol, but cuz i am enlitined by muh intlect."
Kinda like that, except now it's with enneatypes and func stackings instead of soc types.
I don't think you can generalize stackings in a big poll way. The prevalence of stacking in a given place and time (a population sampling poll) is dependent on the time and place. In other words, stacking (neurotic instinctual influence) is time and place sensitive.
Asking how prevalent stackings are, in a generalized way (the way I've read the OP query) is missing the important element of context. It's basically taking a poll and ignoring contextual influence.
The way I see it, how many people of a given stacking you'll find is going to depend on the immediate influencing environment. Certain social atmospheres and historical times will favour and bring out certain stackings more than others. Same goes for family dynamics.
Fixed.
Sp/So - business-like, coldish in a refreshing way, steady, productive, reliable, protective
So/Sx - clownesque, chaotic, warmly inviting, charming, fluffy, everyone's "buddy" with a tinge of sexuality
So/Sp - political, titan-like, stiffly cold, divisive, power-oriented, determined, probably has its shit together
Sp/Sx - contained, dark, morbid, insular in a suffocating way, solipsistic, inspiring trust&scary at the same T
Sx/Sp - deep, phantasmagoric, locked up in their own intensity, guarded, look like they've seen some shit that left some hidden scars
Sx/So - hot-and-cold, intrusive, provocative, dedicated (e.g. to a cause), love them-or-hate them, complex, extensively intense
Last edited by Amber; 12-15-2014 at 06:00 PM.
I think the general prevalence of each stacking is kind of a pointless and moot point.
However, the prevalence of each stacking in one's own circle of acquaintances & friends is a bit more meaningful.
From the feel i've gotten thus far of the various stackings, I've run across people of pretty much every stacking, except maybe sx/sp.
I think among my closest friends whom i feel most comfortable with, the most represented stackings are probably sp/so and so/sx. If my understanding is correct, I dont find sp/so all that business-like, but rather low-key, fluffy, friendly, humble...normal. Maybe to an sx/so they might seem cold and business like though. I guess it's all in the perspective. I personally find the sx-first lifestyle too wild... I couldn't keep up with it and wouldn't want to.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Isn't that the case for everyone though?
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Humans by nature overwhelmingly tend to be serial monogamists, so I do think most people (regardless of their IV stacking) consider these relationships a high life priority. But IME not everyone treats it as a primary existential priority like Sx-1sts do. There's also a significant distinction in the qualitative kind of relationship that Sx-1sts seek, which markedly differs from what other IVs seek.
Can you explain this qualitative distinction that you're referring to?
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
No, my so/sp friend isn't like that. For instance, he wants to move to a new city to pursue a career opportunity. He was saying how he wants his SO to move with him but was saying if his SO can't come then, oh well, he guesses they'll break up. The thing is, this move is not even necessary - he can do everything he wants to do there in the same place he is now. Plus, the city he's moving to is only an hour away! And on top of it all, this is his live-in SO that he has had for the last 3 years and considers the love of his life.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that even though his relationship is an important thing in his life, if it in any way gets in the way of his career, or social life or personal interests he'll choose those other things over his relationship any time. I can't see him ever sacrificing anything about himself for a romantic relationship.
If this article is statistically true then I find it inspiring. I wish I could see myself as 5 times more attractive than I am. My ex told me one of the worst things I do to myself is point out my flaws to people, right away, who would have never even noticed had I not chosen to point them out. I took his words to heart. Then recently someone else basically told me the same thing and kind of gently told me that it was a bit of a turn off when I did that.
People tend to see what you are projecting. When I feel beautiful others mention to me, without me pointing out anything, that I look beautiful that day or I am glowing or whatever. Fortunately most people I know are pretty tactful and do not go around telling me what my flaws are, with the exception of maybe one or two. I have had guys do that to me in order to bring me down a peg in the past. since I was kind of arrogant, and it worked. I still have some self esteem issues which are remnants from the past when I would compare myself to other people and their abilities and strengths. Therapy really did work for me but I still fall back into my old patterns of thought when I am not feeling energized, healthy, or I am feeling ignored. I hate feeling like I am being ignored. :/
Edit: In the past feeling ignored by someone, who I wanted the attention of, would lead me to some really BAD choices. I have fucked up good relationships because I lost control of my emotions. I am way healthier now FTR.
