Not LSI. Te/Fi > Fe/Ti.
Steven Covey
Not LSI. Te/Fi > Fe/Ti.
He looks like Hannibal Lecter.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
Does he act like Hannibal Lecter?
I'd like to know his type. Perhaps ESI if not LSI? I think I can make a strong case for rationality, a case for introversion, and a weak case for sensing. If not ESI, perhaps EII? However, on stage and elsewhere he conveys a sense of stalwart confidence that doesn't jive with EII.
There was a time when I read his book three times and marked it all up, then I decided it was all complete baloney when I learned about socionics, and now I recognize that he touches on a lot of universal "truths," but approaches them in a way that fits his own personality and only partly resonates with mine.
In my opinion, his idea that effective living suggests making a plan, scheduling in priorities at certain times, etc., goes very much against irrationality. His books deal heavily with moral and ethical issues and how to resolve them, so I could see a good case forrather than
. I've seen some videos of his presentations, as well as an interview with Charlie Rose, where he came across as a very controlled and focused introvert (IMO).
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Joy, I really wish you'd explain your reasoning. Blanket statements do nothing for anyone except make people take you less seriously. I'm serious. Plus, I am actually interested to know why you think Covey is Te/Fi over Fe/Ti, and I'm disappointed when all I get is "Not LSI".
I honestly can't come up with anything proper but rationality; that is, he is definitely rational. His whole framework chimes rationality; the goals he sets for people are rational; the way in which he writes is rational. His view of reality is entirely normative, and he aims to change others' realities to meet his own, so that he may help them improve.
I'd like to read more of his book before offering too much more. I just posted this because the Te valuing was so apparent. Others have said he seems introverted. I haven't seen it so far.
I can see why I (and others) thought that IJ made the most sense for him. IJ's make self-control and self-discipline look easy, but when I really think about it, most IJ's are as "behind" in self-mastery as most people are, and that's really what the first three habits are about: self-mastery. Sure, IJ's are probably more self-possessed by their Ti/Fi vaues and find it easier to stick with habits and apply themselves steadily to a task. Their energy output is very balanced. That's not the same as self-mastery though.
I would define self-mastery as the ability to habitually do things that are consistant with your higher values and goals, and to do so without the kind of inner struggle that most people experience, "I don't want to, but I have to" or "I don't want to, but I'm supposed to" echoing in their mind over and over and over. IJ's are just likely to be suspectable to inner conflict as anyone else, though the type of inner struggle each person is prone to experience may be related to superficially different things. Just because they have an easier time being consistant and balancing their energy expenditure than I do doesn't mean that they don't have any inner conflict or struggle. (This is how self-mastery differs from self-discipline.)
So anyways, I definitley see rationality, but I don't see introversion. Not yet, anyways. Personally I think Te dominance would probably make more sense than Fi dominance at this point, but I'm going to withhold judgement until I've read more of his book.
I will say though that the C/CP balance that he talks about is a very Ni way of looking at things. The basic premise there is that you have to balance immediate benefit with long term benefit, and he uses the analogy of killing the goose that lays the golden egg (which I think rather applies to my affinity for stimulants, lol).
Also, so far I think he's an Enneagram 8. He talks about three stages of development. In the first stage, you're dependent (it's very "you" focused). In the second stage, which correlates to the first three habits, you're independent (it's very "I" focused). In the third stage, which correlates to the 4th, 5th, and 6th habits, you're interdependent (it's very "we" focused). The way he explains that scale, and even the nature of the scale itself, sounds like an Enneagram 8's journey and growth toward Enneagram 2. Of course, this in itself doesn't mean he's not LSI (depending on who you talk to, I suppose), but when you combine that with Te/Fi valuing it should help to paint a clearer overall picture.
The way he talks about the importance of seeing things from other people's perspectives is imo consistent with the "Enneagram 8 growth toward 2" theory.
Another point for Te > Fi (or at least logic > ethics) is his use of the "emotional bank account" analogy.
