Both sx/so and so/sx have high capacity to be selfless because of mutual neglected sp. What the fuck are you on about? One-on-one selflessness fits sx/so and group selflessness fits so/sx better. The more selfless you are, the higher the chance for you to lose control of boundaries and hurt yourself or get hurt in a hypothetical situation. Thus, high potential for self-destruction or destruction from others. That's reality. Does it ever dawn on you that maybe, just maybe that insecurity and mistrust of relationships would make them even less self-destructive? By your own logic it should. Also, experiences are not always the be-all, end-all.
Statistically, the common stackings are sp/so, so/sx and sx/sp. As an aside, the sx/so stacking is uncommon and is found in the "inspiration" roles where intimate relationships abound - I don't really see such people being self-destructive, but perhaps self-forgetting as they serve others as a priority. I would hypothesize that the so/sx stacking would be least self-destructive since it produces so many human connections and validations. An sp-first has a level of insecurity and mistrust of relationships that is combated by prioritizing individual survival. But that very set of priorities means that survival is on their mind persistently and their struggle with trying to survive has a flip side of giving up and trying to not survive, becoming a martyr. Imagine as an attentional focal point, a "slider" between "survive" (when emotionally healthy) and "don't survive" (when emotionally unhealthy). I am basing this analysis on how I saw things play out for several people that I knew personally.
Variants are the area that I know least about in typology alongside psychosophy, but with my limited knowledge its pretty clear to me that sp-last is the most fitting for this entry. Any self preservation-last stacking in theory could work, but the sexual variant is about the intensity of the experience, which is why I choose it over so/sx. So/sx is slightly more stable because they are primarily group-oriented and care what other people think of them; they're people-pleasing. Sx is about merging and completely losing oneself to whatever is going on in a more intense way. They seek intensity, especially sx/so. Sx/sp can pump the brakes in a way that sx/so can't because of secondary sp. Also, side note, it is about sex, unlike what the fucktards on the Christian websites have to say about it. It's literally called the sexual variant for a reason. Your reasoning for sp-first and sx-first fits sp/so and sx/sp better than sp/sx and sx/so respectively, moreso than purely sp-first and sx-first.
I based this instinct vote on being detached from the passion for living and for intimate exchange of sx. The people I know who self-destructed were low on use of the sx bias. Yes, sp is about individuation, which can be about keeping distance, then when they periodically try to reference to the group they can feel insufficient, thus creating a sense of poor self-esteem. The sx-first people are less concerned with group-referencing and end up with excessive self-esteem. What is the basis for your sx-first vote for this? A form of self-destruction that is driven by loss of a strong connection to an object of passion?
Either Se-polr or Fi-polr could fit here, but I don't see the EP temperament. Plus, he gave his power away way too much (ie bending the knee to the DNC that fucked him over twice, letting BLM members take over HIS podium and disrupting his rally, not asserting when he could assert etc.) All of these seem to be examples of glaring Se-polr more so than Fi-polr.
Really the only logical and intellectually honest position you can take on the issue of religion. It's not a matter of playing both sides so much as it is a matter of there's no proof for a God nor is there any way to disprove God. In order to make claims, you must provide evidence and/or sound, cogent reasoning. Instead, it's a matter of likelihood. God likely doesn't exist because there isn't any proof and the reasoning presented by theists is circular and retarded beyond belief (using the Bible as evidence of itself - yeah, not gonna work lmao that shit contradicts itself so many times.
ENFJ =/= EIE. They are two completely different systems that address two completely different things and should be treated as such. While ENFJ and EIE are often correlated with each other, they are not the same thing. Not even remotely fuckin' close. Wendy seems more ESI with how moralistic and holier than thou she is (socio Fi) combined with her forceful nature and means of supporting her moralism (Creative Se).
phsc commented on Boromir on 21/02/26 06:03 as follows:
I don't think it is all about following his dad and making him proud, I think he truly believes giving it to Gondor so Gondor can use it as a weapon is something he truly believes in, not say that his lack of trust on the elves, on Frodo and such could be quite 6, one issue I realized with 3 is that maybe he could even be 2 if you think he is all about motivations, the 3/2 line gets a bit complicatedrnAlso 8 makes sense, he is the natural leader kind of dude who wants to protect his people and is quite controlling, he would just be a healthy 8.rnI do think he is concerned with security and his people over his image, but control and being more direct about it (read some social 8 healthy descriptions) and then 3.rn"True-hearted Men, they will not be corrupted. We of Minas Tirith have been staunch through long years of trial. We do not desire the power of wizard-lords, only strength to defend ourselves, strength in a just cause. And behold! In our need chance brings to light the Ring of Power. It is a gift, I say; a gift to the foes of Mordor. It is mad not to use it, to use the power of the Enemy against him. The fearless, the ruthless, these alone will achieve victory. What could not a warrior do in this hour, a great leader? What could not Aragorn do? Or if he refuses, why not Boromir? The Ring would give me power of Command. How I would drive the hosts of Mordor, and all men would flock to my banner!"rnThis is very 6, very 8 and very 3, it is hard to distinguish betwen the 3 and 8 in this but I think in the rest of the movie it makes sense, how he tries to act nice to Faramir and such as well, instead of thinking more about himself is something that I think could even justify 2, also here is the thing about 8, 8 goes to 2 under integration so I could see him constantly doing that because he is kinda a healthy 8 (I mean just look at Sauron and compare).rnIf he is 3, if anything, the movie is him going to 9, and to an extent counterphobic 6 and going to 3, so think about it.rnEarly on he is super mad, doesn't like Aragorn (kind of a 3 motivation, but also 6 considering Isildur and the fact men fucked it up back then), doesn't like the elves, and thinks him and Gondor should take the ring, he talks a lot about himself in this which makes me think he is going a bit out of the loyalty side of 6 to his dad but going more towards himself (6 going to 3 makes sense but also rather counterphobic I would say), and he still keeps the same mentality, but later on he accepts that it is all up to Frodo and that he fucked up, which is in my opinion a clear 6 going to 9 integration.rn3 has the issue which is that... well, only integration works (him accepting to work with them and trusting Frodo could be 3 going to 6), but 3 going to 9 really does not happen and well, 6 going to 9 still has 6 traits and 9 traits, meanwhile 3 going to 9... doesn't seem like a good fit to me, 8 has him going to 2 which I already explained, and I think the lack of his dad but the focus on security actually fits 8 going to 5 pretty damn well, as the enneagram institute puts it "When moving in their Direction of Disintegration (stress), self-confident Eights suddenly become secretive and fearful at Five.".rnThere is also the fact that generally 8s want to be seen as strong and such no matter if tritype 2, 3 or 4, just for different reasons, having met people of all such combinations in real life I'd agree and think it is part of 8 mostly when social in the instinctual variants.