# David Bowie's type



## Animal

@*mistakenforstranger* 
I will watch  I'm glad you'll answer because I'm really curious. Been wondering for a while but it just occurred to me to ask 

I'll also answer other posts when I can.. @*Daemonion* I don't see 8 at all, but it takes me time to formulate a case and I'm short on time.. so I'll answer at some point, but I just wanted you to know I saw the post.

Whether he's a 4 or a 3, he could be assertive and still have a 9 fix. That isn't related to 8. 8s and 8 fixers aren't the only type that are assertive. If someone is Sx 4 or any type of 3 (or 7 for that matter), they won't be a pushover.

8 is about lust and emptiness, power and dominance. I don't see that in him.


----------



## _Blackstar_

Animal said:


> @*Daemonion* I don't see 8 at all, but it takes me time to formulate a case and I'm short on time.. so I'll answer at some point, but I just wanted you to know I saw the post.
> 
> Whether he's a 4 or a 3, he could be assertive and still have a 9 fix. That isn't related to 8. 8s and 8 fixers aren't the only type that are assertive. If someone is Sx 4 or any type of 3 (or 7 for that matter), they won't be a pushover.
> 
> 8 is about lust and emptiness, power and dominance. I don't see that in him.


Fair enough, we all have other stuff that's more important than PerC. I look forward to your response. 

I wouldn't suggest for a moment that assertive, or openly aggressive behaviour is limited to type 8. If the Enneagram were so limited it wouldn't be worth using and discussing. Bowie seems to be an 8-fix (in terms of tri-type fixes -- there are so many "fixes" in the Enneagram :tongue:!!!) to me, but, as always, I'm open to a good argument to the contrary. I once considered 4w5 - 7w8 - 9w8 for Bowie, so a 9 fix isn't out of the question, it just seems unlikely based on what I've observed.

Using your terms for 8 -- lust, dominance, emptiness, power, etc. -- I see quite a bit of 8 in Bowie. Namely: lust (there's plenty of it in his music, and though his sexual life wasn't part of the media [apart from his orientation] he was not someone who was ignorant to lust), however, his only focus on dominance seems to be self-dominance, so I will give you that point. I'd argue that, as the weakest of his tritype fixes (4, then 7, then 8), he won't manifest all of the qualities of a pure 8. What I'm looking for is what he has the "most" of -- he has some 8, but even less 9 & 1 for me at least. He writes an awful lot about emptiness (and loneliness), and that ties in with lust, since there is a special someone he could merge with to escape it. However, the need to dominate is absent; you are absolutely right about that. One of the few occasions where he is openly aggressive and attempts to dominate is in his MTV interview on the same's racist broadcasting, but any type will become hostile and impassioned in their speech when fighting for such a moving cause.

This is off-topic, but I'd love to debate your typing of Josh Homme as 9w8 (it ties in loosely because I'm curious about your characterisation of a 9w8, as I observe pure 8 in Homme and tertiary 8 in Bowie. Homme is 100% core 8 to me. Power, lust, domination, emptiness, fragmentation and conquest describe his themes and personality perfectly. He also seeks conflict for the sake of resolution and hates passive people to the extent that he dumped a load of drugs (cocaine, weed or something) on a drug-averse guy's new gear during the SFTD sessions because he was so passive that Josh wanted a reaction from him, and because he wanted to spite him for his passivity... :tongue: His lyrics say it all:

"Spider plays the fool to lure the fly".

But that's another thread. I'd be happy to make a new one to discuss it, or I can post in the Enneagram Musicians thread which you created.


----------



## Animal

Daemonion said:


> But that's another thread. I'd be happy to make a new one to discuss it, or I can post in the Enneagram Musicians thread which you created.


Haha interesting 
Sure! You can do it in either place - I'll comment when I can  
It's easier for me to spout out posts about certain enneatypes or about myself because I've thought about it so much.. analyzing musicians requires me to be in a certain frame of mind.. not too many self-absorbed moods AND my inf Te kicking in, lol.. and also not having too much else to do so I can think straight... so I do it in spurts. But I will definitely be interested in that debate when the frame of mind is right for me. QOTSA is @*Sun Daeva*'s favorite band so he might have some things to say too. Feel free to tag us!


----------



## Daeva

mistakenforstranger said:


> Why am I accused of having a strict view when others also have a strict view of seeing him as a 3? I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing because I truly believe he's a 4 based on everything I know about him. Why is it so impossible to see him as a 4 when he says things like this? Why am I the "stubborn" one when what he says is very line with what we know about Type 4?
> 
> [...]
> 
> I honestly don't know where this view of him as a 3 even comes from because I've never seen anything in his work, his quotes, his presentation, etc. that would even suggest it (besides the quote I posted earlier). Believe me, if there was a reasonable argument for it, I would be just as steadfast in holding to him as a Type 3, but I just don't see it anywhere.


We have seen quotes by Bowie that fit type 4. We have seen quotes by Bowie that fit type 3. This clearly isn't the obvious case you're making it out to be. Your poll also reflects this.

Point after point, _thread after thread_, people have been giving you their reasoning behind their typing of Bowie at 3, and *still* you come out and say that you don't even know where this view of him comes from? Do you know how insulting that is?