Last edited by Aylen; 12-15-2014 at 09:05 PM.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
IDK... i feel like maybe that just means he wasn't really that much in love with her, as painful a thought as that might be, especially since the new job wasn't particularly necessary.
I think that if someone is special enough to a person, they'll try to work with them to see how they can make it work.regardless of stacking. A different stack might go about it differently, perhaps, but i think ultimately this is not stacking-related.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
I see what you're saying about him not being that in love, but I can't imagine him ever approaching the situation differently. That just seems like who he is. I don't know for certain that it's stacking-related, but it seems like it has something to do with it.
Well, I think that most of my immediate family members are sx first. Seeking, obsessive, fanatical in their own ways. Wanderlust - looking for THE place that will finally be the right place with never-ending exploration, Informationlust - finding all the possible information about a topic and exhausting every resource in devouring it, and discussing it non-stop before moving on to next captivating interest, Meaninglust - throwing self into job, and self-discovery trying to find meaningful, fulfilling work, and of course fierce devotion in intimate relationships in every case.
I think perhaps the reason sx is overtyped is because it's romanticized. Single-minded obsession and throwing yourself into something or someone with no net to catch you is really not quite as pleasant as "one-to-one" or other means of describing sx instinct. With no stops on it from other instincts it would go beyond the fanatical to the insane.
Everyone wants intimacy and close relationships. And depending on whether your other needs are met or not, it may seem more or less important. Just like you don't realize the importance of food or shelter unless it's missing, I think a lot of people may type as sx out of loneliness. There is a lot of loneliness, especially among people spending a good deal of time on the internet. Describe sx as desiring a close merging relationship with another person to someone who is lonely and of course they'll identify with it. Everyone I think wants to know and be known by someone special. And people who want to be seen as sexy or sexual will also type as sx, for the image of it. But far less people in reality would be willing to give up other things for who/what they love. Everyone says they would, but when it comes down to an actual decision, well it's just not that convenient. Some people wouldn't even give up a meal or a night of sleep, others couldn't give up a night out with their friends. Your priorities show in your actions, what you're actually willing to do.
Stackings seem to be clumped in my experience. Where you find some sp-firsts, you'll likely find more. Where you'll find some so-firsts, you'll find more. I think overall the stackings are probably pretty evenly divided, but being some places might make you think everyone is social, or everyone is sp or sx, just because it seems like they group together.
Yes. Didn't read this until after I posted, and it describes what I meant by priorities showing in your actions - what you're willing to do.
I used to think this too but having experienced long-term relationships with an ILI sp/sx and SLE sp/sx in the past I realized they never allowed me to get as close as I wanted. I felt the SLE especially could just leave and not come back but he allowed me to get closer to him than the ILI did. When the SLE and I would break up it was always me going after him and getting things back on track, bringing him back home. *sigh* The ILI and I never had a real breakup(until the last one) other than middle of the night fights that led to us making up before the morning. They often put their self interests first and I could not understand why.
I had no benefit of socionics types and stackings information then. I just remember feeling like I would never reach the level of intimacy that I was looking for. It was me not them. I will liken it to trying to squeeze blood from a stone. Having information (even if it is flawed) on what drives humans has been truly enlightening for me and helps me to let go of expectations I have of people. Sometimes they even end up surprising me. SX expectations of intimacy can be over the top and when they try to force it they alienate those who just aren't wired that way.
I do believe I have some tools now that makes it easier for me to see things from the other's perspective. Sometimes love is worth every effort, even if it means I have to balance myself out and reign in my base instinct. The saga continues...