His talk about changing paradigms may appear Ne on the surface, but I think it's more Ni than it is Ne. There's a high focus on underlying cause and effect relationships.
Okay, so far I've suggested that he's Te/Fi, rational, logical, and has strong Ni (and is very Ni focused)... but like I said, I want to read further before offering an "official" opinion.
Last edited by Joy; 10-16-2008 at 12:17 PM.
Just a thought, is it possible that people are seeing calmness in his manner and relating it to introversion? If so, I would argue that self-mastery produces a calm manner in people of any type. It's just a natural result of inner harmony, peace, and serenity.
He has an interesting way to explain the self-reliance concept (he calls it being proactive)...
There are two circles, an inner circle and an outer circle. The inner circle is "the circle of influence" and consists of things that you can do something about. The outer circle is "the circle of concern" and consists of things you can't do anything about (like the weather, the economy, international events, etc.).
The more you focus on the inner circle, the more it grows. The more you focus on the outer circle, the more the inner circle withers and shrinks.
This post is under construction.
Habit 1: Be Proactive. Focus on the things you can do something about, not the things you have no control/influence over.
Habit 2: Begin with the end in mind. What are you trying to accomplish? Be visionary, don't just float along letting life happen to you. Be clear about your values. One should have a mission statement consisting of visions (what you want) and principles (how you're going to get it), as should families and organizations.
Criteria of a good mission statement:Habit 3: Put first things first. Prioritize.
- timeless
- encompasses both means and ends
- should deal with all four needs: live (economics), love (Fi), learn (keep growing, be useful), leave a legacy (make a difference with your life, add value)
- should deal with all of the roles of your life (implicitly or explicitly)
Habit 4:
Habit 5:
Habit 6:
Habit 7:
Habit 4:
agreed. mmm was my "name" before dbmmama for years. master millionaire mama. i'd like to add another m for manifesting...
but, that's done anyway and a given.
eyes forward.
Anyways, more themes which I think are probably type related:
"The first things in our lives are always our relationships." (Fi valuing? or is this universal?)
He uses a computer analogy to describe the first few habits. (It's similar to the emotional bank analogy in that it tries to make sense of ethical or abstract things by relating them to something that's "colder" and more comfortable for the author... suggests he's a logical type?)
(:agreed. mmm was my "name" before dbmmama for years. master millionaire mama. i'd like to add another m for manifesting...
You know, I recently read something about manifestation that I meant to ask you what you think of... I'll send a PM.
i think that may be universal. it's more about HOW we go about doing what's important to us. my sis and i believe our relationships are the most important things to both of us but she goes about it by being more allowing of the other and what, for me, is very passive. I am pretty forceful in knowing what I want and how and everything and then make it happen, no if, ands, buts... And you know, I do it physically as well as in the spiritual realms. I've got the power and I make my relationships, the ones I deem important enough, work.
I see him, and yes, I've read his books, as logical and rational.
Ultimately his interviews or speeches might be more telling, but I think his philosophy must reflect some of his type. In The 7 Habits he says he is more aloof and distant than his wife, which may provide a clue.
Whatever he is, it is not a leading,
,
,
, or
type!
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Hi Rick!Ultimately his interviews or speeches might be more telling, but I think his philosophy must reflect some of his type. In The 7 Habits he says he is more aloof and distant than his wife, which may provide a clue.
Whatever he is, it is not a leading
Lol!
Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.
I pity your souls
Okay, I am abandoning my search for his type (including providing brief descriptions of each habit) because imo he's pretty obviously LIE.
I liked the book and would recommend it to others if they were interested in it, but I can't say that I benefited from it a great deal. It felt more like a congratulatory pat on the back than anything.
There are certainly areas in which I could stand to grow and improve myself, but they're not the areas he discusses. The primary area in which I need to improve myself is organization. I don't think that diving into some complicated organization system described in a book is the answer though. I just need to organize my mind and thoughts, and I need to simplify things as much as is practical.
Yeah, I'm a big fan of habit four, apparently.(It's "think win-win", in case anyone's wondering. I didn't know that when I made that post though, of course.)
