Some of his points are spot-on, but his approach of 'hiding behind' what the books say is wrongheaded--even Naranjo says a lot of things that are complete bullshit. His introduction reveals a great stab at getting to the core of the 3 and shedding stereotypes, but then he launches into and defends stereotypes.
The one thing that I learned from that thread is that the author that I was thinking of above was Helen Palmer. Gotta read me some of that.
Let me preface this by saying that I know that my post is going to reek of '4,' or at least a lot of 'not 3.' Integrated? Disintegrated? Mistyped? I can't be assed to debate the nuances of types; only to tell it from my perspective. There are others who are more interested in typology theory than I am, and I'll leave the great debates of what is and isn't a 3 to them. But if there's any 3 in me, then there's some truth to the following. If there isn't, then don't let my perception muddy the waters of what a 3 is about.
Some of the OP describes me in my younger days. Most of the OP reminds me of an old friend of mine, who I'd peg as a stereotypical but unhealthy 3w2 so/sx. He was psychopathic but smart, and he manipulated absolutely everyone around him. Constant talk of "status" in a way that was balls-out honest with me but that I found sickening. After a falling-out, he reconnected with me in order to 'grease the wheels'; he seemed genuinely interested in friendship but quickly began to ask me for favors. While I didn't mind
talking to him, I took a hard stance against doing
favors for him. He asked me for a favor, I said no, and he hasn't talked to me since, presumably because I wasn't a pawn to him. The end.
--
Some of the counterpoints regarding identity are spot-on, or at least they resonate with me.
I disagree with your statement about the 3 viewing individuality as being useless, but that's more or less because 1.) I've changed a lot from how I originally viewed myself, and 2.) my image at school IS ironically built on being outlandish and unique.
Moreover, I make my mark by being idiosyncratic; it's what I'm
known for. If
everyone is doing the same thing, it's easier to
not drown and to stay on top by learning the game and traversing a line that's
tangential to it or that
transcends it. For example, when I was young and cared more about winning people over, I quickly learned that I'd impress more people and 'earn more points' by pointing out how competitive
other people are. Bowling a perfect game and becoming an ass about it doesn't help one win friends.
(Besides, I'm terrible at bowling, which means that I'd rather not compete in it!)
Winning a game of bowling so that one can gloat over so-called 'friends' is one goal. Winning friends is another goal. But there are higher goals yet, and I'm too damn ambitious to ignore them.
To the question of, "what do
I, bologna, want?" What's my goal? A 'high score' is one way to look at my goal. I've come to the ironic, trite, but likely true belief that the 'highest score' comes from transcending 'the game of life' in general--that reaching the highest score comes from not giving a damn about the highest score.
So, even striving for
greatness gets me falling into my neuroses from time to time, too. If I were content with being complacent, I'd be pretty happy. Striving to generally be 'great' is like actively trying
not to think of a pink elephant
(a cognitive science staple)--the very act of doing so makes the exercise doomed to fail. The average-to-unhealthy don't realize this, and, of course, to some extent, neither do I.
--
and
They disconnect themselves from the failed project and instead associate themselves with something positive. The failures are quickly brushed under a carpet, hopefully never to be seen or heard from again.
When I need some 'McDonald's-level' (short-term fulfilling but ultimately unhealthy) reassurance, I try to shed the aspects of myself that are negative--the "old me" doesn't exist and never existed. I don't claim the title of "Engineer" despite having two engineering degrees because everyone else does engineering and how would I set myself apart if I talked about what I did to people I haven't met before?? People are more intrigued and even intimidated by "psychologists"; touting that aspect of my background can give me the 'upper hand.' But if someone important--say a potential customer--values engineering, then I'll be damn sure to spin my resume around to promote a label of "engineer plus."
Ah, attempts to control perception. "Don't pay attention to
those aspects of me; pay attention to
these instead." I don't show my entire hand; I show the relevant cards. Plopping down that entire hand would be too self-revealing.
--
But the silver lining is this: it turns out that the guys who made it into the history books and had the some of the most impact on the world trumpeted the merits of personal integrity. It stands to reason that, if I want to make an impact on the world, then I'd be foolish not to listen to that bit of wisdom.
And if I have the goal of transcending my Enneagram-derived neuroses, I'd better damn well pay attention to descriptions of the 'Level 1,' 'healthy' version of the type 3--which
also revolves around integrity. So it's the right thing to do,
and also it would help me reach my goal. Win-win; convenient convergence of different perspectives; multiple paths leading to the top of Mount Sinai.
Someone who's
truly goal-oriented (and striving for the right goals) would come to recognize
this fact of life:
Regarding the GPA/grades, yeah that's basically how I sometimes stupefied 3s back in my undergraduate college lol. They were working SO hard to maintain their GPA at 4.0, at working out every single detail and stress about these labels, that when they saw me having conversations with professors and obtaining letters of recommendation from them which eventually got me into one of the top programs in the world, they were like "WTF?! Why not to me? I studied much more than you!" to which I thought "These numbers really don't mean shit down the lane. You have to be able to be yourself with people you seek out help from, and not just be a little suck-up, because it's that attitude which will make people see you in a more natural light and open doors for you. If a person doesn't feel he/she has a certain connection with you, they won't know what to think of you other than 'oh ok, he can work, cool'". Then I'd be met by "but I got to where I am because of my grades!" and I'd just go "and I am in the same place than you and I didn't strain myself half of what you did to get here "
Grades are a pretty solid metric that can make or break a status-conscious individual, and a perfect GPA is one measure that can serve as some much-needed external validation. But the reality is that (at least in my estimation) getting to the top takes networking, work experience, and a bit of well-roundedness in addition to a pretty good GPA.
It turns out that 'the game'--this very career-oriented, myopic one--isn't strictly a meritocracy. Oh, and neither is '
The Game.'
#14. The ends justify the means. It's true, the ends
do justify the means. But the ends themselves ought to be worthwhile and all-encompassing.