Last edited by Aylen; 12-15-2014 at 09:33 PM. Reason: clarified
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
How does it look in Sx-second?
you've added more fuel to that romanticizing of SX with your post.
i am obsessive with my interests and will seek out all I could absorb about them and that's how most of my friends are. this doesn't make the whole lot of us sx firsts.
ditto.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
that is also essential to many women and girls of ethical types. some of the older socionics discussion go into how important relationships are for Fi types and how they become all-consuming and a pivotal point of each day. does this mean that they are all sx-first? no, of course it doesn't.
both the EII and the ESI profiles go into how much close personal relationships mean for people of this type: "Since warm, friendly relations, trust, an atmosphere of love and mutual understanding, are the main program for EII, a large part of her life is her family, where, in ideal, she hopes to realize this program. Unfortunately, relations frequently prove to be distant from the ideal, and this circumstance is the most traumatic for EII, who is very sensitive from one side, but externally restrained from another."
then why in this thread is this called being "sx-first"?
is there anyone who would say that their relationships are of little importance to them?
I've written about this before probably many times, but there's a fascinating and consistent phenomenon I find b/w Sx-firsts I like to call the Sx Infinite Feeback Loop. One party throws out an idea or experience, then the other picks up that energy and mirrors it back, adding their own energy and experience to the mix. This keeps going back and forth until both sides inhabit this hyper-energized state where they're swimming in a collective pool of their energies. Kind of like how lasers work, where one photon sets off a resonance chain that stimulates other photons into arousal, and the light emitted gets incestuously rebounded back towards the center, compounding and heightening even further.
This has nothing to do with "finding the special someone" or any of the other lovey-dovey romantic crap. This can happen between any two Sx-types so long as they somehow find themselves fixated on what the other has to say. I've had this happen to me where I get caught in a 90 minute conversation where, in hindsight, I don't give a shit about the other guy's experiences at all. But because he's so invested in what he has to say, I by proxy am invested in his story for the time being, and naturally reciprocate that bombardment of energy to match.
Naturally, there's a certain reading of the other person that has to happen while this is going on in order to gauge what's stimulating and what isn't. Going back to what @mfckr said about eye contact, mutuality of experience etc., Sx-firsts seem to always be on the lookout for internal reactivity in others, looking for what makes people tick and how they rile themselves up. Without that visible dynamic interplay of ebb and flow in interactions, they'll get to feeling rather stifled, like the other person simply isn't capable of interacting in a naturally expected way.
Sx-secondary types will superficially exhibit this similar process, but will usually treat it like a game or a mask they wear when interacting with others. A little flash in the pan before they settle back to their primary mode of functioning. Sx-lasts can seem bewildered by this, and won't know how to properly reciprocate such a high level of internal stimulation.
Of course all of this verbage is meaningless without being able to actually demonstrate an example, so y'all are bound to misinterpret and skew my wordings as you see fit.
Last edited by Galen; 12-16-2014 at 04:18 AM.
It's come up before on the forum but the Dunning-Kruger effect may apply here. As one of my music teachers put it, paraphrased: "All of my shitty students think they're incredible, and all of my talented students think they suck."If this article is statistically true then I find it inspiring. I wish I could see myself as 5 times more attractive than I am. My ex told me one of the worst things I do to myself is point out my flaws to people, right away, who would have never even noticed had I not chosen to point them out. I took his words to heart. Then recently someone else basically told me the same thing and kind of gently told me that it was a bit of a turn off when I did that.
