How to tell primary from secondary instinct

[discojoe]

For instance, in sx/sp, how is the sp instinct subordinate to the sx? I ask because I feel as though both are equally strong in myself. It's like I consciously focus on sp more than sx, but when I imagine abandoning sp considerations in favor of an sx connection with someone or something, I am fairly certain I would do so, albeit with a bit of reluctance. My thought process would be akin to "Meh, fuck it. Life is too short to forgo actually living."

Is that a common way the second instinct functions in relation to the primary?

[Galen]

I'd say you have it right on.

I kinda see the second instinct as a tool that's used in order to forward the desires of the primary instinct. The person is never going to be completely satisfied if the second instinct is used for its own sake, so it kinda has to be subordinated to the primary instinct in order for it to serve some purpose. I totally identify with what you said about seeking strong sx connections over sp stuff, but if I can't find those sx connections then I have to kinda utilize my sp in order to find those connections. This would be done by basically going out and doing things that I would normally do for fun by myself, but still be on the look-out for individual people I'd be interested in. I'd imagine that sp/sxs would work the opposite way, utilizing the individual connections they already have in order to fulfill their desires to amuse themselves.

[golden]

I dunno, I have a hard time with this, too. I just spend two weeks hashing through an sx need for my boyfriend, versus the so issues that arise if I go to be with him abroad, versus the sp issues that we both face in trying to figure out an international relationship. Not sure how I can entirely neglect any of them.

But IIRC, I was chatting with ananke and Ashton one day here and they were saying that of the first two, you are likely to use the first instinct to meet the needs of the second. Hope I remembered that right.

Can one of you two remind me what you were saying about this? I found it helpful at the time.

In practice, I would say that I might take a job that isn't the highest-paying (sp last) but that has a social environment I find meaningful and vibrant (so first or second), and within that context, meet a partner (sx first or second).

But it doesn't have to go that way. I might meet a partner, build a social life with him, and rely on both to take care of sp, which more or less falls into place.

But I have never said, I will take care of sp and let so and sx fall in line after. I can't seem to get my needs met that way.

[Creepy-male]

sx/sp

If I can check off my sp needs,
I can pursue my sx needs.

In any situation where sp is not being met, that becomes the primary focus. Any time an sx pursuit presents itself, though, the sx/sp takes that. The "problem" with sx/sp is that both instincts are at odds with one another. It's almost contradictory wanting a stable, reliable material existence but at the same time wanting the freedom to pursue whatever holds the greatest magnetism for you.

Also, Golden and Galen raise a good point. People typically try to feed their other two instincts through their primary instinct. sx/sps will try to meet survival demands like food and shelter through sx-compatible means (follow my passions for a career); or, failing the opportunity to do so, follow their sx sparks around on the side.

I think the tertiary instinct tends to basically be ignored or assumed to naturally fall into place in the course of pursuing the primary and secondary (which are actual concerns for the individual). Maybe I'm just stressing that because I don't get how sp-lasts can even live with themselves?

[ashlesha]

as an sp/sx- the idea of giving up all sx for the sake of sp is really depressing, but it's not as bad as the idea of giving up all sp for sx, in which case thinking about it makes me feel totally claustrophobic and freaked out.

I'd imagine that sp/sxs would work the opposite way, utilizing the individual connections they already have in order to fulfill their desires to amuse themselves.

hah, this sounds kind of awful, but it makes a kind of sense. i've heard before the idea that sp/sx types pursue relationships for material gain, which always seemed really silly to me. "amusing themselves" makes more sense to me.

[golden]

Maybe I'm just stressing that because I don't get how sp-lasts can even live with themselves?

Right.

If sp is seriously in jeopardy for me (I'm def sp last)--and it has been during the last year--then of course I have to address it, or wtf will become of me?

Regardless of how much direct attention I give to sp, however, it seems that my strengths are geared toward sx and so, and what happens is that sp gets taken care of most naturally in what seems like a less than head-on fashion.

So it's like this: sp crisis, work on sp directly over time but with limited success, then discover that my social connections, social values, love relationships, and personal passions are the channels through which I solve most of my sp problems.

