Posted by Bartholomew (63.214.110.110) on April 27, 2002 at 17:53:44:
In Reply to: Bartholomew, Listen to How You Sound, Shrill and Angery! posted by Rich (205.188.199.164) on April 27, 2002 at 16:03:47:
: : Why do you bother with typing public figures when you know that your judgment is valueless? What's the point? It probably even hurts you in your practice, because when typing public figures one generally must go by the stereotypical ways the types act. It's not good to get in that habit.
: Hello Batholomew:
: You sound try and read your messages as to how they appear to other people! You won't get people to listen to you by attacking them. You seem to like to attack people, and get pleasure from it. I posted that the typing of movies and public figures is a guessing game. You then argued that, if you know the priciples, it is possible.
I never argued that. This is what I said:
"It's not a guessing game. A guessing game is a game where chance prevails and skill avails little."
That's ALL I said about the skill vs. luck issue. Go find the post.
In a guessing game, one's progress is determined entirely, or nearly entirely, by luck. In other games, one's progress STILL may be determined by luck; it's just that it's determined LESS so by luck. Chess is not a guessing game, even though no player can completely plan the game out, and hence he must rely on luck often.
It's not possible to type public figures with certainty. There is luck involved. But it's not a guessing game. Skill is a large part of it.
: Now you are attacking Jan with the completely opposite arguement!
What I said to Jan was, there IS luck involved, and public figures could really be any type. I didn't say it was a guessing game, because it's not. Through skill, one can increase the odds that one gets the type right.
But even if you can increase your chances to 60 or 70 percent, you can't say that you have determined their type. 60 or 70 percent sure isn't very sure.
Also, I wasn't attacking Jan. I was just saying that he needs to change his methods.
: I had to seek professional help to deal with my anger issues in my late 40s. You are going to get there, alot sooner, if you don't learn to handle it better.... Let me ask you this question: as an E3 I am a master of cynicism and sarcasm, does that mean that it is okay for me to use that against other people. Is it okay for me, because I know that they aren't very good at giving it back to me?
That's a moot point, because I wasn't attacking Jan or using sarcasm or cynicism.
: I think that we should follow the 9W1 goals of being interested in objectivity and fairness!
Nines are not objective.
To be fully objective, one must be typeless. When one has an Enneagram type, one's judgment is biased towards the way that that Enneagram type tends to see the world. A one is biased towards insisting that his own views are right, without considering their validity. A nine is biased towards seeing everything in terms of making the situation peaceful, without considering that resolving hostilities through conflict instead of suppressing them is often a better solution.