People tend to see what you are projecting. When I feel beautiful others mention to me, without me pointing out anything, that I look beautiful that day or I am glowing or whatever. Fortunately most people I know are pretty tactful and do not go around telling me what my flaws are, with the exception of maybe one or two. I have had guys do that to me in order to bring me down a peg in the past. since I was kind of arrogant, and it worked. I still have some self esteem issues which are remnants from the past when I would compare myself to other people and their abilities and strengths. Therapy really did work for me but I still fall back into my old patterns of thought when I am not feeling energized, healthy, or I am feeling ignored. I hate feeling like I am being ignored. :/
Well that explains American Idol.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
For some there is a scale of importance. I know sx first people who do not put their children above their romantic partner. They may want to. They may even try but in the end the relationship between them and their romantic partner trumps everything. I also see how this causes inner conflict when it happens since they love their children very much. It seems a natural thing to put the children above the relationship, at least until they can fend for themselves (which most people do?) but two sx first might not do that. Then they get a lot of negative feedback from others and well meaning advice from people who do not understand.
Then you might have one partner who is sx first and say another who is another stacking and once they have children it may change the whole relationship, since one partner may feel the other has now moved their attention and affection to the children. I wonder if divorce rates are high due to stacking incompatibility sometimes.
It could also be the case where an sx first parent and sx first child may bond strongly as well and it may feel like the parent loves one child above the other which may not be true but the chemistry is there so the parent my play favorites either consciously or subconsciously. I am just looking at different ways that it may manifest in human interactions. Not trying to sell it as truth.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Was trying to capture the energy of it and how it comes out in more than just relationships. Apparently I failed. And yeah, I've seen other stackings with hobbies they're really into and what-not. It's not what I meant to describe, and didn't communicate well. The kind of excitement and involvement, and the reason I used lust as a suffix in every case idk, that is going to be misunderstood also, but a lot of people seemed to miss the "without a safety net" part.
I'm sure you and Suz have passions and interests, but Suz wants a relationship with some guy who has a retirement fund and shit like that. Her priorities are on safety, security. There's a reason why sx/sp can battle with themselves between completely giving themselves over to something, and keeping at least one foot firm on the ground - sp is the grounding, the having a backup plan, the security aspect of something. Every single person has ALL the instincts. Everyone has sx, has sp, has so. These are drives that are present in everyone, the stacking is the priority you put on them.
Because of my family growing up I've sometimes had difficulty relating to people who are sx-last, seeing them as overly-cautious and confusing. I look for a kind of energy in them, and they don't have it and it at times baffles me. That isn't to say they have no energy or are lifeless or any other negative connotation, and plenty are bubbly and friendly, but TO ME the energy they have doesn't seem directed anywhere. And I completely relate to what Aylen wrote about relationships - wanting to connect and having the other person see it as invasive and overstepping boundaries.
Having to stop yourself, force limits on yourself and finding ways to distract and scatter your focus to prevent becoming consumed isn't romantic. Learning to balance yourself and respect other people's internal space when it goes against your natural inclinations isn't romantic either. An unbalanced instinct no matter which one is most out of balance isn't a positive thing and I wasn't trying to glorify it in any way. Just the opposite. Finding ways to balance myself without feeling like I'm smothering or fighting with myself - well, when you get there it feels really good. To get to a point where you feel like you're in control rather than being controlled by your instincts is pretty awesome. But tbh, thinking too much about it and posting on this forum, makes me feel worse. Trying to communicate when everyone seems eager to misunderstand or take offense kind of sucks.
What does it mean in practice to not put the children first? I mean, my husband and I make every possible effort to put our relationship first because without that, we don't have a central bond to hold our family together. We could spend every waking hour as servants to our kids -- and we do that plenty -- but the idea that the kids always come first isn't really tenable. I've seen a lot of parents set out as if life with kids is gonna be one big dreamy-smiley Pampers commercial, only to learn it doesn't work that way at all.For some there is a scale of importance. I know sx first people who do not put their children above their romantic partner. They may want to. They may even try but in the end the relationship between them and their romantic partner trumps everything. I also see how this causes inner conflict when it happens since they love their children very much. It seems a natural thing to put the children above the relationship, at least until they can fend for themselves (which most people do?) but two sx first might not do that. Then they get a lot of negative feedback from others and well meaning advice from people who do not understand.
Then you might have one partner who is sx first and say another who is another stacking and once they have children it may change the whole relationship, since one partner may feel the other has now moved their attention and affection to the children. I wonder if divorce rates are high due to stacking incompatibility sometimes.