The challenge is being strong enough not to let sp fall by the wayside, to stand up for it when need be; and to choose my friends and lovers more carefully as I live/learn, as they have a huge impact on my life path.

[golden]

as an sp/sx- the idea of giving up all sx for the sake of sp is really depressing, but it's not as bad as the idea of giving up all sp for sx, in which case thinking about it makes me feel totally claustrophobic and freaked out.

Ah, right. See, I can't imagine giving up sx for so or sp. I need sx first, lol. So and sp don't have much meaning for me without sx. And I'm more apt to get sx via so than via sp.

[discojoe]

My tertiary so manifests as an almost subconscious impulse to do social things that I don't feel like doing. When my friends call me to hang out, my predilection is to say no, but I never do, because I know that I should socialize more, not be a hermit.

So it's like a little voice nagging at me, saying it needs some lovin' too.

[Creepy-male]

hah, this sounds kind of awful, but it makes a kind of sense. i've heard before the idea that sp/sx types pursue relationships for material gain, which always seemed really silly to me. "amusing themselves" makes more sense to me.

sp is not a simple mater of material gains etc, there are more subtle manifestations of the instinct.

Typically sp/sx is a disconnected dreamer type, who prefers security and preservation in there own bubble of safety if you will, and the sx drives them to want to connect with people, and there whole issue is who to let into that bubble or who not to.

sx/sp is rather similar but you reverse the polarity of the dilemma, sx's are more forward with connecting with people and other sx issues, but the dilemma is which connects are more secure and which are not (sp issues).

In either case it works at the top...

the first instinct determines the focus of the life.

the second instinct determines the major dilemma, due to the secondary priority which can't be satisfied as well because of the focus of the first instinct.

the third instinct determines the major source of weakness, due to the top two priorities, the third remains neglected.

usually the first instinct is an area of confidence

the second instinct is an area of competence, but with dilemma as per the dominant instinct

the third instinct is an area of weakness, however it still gets used when necessary, and pressure on it can put a lot of drama into the top two functions, because the third instinct only develops forward in competence once interconnected issues of the other two instinct are fully resolved. Having pressure and needing to adapt to the bottom instinct when there is no resolution, creates drama into the top two functions, which eventually gets resolved and allows competency in this function. This all comes naturally when you consider that the instincts are merely a matter of prioritization.

for example; sx and sp mashups usually first need some firm resolution in terms of connection/security before they develop the social instinct... excess pressure imposed by circumstances onto the social instinct, means forced drama in the sx and sp areas, you can deal with so-instinct imposed issues, but it creates drama you focus on in the sx and sp area, which has to be hurriedly resolved in order to satisfy the requirements of the so area.

essentially all instincts have points of intersection in life and the issues involved with them, but as a person your doorway into this is through a particular entry point, that is your stacking... everyone has social issues... for so leading types, this is the entry point to their life... for sx types, this is further away. Your stacking is like an axis of which life appears to revolve around, when in fact from a very different perspective, life would revolve different... objectively life has not changed but the axis of consideration has.

Social aspects of life must be worked through down the hierarchy to resolve them in sp and sx mashups.
For so leadings, this is the first point of work to resolve sp and sx issues.

so is weak in sx/sp and sp/sx because the psychological supply lines are longer and thus require more effort to achieve the same result that a leading so may achieve with less effort.

[Grizzly]

I think about the relationship like an organic process...the 2nd instinct gets its needs met by moving into the 1st sphere altering the energy of the 1st instinct...

sx/sp is a challenge to describe but ain't so much a challenge to spot...you can bet they idealize relationships more than sp/sx...

sx/sp 1w9 is especially prone to internal suffering, imho...1w9s are frustrated and idealistic as it is not to mention their line to four...

[Galen]

My tertiary so manifests as an almost subconscious impulse to do social things that I don't feel like doing. When my friends call me to hang out, my predilection is to say no, but I never do, because I know that I should socialize more, not be a hermit.

So it's like a little voice nagging at me, saying it needs some lovin' too.

Haha, I do this a lot too. Like my so instinct feels like some sort of stupid obligation I know I have to go through with or else I'm "not a complete person." My sp instinct at least feels legitimately important to me.