... and then you wonder why some see you as stubborn. :dry:


----------



## _Blackstar_

Animal said:


> Haha interesting
> Sure! You can do it in either place - I'll comment when I can
> It's easier for me to spout out posts about certain enneatypes or about myself because I've thought about it so much.. analyzing musicians requires me to be in a certain frame of mind.. not too many self-absorbed moods AND my inf Te kicking in, lol.. and also not having too much else to do so I can think straight... so I do it in spurts. But I will definitely be interested in that debate when the frame of mind is right for me. QOTSA is @*Sun Daeva*'s favorite band so he might have some things to say too. Feel free to tag us!


I know what you mean! Te is a tertiary for me, and the idea of formatting a bunch of arguments is draining -- I'd much rather type a stream of conscience rebuttal or hypothesis sans grammar or unicode, but it is what it is! :tongue:

I think I'll make a thread in the Enneagram thread tomorrow with a poll in the vein of this thread. If there is no interest, I'll post in the thread you've already made popular.

I'll be sure to tag both of you. I'd love to hear @Sun Daeva's thoughts, as J-Ho is my favourite musician/artist too.

I'll stop derailing the thread now! :crazy: This is meant to be about Bowie _after all_!


----------



## _Blackstar_

Sun Daeva said:


> We have seen quotes by Bowie that fit type 4. We have seen quotes by Bowie that fit type 3. This clearly isn't the obvious case you're making it out to be. Your poll also reflects this.
> 
> Point after point, _thread after thread_, people have been giving you their reasoning behind their typing of Bowie at 3, and *still* you come out and say that you don't even know where this view of him comes from? Do you know how insulting that is?
> 
> ... and then you wonder why some see you as stubborn. :dry:



Attributing personal epithets such as "stubborn" or "troll" will get us nowhere. Yes he attacked you, and yes, you attacked him. This is ruining the discussion.

I am of the "Bowie is a 4" camp quite firmly, but I do my best to appreciate your arguments, and I'd like to hear more of the same. I would (quite genuinely) _hate_ to see a thread with so much potential descend into a "he said, she said" debacle.

I agree with you: this isn't the obvious case it seems to be. Myself, ZiggyStardust and Mistakenforstranger are strongly convinced that Bowie is a 4, you and Animal (and MANY others, going by the poll) are convinced that he is a 3. But there's no need to turn the debate into a militant 3 vs 4 affair. I don't want to pacify and dull the debate, only to enliven it and direct it away from personal annoyances. We ought to continue discussing -- I became quite tangential in my original response to Animal, but she took it for what it was and continued the discussion instead of calling me out on my unrelated nonsense.

Since we're at a deadlock, perhaps we should agree on a set of interviews and analyse them, that way we'd at least be using the same source material. Thus far, we've been pulling random quotes and videos, and framing them to suit our agenda. We should both use the same quotes and videos and see where we differ instead of offering a purported global analysis of Bowie, which is really a small collection of quotes from him and videos of him.


----------



## Animal

Daemonion said:


> I became quite tangential in my original response to Animal, but she took it for what it was and continued the discussion instead of calling me out on my unrelated nonsense.


To be fair you haven't had any "unrelated nonsense." You debate with fire. You're passionate. You don't insult anyone by saying there's NO case contrary to yours (as this post proves). And I really appreciate that. @*mistakenforstranger* has been doing this thread after thread, for months on end, so that's why it gets frustrating for both of us. At this point.. I am actually more interested to know why he is so invested in his typing that it ends up becoming so personal and chasing him thread after thread - that is a lot more interesting to me than Bowie's type.  Because I can see that it's a very personal issue for him, and that is of interest to me (and might also shed light on the topic at hand, or it might not, but either way it could at least create some understanding).

I've yelled at him before.. much worse than this. We made up. I still have to answer another PM.. I'm behind on everything. But this is not just limited to this thread; it is indeed insulting to say there's _no_ 3 case and he can't see where it's coming from, when _so many people_ put so much time into their cases.. not only on this thread but on several others. The thing is - it's clearly more than just a debate to him - it seems personal to him, as personal as debating his own type, if not more!! And he reacts in this way that offends other people, who then bite back, and yes it creates a cycle. Most people expect people to be sensitive about their own type but not so much about celebrities, so it can be a bit.. jolting. So I would really love to know why.

Nobody is going to yell at you because you're clearly cool as hell. :kitteh: Regardless of your passion about your own opinion you are open to others. Leave it to an ENFP! I am not always that open minded but my empathy saves me (sometimes, until I get mad..) lol.


----------



## Cracked Actor

Miles Davis, 4w3











> "*I thrive on mistakes.* If I haven't made three good mistakes in a week, then I'm not worth anything. You only learn from mistakes." - David Bowie
































> "I always thought I was intellectual about what I do, but I've come to the realization that I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing half the time." - David Bowie














> "I always had a serious problem with my worth as an artist and with myself as a person as well. *Terrifically low self-esteem. Really, really diabolically low. You wouldn't believe it.*" - David Bowie





> "I was smoking 30 red Marlboros a day and then I went on to the Lights and now I'm smoking 60 of them a day… *I love death, the more of it the better. I think it’s a good thing.*" - David Bowie





> "I realize that so much of what I do is really uncomfortable and rubs people up the wrong way, but I don't know how else to deal with things. It's just *the way I am.*" - David Bowie





> "It makes me so angry that people concentrate on lyrics. *It implies there's no message in the music itself.*" - David Bowie


----------



## Rose for a Heart

Just looking at his quotes I see more 3 than 4


----------



## Kintsugi

I have to admit, this thread made me giggle. 

I am seriously undecided. I'd say 3w4/4w3 are both good guesses. 

