Stackings and Misconceptions

[VenusRose]

@Director Abbie

On these forums perhaps I add slightly more blatant elements when I talk about SX, in order to make it more accessible. Otherwise I have always run into the difficulty of people thinking "it's social." So I bring in some things from the standard definition of SX within enneagram and add my own personal subjective views (Fi) as well.

In real life however,
Personally I have not talked about SX blatantly in terms or sex or whatever.
What has usually happened is that I get hung up on whether someone "wants to be close to me" or not, and get frightened that maybe I am too much, and that I am repelling them. I have a lot of emotional pain/reactivity tied to this as well. For me it's romantic, yeah. But it doesn't necessarily have to manifest in romantic situations. It can be with friendships too, I think, though that is not the case for me. I think I have avoidant attachments to my friends.

So yeah I find overly sexual description "meh" as well, so I understand where you are coming from when you say "moronic"

IMO, Fi types will speak of their relationships in terms of closeness, bonding, etc. and when SX is there, it's more subtle, implied, due to the dislike of blatant SX behavior/descriptions/anything for infantile/caregivers.

And so I brought in that description on purpose, where it states that LSEs and SLIs may live "outside sexuality" and may have to intellectualize it in order to be comfortable. Can probably apply to I/Cs in general.

Anyways, so yeah, I don't think SX has to be blatantly sexual, nor restricted just to romantic relationships.

[DirectorAbbie]

I found a site that listed stackings by enneagram type and looked through the 1 descriptions. I didn't really fit any of them, but I tried to order them from fits-most to fits-least.
so/sx
sp/so
sp/sx
sx/sp
so/sp
sx/so
Also, those descriptions relate sx to close people, not to anything sexual, and I reaffirm that seeing sx as necessarily sexual is a misconception.
And the 1 descriptions made it clear that sx and 1 don't blend well, and implied that an sx 1 would be unstable. But I'm not unstable. I'm just weird.

What has usually happened is that I get hung up on whether someone "wants to be close to me" or not, and get frightened that maybe I am too much, and that I am repelling them.

I can relate to that. Not in such thoughts, but a similar impression.

I think I have avoidant attachments to my friends.

The attachment styles don't work for me. It seems there's too much fluctuation.

IMO, Fi types will speak of their relationships in terms of closeness, bonding, etc. and when SX is there, it's more subtle, implied, due to the dislike of blatant SX behavior/descriptions/anything for infant/caregivers.

And so I brought in that description on purpose, where it states that LSEs and SLIs may live "outside sexuality" and may have to intellectualize it in order to be comfortable. Can probably apply to I/Cs in general.

Anyways, so yeah, I don't think SX has to be blatantly sexual, nor restricted just to romantic relationships.

So do you have a guess as to my stacking? At this point I've tried on each one and am starting to get the impression that stackings aren't real.

[Adam Strange]

I found a site that listed stackings by enneagram type and looked through the 1 descriptions. I didn't really fit any of them, but I tried to order them from fits-most to fits-least.
so/sx
sp/so
sp/sx
sx/sp
so/sp
sx/so
Also, those descriptions relate sx to close people, not to anything sexual, and I reaffirm that seeing sx as necessarily sexual is a misconception.
And the 1 descriptions made it clear that sx and 1 don't blend well, and implied that an sx 1 would be unstable. But I'm not unstable. I'm just weird.


I can relate to that. Not in such thoughts, but a similar impression.


The attachment styles don't work for me. It seems there's too much fluctuation.




So do you have a guess as to my stacking? At this point I've tried on each one and am starting to get the impression that stackings aren't real.

I'm pretty sure that stackings are real. I looked up the most likely instinct stacks for ESTj's, and got this: https://thoughtcatalog.com/heidi-pri...enneagram-2/5/

It seems the most common for ESTj's are sp/sx, sx/so, and so/sx.

[DirectorAbbie]

You guys aren't really here to discuss details, to be intimate about how you feel, this is just like a females' mag's letter column to you.

Well, I ain't gonna be sharing how I intimately feel with you. It ain't your business. I barely know you!
Sheesh. What kind of would want people to publicly barf up their feelings?

I'm pretty sure that stackings are real. I looked up the most likely instinct stacks for ESTj's, and got this: https://thoughtcatalog.com/heidi-pri...enneagram-2/5/

It seems the most common for ESTj's are sp/sx, sx/so, and so/sx.

I noticed that the ones I relate to better are all synflow.

