-Isfp cp6w7 2w1 9w1 sxso

-the cp6 is a recent development but makes sense.

-I hate subtype theory and naranjo

-IV is probably my favorite part of personality theory so I'll post a lot about that. Clear up misconceptions about sx and sp-blinds because until proven otherwise im assuming im the only actual sxso on typo tumblr rn ;3

- I tag my posts with "mine" and will try to tag everything I reblog too

-been in typo for 6 years now its rough lmao, dont ask me for sources its all blurry by this point.

-I like Riso Hudson even though also kind of meh

- 21 years old! Please let me know if you're a minor when we're interacting lil bros:)

- honestly go die if you're racist/homophobic/misogynistic/shit human being

Papas Poppers

A rant about the general approach to typology and why it does more harm than good.

So, Instinctual variants has always been a bit controversial and hard to understand for people. Its the best theory to showcase the point I'm making because of its less direct nature. People, if they were synflow, would simply reject the synflow/contraflow dichotomy because it just "didn't make sense" which translated to: "I don't have it, so I can't understand it" Big obstacle for most people who try to get into it.

I found it easy, probably because it takes a lot of observation of others rather than taking people's word for it. Its not a clear cut set of descriptors of personality like enneagram, but a categorization of people's mental and social energy flows. The Se really helps me out here.

Instinctual variants, like the name suggests, are instinctual, lots of it is subconscious behavior but its very evident to other people. It shows in body language, adjustment to society, opinions, rather than set personality markers.

There used to be a theory talking about how the instincts develop based on survival needs, sx is pair bonding, so is community, and sp is basic survival. That was the idea. Personally, I never liked it much, but thats probably for my own lack of sp and the fact that I simply never viewed the world in terms of survival. Its very obvious this perspective was written by an sp-dom, and thats the thing, even if I have other problems with the survival idea -> like the overall lacking sp-blind descriptions because sp blindness inherently invalidates the association of sp=human drive for survival. ( I mean, erybody has that! Even sp-blinds!) or depicting sp-blinds as leaching off of others for survival, I still see the benefit because this perspective explains an sp-dom to me, someone I'm never gonna relate to, this is what they see in the world.

We should realize that the source of those descriptions basically give us an "in" to the brain of the author. Its much more valuable to me to dissect somebody's perspective. than somebody's personality. How their brain works, how they conceptualize things around them, how they're able to understand the world.

Logic is not objective, the things we consider to make sense don't make sense for another and their inability to understand our point doesn't translate to any lack of intelligence. It simply points towards a perspective so different, their way of making sense and understanding things is not comparable, and thats interesting. We need perspectives, we need different interpretations, we need to understand eachother, thats what typology is about for me. Not "who is more intelligent" and making a pissing contest out of it.

I encourage anyone to make their own theories, to make sense of things themselves, translate your world with the descriptors of typology and let other people begin to understand your perspective. Analysis is typology, no matter where you're coming from, as long as you're dissecting things and sorting them, I wish to know by what order the world works to you. What categories do you apply? What similarities do you see? Where do you recognize yourself? What do you find important?

Boo!! Tomato! Tomato!

I think its an oversimplified version of the instinctual variants. Its alright if you're just getting into it and check it out because its an introduction to the instincts, but other than that its pretty bad in my opinion.

There's so many sx subtype descriptions that just describe sx-overfocus (when an sx-blind-> spso/sosp, gets unhealthy and becomes obsessed with their blindspot) instead of actual sx. Naranjo is very obviously sx-blind and his own delusion around being sx-dom led him to making descriptions that essentially mistype everyone.

Why yearning for intensity actually proves you're sx-blind

We're all familiar with the usual descriptions of the sx-dom or rather SX Subtype. It describes an individual preoccupied with finding highs within people, seeking out the intimate and intense to then finally merge with their partner of choosing. Its wishing for psychological nudity and to be indistinguishable from the person you desire.

What if I told you that this is all wrong? Or rather, terribly worded.

Its not all wrong, some of this does characterize sx to an extent, but only a very specific kind. The sx-overfocus. This is due to the fact that most authors attempting to relate to sx-doms failed miserably and were only able to comprehend them through their own sx-blind lense, even mistyping themselves as sx in the process.

The sx-overfocus happens to sx-blinds when their wish to connect through soc is unsuccessful. They feel abandoned, ignored, just not seen. So when they're disgruntled with the people around them and deem them all superficial, yearning for someone or somebody real that actually cares, and to then merge with them. Its an overwhelming desire to live beneath somebody's skin, breathe their air and be one with them.

Its a reaction to their own overstepping of their sp, their boundaries, their privacy, their own protected energy and relationship to themselves. The more they open up the more vulnerable and exposed they feel. The sensation feels addicting, scary, new, overwhelming, and ultimately leads to obsession.

They mistake vulnerability as intensity. And thats the misconception surrounding sx.

In later stages, there's a level of discomfort surrounding the interaction, their own anger at their boundaries being overstepped turns into desire to own another and regain their sense of self. Regain the boundary that was ultimately lost within the other and thats why they believe they can only be whole through merging. Its ultimately an attempt to regain control of their autonomy. You're projecting all of your desire, wishes and needs on somebody.

Through media and culture, our idea of love has become the overstepping of one's personhood and "perfect unity", to compromise yourself, this has become a cultural ideal. Something individuals feel they need to seek out, because vulnerability is only reserved for romantic intimate partners. If you're a romantic, its a high chance you're sx-blind. Essentially its a romantized version of something inherently toxic, but accepted by society which they've picked up through soc. That's why, the popular idea and overall understanding of sx is tainted by this and leads to mistyping.

So ..what exactly is sx?