Enneagram Main Board Archive

Re: TIME leaders and revolutionaries

Re: TIME leaders and revolutionaries

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Enneagram Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Copperhead on April 14, 1998 at 01:30:50:

In Reply to: Re: TIME leaders and revolutionaries posted by Derf on April 12, 1998 at 19:37:02:

Perhaps I was too vague. I think you've taken my words
("Nihil sub sole novum") out of context. I was responding
specifically to the idea, as I believe you were suggesting,
that the feeling-triad types may someday be substantially
more represented among leaders and revolutionaries than they
are now. In my view, however, "leader" and "revolutionary"
are roles which always have drawn, and always will draw, more
often from certain personality types than from others. This
tendency to draw certain types will be independent of time
and place, because the basic nature of being a leader is
independent of time and place.

Likewise, we should not be surprised if we were to discover
that today's scientists generally are the same combination of
personality types as the ancient Greek "natural philosophers".
It would be a mistake to conclude that, given the huge leaps in
science from their society to ours, the basic nature of being a
modern scientist must be different from that of being an ancient
one. From the standpoint of personality, the sameness of the
underlying motivations are more important than the differences
of the outer form.

By none of this do I mean to suggest that any role, like leader
or scientist, is "restricted" to any types. Clearly, any role
could be fulfilled by a person of any type. My point only makes
sense when we look at the general numbers. To address the original observation (that there are few Twos, Threes, and Fours among the
great leaders and revolutionaries) posted by Michelle on 4/10, I
would say a world in which the largest number of great leaders
were Fours and Twos is as unlikely as a world in which the largest
number of research scientists were Threes and Eights. It simply
isn't going to happen.

: Culture changes, and so do ideals. Are we living in Arthurian times? In Roman times? In the future, we might become more like Japan or Bali or wherever; or they might become more like us. If "Gone With The Wind" were made today, would it draw the audiences that it does today? Would they let Marilyn Monroe be a model today? (Are you aware that she was SIZE 16?) Would George Washington succeed as President? JFK? NO! THEY WOULDN'T! All the great war heroes were before Vietnam, because that's the first time the general public was "taken to the battlefield" via. television, and we just don't feel the same about the whole thing. Human nature *NEVER* changes, I agree - we're still reading Latin and Greek literature, and loving it. But the experience of culture does change, and has the power to change our perceptions.

Follow Ups:

Elementary, my dear Copperhead - but there are some cultural qualifications Derf 20:55:47 4/14/98 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: Perhaps I was too vague. I think you've taken my words : ("Nihil sub sole novum") out of context. I was responding : specifically to the idea, as I believe you were suggesting, : that the feeling-triad types may someday be substantially : more represented among leaders and revolutionaries than they : are now. In my view, however, "leader" and "revolutionary" : are roles which always have drawn, and always will draw, more : often from certain personality types than from others. This : tendency to draw certain types will be independent of time : and place, because the basic nature of being a leader is : independent of time and place. : Likewise, we should not be surprised if we were to discover : that today's scientists generally are the same combination of : personality types as the ancient Greek "natural philosophers". : It would be a mistake to conclude that, given the huge leaps in : science from their society to ours, the basic nature of being a : modern scientist must be different from that of being an ancient : one. From the standpoint of personality, the sameness of the : underlying motivations are more important than the differences : of the outer form. : By none of this do I mean to suggest that any role, like leader : or scientist, is "restricted" to any types. Clearly, any role : could be fulfilled by a person of any type. My point only makes : sense when we look at the general numbers. To address the original observation (that there are few Twos, Threes, and Fours among the : great leaders and revolutionaries) posted by Michelle on 4/10, I : would say a world in which the largest number of great leaders : were Fours and Twos is as unlikely as a world in which the largest : number of research scientists were Threes and Eights. It simply : isn't going to happen. : : : Culture changes, and so do ideals. Are we living in Arthurian times? In Roman times? In the future, we might become more like Japan or Bali or wherever; or they might become more like us. If "Gone With The Wind" were made today, would it draw the audiences that it does today? Would they let Marilyn Monroe be a model today? (Are you aware that she was SIZE 16?) Would George Washington succeed as President? JFK? NO! THEY WOULDN'T! All the great war heroes were before Vietnam, because that's the first time the general public was "taken to the battlefield" via. television, and we just don't feel the same about the whole thing. Human nature *NEVER* changes, I agree - we're still reading Latin and Greek literature, and loving it. But the experience of culture does change, and has the power to change our perceptions.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Enneagram Message Board ] [ FAQ ] wwwboard/messages/795.html

Your Ad Here