|
|
Post by Roshan on Jun 29, 2021 16:42:34 GMT -5
This is some BBC documentary the yt poster appears to be hiding the name of so it won't get taken down. It seems to have to do with this. Can everyone access the doc? If so we can all watch it in say one week. Like this post if yes, if not let me know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jun 29, 2021 17:06:11 GMT -5
Also here are a couple of short articles he wrote for the Dec. 1982-Jan. 1983 edition of Paris Vogue, from an autobiography that either never came to be or never was. |
|
jastyne
Hummingbird
Posts: 106 
Enneagram Core Fix: 9w1
|
Post by jastyne on Jul 3, 2021 13:48:36 GMT -5
Firstly, I should communicate that my typing here was based primarily on energetic impressions(most of which I was directed to notice by Roshan ) from multiple interviews and photos. Welles is definitely one of the hardest people I’ve ever tried to type, and I’m still not clear on most of the smaller details in his configuration. I haven’t even seen Citizen Kane yet. Nevertheless, I’ll try to articulate most of the impressions I’ve gathered thus far.
Okay let me try to get this clear, for myself included. My original impression from afar was 7w8, but it seemed obvious that he was very, very Eightish, especially when he was older, and I assumed 8 fix. But it also felt like it should be lead, but somehow that often didn't fit. I also thought he had 4 and I was very confused about the stacking. And I was very aware that he was considered a Four by RH and eidb.
You wrote me and told me that you knew who he was from the first photo and that's why we discussed him. Your first typing was sp/so 7w6-9w8-3w2 and I said he couldn't be sx last, synflow, and have the 379 tritype and no actual 8 or 4 fix (even with 9w88w9) and you didn't see why not at first. This influenced me to think that maybe I was wrong about just how Eightish he was and it also led me to take a more serious look at whether I was missing something about Four lead and 4w33w2 was what we pretty much settled on.
But when other people started discussing, it all clicked for me and I realized that you were right that he was 3 fixed (and also that that 3 COULD be 3w2) but that what was being mistaken for 4 by RH and eidb was a fireside sx/so on an 8 lead. sx 8 Dominance and Submission is the least Eightish 8--when in submission mode, it's countertype. So I settled on SX/so 8w7-3wX-6w5 and at this point I'd say 8w79w8-3w42w3-6w57w6, but there's wiggle room on the wings, and the more I think about it now the more I realize there is.
I wasn't sure whether or not to tell you, or how or how much, and then for two days I got caught up in what I got caught up in--such is the level of driven obsessional focus of fireside sx/so that it didn't even occur to me to bring it up during that time--and then when you voted it was too late. But Orson Welles wasn't human, and I really don't think there's any other way to explain his alternating between hot and cold, the burning quality that then suddenly goes frozen, soft and hard, extreme boundary and no boundaries, extreme aloofness and extreme approachability, and the intensity of both focus and dissipation than fs SX/so. And once you have that there's just nothing stopping the 8 from leading and you also don't need that much 4.
fs SX/so with its sp/sx shadow appears sp/sx--that is, sp first--until it doesn't. That was the problem I was having with the stacking. tbcd, I haven't read through the rest of this yet and probably need to rest before I do, but I just have to say I'm really excited because I landed at SX/so 8, too! Shortly after I started researching after the reveal, and it seemed to get clearer and clearer as I went on, so yay!  |
|
jastyne
Hummingbird
Posts: 106
Enneagram Core Fix: 9w1
|
Post by jastyne on Jul 3, 2021 13:50:47 GMT -5
Also, side note-- I need to clarify the terms of the ranges-- I think I might not be using them correctly, or at least not the same way as you. I'm not purposefully differing, just seeming like their might be some tangibles I'm not aware of... for example, what makes a type 'single variant' vs a midrange that's heavier on the first accent and usually 'pulls' that way in the flow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jul 3, 2021 20:06:05 GMT -5
A midstream sp/so should be integrating to so/sx. This means it should eventually give up unnecessary focus on the obsessional first instinct, sp, focus on the social most, and also develop the ignored last instinct. This is how stolid businessmen become good will ambassadors for UNICEF and may also feel impelled to go island hopping in the South Pacific in speedboats. Later, at a higher integration, they may wind up seeming like a balanced sx/sp with well-developed social too. A double variant sp/SO, with the middle instinct competing with the first, should have a more accelerated movement to so/sx. Typewatch would say it's pulling up the sx and I say this too, but a better way to look at it is probably poised between those two stacks. It's like the social just can't wait to knock the sp obsession out of the park. A single variant SP/so, with low social and lower sx, is in a way being pulled back to sx/sp; this is why it can come off very similar to sp/sx. The social can appear remarkably poor. It won't really have the oomph of sx nor will it be counterflow, but it will have the hibernatory flavor of a social last. This is the 'get off my lawn' stacking. Another way of saying this is that this single variant SP/so 'draws on its sx/sp shadow'. But the ultimate direction in the flow should still inch toward so/sx. This is where you find the 'get off my lawner' reluctantly winding up head of the block association, and then local alderman and liking it. It all started with the improve the water main drive, and they did it for the lawn hose. Honestly we have talked about a lot of things such as in what direction does the counterflow integrate (still seems to be forward imo) and do single variants integrate backwards (I don't think so). We also haven't done anything separate for if say the midrange sp/so is heavier on the sp or the soc. It's just too many variables to work with; it's not heuristically sound at all and way too prone to falsification. So I think that's about all I got for ya range-wise for now, jastyne . |
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jul 9, 2021 9:39:25 GMT -5
|
|
