[so] So/Sp Motivational Posters

[Mal12345]

The "individualist" simply disaproved when the school became to accept more diverse opinions and people who were notr strict followers oh her dogmas (including libertarians).



Every people who have any taste in litterature agree that her ability to write a love story and introduce sensuality is terrible, and as moving as a DIY manual.

Ayn Rand? Sx/So? Ayn Rand? Sexual energy!?

Can any other real Sx come to rescue and laugh at this with me? Really it's awful.

What do you know about Ayn Rand? Zero. You think you know something about her life and personality, but you obviously know absolutely nothing about the subject.

 

[Mal12345]

From the Sx/So stacking, "May exploit and seek to redefine sexuality to reflect their own colorful and uncertain understanding of it." Do you know that Ayn Rand had her own theory of sexual psychology that flies against the mainstream?

I didn't think so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged#Theory_of_sex
And that's only one out of many descriptions that fit her to a Tee.

http://famous-relationships.topsynergy.com/Ayn_Rand/Drive.asp
"Her nature tends to be very sensual and Rand may irresistibly be attracted to someone, even if she knows that she or she is bad for her. Ayn Rand also has a tendency toward jealousy and possessiveness in her relationships, and unwillingness to grant her partners freedom to be themselves."

Well looky looky - once again, someone offers EVIDENCE for a claim, while his opponent only offers a cartoon as "evidence."

Grow up, kid.

 

[Thalassa]

I'm not sure why he needs to "grow up"...because he disagrees with you about Ayn Rand?

I'm not surprised you like Ayn Rand, btw.

 

[Mal12345]

I'm not sure why he needs to "grow up"...because he disagrees with you about Ayn Rand?

I'm not surprised you like Ayn Rand, btw.

Observe the HUGE assumption you just made. Where do you get this from? Let me guess. I wrote above that I've argued about Rand on internet forums since 1998. However, that doesn't mean I argued FOR her. You see where assumptions get you, they make an ass out of you and umption. I also wrote that I've read all her works. However, that STILL doesn't mean I like her.

Speed offers the forum a Simpson's cartoon instead of evidence of Rand's so-called "instinctive stacking." Next he'll claim that he "feels" he is right, and therefore I can't argue against his "feelings." However, I don't argue against feelings, I simply offer evidence that I have put energy into digging up. Going by feelings is sheer laziness since those occur effortlessly.

 

[Hazashin]

Then this leads me to conclude that instinctual stackings are a worthless way of typing. But I already knew that. You could say that not everybody who sits around pondering the mysteries of the universe is a type 5. Let's just throw away typology altogether.

That's funny 'cause, I find the theory of instinct stacking to be more believable than the actual Enneagram itself (that is, when it is explained properly). I can see the instinct preference in some people almost immediately, but then there are some people like my dad (whom I've known since I was born) whom I've known for years and not know their Enneagram.

 

[Elfboy]

That's funny 'cause, I find the theory of instinct stacking to be more believable than the actual Enneagram itself (that is, when it is explained properly). I can see the instinct preference in some people almost immediately, but then there are some people like my dad (whom I've known since I was born) whom I've known for years and not know their Enneagram.

your father is a blatant 3w2

 

[Hazashin]

your father is a blatant 3w2

Not necessarily. I see 8, 1, and counterphobic 6 in him, as well.

 

[Elfboy]

Not necessarily. I see 8, 1, and counterphobic 6 in him, as well.

he is obsessed with...whatever, we can discuss this via message. it would be rude of me to divulge further publicly

 

[Speed Gavroche]

Speed offers the forum a Simpson's cartoon instead of evidence of Rand's so-called "instinctive stacking." Next he'll claim that he "feels" he is right, and therefore I can't argue against his "feelings." However, I don't argue against feelings, I simply offer evidence that I have put energy into digging up. Going by feelings is sheer laziness since those occur effortlessly.