I reckon Bowie is getting a right kick out of this, wherever the hell he is.


----------



## Dangerose

Oooh, 4w3 for Jacques Brel makes sense. I'd been assuming 2 but I think disintegration makes more sense...






(No idea about Bowie, can't bring myself to listen to his music, something about it actively bores me which I associate with 3 but actually 4 can do it too)

Was just interested to see the Jacques Brel typing, that makes a lot of sense, enjoying stalking this thread...

edit: his was a useless comment, decided to go watch an interview and give my thoughts, not gonna be valuable but maybe better than just something about Jacques Brel

he is strangely attractive and...unnattractive at the same time, very erm...soft-spoken? don't know what to make of him


* *





Actually he reminds me a LOT of Uwe Kröger who to me seems 6 or 3 (I mean, I think Kröger kinda 'does' David Bowie




also Richmond from The It Crowd












Ok anyways
I can see Four; he seems very drawn in on himself while seeming sorta...dynamic emotionally, idk
He seems really nice but not really Three-nice, not fake-Nine nice at all))
I'm curious why sx is taken for granted with him; he seems a little more sp to me, idk

tried to listen to some music of his but I got too bored


* *





my favorite Bowie-related thing is this sketch


----------



## thissiteisterrible

dead


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Animal said:


> @*mistakenforstranger*
> Why are you so invested in David Bowie's typing?
> 
> I know it's appropriate on this thread but you have brought this up over and over in every thread I've ever been on with you, and constantly harped on it and gone back to it over and over... I wonder, why? Why is it so important to you?
> 
> Just curious


I'll answer this first since I'm losing the will to continue contributing, but honestly, I'm not even sure why I'm so invested in it. I really admire Bowie as an artist, a creative force, and have found solace in his lyrics and quite a few of his songs, but he isn't my favorite artist of all time, or that I'm a die-hard fan, in case I was giving that impression. I believe @*Daemonion* and @*ZiggyStardust* have more of a claim to that. However, it does hurt when I see others not seeing him for who he is, and merely viewing him in terms of success, winning, or achievements because I believe they're missing the totality of his work and what he stood for. It almost feels like I'm "defending his honor" in a way, which sounds crazy to say, and he would probably hate that, but I think anyone who sees him as a 3 is not grasping the whole truth of him. No, that doesn't mean by saying that I can't see him as a 3, I think he's too good to be one, as you were saying in an earlier post. I don't mean that at all, and each type has their own gifts and strengths as well as their weaknesses. 

And it doesn't mean that I'm deliberately insulting anyone because I see no argument for Type 3, but _speaking for myself_, Bowie as a Type 3 has never once occurred to me. Why should that insult anyone? It truly baffles me, and I don't hold this against anyone, that based on what we know about him, and what I and others have put forth so far on him being Type 4, that most people would so easily come to the conclusion of Type 3, and just leave it at that. And as I've looked into it more, I still can't see where people are coming from in seeing him as a 3. Yes, there's 16 people now who think so, but besides you and @*Quernus*, no one has provided any reasons why they believe so. I don't put much stock in the majority opinion (i.e. poll), and knew the poll would favor 3w4, and I'm also not interested in preaching to the choir. I'm not saying anyone is doing that, but that's my personal mentality. Call it stubborn, but I don't claim to not be stubborn, as long as I think I have good reasons for being that way. If someone is able to put forth a good argument why he's a 3, I'd be more than willing to change my opinion. Please do so, if anyone wants to. So far, however, from my view, no one has done that yet in a convincing way. That puts a lot of pressure on people, I know, but think about your own argument before you decide to call me, or even just view me, as stubborn. I'm not offended at all by being called that, but please look at one's self before anyone points the finger the other way.

I think people underestimate the concept of "being true to oneself" in terms of Type 4, and that one's feelings have to always be reflected in the external self. On the contrary, it frees one to be whoever they want to be because you can create your own personal narrative, and yet still remain firmly grounded in who you are. It takes time for 4s for that true self to emerge in the light of day, but unlike 3s, they know exactly who they are. You saw in that video I posted of Lance Armstrong (I'd give him the title most 3 of 3s) and how he says, "I lost myself in all that." 4s may feel lost in the world, but unlike 3s, they never really lose their sense of self, because they're too self-aware, painfully so of their flaws and all, of who they are to ever lose it (but it is possible at the very unhealthy levels and in a way that's different from the other image types). Even if that self ch-ch-changes over time, it's all part of the growing, emerging Identity. Shame keeps them from ever showing the real them to others, but at a certain point, the guard comes down, or they summon the courage, and they let more people in and see that, most likely to their surprise, people love them just for who they are without all the bells and whistles, and that they're good just as they are. I see this all taking place in the main progression of Bowie's career.

Thanks for asking. 

Turn and face the strange. lol


----------



## enneathusiast

@mistakenforstranger

I think it might help explain why people see Bowie as type 3 if you do as @Animal suggested and describe what type 3 is for you. It's like playing a bad game of darts when other people are throwing their opinions out there about why he might be a type 3 with no way of knowing what to aim for that might match how you see type 3. The alternative that's already been tried is for others to describe why he's not type 4 but I don't think that's worked out so well.


----------



## Animal

@*mistakenforstranger*
I really appreciate that you took the time to answer that as honestly as you could even if you didnt' fully know why you were so invested in his typing. But, it makes sense if you feel like he's being misunderstood and you really value him. Also, I know what you mean about everyone being stubborn. Like I said in other posts, we've both reached the end of our rope with arguments that started out theoretical but somehow struck a personal nerve with us throughout the course of posting back and forth here, so I get you on that.

