W. also wasn't self-conscious in the least. That's much more like a 9w8 than a 6w7.
Do you see a different possibility?Obama a 9w1? I can see that possibility.
Sounds like you're assigning type 3 characteristics to the social instinct.I say Soc first because his 'album' is strongly marketing oriented. The big letters on everything, as if he was a James Bond villain. His focus appears less regarding the quiet substance, it's 'the look' that strikes me as most important to him. And he's not a 3, so 'the look' has to come from somewhere and he's so driven about using it to appear large, expansive.
I see that as social second. IMO, the second instinct acts as a resource for serving the first instinct (i.e., sp/so because his social activities are in support of his personal ones not the other way around as might be with so/sp).And like I said, he's so taken to the twitter, something inside him just has have a word regarding everything in the social-sphere. Social media.....
Contrast H.W. (6w7) with Cheney (6w5). Caveat is that Cheney could possibly be 8 instead of 6w5 (haven't dug deep enough lately and have no desire to).Ps: never heard GHWB as w7.... only w5. Cheney might've been a great surrogate Dad, if a person were looking for such. I say W. looked and found, support-network city.
I don't remember reading a good explanation of the "stack flow theory," I only remember reading that the basic theory exists. IIRC, there's two different "flows," one that is "with" and "against." And (well, call me egotistical) I think SP/SX is supposed to flow "into" SO/SP and then into SX/SO, right?The reason I say that is because he can be sp/so, that flows into so/sx, that flows into......Which one we're looking at is the eye of the beholder, since I'm personally on-board with stack flow theory. Maybe yours is first.
I'm not on board with stack flow theory. I guess that's the point where you and I find our differences with Trump's instincts.I hear you, I also think we are spitting hairs with DT., for the moment at least. The reason I say that is because he can be sp/so, that flows into so/sx, that flows into......Which one we're looking at is the eye of the beholder, since I'm personally on-board with stack flow theory.
I have a different interpretation about the wings than most people. I often don't see the wing as simply another type to be added to the individual. It would take way too much explanation for me to start a discussion about H.W.'s wing.I can't be on board with GWHB as w7 however. His is just too tight and lacking experiential curiosity (not going to eat broccoli, nope, won't. do. it.), etc. Simplistic yes, but with merit.
pardon my delay, life...... right? Unfortunately I don't have any good resources (or treatise) for this stuff. I read about it years ago now and started looking at those closest to me (and me) and how they moved about within their type. How they compartmentalize their things and object relations. Perhaps it's a little self-learned, but it made perfect sense with so many people, esp if they were in one group ("flow") or another. With me, I'm Sp, but there's this extravagant look-at-me side that I get into, where I start spreading myself everywhere, culminating into some singular warped desire of simply "wanting". And honestly it's a bit psycho-health related. If I'm doing it, chances are that I'm starting to get neurotic. Like, I'm starting to run though these variants like they were "R&H health levels". Hmm. Again, others do this too..... where maybe the self contained spills out, or the all-over-the-place type becomes singularly focused in a certain fashion, in some window of their existence. In any event, I sometimes throw around that word blindspot but I don't always believe it. I think ppl er, at least I give ppl more credit, are actually doing all of their variants....some with precision others with an unlearned haste. Within which context are we examining this person, in their comfort zone or some other protracted stress area? Can we differentiate them?I don't remember reading a good explanation of the "stack flow theory," I only remember reading that the basic theory exists. IIRC, there's two different "flows," one that is "with" and "against." And (well, call me egotistical) I think SP/SX is supposed to flow "into" SO/SP and then into SX/SO, right?
It's just, I'm too hung up on why they would flow in a syn- or contra- way, I think. Or what makes them syn- or contra- in the first place. Do you happen to know the answers, or where I might find them? And, um, preferably not a YouTube video... I have a very hard time focusing on those (ADD is a bitch) and prefer reading, if you know of a place
I would say that hiding in the shelter, when streets of Washington were filled with angry mob is, somehow, emblematory for ->5 disintegrationThat and the fact that he has no apparent history* to disintegrate to 5 nor integrate to 2 should be enough to dispel the 8 assumption. (Same with 3 disintegrating to 9 - I doubt he's done that, either.)
First of all, he does not seem "narcissistic" (in a psychological way) at all for me. Narcissism has a shade of simulation or hypocrisy. None of these applies to Donald Trump. He exercises brutal, autocratic power - of course restricted to constitutional borders. He humiliates his former collaborators, speaks in boorish way and shows no respect to democratic institutions. 7w8 leader should be at least witty or bright and be able to rationalize his decisions in media.My vote is 7w8. He's so materialistic, narcissistic, and deeply afraid of everything that might possibly be against his "need" for "more." He always wants more, of everything: wealth, status, power. He seeks out drama, and is never satisfied by his position in life. He lashes out in the most stereotypical narcissist + toxic masculinity way, but it's borne from fear that so few agree he's "the best."
It is EXACTLY, what enneagram 8 does for his whole life. According to enneagram theory, Eights are struggling to reclaim as much power as possible because of their basic fear of being controlled. That's all because they associate "control" with "harm".A core fear, I would say, of fighting against limitations put upon him.
Sorry, I don't see any "controlling streak". No shallow piety, no moral tirades, no forced stiffness. Could you, please, explain, what you mean?seems to be entrenched in the 1ish "controlling streak" instead.
IngratiationInauguration said:But Trump has managed to make the size of his inauguration crowd one of the most important issues on the planet now. How? Because he not only claimed, beforehand, that his would be bigger than Obama’s—he seems to be refusing to admit that it wasn’t. Indeed, he instructed his new press secretary (Sean Spicer) to say Trump’s crowd actually was “the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration” and to scold the media for publishing stories and evidence to the contrary. This included pictures that compared Obama’s and Trump’s crowd size that Spicer said “were intentionally framed in a way… to minimize the enormous support that had gathered on the National Mall.” Indeed, both Trump and Spicer claimed that the crowd went all the way back to the Washington Monument; Spicer even flanked himself with photos that supposedly proved it. To boot, Spicer threatened that Trump would begin to circumvent the media, and “take his message directly to the American people,” if the media continued with this kind of “dishonesty.” Worse still, when pressed on Meet The Press with evidence that Spicer was stating “falsehoods,” Trump’s spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway said that Spicer was just presenting “alternate facts” and indicated that if the media doesn’t stop lying about the Trump administration, they may “have to rethink our relationship here.”