so/sx ranges

[lynn]

anyone has deeper insight into this? or examples.. especially how the ranges look in real life. the descriptions are too vague for me.

The three ranges for so/sx:

"Lightside" So/Sx (strong soc, weak sx) - So is an unquestioned dictator here, just as in warmside So/Sp, and on the other end is the darkside: So as the chairman, and Sx as the vice chairman who sleeps with the chairman. And the midrange, that lovely muddy area in between where soc is the boss but sx at least has its own corner office.

Lightsiders vs darksiders is almost like a phobic/counterphobic split in attitude. The Lightside is engaging, ingratiating even, and is the closest to what has become the stereotype for So/Sx. Unmistakably friendly, amusing, eager to attend to others in a personal, customized way. Also hesitant or unwilling to upset the delicate chemistry or harmony of individual or group dynamics, since So cohesion is at a premium.

"Midrange" So/Sx's have a less pre-committed way of dealing with people, and therefore appear to express the mercurial aspects of the so/sx stacking more so than the other ranges. I used to call it the "grey" range since it made me think of dusky unreadability, or manipulation through inscrutability. "Midrange" So/Sx's seem especially averse to being predictable, preferring to hold the license to adapt whatever attitude the situation requires. Until those conditions become clear, they default to a kind of seeming indifference or nonchalance (a stark contrast to the sociably upfront quality of their cordial So/Sp cousins). This is a pliant, laid-back so/sx.

"Darksider" So/Sx's (strong sx), on the other hand, seem eager to prove their So isn't in full control, so they typically test the boundaries of traditional So values. May exhibit knee-jerk reactions and voice resentment against shared peer and culture behaviors and fall on warmside strategies for making connections. They aren't any less healthy by definition, but can seem that way due to their darker, more confrontational manner. They use highly customized interactive tactics like all so/sx's, but in a more uncompromising "keeping it real" way, owing to the active tension between "good" So and "bad" Sx. May get mistaken for Sx first stackings Sx/Sp and Sx/So.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tual-Stackings

[silke]

Since I live in a household of so/sx's here are a few observations.

"Lightside" social subtypes of So/Sx: Ironically this range impresses as the least social of the three ranges despite being called the "social" subtype. Here the "social" instinct seems to give an intellectual orientation which is maintained at expense of emotionally engaging their surroundings. An example: ESI "lightsider" so/sx roommate would spend hours locked inside her room working on writing articles, blog entries, and making videos. The only person she would regularly talk to outside of the house was her boyfriend, who was a journalist working on the same subject she was researching. This range is the equivalent of socionics "inert" subtype: there is a lack of engagement with their surroundings as all potential is drawn to their internalized primary soc instinct. For this reason they may seem to have few actual friends to the point of resembling a social last or a social introvert, but I've found this impression is misleading: their work and creative projects aim to reach out to a broad audience. So in a way they sacrifice immediate connections for the sake of touching as many people as possible. Eg even though the ESI roommate stayed with us only for some months and English was not her first language, she did manage to get one of her articles published in the local newspaper, much to the surprise of others who knew her (her article was about immigration and social inequality). Authors, story writers, journalists, bloggers, tv and radio talk show hosts - not necessarily working in these professions but these kinds of occupations would be ideally suited for this subtype. Dissemination of information on a large scale with significant effort and some delay.

Significant others seem to be chosen on basis of shared interests and cultural involvements eg the ESI roommate was with an ESE, which while in socionics this isn't the most comfortable relation it mattered more that he was involved in same kind of research. Bonding with others and building friendships seems to happen along the lines of attending same kind of events together: plays, concerts, presentations, rallies, shows, and the follow-up discussions. They typically attract a fair share of "seducer" sx/sp's who get too fucking bored of being so Sx all the time and need some social outlet lol. Socially seem more adaptable and pliable than other ranges, inclusive and including, willing to understand and accommodate greater number of people they meet, even though this isn't always obvious due to weaker emotional expression. Sometimes give an "airy", "intellectually dry", or "light-weight" vibe like they are not even present. May seclude themselves for long periods of time to work on their projects.

Visually and by their lifestyle "lightsider" so/sx's may resemble, and be mistaken for, so/sp's due to certain level of emotional disengagement. While speaking they may have a kind of stately presentation and talk in broad terms. Eyes may be large and open, reflecting a greater share social instinct; facial expression having more dispassionate and disengaged look than with other ranges.

In case a person is "inert" subtype in Socionics and, additionally, first instinct "inert" subtype in their stacking, they may seem present but always somehow disconnected, in-their-head, and focused on their own interests when they talk. May ponder to themselves whether they are introverts, even if they are extroverted by Jung. Likely to type as so/sp or sp-first.

Examples: Boris Nemtsov comes to mind as Fi-SEE "lightsider" So/Sx. The guy looked it, spoke it, and certainly lived it.