That said, I really, strongly disagree with your view on what 4 is. No matter how many videos of Bowie I watch, I don't think I'll ever see him as a 4 - at least not for the reasons you do - because we simply have a different idea of what makes a 4 a 4. And this time I am not saying this to contest your typing in any way, as you could still be a 4 easily, but just view yourself (and your type) such a romanticized way that you really believe 4 is the "authentic" type despite it being part of the _image triad_. So just to be clear, this is a debate on your views about the type, not at all a personal attack on your self typing or your character. I am going to share my thoughts in a separate post a little later.

Also, I'd love to hear your response to what @enneathusiast asked, about your views on 3.


----------



## Daeva

mistakenforstranger said:


> Yes, there's 16 people now who think so, but besides you and @*Quernus*, no one has provided any reasons why they believe so.


As I said before, again and again, you're not willing to hear reasons that don't match your criteria of how to type. This however, does not mean reasons haven't been given. All it means is that you choose to ignore reasoning at your own convenience.

And yes, this _is insulting_.


----------



## Animal

*What it Means to be an Image Type*

This is not 4 on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin....


mistakenforstranger said:


> I think people underestimate the concept of "being true to oneself" in terms of Type 4, and that one's feelings have to always be reflected in the external self.


4 is, in fact, an image type. What that means is that there's an image they feel compelled to reflect in the external self. The specific image might manifest in a myriad of ways. Like I've said before, I dress expressively. My 4w5 Sp/So friend looks like a classy, church-going 1 at a glance. Another 4 friend is a fitness trainer, and fits right in with them, though she's covered in tattoos, but that's pretty much the norm in her circle, lol. If you had a conversation with any of us on the street, the first thing running through your head probably wouldn't be "Weird!! What a weird, original, authentic person!" In most cases, any one of us could just have a normal conversation.

That said, the 4s identity _does have to be reflected in the external self_. That is what makes an image type. Period. 2, 3, and 4 all have a self-image, which must be reflected in the external self.

The self-image of a person of any of these types will differ drastically depending on their values, aesthetic, culture, personal taste, so many other factors; not to mention wings, fixes and instinct; though I think still, two 4s with matching tritypes and instincts could have completely different taste for unrelated reasons. The fact that the church-going 4 I know happens to be 1 and 6 fixed might make for a laugh, but if I were raised in her family, instead of being raised by a famous rockstar, I might have been more that way. We will never know.

But, there is still an image that needs to be reflected. 

To sum up what that image has to be: for 2s, it's an image that they consider lovable (whether it be as an attractive seductive person or an all-giving and all-caring parent or friend); someone you NEED and can't walk away from. 2s need to be loved, and some of them will become exactly what the other person needs in a specific scenario, while others will elicit love by being very honest and open about their own feelings (this is actually much more common and consistent with 2s). They bare their own hearts so that you realize how much they need you, how important you are, how nobody will ever love you the way they do. Of course, Sx2s , or other 2s, can also learn to play seduction games, play "hard to get," or whatever it takes to be THE MOST desirable, but many of them have a compulsion to just bare their souls in order to make you stay around and realize how much you are loved and needed, which they assume will be of paramount importance since it is so important _to them_ (whether you're their friend, mother, father, sibling, or lover). However, it needs to be understood that as loving and real as these feelings may be, it is also an image. Because they are giving love in order to get love. So in order to grow, a 2 needs to grow to 4 by developing an identity that is independent of anyone else, so they can love JUST for the sake of loving, and not for the sake of having a sense of self or fulfilling their self image as someone who is loved and loving.

For 3s, it's an image that they feel would be something that is admirable valued. This image _might easily include being unique_, especially among musicians, because being unique is very valued by the external world in the music industry. Also, I will mention: 3s need to be admirable and valued does not entirely exclude being true to themselves, in all cases. 3s can have a very firm idea of what they want to be loved and valued for, in a very specific field, style, or type of expression. It's just, they will be alert to how to present that expression or style in such a way that it stands out, that nobody can compare, that it's different, the best, the champion of that style, etc. They do not necessarily abandon a centralized sense of who they are. Some 3s do have a consistent or expressive personal style, goal, etc. But how they present it, is in a way that they know others will admire and value. Because that is what they need to fulfill their image compulsion. When unhealthy, a 3 will become a "human doing," fulfilling their constructed image, being admired etc, but never stopping to wonder WHY. _Why_ do they have a "repulsive need to be more than human?"  _Why_ do they need to keep looking forward? Why can't they just be ok with themselves? When they grow to 6, they come to terms with their real needs - which are to be valued and admired - and they understand that they can be valued and admired simply because they exist; that they can be on equal terms with others. Six is a very skeptical type, always poking holes in what is real and what isn't, inside themselves as well as in the external world. I would even go so far as to say when it comes to authenticity about the self, _type 6 is the most authentic type_. Because if you think about it, 3 is the center of the image triad, who is most prone to deceive themselves into believing they are their image. Six is the type they grow to, and integration in enneagram is something that our ego-structure resists with all its might. So why would a 3 grow to 6? It's because they become skeptical about their need to be valued, their need to be admired, the image constructs they build to achieve that, etc. They start wondering, is this REALLY going to fulfill me? What do I really want? Is admiration enough, or do I want intimacy and love? Is it enough to stand out on my own and be amazing, or do I want to be part of something involving others? That growth is to 6, because it forces them to be skeptical about their image... thus, the virtue of _honesty_.