It could also be the case where an sx first parent and sx first child may bond strongly as well and it may feel like the parent loves one child above the other which may not be true but the chemistry is there so the parent my play favorites either consciously or subconsciously. I am just looking at different ways that it may manifest in human interactions. Not trying to sell it as truth.
Things I am about to post are open to harsh criticism but I will say them anyway because I have seen it firsthand.
Not putting children first could go as far as giving the children to someone else to raise so they will have a good home because the parents know they cannot provide what it takes to raise a healthy child. Unwanted pregnancies among sx first (and a few sx second) seem to be extremely high from what I have observed over the years.
It could be in the form of parents who dump their kids off on other people to do the things they only want to do together, like traveling the world or skydiving.
It could be sitting the children in front of the TV all day long so that they can have their time alone and the children are not being properly nurtured. Not to be confused with parents who struggle to provide for their children and find it hard to make time for them because of survival issues.
Mothers and fathers who leave their children alone and go off and do drugs or drink.
Mothers who just don't have the maternal instinct kick in after they have the child even though they wish they did and they love their children. I have seen this with sx second as well. <-- I am iffy on this one because I heard stories from lots of women who do not have that instinct.
Of course this could all be explained by the health levels and addiction problems of those involved too but it seems sx first tend to have lots of problems with addiction from what I have seen, even if it is only an addiction to another person. I am not talking about poor, fucked up people here. I know highly educated rich people who do the same. If they see their children once a day between nannies they feel like they are being a good parent.
I grew up with this underlying belief that children ruin relationships and I am not sure exactly when it started. I suspect it was when my EIE sx/so (most probable) dad left because my mom LSI so/sp put us first. He has been wanting her back ever since. Many years later, after my stepdad died, my bio-dad starts calling my mom several times a week in an attempt to get her back. My mom chose her children over her relationship. When my bio-dad said he was leaving the US to move back to Greece my mom chose to stay here and give us and herself a better life. I know I could never sacrifice as much as my mother to obtain material security.
She spent ten years, without male companionship, before she got into another relationship with my ILI sp/so stepdad and it didn't bother her one bit being alone. She didn't long for a man. I have never gone more than nine months without a relationship and when I find one I tend to go long term. My mom relied on her family, friends and church for emotional support. When she met my stepdad she already knew what he had to offer in terms of stability, financial support and future potential. She chose him even though her friends said he was "too high class for her". She did not let it stop her. It was one of the boldest moves, other than leaving her birth country, she ever made and it paid off.
My mom and stepdad were a match made in heaven. I witnessed my mom at her healthiest and happiest during the time they were together. Together they focused on the children and providing us all with security and stability but I was the one who kept running away from it all. I knew it would be there if I needed it but I wanted to do my own thing. My sister EII sp/sx, in contrast, took full advantage of the security my parents offered. I usually came home after some major crisis only to leave again when it had passed.
Damn I am wordy today and yes this perspective has formed through my own experiences.
[sorry if those doesn't flow well.... no patience to proofread today.]
Edit: just want to say that I am describing some extreme stuff here. Not saying sx first make bad parents as a rule. I just think they may have to find a way to balance their needs with the needs of their children since they may not coincide. It is hard enough being a parent regardless of instinct. I admit I cannot be the type of mother a child needs and deserves in order to have the best possible home but I still have something to offer in my own way. :/
Last edited by Aylen; 12-16-2014 at 08:20 PM.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Thanks for sharing that. Growing up, I had a few experiences that parallel yours.Things I am about to post is open to harsh criticism but I will say it anyway because I have seen it firsthand.
Not putting children first could go as far as giving the children to someone else to raise so they will have a good home because the parents know they cannot provide what it takes to raise a healthy child. Unwanted pregnancies among sx first (and a few sx second) seem to be extremely high from what I have observed over the years.