"Midrange" So/Sx: I haven't met too many midrangers, or at least haven't readily recognized them. The few people that I have met seem to have a kind of wheeler-dealer approach in social situations. They exhibit some of the reclusiveness of "lightsiders" and can shut themselves out, but will also gladly come out and engage with others if needed be. Light and open when their sx is engaged. At the same time they don't dip deep into engaging others preferring to maintain some distance. In conversation it feels like they're trying to keep themselves open to other opportunities. It's like they can never quite make up their minds on whether they want to reach out or pull back and leave this up to the circumstances: perhaps the right person comes along? They also seem to me to be more mistrustful than the other two ranges, not sure why, could be the ones I've met.


"Darksider" sexual subtype of So/Sx: These are the bleeding hearts and heart-on-the-sleeve subtypes who spill copious amounts of emotions and personal information into their environment, usually much to the delight of "wanderer" sx/sp's who need their sx prodded and reinforced once in a while. I find these guys tend to voice and talk about the kind of values and lifestyle that sx/sp's already live, with the key difference being that it never occurs to sx/sp's as social lasts to so publicly and openly talk about such things and socially expose themselves. The "darksiders" feel this similarity and may prod the sx/sp's to be more personally revealing, but that only servers to highlight the differences between the two. "Darksider" so/sx's very often consider themselves to be sx/sp's, mistaking their strong sexual secondary instinct for primary one. I've spotted at least 8 of them in various typology communities, every single one typing as either sx/sp or sx/so.

Similarly to the "wanderer" sx/sp's, the primary instinct gets "put aside" for the sake of indulging in the secondary one, thus their social instinct often takes a hike. One may hear them openly denouncing undesirable and cringe-worthy social trends, groups, and affiliations, yet their attention seems to be strangely glued to these topics and they get too emotionally invested and affected by them in contrast to soc lasts.

Immediate social style feels out-reaching, open, and very personal. This subtype is similar to "contact" subtype in socionics: they easily reach out to others, make connections, strike up conversations, thereby proceeding to build a social network if they wish. Yet they're rarely aware of there being any kind of social network in the first place, as soc is partially muted for them and it takes high level of self-awareness for them to recognize it. They function as a local social nexus: a person with multiple relationships and social ties connected to them being in the center. Their personal relationships are more visible and tangible than with "lightsiders". One can literally observe them working that sx in conversations. More likely to have their favorite people with whom they prefer to socialize than the "lightsiders", not as amenable and inclusive. More likely to get involved in interpersonal drama, as they live and breathe sx.

Visually there is some kind of emotionally wet playful hyper-focus to their look. Their eyes are usually not as large as with social subtypes, but smaller and more focused, with an outer layer that reflects some measure of emotionality and goodwill as they smile. It may feel like their eyes are trying to pierce right through you. They focus easily. All of their emotional effects are, however, always directed outwards by means of gestures, look, and words. To contrast sx-firsts usually have an either warm or transparent look that looks dissolving, heart-felt, and withdrawing.

Examples: Muammar Gaddafi was likely "darksider" so/sx 8w9. I was reading his biography the other day and while his statements carry a strong emotional charge, there were certainly soc-primary concerns hiding in the background.

[lynn]

@silke: this is really interesting... great!

yeah, i also thought that lightside so/sx are more passive and have a colder vibe, whereas darksiders are messier and "warmer", from my own observations . however, the actual descriptions made me confuse the two subtypes with each other, because lightside is described as "engaging, ingratiating", and darkside as more "confrontational" , and vaguely thinking that something must be off. your explanation makes a lot of sense in that regard.

[lynn]

They typically attract a fair share of "seducer" sx/sp's who get too fucking bored of being so Sx all the time and need some social outlet lol.

this reminds me of the dynamic in this video...

[silke]

@silke: this is really interesting... great!

yeah, i also thought that lightside so/sx are more passive and have a colder vibe, whereas darksiders are messier and "warmer", from my own observations . however, the actual descriptions made me confuse the two subtypes with each other, because lightside is described as "engaging, ingratiating", and darkside as more "confrontational" , and vaguely thinking that something must be off. your explanation makes a lot of sense in that regard.

That description of subtypes doesn't seem to say much about "lightsiders". I've started to notice them only after a few run-ins with people who seemed to be so/sx but weren't as engaging as some of the so/sx I've met and felt more "intellectual" and "lofty". That made me think about what the differences might be.

"Lightsiders" vary in activity levels in my experience, so I wouldn't necessarily describe them as passive. My description is based mainly on a few people who are also "inert" subtypes in socionics + introverts + "lightsiders" so that's the most introverted and passive of the combinations. Extraverts and "contact"/creative function subs can be quite active in their daily life. The thing I've noticed is that even in this case the way they think almost as if prevents them from accurately integrating and responding to their immediate environment. For example, some of the "midrange" and "lightsider" so/sx men seem to have this idea of what their partner should be like, and when meeting someone they orient by this idea instead of actually getting to know the person in front of them. This "ideal partner" notion seems to be forged from various social influences: movies or shows they've watched as kids or teens, some book they have read, the pictures they saw in the magazines, and it becomes so strongly imprinted in their minds that it becomes almost impervious to sx going out there and actually exchanging emotional experiences with the person.