Now what about 4. We have two types, 2 and 3, in the image triad, who feel a need to have a certain image - for 2s, one that is lovable. And for 3s, one that is admirable. Would you really claim that 4, as the third image type (right next to 3) has no need to portray an image? That is absolutely wrong, and basically discards the very basis of the enneagram theory and what it means to be an image type.

4 also has a need to portray an image - an image of their authentic self. The question is: what is the authentic self? This is where the "personal narrative" and "search for origin" comes in. Also, the metaphorical "hall of mirrors." 4s will seek inside forever and ever, trying to find who they really are. What is their origin, what is their true self? They will _construct an image _- let me say that again - _construct an image_ - based on their perceived "Flawed self" (which is an image) and the gap between that and their "ideal self" (which is another image). They may fluctuate in terms of presenting their flawed self or their ideal self, though the two are often very intermingled, because a 4's ideal self is very much wrapped up in the idea of an _authentic_ image. 4s have a strong need to be seen as authentic. Again, as @*Quernus* and so many others have said on this forum - _*4s need to be seen as authentic.*_ 

So, the fact that 4s need to be seen, shows they are an image type. They are not authentic, per se, as much as they construct a narrative, an origin story, a flawed self image, and need to show it to the world. So let me grab this quote again....



mistakenforstranger said:


> I think people underestimate the concept of "being true to oneself" in terms of Type 4, and that one's feelings have to always be reflected in the external self.


Only half true. Like any human being, a 4 will hide the feelings that are shameful, the parts of their image that DON'T line up with their "authentic image" (which is just laughable because if it's an image or a self-image, rather than "all of you," it's not authentic)... their "flawed self image" might include the idea of being weird, bizarre, undesirable (like in the case of Marilyn Manson) and therefore he might be embarrassed to be seen in public in a business suit, or something like that (I just made that up, but it's that kind of thing). They will feel embarrassed to be seen in a GOOD or BETTER light, even, if it doesn't line up with the "self-image" (which is usually heavily weighing on the FLAWED self image) that they wish to portray. The flawed self image is attractive to 4s because it feels more authentic, more real, than the idealized self image - which they feel they have to earn, but they're not quite enough. So unlike a 3, who can identify with their goals and ideals and show it to the world, or a 2, who can identify with their beauty and goodness and show it to the world, a 4 will often identify with their pain, their shortcomings, their flaws, their inadequacies, and show this to the world - even if the way they show it is wrapped up in an interesting package that is attractive in some way. Some 4s' inadequacy might be "there's nothing special about me" and so they might dress perfectly normally, another 4's inadequacy might be "I'm not classy" so they might dress messy, etc. But in some way, the 4 will show parts of their flawed self image. They will hide parts of themselves too out of shame, so this is true, but it's incorrect to say they hide their true feelings until those eventually come to light. They show whatever true feelings happen to fit the "authentic self-image" that they wish to portray, when unhealthy. When healthy, they stop focusing so much on what they are showing and whether it's authentic, and instead, allow themselves to simply embody their sense of being, to DO things, to take action on their ideals, to embody the ideal self in ways, to bring their entirety - and not just their flawed self-image - to the forefront and use their life as a chance to gain experience, act on their ideals, grow and become. The growth to 1 is about right action - and for 4s, this comes from embodying the "right" ideals that they have (whether it be about values or about their presentation) and not being so fixated on the idea of the "flawed self image" as the "true self" that they need to show others in order to be seen as _real_. They stop obsessing so much, when integrated, about looking inside to identify their origin and authentic image and obsessing over their presentation about what they're showing (in terms of their authentic image), and instead focus on what they're doing, what they're becoming, what they're embodying; right action. 

To be clear, integration doesn't mean you become the next type, it means you _integrate_ aspects of that type into your core - so all of these integrations are presented in the most ideal way. It is never quite like that for long; one always returns to their core, and staying aware is hard work. For image types, being self-aware can be difficult, even though for 4s and 3w4s, they spend a lot of their time looking inward and thinking about who they are and how they will present it. It is difficult because image types are built to lose themselves in their image, and mistake one for the other; to mistake the flawed self as the authentic self or mistake their need to be seen as authentic as actually being real (4), to mistake the admirable self as the real self or mistake their need to be admired as "what needs to be done" (3), to mistake the loving and giving self as the real self or mistake their need to be loved as real love (2).

Indeed - showing your feelings is a growth for anyone. Showing your true, honest human feelings is vulnerability. And for any type - absolutely any type - genuine vulnerability is a growth. For a 2, for example, it may be a growth to say "I need you" instead of, in essence "you need me." It may be an even bigger growth to say "I need someone to love me in order to feel like I exist at all." That would be genuine vulnerability for a 2. For a 3, vulnerability would be saying "I need to be admired, but I don't really care about all these things I do to be admired - yet I can't stop doing them because if I am not admired, I feel like nobody." For a 4, vulnerability would be saying "I need to be seen as authentic - to the point where I tell myself I don't care what other people think, that I'm just honest, that I'm truly authentic - even though part of me knows that I need to be seen in a very specific way, which makes the whole thing inauthentic and constructed." (I can't tell you how sick I feel writing that last sentence.. I am going to go jump off a bridge now. :ninja: )

Hiding their "feelings" is ... human. Everyone hides what's most vulnerable. But image types do not hide their image. And for 4s, the authentic self-image is exactly what they present. This is often heavily tied into their feelings, specifically their negative feelings - so many 4s _do_ show those, whether or not they explain them in words.