I only make efforts to argue with thoses who have interesting argument, thoughtful, and with some insight and true things even if i disagree with them. When the posts are just completely stupid, I just laugh at this. Your "evidence" are not. You simply say that Ayn Rand "has feelings", or "think" that. Problem is that, as I ever said, the instincts, by definition, are not emotional things coming from the heart, not cerebral things coming from the head, they are instinctive and come from the guts. And did Ayn Rand have sexual impulses wich came from the guts and lead her? Was she instinctively specialised in the sexual realm? Did she has the instinctive impulse to be sexual and attractive? Of course not.

Then this leads me to conclude that instinctual stackings are a worthless way of typing. But I already knew that. You could say that not everybody who sits around pondering the mysteries of the universe is a type 5. Let's just throw away typology altogether.

Immature 12 years old kid: "I don't get math, so, I think it's useless"
Mal: "I don't get Enneagram, so I think it's a worthless way of typing"

 

[Mal12345]

That's funny 'cause, I find the theory of instinct stacking to be more believable than the actual Enneagram itself (that is, when it is explained properly). I can see the instinct preference in some people almost immediately,

You've seen the instinctual preference of the moment. But that's not good enough.

but then there are some people like my dad (whom I've known since I was born) whom I've known for years and not know their Enneagram.

Well there you go. You have infinitely more knowledge of your dad than you have of, let's say, George W. Bush. I'm assuming Bush isn't your father.

But from my online reading of these stackings theories, some types can occasionally appear as other types. For example, I read that the type 5 with Sp-dom can appear as Sx-dom when pursuing a relationship. Of course the more repressed instincts can come forward at certain times. And that's what makes the theory worthless for typing, if you don't know the person over the long run.

However, I guarantee that I do know Ayn Rand better than anybody else on this forum. I may not have met her in person, but I've read descriptions from people who knew her intimately, and I conversed for years with a fellow who attended her 1960s lectures and also her workshop on epistemology. And if someone claims that this is still not good enough, all I can say is that it's WAY more than what you have. And if that's not good enough, nothing is, therefore instinctual stackings must be a worthless method of typing others.

 

[Mal12345]

I only make efforts to argue with thoses who have interesting argument, thoughtful, and with some insight and true things even if i disagree with them. When the posts are just completely stupid, I just laugh at this. Your "evidence" are not. You simply say that Ayn Rand "has feelings", or "think" that. Problem is that, as I ever said, the instincts, by definition, are not emotional things coming from the heart, not cerebral things coming from the head, they are instinctive and come from the guts. And did Ayn Rand have sexual impulses wich came from the guts and lead her? Was she instinctively specialised in the sexual realm? Did she has the instinctive impulse to be sexual and attractive? Of course not.



Immature 12 years old kid: "I don't get math, so, I think it's useless"
Mal: "I don't get Enneagram, so I think it's a worthless way of typing"

Is that how you FEEL?

 

[Speed Gavroche]

Is that how you FEEL?

is that all you have to answer.

 

[Hazashin]

And if someone claims that this is still not good enough, all I can say is that it's WAY more than what you have. And if that's not good enough, nothing is, therefore instinctual stackings must be a worthless method of typing others.

If someone is stubborn and doesn't know a person very well, I could see where you could see that. However, if a person and the theory are properly understood, then it makes for some worthy discussion.

 

[Mal12345]

is that all you have to answer.

No, I pressed a combo key by mistake and somehow that sent the post too soon.

You simply say that Ayn Rand "has feelings", or "think" that. Problem is that, as I ever said, the instincts, by definition, are not emotional things coming from the heart, not cerebral things coming from the head, they are instinctive and come from the guts. And did Ayn Rand have sexual impulses wich came from the guts and lead her? Was she instinctively specialised in the sexual realm? Did she has the instinctive impulse to be sexual and attractive? Of course not.

Ayn Rand exuded the kind of passionate energy that attracted 20,000 followers to her cult. All you have to do is read her life story. But even her novels exude the kind of energy I'm talking about, if that's all you want to focus on. There is more to the sexual instinct than the one thing you always bring up.