That's one thing I forgot to mention is that "lightsider" so/sx's are prone to mentally put people into groups i.e. engage in social stereotyping, and then they will sometimes engage individuals as being representative of that group. They don't seem to be too aware that they do this. "Darksiders" almost like wage a war on these stereotypes but will still reluctantly acknowledge and deal with their existence.

this reminds me of the dynamic in this video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVaRHJn_dgM

Lol that video reminds me of a couple "seducer" sx/sp's I've run into lately. There are virtually networks of "lightsider" so/sx's and "seducer" sx/sp's on Facebook, where the "lightsiders" will post about social issues and "seducers" will befriend them and then maybe participate in the soc, but they are secretly just building harems ;p I haven't seen many "strongside" sp/so's there, seems like they mostly keep out of this loop.

[lynn]

That description of subtypes doesn't seem to say much about "lightsiders". I've started to notice them only after a few run-ins with people who seemed to be so/sx but weren't as engaging as some of the so/sx I've met and felt more "intellectual" and "lofty". That made me think about what the differences might be.

yeah, well i noticed specifically the aloof, lofty type of so/sx in academia, but couldn't place them at all according to the ranges (just from the descriptions i would have thought they are mercurial or maybe darkside, especially if they push some specific social agenda), which left me completely confused, because nothing did add up coherently. so, if THAT is actually lightside, then things start to make sense, actually.

"Lightsiders" vary in activity levels in my experience, so I wouldn't necessarily describe them as passive. My description is based mainly on a few people who are also "inert" subtypes in socionics + introverts + "lightsiders" so that's the most introverted and passive of the combinations. Extraverts and "contact"/creative function subs can be quite active in their daily life. The thing I've noticed is that even in this case the way they think almost as if prevents them from accurately integrating and responding to their immediate environment.

i meant passive in emotional reactivity in the moment. i've noticed that in some so/sx as well.

[lynn]

i'm still not too happy with the initial descriptions of the stackings .. just read the darkside so/sx description again and in my (limited) experience they actually don't seem that confrontational, but more likely to have the function to preserve social harmony in a group and individulals. darkside so/sx and lightside so/sx ( i'm talking only about the prototypical cases who are each on the very end of the continuum) seem to me the most socially vulnerable concerning social cohesion and everyone in between will act more creatively in that area i guess. i'm not even sure whether 3 categories are sufficient, because there are actually more interpersonal behaviours/agends depending on how the first and second instinct are utilized together.

[lkdhf qkb]

"Lightside" social subtypes of So/Sx: Ironically this range impresses as the least social of the three ranges despite being called the "social" subtype. Here the "social" instinct seems to give an intellectual orientation which is maintained at expense of emotionally engaging their surroundings. This range is the equivalent of socionics "inert" subtype: there is a lack of engagement with their surroundings as all potential is drawn to their internalized primary soc instinct. For this reason they may seem to have few actual friends to the point of resembling a social last or a social introvert, but I've found this impression is misleading: their work and creative projects aim to reach out to a broad audience. So in a way they sacrifice immediate connections for the sake of touching as many people as possible. Authors, story writers, journalists, bloggers, tv and radio talk show hosts - not necessarily working in these professions but these kinds of occupations would be ideally suited for this subtype. Dissemination of information on a large scale with significant effort and some delay.

Socially seem more adaptable and pliable than other ranges, inclusive and including, willing to understand and accommodate greater number of people they meet, even though this isn't always obvious due to weaker emotional expression. Sometimes give an "airy", "intellectually dry", or "light-weight" vibe like they are not even present. May seclude themselves for long periods of time to work on their projects.

Visually and by their lifestyle "lightsider" so/sx's may resemble, and be mistaken for, so/sp's due to certain level of emotional disengagement. While speaking they may have a kind of stately presentation and talk in broad terms. Eyes may be large and open, reflecting a greater share social instinct; facial expression having more dispassionate and disengaged look than with other ranges.

In case a person is "inert" subtype in Socionics and, additionally, first instinct "inert" subtype in their stacking, they may seem present but always somehow disconnected, in-their-head, and focused on their own interests when they talk. May ponder to themselves whether they are introverts, even if they are extroverted by Jung. Likely to type as so/sp or sp-first.

This description fits me quite well. I always thought I was some other stacking because I can't handle real life social situations a lot. This forum is a respite from that because I can dis-/engage when I want; social media too in a way, I can "share" and disseminate information without having to be too interactive.
@one, do you relate to this? I mean we're both inert subtypes, and I think you might be so-first too.