Stackings and Misconceptions

[Blue]

I was discussing the stacking portion of the recently-linked test with a friend and had some interesting realizations.

Stackings are not related to strengths. They are about focusing on weaknesses.
The enneagram itself is more about weaknesses and faults than is is about strengths.
"Naranjo however presupposes all Enneagram types are pathologies, so to relate to any type suggests mental health issues."

First off, that test is terrible and has a horribly one-dimensional view of the Enneagram. It really shouldn't be taken seriously imo.

So an sx-first person would struggle with intimate relationships. This can include romantic relationships and/or close friendship. But it's an active struggle - something they focus on, not a passive "I'm just not good at that."
An sx-last might be a very sexual person or have very close bonds with others, but it comes so easily that maintaining these relationships is basically effortless.

I agree with the first part, but not that sx-last would be a very sexual person/have close bonds, and I also wouldn't say it comes all that easy to them either. I've never known a sx-last to be the way you describe them. They're often the complete opposite of that.

An sp-first person could be neurotic about personal safety or well-being because it doesn't come naturally to them so they have to pay attention to get it right, whereas an sp-last may be naturally good at that sort of thing and can essentially ignore such things and still be fine.

Again, yes, we're neurotic in the first instinct, but I also think the "neuroticism" is more a manifestation of that hyper-awareness of it. A sp-first person will still have a greater awareness and innate knowledge (They're instincts, right?) of sp related concerns and be neurotic about it than a sp-last person. A sp-last person has to work on sp because it doesn't come naturally to them. They ignore it, not because they're naturally good at it, but because they just don't care about it, and if you don't care about it, how can you be neurotic in it? The way you formulate how the instinct appears in the last position seems counter-intuitive to me.

An so-first person might care more about how they're perceived by society though an so-last person could have higher social standing.

Yes, the so-first person will care, and it's possible so-last could have higher social standing, but I again think it's less likely because they in actuality won't care about it. They will shun wanting to have a higher social status, unlike so-firsts. Though, there are certainly cases where so-firsts will also shun having social status too, which may be more dependent on the specific type. For example, social 4s who choose to be outsiders.

So I am indeed sx/so. I focus on and struggle over close relationships. I rarely think about physical safety or well-being; that sort of awareness comes naturally to me, and I skip meals to talk to people because relationships are a higher priority and I can have a meal any ol' time.

This seems contradictory to me. You rarely think about sp but also say the awareness comes naturally to you. I think you're closer when you say relationships are your priority is what matters when it comes to determining your instinctual stacking, but I also think "relationships" isn't necessarily sx either. That seems to be a bit dependent on Fi definition of Socionics as seen below.

Fi is generally associated with the ability to gain an implicit sense of the subjective 'distance' between two people, and make judgments based off of said thing. Types with valued Fi strive to make and maintain close, personal relationships with their friends and family. They value sensitivity to others' feelings, and occasionally will make their innermost feelings and sentiments known in order to test the possibility of creating closeness with others.

A common misconception is that sx equates to sex. I'm saying that even if that is the case to a degree, not only is it possible for an asexual to be sx-first, it may be more likely than for one to be sx-last.

Can you say more about this and how it appears? I don't think it equates to sex either, but it can certainly be a part of it, even in a metaphorical sense, if one is asexual or abstinent, for instance. In other words, "sexual" union with another, viewing things in "sexual" terms, not to be confused with a dirty mind here, either.

[DirectorAbbie]

So an sx-first person would struggle with intimate relationships. This can include romantic relationships and/or close friendship. But it's an active struggle - something they focus on, not a passive "I'm just not good at that."
An sx-last might be a very sexual person or have very close bonds with others, but it comes so easily that maintaining these relationships is basically effortless.

I agree with the first part, but not that sx-last would be a very sexual person/have close bonds, and I also wouldn't say it comes all that easy to them either. I've never known a sx-last to be the way you describe them. They're often the complete opposite of that.

Yes. Again, squark already corrected me on that. I figured it wasn't necessary to edit the first post for something that's been said right below it.

An sp-first person could be neurotic about personal safety or well-being because it doesn't come naturally to them so they have to pay attention to get it right, whereas an sp-last may be naturally good at that sort of thing and can essentially ignore such things and still be fine.

Again, yes, we're neurotic in the first instinct, but I also think the "neuroticism" is more a manifestation of that hyper-awareness of it. A sp-first person will still have a greater awareness and innate knowledge (They're instincts, right?) of sp related concerns and be neurotic about it than a sp-last person. A sp-last person has to work on sp because it doesn't come naturally to them. They ignore it, not because they're naturally good at it, but because they just don't care about it, and if you don't care about it, how can you be neurotic in it? The way you formulate how the instinct appears in the last position seems counter-intuitive to me.

How does instinct imply knowledge? If anything, it suggests acting without knowledge. Gut rather than mind.
Hm. I wonder whether the stackings could relate to heart-head-gut.

Fi is generally associated with the ability to gain an implicit sense of the subjective 'distance' between two people, and make judgments based off of said thing. Types with valued Fi strive to make and maintain close, personal relationships with their friends and family. They value sensitivity to others' feelings, and occasionally will make their innermost feelings and sentiments known in order to test the possibility of creating closeness with others.

So are you saying that the main misconception is in associating sx with Fi and so with Fe? I used to do the latter.

A common misconception is that sx equates to sex. I'm saying that even if that is the case to a degree, not only is it possible for an asexual to be sx-first, it may be more likely than for one to be sx-last.

Can you say more about this and how it appears? I don't think it equates to sex either, but it can certainly be a part of it, even in a metaphorical sense, if one is asexual or abstinent, for instance. In other words, "sexual" union with another, viewing things in "sexual" terms, not to be confused with a dirty mind here, either.

I'm saying that not thinking in terms of sexuality doesn't exempt one from being sx. That part of sx just wouldn't be part of their sx.

[Blue]

Yes. Again, squark already corrected me on that. I figured it wasn't necessary to edit the first post for something that's been said right below it.

Ok, I suppose I missed that you agreed with.

How does instinct imply knowledge? If anything, it suggests acting without knowledge. Gut rather than mind.

I guess it doesn't, but in my experience, sp-firsts are far more proficient at sp than I am being sp-last. They instinctively know how to manage sp in a way that I don't or care not to attend to, which isn't to say that they're always good at either.

Hm. I wonder whether the stackings could relate to heart-head-gut.

Idk but I have seen this proposed somewhere before.

So are you saying that the main misconception is in associating sx with Fi and so with Fe? I used to do the latter.

No, not exactly the main misconception, but I think people can misuse one for the other. I still have a hard time telling them apart tbh.

I'm saying that not thinking in terms of sexuality doesn't exempt one from being sx. That part of sx just wouldn't be part of their sx.

Sure, so if it wasn't, then what would they think about? I'm just curious how you would conceptualize sx without this, not saying if it's right or wrong. And perhaps besides relationships too, if that would be your answer. Basically if someone was completely cut-off from everyone, so that you couldn't foster any form of relationship, how would they show their instinct? It's still there. It doesn't go away, if it's instinctual.

[DirectorAbbie]

Sure, so if it wasn't, then what would they think about? I'm just curious how you would conceptualize sx without this, not saying if it's right or wrong. And perhaps besides relationships too, if that would be your answer. Basically if someone was completely cut-off from everyone, so that you couldn't foster any form of relationship, how would they show their instinct? It's still there. It doesn't go away, if it's instinctual.

Well, without the sexual aspect an sx would just hone in on their close relationships and give their attention to their best friends.
For someone without close friends, they may focus on close family members.
For someone with nobody, well, there's always a volleyball.