I could see that being the case.Okay, I am abandoning my search for his type (including providing brief descriptions of each habit) because imo he's pretty obviously LIE.
I liked the book and would recommend it to others if they were interested in it, but I can't say that I benefited from it a great deal. It felt more like a congratulatory pat on the back than anything.
There are certainly areas in which I could stand to grow and improve myself, but they're not the areas he discusses. The primary area in which I need to improve myself is organization. I don't think that diving into some complicated organization system described in a book is the answer though. I just need to organize my mind and thoughts, and I need to simplify things as much as is practical.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Beta STs are the best at this. They combine Se willpower/goal-achieving with Ti values.
He's probably an Assertive, and I really wouldn't be surprised if he was a Three.Also, so far I think he's an Enneagram 8. He talks about three stages of development. In the first stage, you're dependent (it's very "you" focused). In the second stage, which correlates to the first three habits, you're independent (it's very "I" focused). In the third stage, which correlates to the 4th, 5th, and 6th habits, you're interdependent (it's very "we" focused). The way he explains that scale, and even the nature of the scale itself, sounds like an Enneagram 8's journey and growth toward Enneagram 2. Of course, this in itself doesn't mean he's not LSI (depending on who you talk to, I suppose), but when you combine that with Te/Fi valuing it should help to paint a clearer overall picture.
Have you read The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People?
I've read his son's, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Teens. It appears to follow the same principles.
You'd probably be in a better position to type his son than him then.
I don't give two shits about being 'highly effective.' I only care about being 'highly creative.'The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People?
to me, highly creative IS a BIG part of being highly effective.
That is why you're just not my dual to me, sorry. SLEs care about end results not the process. If you care so much about the how, that points to LSE or ESI for you really. I thought you said you were SLE before but have you thought about reconsidering? (And also if you can, please give a logical arguement of why you are SLE)i think that may be universal. it's more about HOW we go about doing what's important to us.
I don't mean this as an insult (so please don't take this as such), but your posts and general behavior here have been nothing but conformist, not creative. Creativity isn't always the opposite of conformity... but, can you show me some of your own creative works to prove yourself then?to me, highly creative IS a BIG part of being highly effective.
Maybe you're just not creative yourself, you just like that trait in your NF husband.
YOU GOT IT!!! I wish like fucking GOD I could be creative and as carefree about it like him, and you.
btw, every piece of art that as been my avatar is mine. here's one that especially resonates for/with my soul:
as well as this one:
what's hard is that every piece i create is a piece of me and so it's hard to put them "out there." i feel "exposed." if someone comments positively or negatively, i feel they are commenting on ME, the ME ME THAT IS ME OF EVERYTHINGNESS. i really have to gird my loins and "protect" myself when showing you these...
I read the Covey book. years and years ago. I hated it. It's just not the way I think. And the idea of having a mission statement... how can you know what you're going to want 10 years from now? And I hated that he had this big following. With the workbooks and everyone and their brother reading it over and over again. There were so many people in the 90s who lived and breathed that book. Made me want to gag. That's not to say I'm perfect or that I couldn't use some of his suggestions. It just isn't my style.
IEI-Fe 4w3
That looks like a scared screaming parrot.btw, every piece of art that as been my avatar is mine. here's one that especially resonates for/with my soul:
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8LM4C1l70U[/ame]
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Heh. I won't even comment.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
If you did, you'd be doing something, instead of sitting on your ass just thinking about doing it. But even that's just posting. Go do some squat thrusts
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
I think the idea is that the mission statement grows and changes with you. I can respect that not everyone thinks this way though. There are many authors that I could say that about. (:
I think it's generally type related. That's why I identify so much more strongly with James Allen's works that those of other authors I've read who are saying pretty much the same thing he is. I think the same concepts can be presented in different ways be different types because they're processed differently.
yes you're totally right.
IEI-Fe 4w3
LOLIf you did, you'd be doing something, instead of sitting on your ass just thinking about doing it. But even that's just posting. Go do some squat thrusts
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