*Deep breath* I will continue to deconstruct the rest of your post in another post but I need to pour cold water on my face, lol.


----------



## Animal

mistakenforstranger said:


> I think people underestimate the concept of "being true to oneself" in terms of Type 4, and that one's feelings have to always be reflected in the external self.


Alright - I delved deeply into my protest in the last post, where I explained what it means to be an image type. So, to sum it up - image types reflect their image in their external presentation. This happens because of - for 2, the need to be loved or else they feel like they don't exist or are inherently unlovable; for 3, the need to be admired or else they feel like they don't exist or are "nobody;" for 4, the need to be perceived as authentic or else they feel like they are "insignificant" and without an identity, which feels like not existing at all. 

The idea of "you don't exist unless you have an identity" - let me elaborate on that. Everyone has an identity. Everyone needs to be seen for who they are. However, all of the types reside within all of us (as @*enneathusiast* often explains, though I won't claim to understand his model in full, I can only speak of mine). So yes, 4s have a need to be seen for who they are - just like everyone else. But for 4, this is the deepest wound. This is why when anyone feels unseen for who they truly are, they will be hurt, sad etc, but 4's ego construct exists as a method to avoid this happening (and yet, paradoxically bringing EXACTLY that on themselves, just like every type has a paradox in which they enact their deepest fear by trying compulsively and egoically to avoid it).

4s need, on such a deep level, to be seen for who they are, that they will seek who they are and attempt to show it to the world - whether it be a few people or the whole world is a personal matter. But that is what they wish to portray, to avoid being unseen. Yet, since they are portraying something, rather than simply existing, the truth of them remains unseen. By embodying a separate, personal identity, they are cutting themselves off from the commonalities that all people share, which makes them less empathetic and less able to be seen by others. This is why art feels so good to some 4s (or really to anyone); they reveal their personal feelings, and others relate to it, thus the 4's humanity is "seen." Yet that's not enough. They need to be seen not as an artist or a muse, but simply as a human. So they show their flaws, their scars, their sadness, their despair, their anger, their feelings of being "less than," their vanity, their inadequacy compared to someone else, their constant comparing, their needs, their lack of needs, their separateness, whatever (of course which specific things they show will vary from 4 to 4 ) - all of this is in an attempt to be seen as REAL so that they can feel SEEN.... but the more they SHOW things the less likely it is that they will be presenting themselves bare, just as they are. The more they portray what's going on IN THEMSELVES, the less likely they are to listen to others; to connect. That is the sad truth of it, so the 4 remains unseen.



> Lost Childhood Messages
> 
> 
> Type One: You are good.
> Type Two: You are wanted.
> Type Three: You are loved for yourself.
> Type Four: You are seen for who you are.
> Type Five: Your needs are not a problem.
> Type Six: You are safe.
> Type Seven: You will be taken care of.
> Type Eight: You will not be betrayed.
> Type Nine: Your presence matters.


Every type brings about their deepest fears in this way. That is the paradox of the ego and why it is helpful to understand the mechanisms that work within you, so that you can _use them_ toward their greatest potential, rather than being used _by_ these mechanisms to your demise.

So, do you see the flaw in your reasoning? Showing their "feelings" especially negative ones - is exactly what 4s do in order to exist. That is actually their big problem in life. If they would stop focusing on defining themselves at all, which includes trying to be authentic and thus defining themselves by negative feelings, then they would be able to actually listen to others, share positive moments, embody themselves in entirety, pursue their ideals, take the "right action," etc.



> On the contrary, it frees one to be whoever they want to be because you can create your own personal narrative, and yet still remain firmly grounded in who you are.


Being grounded in who you TRULY are in the spiritual sense requires tremendous self work. But if we are going to talk about types who are grounded in who they are, we must discuss any type except for image types. Image types are "grounded" in who they want to present, or rather, who they feel they NEED to present in order to even feel like they exist at all. Type 3 - the center of the image triad - needs to be understood in order to understand the whole image triad. And the dichotomy with 3 is self-deceit and honesty. An image type must learn first of all to see through THEIR OWN self image. "Who they are" is buried deep within it. However, I also think it's important for other types to acknowledge that being an image type is not the same as being fake or deceitful in the colloquial sense. Anyone can be fake or deceitful. An image type's image, their use of image, their constructed image - is part of who they really are, so if you are going to love an image type, you need to understand firstly that their image is real in the sense that it is part of how they naturally operate (and that being lost in image and shame is no worse than being lost in fear or rage, etc).. their image is their primary mode used to counter their deepest fear, but everyone has an image, and everyone uses an image. Image types tend to be, actually, LESS conscious of this in a way. An image type (including a 4) may feel excited by the idea that "You can be whatever you want to be" although 4s will usually also feel like they would be "unreal" if they became something too different from what they feel is their origin or their authentic self. But 4s will still feel like they can present themselves in a way that would generate being noticed, being admired for 'authenticity,' being seen in some way. Image is a tool. But image also "uses" image types in the sense that they cannot always realize the difference between their image and their need for it; and can believe they are their self-image. This is why it's nearly impossible for 4s to let go of the notion that they are 'flawed' and there is 'something wrong with them' (though this is definitely just part of the human condition, it is pronounced as part of the 4's self-image since they are seeking what is most real about them, and trying to figure out the source of their separateness from everyone else, and why they feel so unseen and like they can't connect the way others do).



