From: Michael M. Butler (butler@comp-lib.org)
Date: Sat Sep 01 2001 - 18:44:17 MDT
Russell Blackford wrote:
> I couldn't guess much about other list participants, though I expect that,
> on the Myers-Briggs typology, the list has a disproportionately large number
> of INTJs. I am one of them.
Last times I was evaluated I was an EN?P. The "?" was because I was evenly matched
high-thinking, high-feeling.
> On the Enneagram, which I'd never heard of, I'm afraid, I find I am a type
> 5, backed up equally by types 3 and 8.
Well, there are lots of different interpretations of the Enneagram. I found lots
of 3 and 8 in myself, but discovered my baseline after cross-referencing many sources.
The variability in these interpretations bugs me, so I'm not advocating the E-stuff
outright.
> Astrologically, I am a Leo.
>
> My experience is that the Myers-Briggs thing gives very convincing results
> when I see friends take it. As you'd expect, I don't believe in astrology.
Yep, same here; I'm always careful to employ the whole "natal horological astrology"
term, though, since there might very well be some subtle things going on in the solar
system that can be expressed in astrological terms. But the sign I was born under?
Hrmph.
> Judgment reserved on the Enneagram.
I'm beginning to think, from my reading, that there are too many Enneagrams to
justify the use of the definite article. There might be a pony in there somewhere,
but there's a whole lot of horseshit. It's a bit like "air, fire, earth and water".
> Do you have theories about other frequent participants? If it comes to that,
> what would you have guessed about me if I hadn't just revealed all?
Nope, not as list participants. "The margin is too small to contain it."
People I've met f2f, I might be willing to take a read on.
I haven't got enough of a baseline for you--but the EP-IJ differences would
seem to suggest some "dynamic tension" might be possible between us.
Have sparks flown on your side? :)
BTW, "fanboy libertarianism", as used by Tim Maroney, might have lost something
in translation.
FYI, a "fanboy" is a stereotype, VERY distinct from a fan, and even more
distinct from a faaaan.
A "fanboy", in its original meaning, is the fat fellow with the uncomfortable,
fat, strident, hair-trigger, poorly-socialized, get-a-life, self-unaware,
occasionally-borderline personality you see not infrequently
at comics conventions. Media examples may be found in abundance.
Many of these creatures espouse hard-line libertarianismish things. There is
crossover into gaming conventions, etc. But it's a strict subset--
Tim's comment does not refer to the body of SF fans in general, neither
"First Fandom", nor the later crops.
-- "Ladies and gentlemen, IT'S A CAR WASH!" -- Hedwig
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:19 MST