[ashlesha]

My tertiary so manifests as an almost subconscious impulse to do social things that I don't feel like doing. When my friends call me to hang out, my predilection is to say no, but I never do, because I know that I should socialize more, not be a hermit.

So it's like a little voice nagging at me, saying it needs some lovin' too.

i also relate to this, except i'm fairly quick to just say no...maybe a difference in how we approach it as different etypes, or i wonder if the sx-first versus sp-first priorities are also a factor here. galen's "complete person" comment nails it, but it's not always enough to motivate me.

[Gilly]

The challenge is being strong enough not to let sp fall by the wayside, to stand up for it when need be; and to choose my friends and lovers more carefully as I live/learn, as they have a huge impact on my life path.

Yeeeeaaaaah.

[Clumsy]

How do you do this? I've read about them, but for some reason I just can't get the hang of it.

How can you identify a person's dominant instinct without having to get to know them extensively? What things stick out to you?

[silke]

Second instinct is more frequently brought up in conversation. There is a more of an exploratory attitude towards it. People may start experimenting in this area or just ignoring it and putting it off for a while. It's kind of like the creative function in socionics. I've read somewhere that we use our secondary instinct to satisfy our primary instinct, so for example sx/sp may participate in actions sports putting their self-pres at risk in order to experience the intensity that their primary instinct needs. So/sp's have a similar approach only they'll risk self-pres to gain social status or group acceptance as per their primary social instinct. So you can ask yourself which instinct are they more likely to experiment with, sacrifice or risk - that would be the secondary one.

In matters of the primary instinct there is a greater measure of rigidly and anxiety, even neuroticism and perfectionism, ex: sp-first may dream about having the ideal living abode, sx-first - an ideal mate, soulmate type of relationship, etc. It's akin to dominant function in socionics in that it provides one's general orientation.

Another interpretation taken from here: Proletarian Science
1) The instinct taken in its most literal sense.
2) The instinct taken in an abstract sense.
3) This instinct remains dormant, or at least not a concern to the person in question.

Going by instinctual energy flows that I've mentioned at the bottom here link you may feel more 'in tune' with those whose stackings are part of the same flow as yours. Stacking with same instincts but opposite configurations belong to opposite flows, so that's another way to figure it out, seeing which other stacks the person is more receptive to.

[Clumsy]

Thanks, siuntal

Syn-flow: sp->so->sx->sp
Stackings involved: sp/so-->so/sx-->sx/sp-->sp/so
Direction: Compelled toward people. Acting upon and with others as a born insider i.e.- deeply human.

Contra-flow: sp->sx->so->sp
Stackings involved: sp/sx-->sx/so-->so/sp-->sp/sx
Direction: Compelled against people. Seething belligerent outsiders; 'antisocial', provoking, reverse-flow change catalysts. In some profound sense, rejecting the human condition, their own and/or that of others.

Can you explain the direction a little more? Are those that are "compelled against" more likely to be independent or not afraid to go against what would be considered social norms? And what about those that are "compelled toward"?

How would this manifest IRL?

[silke]

Thanks, siuntal



Can you explain the direction a little more? Are those that are "compelled against" more likely to be independent or not afraid to go against what would be considered social norms? And what about those that are "compelled toward"?

How would this manifest IRL?

There is a certain disruptive effect to the contra-flow stackings, but it's often not consciously recognized, like the person isn't purposefully trying to go against the flow. It's disruptive simply by being, in its essence.

For example, sx/so's often exert a disturbing effect on group harmony (and in some cases hierarchy) since they will say and do things that challenge the status quo of the group. The specifics vary - it could be anything from attempting to start a revolution to dancing on a tabletop and screaming at the top of your lungs to draw attention at a party. They tap into the social sphere to satisfy their personal need for intensity. For the group this can be disruptive and from the side may even seem egoistical or arrogant. To those at the top of group hierarchy such behavior may seem threatening. To those who are marginalized and exist outside the hierarchy and have little attachment to status quo the sx/so energy may seem appealing. Sx/so can thus find themselves surrounded by another group of individuals devoted to that person. The overall effect is divisive.

