Re: B.O. . .

Posted by ISTP/typeless? (205.251.208.26) on September 03, 2003 at 23:03:23:

In Reply to: Re: So, B.O. your saying all types are implusive? posted by Bertram Ostrer (68.55.244.21) on September 03, 2003 at 00:15:07:

> The set "impulsive doing" can include "impulsive thinking," and you will usually identify your Enneagram type in your narrowest thinking as well as your shortest-sighted actions. But maybe there's no need to open that can of worms. If you're typeless, you're typeless. Enjoy it while you can. You might not be so lucky next lifetime.

> I don't read the Bible, and have little interest in religion, so I'm in no position to discuss your Enneagram-Bible comparison, though I should clarify that I use the Enneagram mainly to stay aware of the psychological drives that narrow my focus and irrationally control my desires. With that information I am free to do as I please.

> B.O.

People tend to blindly take the bible as fact. You made it sound as though you thought it was impossible to be typeless hence the bible comparison. I'm agnostic myself. I figure it's just as big of a leap of faith to say you don't believe in a higher power as to say you definately do. Beyond that I have no interest either. Well I like a secular person better than a religious one anyday.

That's a good use for the enneagram(I see what you meant now the term "drives" clarified it). I find it more useful for understanding how others think though. With that information I am free to get others to do as I please.j/k.

Do you have any background in psych? I minored in it. Many studies prove that people are more likely to do as their environment tells them, then as they please. There is these two that are still very prevalent in my mind(They've made me a skeptic but not a 6). In the first case a teacher told her students that people with blue eyes are better than those with brown and green of course the lowest of the low. By the next day the kids had broken off contact with the lesser people. Each eye color group then took on traits of their class. Blued eyed kids picking on green eyed ones, while the green eyed kids accepted that without insulting back.
Kids might seem like they are easier to influence than adults. However in another study, they got some 500 adults to play the roles of prisoners and prison guards. After a week or so those who played the role of prison guards actually got more abusive(just insults and shoving) to those playing prisoners. The prisoners became more accepting of the treatment. Afterwards many of those who played prison guards actually reported they had begun to hate the prisoners dispite knowing they were innocent people.
I'd like think I'd be harder to influence that but it makes Nazi germany seem more likely. Just some food for thought. And Im not sure exactly where the studies were done or which eye colors were really top/middle/lower class anymore. I'm fairly certain the study on the kids was done back in the 50s though. You could probably find them in an internet search.
So I ask you do you fit into a type because you are that type or because you believe in the system? That's a rhetorical question. Although it may help you become aware of another psychological drive of yours(but if I know people and I do, you've probably already dismissed the arguement).

typeless?

Follow Ups:

• Re: B.O. . . Bertram Ostrer (68.55.244.21) 03:30:59 09/04/03 (1)
  • Re: B.O. . . Typeless? (205.251.208.26) 23:01:28 09/04/03 (0)

Post a Followup