> It takes time for 4s for that true self to emerge in the light of day, but unlike 3s, they know exactly who they are.


I think I've covered this already. 4s "emerge to the light of day" by using their self-expression or their self-image for good, taking action etc; but their idea of their "authentic self" (which includes their flawed self image and negative feelings) does not take time to emerge to the light of day - it is, in fact, at the forefront, because it is their image and it is what makes them an image type, to have a need to be SEEN that way, which runs so deep that they actually show it compulsively. As for the "they know exactly who they are" part - I covered that too. Image types are confused about who they are; they lose who they are in their image or presentation of who they are. Once they understand that, they can begin to accept that part of who they are is their image and the shame that causes them to use their image. However, it is not automatic to do so, and requires self-work. 4s ARE, more than the other image types, internally focused - so they spend their lives trying to figure out who they really are in order to have something significant to show which will appear authentic, and also feel authentic to them. So in that sense they are less willing than 2s or 3s to abandon their sense of "origin" or self-image in order to become something "valuable" or "lovable" - what they need is significance - which includes meaning, authenticity, something personal that they feel comes from within. So their image will indeed often appear more about "who they are," but that does not mean they know who they are. Someone who doesn't try to _be seen_ for who they are is more likely to present something closer to who they naturally are. As for knowing, I think knowing who you are is actually dependent on self-work for all types, equally so for image types. It's simply maturity, and not type related, though an immature 4 will indeed take a lot of pride in knowing who they are more than other people do, being more true to themselves, more authentic etc (I used to be like this).. so it is something a 4 might come to believe about themselves even though it's entirely false. (I will never stop seeing other people as inauthentic, fake etc - I just have to remind myself that I have these aspects too, and that actually allows me to connect to them rather than feel so different from them. Trust me this was very hard for me; hence why I mistyped a few times.)




> You saw in that video I posted of Lance Armstrong (I'd give him the title most 3 of 3s) and how he says, "I lost myself in all that." 4s may feel lost in the world, but unlike 3s, they never really lose their sense of self, because they're too self-aware, painfully so of their flaws and all, of who they are to ever lose it (but it is possible at the very unhealthy levels and in a way that's different from the other image types).


Again, I covered this. Losing who you are is human. 4s can lose themselves as well. So can 5s, etc. 4s will cling so tightly to their _idea of who they are_ that they will lose _who they really are_: human, connected, all-is-one, sharing a common origin with everyone.

It is strong of Armstrong to admit he lost himself in something. It would be strong of anyone; but 3s are amazing at seeing through these things when they are mature. Hence the virtue "honesty." They are an attachment type, so when they do see their humanity, it comes out in a very honest, human, connected way, something that many people can relate to. 4s are a frustration/idealist type, so their sense of who they are can be buried in ideals.. (flawed self image is tied with the ideal of "authenticity" or "origin," ideal self image is an ideal they can never reach, authenticity is an ideal, etc etc etc)...



> Even if that self ch-ch-changes over time, it's all part of the growing, emerging Identity.


4s need to realize this. They need to learn NOT to cling to their sense of who they "really are," complete with their origin story, their flaws that they've always had since childhood, their flawed self image, their separate existence, etc. They need to allow themselves to change, even to COMPLETELY change and reinvent themselves if it is an honest result of their experience. They need to stop looking backwards. David Bowie, or anyone who is comfortable with reinventing themselves that way - is arguably being more honest since we always grow and change; but they are not struggling whatsoever with 4s' issue of clinging to the past, in terms of their origin, their personal narrative of their life-long suffering, etc. Even a healthy 4 will still have these "ideals" (or flawed ideals) as part of their sense of self and right action. Unless you are going to argue that in order to grow, you shed your type altogether - but that would be a whole other conversation, because in that sense David Bowie and the likes of him would be beyond 4, beyond type; he would be something else altogether, so it's not worth debating his core anymore.



> Shame keeps them from ever showing the real them to others, but at a certain point, the guard comes down, or they summon the courage, and they let more people in and see that, most likely to their surprise, people love them just for who they are without all the bells and whistles, and that they're good just as they are.


This is actually much more like an integration from 3 to 6, if not 6 itself. 6's vice is fear, but that does not necessarily mean they are afraid of everything in the world. They are often, also, afraid to show who they are. It takes _courage_ for sixes to show who they are. However they are the most skeptical type, so they are most likely to have poked holes in who they are all their life and to have a very firm grasp on the lies they tell themselves, the lies they tell others, the images they present (line to 3), the things they really feel, the truth about themselves etc. As the most skeptical type they have questioned all these things, which is why it's a growth for 3s to go to 6 and poke holes in their own image. The 6, however, being so aware of who they are, might not show it. Because they are still fear-focused types. And showing who you are makes you vulnerable. Sixes are very conscious of their vulnerability, though they also have the holy idea of 'strength,' so they try to "stay strong" by taking care of these problems and not falling apart from all the truths they see about themselves. For them, it takes courage to show who they are, despite knowing who they are. For 3s and 4s, it takes strength and courage to even understand who they really are, and to weed that apart from their image. It is a bit confusing with 4s because part of the image IS the need to be authentic and seek who they really are, so those aspects will still be there, but they are riddled with ideals and stories that the 4 tells themselves about who they are, precisely because of the focus on who they are and being seen for it. For 6, their focus is fear and strength, protecting themselves. So they have a very STRONG sense of skepticism and thus, their REAL identity. When they go to 3, they're pretty aware of what they're doing, though the very unhealthy sixes WILL start to lose sight of who they are as well - but it will happen in this scattered way, like they become something else momentarily, then see through it, then feel conflicted about what they're showing vs. what they feel etc. What you're describing here is something more along the 3 and 6 line. And you even used the word courage, though I am not nitpicking words, but that is exactly what it requires for 6s to show who they are... and six is the integration line from 3, so you could say that, for Lance Armstrong to say "I lost myself" and poke holes in his own lies, takes courage also. I am not saying 4s don't need to have courage though. It takes a lot of courage for me to write posts like this and then display my type label, though I am not trying to paint myself as someone fully courageous or strong. It's just a huge growth for me, though I still have a lot more growing to do.