In comparison so/sx has quite a different influence. Here the so-instinct as the primary one imparts a need to belong, to be included, to be one with the group. Something I've noticed so-primaries will do on occasion is refer to themselves as "we" as if they are the group. They are often attuned to group needs; if something is lacking they may try fill it in themselves. If the group needs more people they will go recruiting new members or try to draw in those who have been marginalized instead of forming a contra-group. So/sx functions kind of like multi-pronged social nexus around which others can unite. The overall effect is opposite to that of sx/so - greater cohesion instead of splintering. A typical example given to compare so/sx and sx/so energies is Martin Luther King Jr. (uniting) vs Malcom X (divisive).

You can probably pick up on the same kind of disturbing vs stabilizing force for the other stackings:

so/sx - including, associating, affiliating, networking, interconnecting, introducing, unifying, linking, bonding, annexing, cooperating, receiving
sx/so - confronting, rebuffing, challenging, interrupting, reforming, contradicting, subverting, excluding, eliminating

sx/sp - intensifying, escalating, enlivening, invigorating, stimulating, energizing, vitalizing, reviving, animating, inspiriting
sp/sx - dulling, grounding, exhausting, deadening, desiccating, making still, calming, quieting, dampening, numbing, desensitizing

sp/so - conserving, protecting, maintaining, preserving, supplying, repairing, sustaining, stewarding
so/sp - using, employing, implementing, utilizing, appropriating, expending, exercising, capitalizing

[BlueLotus]

I don't see how so/sp is *that* "contra"...compared to sx/so and sp/sx it seems more "syn", don't you think?

[silke]

I don't see how so/sp is *that* "contra"...compared to sx/so and sp/sx it seems more "syn", don't you think?

It's "contra" in the sense that it engages in this kind of exposure of anything and anyone deemed to be less cultured, sophisticated, enlightened, etc. and attempts to replace it with its own 'superior' version. Such an orientation can lead to the 'culture wars' mentioned in the quote below. Having this kind of destabilizing effect, it's part of the 'contra' chain.

I don't associate soc-firstness with social finesse/polish/graces. In fact, soc-firsts are often 'culture warriors', like Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck or Art Skidmore. The Apollonian light, in this case, has a desperation to it - emphasis on enlightenment.

The interest is in sending light where there is a claim of enlightenment so as to show that there is in fact really darkness there. In other words, the search party (made of light) has now inadvertently (yet advertently) lit up the space that was, in their opinion, not genuinely light-filled (or enlightened). [example: spark inside us song]

Like all neurosis, it has a circular quality to it, where the soc-first person is attracted to someone who is giving off light, and yet such enlightenment is seen, by the soc-first, as a high status position, i.e.- something the soc-first is envious of. And hence the impulse is to, you might say, double the light to uncover 'truth' and bring photographic exposure into darkness, so as to bring the other person down, status-wise.

[Amber]

It's "contra" in the sense that it engages in this kind of exposure of anything and anyone deemed to be less cultured, sophisticated, enlightened, etc. and attempts to replace it with its own 'superior' version. Such an orientation can lead to the 'culture wars' mentioned in the quote below. Having this kind of destabilizing effect, it's part of the 'contra' chain.

to me so/sp seems to be the most contra-flow of all ..maybe because I often agree with sx/so revolutionary causes and sp/sx looks more in-their-own-world, less disruptive for the collective

[willekeurig]

My tertiary so manifests as an almost subconscious impulse to do social things that I don't feel like doing. When my friends call me to hang out, my predilection is to say no, but I never do, because I know that I should socialize more, not be a hermit.

So it's like a little voice nagging at me, saying it needs some lovin' too.

wow, this is me

sx/sp 1w9 is especially prone to internal suffering, imho...1w9s are frustrated and idealistic as it is not to mention their line to four...

..and this. ugh.

[Galen]

I think the point about the secondary instinct is that the individual has a much more conscious handle on it compared to the primary. Sure the primary will be the most obsessive, but the second will be expressed much more directly without as much subtlety to it. The primary oozes out of a person's psyche without effort and has a much deeper-set outlook towards a person's perspective; perhaps appearing more multidimensional, with preferred expression in nuanced implications over blunt-force projection. Think b/w leading and creative functions of Sociofame.

