urgh, I wouldn't share a sandwich with any of the names you mentioned!
I would be careful in assuming the facade of the famous are real.
But yeah, I get the point!
That means 1% v 1% with 98% pawns ?
I do wonder if the middle type, the Creatives, are better named as Adaptives.
Mind you, as you said, many DynAsses will leave the game - fuck that syndrome. lol
Much to read this weekend, so lemme logoff ;-)
🤣🤣🤣
The list was more based on showing how Dynamic Assertives can be found in many areas; not on whether they are likable or not. And obviously if I say YOU are a Dynamic Assertive, and then you look at those examples... 😆 well, come on, Ralph Nader isn't so bad, even if he's a bit too stiff for me to share a sandwich with. 🤣 And then Gandhi... okay, a bit too guru for my blood. 🤣 Nelson Mandela... too militant! 🤣 Albert Einstein? Would you share a sandwich with Big Al? 🤣
You mean 1% (Dynamic Assertives) vs 0.5% (Dynamic Aggressives)... the rest are not pawns; you also have Knights, Rooks, Queens and Bishops. The Pawns could stretch from 45% - 85% of the players, but there are always two sides. So you will have good Knights and evil Knights, etc.
No, they are the middle Type precisely because they swing from being Adaptive to being Dynamic, back and forth throughout life.
I'd say more that they escape the game because of their enhanced ability for foresight. Some stay and fight until martyrdom. But most know how to move out of danger's way.
ok, so "creative" here means the creative use of all qualities - struck me as an odd choice of word.
maybe Reactives.
There are some interesting Indian websites that expose Gandhi's less than saintly biography. Looks manufactured. Like so many "saints". Einstein refused to become the first PM of Israel, so at least smart enough to avoid becoming a manufactured good. ;-)
Relativity as a physics word was very useful in also promoting relativism as a philosophy. Interesting in modern science public propaganda that the two branches with the least connection to human experiences - quantum mechanics and relativity - have been so heavily pushed for their weirdness, and yet the far more important branch of electromagnetism has very very few popular books.
No, Creatives are the artists of life. It has to do with being incredibly sensitive, as in their senses are more intense than other Life Energies. Creatives know what it is like to be Dynamic, but Dynamics don't know what it's like to be Adaptive, nor do Adaptives understand the world of Dynamics. Creatives know both, and hence the title of their chapter Life's Interpreters.
Reactives are actually an archetype of the generational theory. That would be my generation, Generation X... and the Lost Generation of the Roaring 20s.
Yes, Gandhi had his dark side, and I remember hearing that he was mean towards his wife, unlike what was presented in the movie about his life. I do not believe in Saints, as in the idea that a human being can be seen as all good. And in the Life Energy model, all have an Up Side/Down Side.
Falls in line with the idea that Dynamic Assertives prefer not to take on positions of power, unless they are doing it as part of some cause they are fighting: Nelson Mandela, Ralph Nader, Robert Kennedy... or there is Barack Obama who did it more for ego. And the interesting twist is that it was actually Michelle Obama who is the Dynamic Aggressive in office. Same thing happened with President Jimmy Carter, who was a Dynamic Supportive, with a Dynamic Aggressive wife. You won't make it to that level without the support of Dynamic Aggressives.
So you think electromagnetism would better help us understand human nature? During the 00s, I actually grew tired of always hearing Quantum this, and Quantum that, whenever human nature was the subject. For a time, I was even guilty of this!