It could be in the form of parents who dump their kids off on other people to do the things they only want to do together, like traveling the world or skydiving.
It could be sitting the children in front of the TV all day long so that they can have their time alone and the children are not being properly nurtured. Not to be confused with parents who struggle to provide for their children and find it hard to make time for them because of survival issues.
Mothers and fathers who leave their children alone and go off and do drugs or drink.
Mothers who just don't have the maternal instinct kick in after they have the child even though they wish they did and they love their children. I have seen this with sx second as well. <-- I am iffy on this one because I heard stories from lots of women who do not have that instinct.
Of course this could all be explained by the health levels and addiction problems of those involved too but it seems sx first tend to have lots of problems with addiction from what I have seen, even if it is only an addiction to another person. I am not talking about poor, fucked up people here. I know highly educated rich people who do the same. If they see their children once a day between nannies they feel like they are being a good parent.
I grew up with this underlying belief that children ruin relationships and I am not sure exactly when it started. I suspect it was when my EIE sx/so (most probable) dad left because my mom LSI so/sp put us first. He has been wanting her back ever since. Many years later, after my stepdad died, my bio-dad starts calling my mom several times a week in an attempt to get her back. My mom chose her children over her relationship. When my bio-dad said he was leaving the US to move back to Greece my mom chose to stay here and give us and herself a better life. I know I could never sacrifice as much as my mother to obtain material security.
She spent ten years, without male companionship, before she got into another relationship with my ILI sp/so stepdad and it didn't bother her one bit being alone. She didn't long for a man. I have never gone more than nine months without a relationship and when I find one I tend to go long term. My mom relied on her family, friends and church for emotional support. When she met my stepdad she already knew what he had to offer in terms of stability, financial support and future potential. She chose him even though her friends said he was "too high class for her". She did not let it stop her. It was one of the boldest moves, other than leaving her birth country, she ever made and it paid off.
My mom and stepdad were a match made in heaven. I witnessed my mom at her healthiest and happiest during the time they were together. Together they focused on the children and providing us all with security and stability but I was the one who kept running away from it all. I knew it would be there if I needed it but I wanted to do my own thing. My sister EII sp/sx, in contrast, took full advantage of the security my parents offered. I usually came home after some major crisis only to leave again when it had passed.
Damn I am wordy today and yes this perspective has formed through my own experiences.
[sorry if those doesn't flow well.... no patience to proofread today.]
Since I'm a parent, I now look at it all from the other side as well. I went into motherhood with a lot of unrealistic expectations placed on me. And I was punished for not living up to expectations. So now, it's really nice to be with someone who doesn't have an agenda about what kind of mother I'm supposed to be. We do everything we can to ensure our children are well cared-for. And we attempt to do that in a way that allows us to still be a strong couple.
Having kids will change any marriage / relationship. It just will, it's a major stressor and everything shifts in an instant. Some couples adjust to this better than others. I'm reluctant to ascribe problems in this area to enneagram instincts in any generalized way.
lol those were actually Birdie's words, not mine. I just agreed with her on the abstract idea behind that and other things Birdie mentioned. Not the literal thing, silly.
And no i dont need safety/security of someone else's retirement fund, I can hold my own that way. As i explained in the thread you're alluding to, the "retirement fund" is simply one of the ways to glean info about a person's character (and no he doesn't literally need to have a retirement fund... he can have other signs, instead, of being a responsible motivated intelligent mature adult, as opposed to a lazy unmotivated bum).
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Gah. You are impossible to talk to.lol those were actually Birdie's words, not mine. I just agreed with her on the abstract idea behind that and other things Birdie mentioned. Not the literal thing, silly.
And no i dont need safety/security of someone else's retirement fund, I can hold my own that way. As i explained in the thread you're alluding to, the "retirement fund" is simply one of the ways to glean info about a person's character (and no he doesn't literally need to have a retirement fund... he can have other signs, instead, of being a responsible motivated intelligent mature adult, as opposed to a lazy unmotivated bum).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