[Olly From Wally World]

I was talking to someone in chat about stacks and I'm only gonna quote myself, as I didn't ask their permission and you can rly get the jist of it with just this. This is what I feel strongly about as far as stackings:


~I don't agree with all that stuff abt what's brought up more in convo and that the second is experimental and weird stuff like that. Basically you're obsessive abt ur first instinct, and the second instinct comes easily but u don't think abt it as much and u don't go off ur rocker abt it

~don't think abt what u talk abt. think abt what ur fixated on internally. It's instincts after all, not social typings

~that what u talk abt stuff is meant to help ppl type other ppl's instincts, but it's BS in the end

You sound bitter but I somewhat agree, slightly. Your internal fixation seems more important to focus on but the dominant is said to be a 'weakness which looks like a strength'. It's mainly over focused on. I guess some just think that if you're over focused on something, it's going to come out even unconsciously which makes sense. Taking into account that you care about it the most, how doesn't it make sense that you may experiment more with the instinct that you're less neurotic about and often ok at, in order to get more of the dominant?

I have seen that Mario Sikora says differently though, maybe you'd like his stuff. It seems we are more conflicted with our secondary to him but he still says that sx people talk a lot about sex and themselves (and I think he hints that they are more prone to cheating), so people talk about others and sp about boring shit.

[lemontrees]

I think the point about the secondary instinct is that the individual has a much more conscious handle on it compared to the primary. Sure the primary will be the most obsessive, but the second will be expressed much more directly without as much subtlety to it. The primary oozes out of a person's psyche without effort and has a much deeper-set outlook towards a person's perspective; perhaps appearing more multidimensional, with preferred expression in nuanced implications over blunt-force projection. Think b/w leading and creative functions of Sociofame.

yeah i agree. i've noticed that so-seconds usually sort of just know what the social "rules" are and follow them, whereas i have much more of a complicated relationship to them. and that compared to my sx-first friend i'm much more likely to gush about some sx thing and be stupidly excited about it, whereas she's more subtle and graceful in that arena.

ps i feel like i sometimes just have this itch in my brain that goes "oh, i haven't done anything interesting in a while... time to schedule a trip to do X" etc. and it's pretty like mechanical, comes in little bursts. but maybe that's Ne-seeking, dunno.

but anyway my fave thing in the world is to get so/sx at the same time. a party where you're intrigued by one particular person but the general atmosphere is exciting and interesting too. a roadtrip where you are w/ your lover and friends you trust. a room filled with few people you feel great warmth for, they are all separate but their energies intersect, like a cross-section of different lives. etc.

oh, and a connection in which you feel chemistry w/ someone but you also know you support each other beyond that and have each others' back.

[Olly From Wally World]

This person I was talking to in chat had heard that it was the SECOND instinct that comes out more in conversation. And I don't rly think that you need to experiment with your second to get your first. You use your first to get your first, imo If I do "experiment with my second" then it must be rly unconscious, cause I can't think of how I do that
But either way, when self-typing, I think my first statement there in the red is the best way to self type the stack.

I have heard the second instinct stuff which also makes sense especially if you take into account conversation being more comfortable or laxed. So if you're chilling, it'll be easier to bring up the less neurotic stuff. I think we've mentioned this before. I don't usually focus as much on how talking about others makes one social since it seems like everyone is fucking doing that, lol. Or maybe being social makes me more attuned to how social everyone is.

[suedehead]

If I'm Sp/So, I let things happen, and I don't feel significantly attached to however I'm coming across. I don't feel drive. It's just there. It kind of sucks.

If I'm Sp/Sx, I go through periods where I feel like I have a lot of it, and enjoy things too much. Photography, listening to music, anger, being alive, everything. And then I go through periods where I feel like I have none and I feel numb. Numb/neutral feels weird and I get kind of obsessed over it.

[Aylen]

A site I found recently but apparently is old news to some.

