I learned about instincts from Palmer and that's enough for me. And don't tell me that it is not a credible source.
So you have read a book?
Palmer and her type 9 "Gentle Giant." I can't begin to describe to you how much that description has thrown me off on typing others. Can't a type 9 be of average height? Can't a type 9 be of short stature?
The Simpson's cartoon is childish.
I can't handle anybody who deals in stereotypes. But just to humor you, I'll read up again on her theory of instinctuals.
The ocean-moonshine page has this to say about the origin of the instinctual theory:
"According to Naranjo, Oscar Ichazo, the father of the modern Enneagram of personality, subdivided the instinctual center into three distinct individual centers, namely the instinct for self-preservation, the sexual instinct and the social instinct. Enneagram theorists have been working with these divisions ever since. These instincts are the most primitive portions of our being; they are that in us which is most akin to the other animals and they are affected by our fixations in ways that follow predictable patterns, in ways that are susceptible to analysis and description."
This concurs with Riso.
You think that philosopher live according to what they write? Really? That's completely stupid, especially about Ayn Rand.
Once again, I didn't say that. Please respond to what I've written and not to some off-the-wall idea about what I've written. And please refrain from saying I wrote something stupid about Ayn Rand when I was reading and studying her philosophy since before you were an itch in your daddy's crotch.
I persist and sign: she was enthusiastic about her ideas, not sexually engaging, and anybody who is really sexually engaging would agree with that.
You "persist" in your ignorance about what the sexual instinctual stacking is.
Again, socially intense, not sexually intense.
Since her husband is dead, you'll have to ask her lover Nathaniel Branden about that. However, it is irrelevant. The sexual instinct does not mean "sexually intense," although it can play into that. Socially she was, as you said, formal.
I don't want to read more of theses boring shit. And once and for all, I read Ayn Rand so stop to assume the contrary and take superior position.
Then you failed to understand her.
Her personal life was completely insipid, and I said that her writing was as moving than a FIY manual, but actually, a true Sx/So like Edith Piaf, was able to be moving singing the telephine directory. The Rand's only ability was to rally people to her doctrine ans was completely rigid about rules.
She lived her life through her novels, except when it came to her sexual relationships with men. That's the part where she lived out the sexually intense elements of her novels.
And as for her writing about sexuality, it is simply another proof that she really did'nt master the subject at all.
Her sexual theory is a different subject, I only used it to demonstrate that I'm correct about her stacking: the Sx/So "May exploit and seek to redefine sexuality to reflect their own colorful and uncertain understanding of it." That is a most precise description of what Rand was doing with her theory of sexuality.