Two societies, once united, now separate. What type would insist the most on reuniting them?
What type does this sound like?
Two societies, once united, now separate. What type would insist the most on reuniting them?
The Helmut Kohl type.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
It would depend. Can the society split with easy to craft borders? Or is it like America today, with cities on one side and suburbs on the other?
Think Shia and Sunni.
Pa3s I looked up Kohl. I don't think he deserves the credit.
I think this man does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_F%C3%BChrer
The question before me now is, how was he able to succeed? Was it something he managed to pull off simply by creating his movement, or did conditions previous to 1989 make it impossible?
to answer your first question, esfj maybe
I'm thinking that it would be EII, because EII sees their role as providing a common mythos around which people can unify in the name of a common heritage. That, and their commitment to peace creates the emotional atmosphere required for the relaxation of boundaries.
If anything, ESE would try to prop the current regime. ESEs hate chaos, believing that people want order and discipline.
Kohl was EIE. What he drew up was a plan that systematized the unification. It's unfortunate that he gets so much credit for the merger, because his privatization plan hampered the East German transition to free markets.
Kohl's main contribution was creating a plan that accomplished the unification as quickly as possible, by avoiding outrage.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 02-27-2012 at 07:10 PM.
To unite the Sunnia / Shia I think you need to be a man in a cave with a nuclear bomb. ("they call him the old man in the mountain...") Out of the ashes will emerge a new order with a new leader.
Well, of course. In the minds of many Germans, Kohl is still seen as the chancellor who brought us the reunification (Gorbachev has a similarly good reputation in this matter). But there are hundreds of important persons in the background who created change in the society, people who nobody remembers. The guy you posted started the "Monday Demonstrations" which eventually became strong enough to really make a change. The socialist propaganda was strong, but they couldn't break up the church. The credit for the reunification belongs to many, not one single person.Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
The pastor did most likely not expect that his idea catches on in such a way. It succeeded because many people were concerned of this and they opposed an obviously wrong regime. At least the fact that people were locked in the country was outrageous enough to make everyone understand that they're never going to be free without resistance to the state.
I don't have an idea about his type, but I generally agree. He did his best to let things work smoothly and he was determined to fulfil his goal. But the East German economy was doomed anyway, even without his influence. After 40 years, the government wrecked the economy and the technical progress was not as advanced as in the west. Then, imagine the border opens and not even your own people want to buy the stuff they produce, because there are way better products available now. The initial disadvantage of having the Russians disassembling the factories of their occupation zone (instead of Americans who give good credits and sell you the best machines) gets worse and worse. That's why people in east still earn less money, have higher unemployment rates and lower birth rates compared to the west.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
I see what you are saying, Pa3s. Because the East cannot catch up technologically with the West, it keeps losing out in the free trade system. And, the patent laws the Eastern governments have bound their nations to prevents the copying of modern Western technology. China is intentionally permitting the violation of these laws and that's why they are catching up (or even caught up). Very interesting, but not relevant to the topic, which is the matter of what conditions permitted the preacher to create his movement. But you answered that, observing that it was the removal of Russian protection of the communists. Even still, that was a gradual process. I'm seeing though that the two civilizations approached a philosophical unity as the years wore on and they tried to learn from past mistakes. Although the communists tried to preserve their system in spite of its uncompetitiveness, not everyone in Russia believed this was the best course, because they valued other IM elements than those which favored communism. The protest of against nuclear armaments, and then the preacher dared to initiate conflict with the regime in the name of Christianity.
Typically, "credit" for achievements is awarded to the person who initiates discussions on the matter in question and acts upon the answer as soon as it is found. It is a matter of the right person at the right time, and yet the time can be created by the person by interacting with others with intention to remove the barriers to progress. The installation of one person into a reformative position permits the advancement of those causes which awaited the installation. To be successful in a position, particularly in the face of organized conflict, it is necessary to have the dual-type and attitude necessary to the position. This enables the intricacies of the role to be understood in depth and acted on accordingly.
That common mythos may be to control and manipulate a society, which then could be something like SEE
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
It would be Fi showing their human nature because Fe would want to provoke and point out how they conflict and disagree with one another.
What do you think are the IEs that favour communism? I'm talking about the anti-authoritarian "ideal" of communism, the actual one. That means not the so-called "communism" which was realized in a authoritarian, centralized state like the USSR, China or any other "communist" state for that matter. Because of this confusion, it's hard to make a statement about it. Some people in Russia definitely believed in the ideal form, the classless society, and therefore supported it from the start. I think many people believed it would eventually turn in such a form of society. (Even though that was highly unlikely from a realistic point of view, since a small elite has already taken over.) Others might have accepted the system as it was, and tried to benefit from the hierarchical structures. Not everyone cares about politics or ideology, some people can accept almost everything as long as they have a good life themselves.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Possibly, but Fi types are too Aristocratic for that.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Mostly beta. It was the gammas who hated communism the most (of course we know what they favor). Communism held out the promise that there would be no poor, no poverty, which was music to Beta NF ears. Of course what eventually happened is that the leaders forced the people to work, giving them no time for leisure and creating a life of constant toil and hardship. Communism devolved into serfdom.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
