Stackings and Misconceptions

[VenusRose]

By the way, @Director Abbie,

I still wonder about so/sx for you:

Soc in so/sx

So/sx has the ability to see everyone simultaneously in relation to a greater whole, but also as individuals. Without any Sp to inhibit its Soc agenda, it can be as free as it wants to be when navigating the social realm. Like a bird in the sky, the so/sx seeks out flocks of people to be a part of, and picks out one or a few people to be best friends with. The cycle repeats, and the so/sx slowly but surely gains a circle of quality friendships.

...which seems to fit in with what you have been saying. I feel like I sensed the rootlessness and turbulence of the SP last...though I could be wrong.

What do you think of the so/sx description vs. these:

Soc in so/sp


The so/sp seems to be driven by pure Soc, but unlike so/sx, it comes off as more awkward and bumbling when trying to interact with people. They're often self-conscious, and do anything they feel that might get them accepted in the group, even if it's questionable. They can socialize fine, but it is often on their own terms, e.g. if they feel as if their line has been crossed or are being taken for granted, they will back off or outright halt social activity with the person.


Soc in sp/so


The sp/so will use their Soc connection to a greater whole to provide a stable resource to support their Sp lifestyle. Though preferring to mind their own business, they will readily take on social responsibilities or situations if it doesn't intrude on their inner boundaries. Although Soc-second, this stacking tends to handle people better than so/sp, since their sp needs are established clearly, while so/sp is usually oblivious that they have sp inhibitions at all.

compared to so/sp imo you are more so/sx. I dunno about sp/so though. What do you think?

[DirectorAbbie]

I still wonder about so/sx for you:

...which seems to fit in with what you have been saying. I feel like I sensed the rootlessness and turbulence of the SP last...though I could be wrong.

I did relate to the so/sx description Aylen shared, but not to the sp-blindspot.
Maybe an example of so without sp could be the time I was walking in a strange city alone at night and stopped to ask directions from a couple of men standing on a corner.

Sp-blinds have a lighter, more flighty approach to life. Other-directed instead of self-directed, they tend to be more dependent on others, whether they would like to admit it or not. Though they can be private people, they tend to be more reckless and heedless of consequences than other types. Lacking roots to plant into the ground, they can break up the monotony of mundane everyday life, but are lazy/avoidant of their own domestic needs.

I'm not flighty or reckless. I'm a homebody and certainly have roots. I like everyday life as opposed to wild adventures. (Maybe I would be more open to adventure if I didn't get motion sickness so easily. Even watching Black Panther gave me a headache.) I'm not lazy of my own domestic needs. I do my laundry and I cook for myself and I even cleaned my room the other day.

What do you think of the so/sx description vs. these:

compared to so/sp imo you are more so/sx. I dunno about sp/so though. What do you think?

My social awkwardness is probably NTR.

I would be sp/so if I were dead inside.

Naranjo links the unhealthy manifestations of type with pathologies. This is not the same as "Enneagram is about weakness."

A psycological weakness then. Either way, first stacking isn't something a person is secure in.

[Samson]

A psycological weakness then. Either way, first stacking isn't something a person is secure in.

It is not about weakness; describing unhealthy manifestations of the types does not make the entirety of a typology about weakness.

Security isn't weakness. But this conversation isn't about "security." Your claim is that the Enneagram and instinct is about weakness, and that is a false claim. Your premise for typing is off.