No, Jim. What do you think specifically points away from Delta? I don't yet see what excludes ESTj as a probable type for Ayn Rand.Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
No, Jim. What do you think specifically points away from Delta? I don't yet see what excludes ESTj as a probable type for Ayn Rand.
Gamma quadra absolutist interpersonal perspectives:
Gamma types take a hard-line approach regarding ethical principles and the punishment, even revenge, on those who break them.
Gamma types like to discuss personal relationships in a realistic manner and are skeptical that "jerks" can ever become "nice people", for instance.
Ayn Rand, nothing if not a willing to be frictional and stick to her guns character. She's about as much a delta as I am.
You should be able to see this by now.
Thank you.
Potentially so, but hey, I'm a E6w5 and I'm sympathetic to Expat's projections.
Also, in truth, I really don't put much faith in enneagram. So, that's my own problem to deal with.
I think you typed him 8w9.
You have Rand SLE so I think E1 is a bit off.Ayn Rand might've been an E1 herself (I've heard E7 tossed around before as well).
Ashie, if you start from 1.55, you'll hear that the interviewer told Ayn Rand to 'encapsulate' her philosophy, which 'may be difficult'. Ayn Rand replies somewhat to the effect of 'I'll try to summarize the main points'. You can tell from her terse speech that it is not entirely natural for her to talk in 'maxims and structure', but is probably doing so because she is asked to. Te is definitely the right way to go.
'In your book you actually talk about love as if it were a business of some kind.' I wouldn't be surprised if Inkstrider is right about Ayn Rand being Delta ST. Fi-valuing with Te-creative (explaining Fi with Te... for the sake of Si -> personal harmony).
I mean, she could be SLI, with Se-ignoring. Look at how her eyes flare up when the interviewer attacks her cherished values. She remains calm, but her soul is on fire. Ink, I'm not sure if you identify with what I'm saying, but is this one of the reasons why you type her as LSE?
Whatever it is, I agree with what she says about this: 'To love everybody indiscriminately is to say that you love without understanding. This is, in fact impossible.'
She is wiseWhy I love LSEs:
beyond words
beautiful within
her soul
brighter than
the sun
lovelier than
love
dreams larger
than life
and does not
understand the
meaning of no.
Because everything
through her, and in her, is
"Yes, it will be done."
A couple years ago I was put in charge of decorating the college for Valentine's Day. I made some gorgeous, fancy decorations from construction paper, glue, scissors, and imagination. Then I covered a couple cabinets with them. But my favorite was the diagram of a human heart I put up. So romantic!
I base my typing of her on her ideas and content of her book. But yes, the fire beneath her seeming calmness in defense of her ideas may point to Delta ST.
Yes, that is among my favorite points in her philosophy.
I don't know. I think that the interview is too short for theHer reasoning strikes me as more>
in style; she talks more in maxims and structure, rather than describing a process and its mechanics (I type her ESTp—which would make her the quasi-identical of ESTj).
Let's use this portion of the interview for analysis.
Business, currency, virtue. Te/Fi themes. To love only those who deserved it. In her novel, those who deserved it were the ones who worked and willing to sacrifice for it, unceasingly with perseverance, willing to take the risks. She opposes the parasites of life, who eat off the deserving, who expects to earn the unearned through opportunistic ways. It proposes a very conservative approach which I associate with Delta.
I've mentioned that I identified a whole lot with her writings, not that this might necessarily mean that her type is my own, but enough to convince me that we may have similar lines of thought and likely to be of the same quadra. I personally have great dislike for these spineless parasites she speaks of, the ones who leech off other people's efforts, and taking credit for the rewards. I hate the idea of treating everyone the same, as some people are naturally more deserving of our time, effort, affection. Some are more important to me than others, and these people are the ones I value. In comparison to say the more Alphaish concept of loving the whole of humanity, and treating everyone the same way. (I once had a debate on this with an SEI).
What is worth valuing in people, Ayn Rand described in one word: Virtue. This reminded me of something I wrote elsewhere many months ago, in a moment of contemplation:
It's pretty much a yearning for Fi. "That within" is virtue. As per Ayn Rand, "virtues which they have achieved in their own character". Fi seeking.
Where love as a business is concerned, I see most of life as a trade. Exchange, Trade-offs, Cost-benefits, Risk-reward, etc. When I receive, I feel indebted to give. Else, it wouldn't feel fair. Fairness and equity is a big thing to me. The Golden Rule.
During one particularly unhealthy period, I was halfway through designing an ultimate structure of "Life as a Business". Part of it had been to devise some method to assign numerical "values" to people. Calculate the amount of time I would spend on them according to their worth, so that I would know exactly when to kick them off as "not worth it" or "time-wasters", etc. I was stumped when confronting the question of what variables to include in this formula to determine their values. Anyway, my point is, I can understand where Ayn Rand is coming from with this worthy-unworthy/deserving-undeserving, love-business thing. Delta STs feel that they must do something in order to be worthy of love. If a man wants love, he should correct his weaknesses/flaws that he may deserve it. Just like everything else in life, respect and love need to be earned. It is not given freely.