The sexual instinct does not have to be "specialised in the sexual realm," whatever that means. And even Riso stated in Personality Types that having the sexual instinct does not imply one is sexy or physically attractive. Rand was neither, but she didn't have to be in order to attract 20,000 young students who became Randroids due to her influence. She had the 'sexual impulse' to attract a mate and then a lover - however, I don't see that as anything more than an ability that almost everybody has at least temporarily. I don't see "sexual impulse" as having anything to do with type.

Read about the subject under discussion. Moreover, read an actual BOOK on the subject, as I have done many times. Ayn Rand was not the person you made her out to be.

 

[Mal12345]

If someone is stubborn and doesn't know a person very well, I could see where you could see that. However, if a person and the theory are properly understood, then it makes for some worthy discussion.

I AM seeking a worthy discussion, but I'm not finding it. If someone has evidence, and not mere assertions, that Rand was something other than Sx/So, I am all ears.

 

[Hazashin]

I AM seeking a worthy discussion, but I'm not finding it. If someone has evidence, and not mere assertions, that Rand was something other than Sx/So, I am all ears.

I understand. All I'm basically saying is don't let one person influence you into thinking the whole theory is not credible. We don't want to making sweeping generalizations.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

Ayn Rand exuded the kind of passionate energy that attracted 20,000 followers to her cult.

That's Social, the ability to make people join your social sphere, not Sexual, wich is the ability to turn you on.

All you have to do is read her life story. But even her novels exude the kind of energy I'm talking about, if that's all you want to focus on. There is more to the sexual instinct than the one thing you always bring up.

Same as the above.

The sexual instinct does not have to be "specialised in the sexual realm," whatever that means.

You're wrong.

And even Riso stated in Personality Types that having the sexual instinct does not imply one is sexy or physically attractive.[

Indeed, but in this case, the person is either driven to make considerable efforts to challenge her lack of desirability, iether lead to intimacy and intensity. Ayn Rand was excellent at endoctrinment and at creating a larger social sphere, but not at create intimacy.

Rand was neither, but she didn't have to be in order to attract 20,000 young students who became Randroids due to her influence.

Social.

She had the 'sexual impulse' to attract a mate and then a lover

When? She was not sexually engaging at all.

however, I don't see that as anything more than an ability that almost everybody has at least temporarily.

First, everybody has not that ability, second, when you are Sx, you don't want to have that ability temporarily, but perpetually.

Read about the subject under discussion. Moreover, read an actual BOOK on the subject, as I have done many times.

You don't know me and you don't anything about the degree of knowledge I have in Enneagram or about Ayn Rand. Stop to be ridiculous.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

I AM seeking a worthy discussion, but I'm not finding it. If someone has evidence, and not mere assertions, that Rand was something other than Sx/So, I am all ears.

Ayn Rand So/Sp: http://www.google.fr/search?tbm=isc...=1448l2367l0l2599l8l8l0l2l2l1l180l769l2.4l6l0

Katharine Hepburn Sx/So: http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&b...&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=0l0l1l43l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0

The evidence: the erection I get watching the Katharine's page, and the absence of erection watchin Ayn Rand's page.

End of the question.

 

[wolfy]

There is only one post of posters in this thread. And a lot of posters just posting posts. More poster posts please.

 

[Mal12345]

http://ocean-moonshine.net/e1428573...er_op=view_page&PAGE_id=42&MMN_position=80:80

soc/sp
'This type is often the most comfortable in group settings, but tends to be a bit formal and awkward in one to one relations. This is the natural political type, affiliating themselves with groups or theories which best defend their social and material interests. They may lack warmth and individual identity and this could lead to problems in forming meaningful relationships outside of a shared social interest. The motivation for this type is to attain status within their chosen sphere - the "social climber."'

Sentence one - Rand seemed comfortable in any social setting, whether in front of a group or one to one. She had no problem in a one-on-one conversation setting your bad premises aside.

Sentence two - Rand did not affiliate herself with any groups or other theories, she was independent of them. She was a staunch individualist. Her school, started by Nathaniel Branden and not herself, became a cult because Rand exuded the kind of energy that attracted people to her.

Sentence three - Rand lacked individual identity? Preposterous.

Sentence four - Rand a "social climber"? Again, this is simply preposterous to anybody with even a superficial knowledge of Ayn Rand.