Determining stacking

Russ said that your actual lived life is a testament to what your choices have been. Your life is a monument to your stack—it can be healthy or neurotic.

Russ said that the life script of a self-pres dominant tends to emphasize continuity, organic development. Sexuals tend to have chapters, and have sometimes “gone down in flames’ with what they’re attracted to. Socials tend to have “pods of affiliation”, that is different groups or activities they’re involved with.

Look at your actual behavior. If you’re not doing your dominant instinct, then you might feel like you’re taking time away from what’s important. If you have to put in effort in the realm of the instinct, this may be your blind spot. There’s an intelligence to the way that your soul has set things up. Look at it. Look at your particular programming. See what you’ve taken yourself to be. What supports you is an issue of stacking. Relax around it—just look at where the attention goes or does not go.

Russ said that it doesn’t work to tell someone to “not do” their dominant. But if you work on the blind spot, it brings in balance that helps you deal with the dominant. With balance, you don’t need to get ALL the needs met via the dominant instinct.

In awakening (showing up) we recognize what we really love—and there’s a remorse of conscience, as we see the ways that we haven’t honored it. Work on the instincts brings up the neglected parts of ourselves, and the rejection hurts our hearts. When you work on the blind spot, the temptation will be to go back to the dominant variant. Russ said it takes courage to cross the waters, especially the shark-infested waters. To deal with the blind spot, ask for help. Enlist friends to engage, but not overwhelm. Take little steps.

http://runningfather.wordpress.com/2...-notes-by-lee/

This is pretty much how I determined my stacking before I read anything about how other's perceive the stackings (it is strange to read how some people see sx/sp. I absolutely don't feel like it some kind of prize stacking but I don't feel it is inferior either). The article validates my own perception.

[Amber]

There is a certain disruptive effect to the contra-flow stackings, but it's often not consciously recognized, like the person isn't purposefully trying to go against the flow. It's disruptive simply by being, in its essence.

For example, sx/so's often exert a disturbing effect on group harmony (and in some cases hierarchy) since they will say and do things that challenge the status quo of the group. The specifics vary - it could be anything from attempting to start a revolution to dancing on a tabletop and screaming at the top of your lungs to draw attention at a party. They tap into the social sphere to satisfy their personal need for intensity. For the group this can be disruptive and from the side may even seem egoistical or arrogant. To those at the top of group hierarchy such behavior may seem threatening. To those who are marginalized and exist outside the hierarchy and have little attachment to status quo the sx/so energy may seem appealing. Sx/so can thus find themselves surrounded by another group of individuals devoted to that person. The overall effect is divisive.

In comparison so/sx has quite a different influence. Here the so-instinct as the primary one imparts a need to belong, to be included, to be one with the group. Something I've noticed so-primaries will do on occasion is refer to themselves as "we" as if they are the group. They are often attuned to group needs; if something is lacking they may try fill it in themselves. If the group needs more people they will go recruiting new members or try to draw in those who have been marginalized instead of forming a contra-group. So/sx functions kind of like multi-pronged social nexus around which others can unite. The overall effect is opposite to that of sx/so - greater cohesion instead of splintering. A typical example given to compare so/sx and sx/so energies is Martin Luther King Jr. (uniting) vs Malcom X (divisive).

You can probably pick up on the same kind of disturbing vs stabilizing force for the other stackings:

could you perhaps draw a similar parallel between sp/so and so/sp with some concrete famous examples? Which politicians are clearly so/sp -- Putin, Thatcher, Adolfie .. But sp/so? I only have in mind something like Bill Gates. Gorbachev perhaps?

[anndelise]

How accurate do all ya'll enneagram experts think the following is?

I believe that your first instinct is something you can't control and people later on in their life even realized that they should limit this instinct and not over use it and try to work on their second instinct. The second instinct, people always want to prefect it and it's the one that gives people the most pain because it gives you the most doubt. Sometime I feel like your second instinct is like the producing function in socionics; that you need to produce it and create it thus not too natural and smooth. and your first instinct is like the accepting function in socionics, very much want to limit the use of it as you get older and people don't really need to create this energy as its like automatic.

Cuz under this description I would be sx/sp.