I am unable to properly justify my preference for her as Ne/Si valuing due to my present lack of understanding of how it can manifest, but I think her ultimate ideal as depicted in the valley of Atlas Shrugged is part of the evidence for it.
I second Inkstrider's conclusion based on the evidence produced and general soundness of the premises in place.
She is wiseWhy I love LSEs:
beyond words
beautiful within
her soul
brighter than
the sun
lovelier than
love
dreams larger
than life
and does not
understand the
meaning of no.
Because everything
through her, and in her, is
A couple years ago I was put in charge of decorating the college for Valentine's Day. I made some gorgeous, fancy decorations from construction paper, glue, scissors, and imagination. Then I covered a couple cabinets with them. But my favorite was the diagram of a human heart I put up. So romantic!
Seems reasonable of a rational type to do.
Just because you like her work and can relate to her doesn't mean she's your type.
Would you say, from having read her novels that she does Te herself or tries to get people to do Te; if she tries to get people to do Te, that means Te is her creative function, thus my point that she's SLI rather than LSE.I don't know. I think that the interview is too short for the
What I see from the quote that you offered is more of her observation of what's going on. If she were Te base type, she would make logical conclusions. An example of this logical conclusion, as you may already observe about yourself as well is this sentence:
A film is never really good unless the camera is an eye in the head of a poet.
Orson Welles
The film - object
is - logical conclusion
never really good - judgement
unless the camera is -back to another object
an eye in the head of a poet -to another object
Hence, Te is thought of extraverted nature where thought is gathered from without oneself and returns to the object. There's no mention of personal subjective relation to the object in Orson Welles' quote in the above, just what he observes something and the way it functions or it's quality.
Stating things as they are because one comes to conclude something about how something works is purely Te. I see Ayn more instructing others to do what she believes or perceives is right/wrong of action and this very instruction rather than herself being the doer is Te creative; when the Te creative preaches or asks others to see their views, what they are really doing is "instructing" "activating" or "mobilizing" you to go out and do it for them. Because of the way I see her asking others to do the Te she wants them to do I type her SLI and because I see very few times in which she makes logical conclusions like Orson or you, I don't type her as a Te base.
Criticize her for me and write something of a criticism of her self or ideas. Mostly her self if you can.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 10-17-2011 at 12:45 AM.
-
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
NT
Nathaniel Branden seems to be a Fi-base type. Prepare yourself for a Massive Wall of Text. It's all about relationships and all about self-respect and one's relationship with oneself.
http://www.nathanielbranden.com/2011...r-self-esteem/
Of all the judgments we pass in life, none is more important than the judgment we pass on ourselves. That judgment impacts every moment and every aspect of our existence. Our self-evaluation is the basic context in which we act and react, choose our values, set our goals, meet the challenges that confront us. Our responses to events are shaped in part by whom and what we think we are—our self-esteem.
Competent to Cope
Self-esteem is the experience of being competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and of being worthy of happiness. It consists of two components: 1) self-efficacy—confidence in our ability to think, learn, choose, and make appropriate decisions; and 2) self-respect—confidence in our right to be happy; and in the belief that achievement, success, friendship, respect, love and fulfillment are appropriate to us.
The basic challenges of life include such fundamentals as being able to earn a living and take independent care of oneself in the world; being competent in human relationships, so that our interactions with others are, more often than not, mutually satisfying; and having the resilience that allows one to bounce back from adversity and persevere in one’s aspirations.
To say that self-esteem is a basic human need is to say that it is essential to normal and healthy development. It has survival value. Lacking positive self-esteem, psychological growth is stunted. Positive self-esteem operates, in effect, as providing resistance, strength, and a capacity for regeneration. When self-esteem is low, our resilience in the face of life’s problems is diminished. We tend to be more influenced by the desire to avoid pain than to experience joy; negatives have more power over us than positives. If we do not believe in ourselves—neither in our efficacy nor in our goodness (and lovability)—the world is a frightening place.
To women who are throwing off traditional gender roles, fighting for emotional and intellectual autonomy, pouring in escalating numbers into the workplace, starting their own business, invading one formerly male bastion after another, challenging millennium-old prejudices—self-esteem is indispensable. To be sure, it is not all that is needed for success, but without it the battle cannot be won.
For women and men alike, if we do have a realistic confidence in our mind and value, if we feel secure within ourselves, we tend to respond appropriately to challenges and opportunities. Self-esteem empowers, energizes, motivates. It inspires us to achieve and allows us to take pleasure and pride in our achievements.
High Self-Esteem
High self-esteem seeks the challenge and stimulation of worthwhile and demanding goals. Reaching such goals nurtures good self-esteem. Low self-esteem seeks the safety of the familiar and undemanding. Confining oneself to the familiar and undemanding serves to weaken self-esteem.