[Neokortex]

Well, I ain't gonna be sharing how I intimately feel with you. It ain't your business. I barely know you!
Sheesh. What kind of would want people to publicly barf up their feelings?

What?! No! Intimacy can also mean you write stories of your life where you don't give the names of people but you're more particular about the succession of events and how those impacted you. What I see is that you guys aren't giving in-depth examples, jump around topics (banter) and argue with sparse descriptions.

I don't give much thought to my social standing, though it is nice to be generally well-liked. But I do get obsessive about my closest friendships. (Like being pleased at the thought of my closest male friend marrying someone who's not me, but scheming how to overthrow his best man if he picks someone other than me.) (Like spending time when I should be working plotting fun gifts to send my friends.) (Like crying when a close friend is too busy to spend time with me because I think that means our friendship is over.) (Like abandoning a casual friend I was chatting with when someone who outranks them messages me.)

To my understanding of the social type, you blatantly reveal yourself here to be So/Sp. Not the stereotypical anxious-about-fitting-in but the secure attachment, level headed one. You value tradition (Si), as well as this social-cultural rituals (wedding) to find them important enough not to miss the "best man" role. You are aware that it is expected from you to keep in touch with your friends, and you accept that one way to do that is through this other ritual "plotting fun gifts" (which are indirect expressions, mediators, so to speak, instead of direct intimacy). You don't strive to reach a certain intimacy with a casual friend and feel no guilt about it as you easily abandon them for someone who "outranks" them. This coming from an ESTJ may also connote social status (e.g. someone with whom you have more future with; same social class) beyond emotional closeness.

[DirectorAbbie]

What?! No! Intimacy can also mean you write stories of your life where you don't give the names of people but you're more particular about the succession of events and how those impacted you. What I see is that you guys aren't giving in-depth examples, jump around topics (banter) and argue with sparse descriptions.

Names left out, obviously. But saying how I was impacted is personal too, so you'd have to either be someone I know and trust or have a really good excuse for needing the data for statistical/scientific purposes.

To my understanding of the social type, you blatantly reveal yourself here to be So/Sp. Not the stereotypical anxious-about-fitting-in but the secure attachment, level headed one. You value tradition (Si), as well as this social-cultural rituals (wedding) to find them important enough not to miss the "best man" role. You are aware that it is expected from you to keep in touch with your friends, and you accept that one way to do that is through this other ritual "plotting fun gifts" (which are indirect expressions, mediators, so to speak, instead of direct intimacy). You don't strive to reach a certain intimacy with a casual friend and feel no guilt about it as you easily abandon them for someone who "outranks" them. This coming from an ESTJ may also connote social status (e.g. someone with whom you have more future with; same social class) beyond emotional closeness.

"Best man" role usually goes to the groom's best friend (not counting his bride). So being chosen for that would be showing me that he sees me as his closest friend he would have no intention of kissing.
You misunderstood my "should" comment. I should have been working rather than plotting gift ideas. As in I do that while at work and that's not in my job description.
I feel a little guilt about abandoning a casual friend. I wouldn't normally do that for something trivial like eating.
Social status beyond emotional closeness? What nonsense is this? Their rank is based on emotional closeness, obviously!

The thing with SX I think, even with friendships, is that there is this intense desire to find (well at least one ) individual you can be completely and totally close to. There might be feelings of jealousy and such, related to that. In that sense it comes across as more of a "one-on-one" or "the one" focus.

I suppose I can relate to that.
I once made a list of traits I hope for in a friend. And usually I've had to have a few friends to cover all the points for completion. So when one person seemed to qualify for all of them, I was overwhelmed.

Someone who likes me as much as I like them? Who I can have fun with. Who cares enough that they would even go out of their way to be there for me if I need help. Someone who can understand my humor (and whose humor I understand) even during an intellectual conversation. (Someone I can have intellectual conversation with.) Someone who makes me feel understood in general. Even someone who I might "hang out" with for no good reason?

Ah, ok. Do you relate at all to "Afraid of losing your place in the community" or wanting to contribute and "belong" so to speak, whether it be with a group of or communities, etc. ?

Losing my place in the community? I never considered it. Don't know how that would happen. I suppose if I moved to a different community. But that wouldn't bother me.
I definitely want a sense of belonging. But it seems that the smaller the group of belonging, the more meaningful it is. (To a point. 3-5 seems to be a sweet spot.) And I would want my contribution to be of specialization. So each person in the group has something they're good at and there's not competition to take someone else's specialty.