The more solid our self-esteem, the better equipped we are to cope with troubles that arise in our careers or in our personal life; the quicker we are to pick ourselves up after a fall; the more energy we have to begin anew. Setbacks will not stop the most self-confident of the women who, in the millions, are now starting their own businesses or otherwise struggling to rise in their professions. Nor will a disappointing marriage or love affair so devastate a confident woman’s ego that she will arm herself against intimacy to avoid the possibility of future hurt, at the cost of her vitality.
The higher our self-esteem, the more ambitious we tend to be, not necessarily in a career or financial sense, but in terms of what we hope to experience in life—emotionally, romantically, intellectually, creatively, and spiritually. The lower our self-esteem, the less we aspire to, and the less we are likely to achieve. Either path tends to be self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating.
The higher our self-esteem, the stronger the drive to express ourselves, reflecting the sense of richness within. The lower our self-esteem, the more urgent the need to “prove” ourselves—or to forget ourselves by living mechanically.
The higher our self-esteem, the more open, honest, and appropriate our communications are likely to be, because we believe our thoughts have value and therefore we welcome rather than fear the clarity. The lower our self-esteem, the more muddy, evasive, and inappropriate our communications are likely to be, because of uncertainty about our own thoughts and feelings and anxiety about the listener’s response.
The higher our self-esteem, the more disposed we are to form nourishing rather than toxic relationships. Health is attracted to health. Vitality and expansiveness in others are naturally more appealing to persons of good self-esteem than are emptiness and dependency. Self-confident women and men are naturally drawn to one another. Alas, insecure women and men are also drawn to one another, and form destructive relationships.
If you hope to achieve a happy relationship with someone, no factor is more important than self-esteem—in you and in the other person. There is no greater barrier to romantic success than the deep-seated feeling that one is unlovable. The first love affair we must consummate successfully in this world is with ourselves; only then are we ready for a relationship. Only then will we be fully able to love, and only then will we be able fully to let love in—to accept that another person loves us. Without that confidence, another person’s love will never be quite real or convincing to us; and in our anxiety we may find ways to undermine it.
Women who are struggling to build a more positive self-concept sometimes ask, “Do men want high self-esteem in a female?” I answer, “Men who have a decent level of self-esteem do value it in a woman; they do not want a frightened child for a partner. And what would a woman of self-esteem want with a man so insecure that her confidence scared him?”
Self-esteem is an intimate experience; it resides in the core of one’s being. It is what I think and feel about myself, not what someone else thinks or feels about me. I can be loved by my family, my mate, and my friends, and yet not love myself. I can be admired by my associates and yet regard myself as worthless. I can project an image of assurance and poise that fools almost everyone and yet secretly tremble with a sense of my inadequacy. I can fulfill the expectations of others, and yet fail my own; I can win every honor, and yet feel I have accomplished nothing; I can be adored by millions, and yet wake up each morning with a sickening sense of fraudulence and emptiness.
To attain “success” without attaining positive self-esteem is to be condemned to feeling like an imposter anxiously awaiting exposure. The acclaim of others does not create our self-esteem. Neither does erudition, material possessions, marriage, parenthood, philanthropic endeavors, sexual conquests, or face-lifts. These things can sometimes make us feel better about our selves temporarily, or more comfortable in particular situations. But comfort is not self-esteem.
Six Pillars of Self-Esteem
Over three decades of study and of working with people have persuaded me that there are six pillars on which health self-esteem depends.
1. Living Consciously. To live consciously is to be present to what we are doing; to seek to understand whatever bears on our interests, values, and goals; to be aware both of the world external to self and also to the world within.
2. Self-acceptance. To be self-accepting is to own and experience, without denial or disowning, the reality of our thoughts, emotions and actions; to be respectful and compassionate toward ourselves even when we do not admire or enjoy some of our feelings or decisions; to refuse to be in an adversarial or rejecting relationship to ourselves.
3. Self-responsibility. To be self-responsible is to recognize that we are the author of our choices and actions; that we must be the ultimate source of our own fulfillment; that no one is coming to make our life right for us, or make us happy, or give us self-esteem.
4. Self-assertiveness. To be self-assertive is to honor our wants and needs and look for their appropriate forms of expression in reality; to live our values in the world; to be willing to be who we are and allow others to see it; to stand up for our convictions, values, and feelings.
5. Living Purposefully. To live purposefully is to take responsibility for identifying our goals; to perform the actions that allow us to achieve them; to keep on track and moving toward their fulfillment.
6. Personal integrity. To live with integrity is to have principles of behavior to which we remain loyal in action; to keep our promises and honor our commitments; to walk our talk.
Last edited by Nico1e; 10-18-2011 at 08:27 PM. Reason: the wall of text wasn't high enough so I made it even bigger
sigh...expat is a blatant 8w9 sp/sx, you should really get out of the habit of espousing misinformed diarrhea.
Also Rand is a blatant 6.
Posting Permissions