By the way, on the topic of sixes and strength, there is a great thread here by @SheWolf :

http://personalitycafe.com/type-6-forum-loyalist/865450-6s-strength.html

Not many have answered it yet, but I am watching it because I love seeing how sixes approach this. My best friend is also a six so I've discussed it with her a lot. And so is my brother. But it's still not the same for me to talk about it, as it is for sixes themselves to discuss it - so there you have it. 



> Thanks for asking.
> 
> Turn and face the strange. lol


Haha. No problem; thanks for answering! Curious what you think about all this.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

mistakenforstranger said:


> No, that doesn't mean by saying that I can't see him as a 3, I think he's too good to be one, as you were saying in an earlier post. I don't mean that at all, and each type has their own gifts and strengths as well as their weaknesses.


But I wonder if you underestimate how meaningful a 3's concerns can be, from their point of view? Not quite sure how to word this, so throwing this out for now...


----------



## Animal

So now..
@Daemonion @mistakenforstranger or whoever else...

To bring this back to Bowie...

The question would not be whether or not he's authentic. Nor would it be whether his "ch..ch..changes" are authentic.

The question would be - what does authenticity mean for him? Is it the 3's virtue of honesty, or the 4's virtue of equanimity? Does he grow by having the courage to poke holes in his own image and need for success, or does he grow by embodying the 'right action' that it takes in order to embody his ideal self? In what manner does he shed his image?

If you don't see an image at all, and truly see him as "authentic" - well first of all I'd argue you are not seeing him as a human, because nobody is completely authentic without self work. But if you don't think that image issues are central to him, then perhaps consider another triad.

But if the argument is between 3 and 4, we need to think about _how_ he is authentic, and _how_ he is inauthentic. _Why_ he is authentic, and _why_ he is inauthentic. Rather than _whether_ he is authentic or not; because, as I explained in my two long tirades, image issues belong to the whole image triad, and losing yourself in your image is not exclusive to 3. The nature of the image and the deep fear it compensates for, is what differentiates 4 and 3. Also, how you grow out of it, and how you construct it.


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Daemonion said:


> @*mistakenforstranger* raised an excellent point and a very valid comparison in Lady Gaga. Bowie was using himself as a canvas in order to play out the conflict of the 4's image-based personality. This again reminds of (4w3) Oscar Wilde: "To become a work of art is the object of the living". He also encapsulates the Bowie/Gaga difference: "One should either be a work of art [Bowie], or wear a work of art [Gaga]." Bowie was obsessed with art and made everything about himself a work of art -- appearance, music, writing, painting, etc. This is _ars gratia artis_, it makes sense to me that he would want to detach and interpret himself to ensure that it was good art that he was making.


Thank you for acknowledging this, and yes, I do think Gaga is a 3w4, so she's a good point of comparison. Here's her views on fame, for instance:

*"In the book of Gaga, fame is in your heart, fame is there to comfort you, to bring you self-confidence and worth whenever you need it."

"I am focused on the work. I am constantly creating. I am a busy girl. I live and breathe my work. I love what I do. I believe in the message. There's no stopping. I didn't create the fame, the fame created me."*

And notice how much she is focused on her career and ambitions rather than the artistic expression. Also, notice how she's using externally valuable markers, like Grammys or hits, to prove her worth:

*"Some women choose to follow men, and some women choose to follow their dreams. If you're wondering which way to go, remember that your career will never wake up and tell you that it doesn't love you anymore."

"I had a boyfriend who told me I’d never succeed, never be nominated for a Grammy, never have a hit song, and that he hoped I’d fail. I said to him, ‘Someday, when we’re not together, you won’t be able to order a cup of coffee at the fucking deli without hearing or seeing me."

"In my show I announce, ‘People say Lady Gaga is a lie, and they are right. I am a lie. And every day I kill to make it true."

"I used to walk down the street like I was a fucking star... I want people to walk around delusional about how great they can be - and then to fight so hard for it every day that the lie becomes the truth."

“I've always been famous, it's just no one knew it yet.”

"I had this dream, and I really wanted to be a star. And I was almost a monster in the way that I was really fearless with my ambitions."

"Well, in order for me to be successful... In order to be a great artist - musician, actor, painter, whatever - you must be able to be private in public at all times."

"I'm not real. I'm theatre."*

She even expresses the 3's passion:

*"Vanity can create a very cruel space for you if you don't know how to manage it."*

And this is representative of a 3's growth:

*"What I've learned is that you really don't need to be a celebrity or have money or have the paparazzi following you around to be famous."*

And 3's integration to 6:

*"I actually don't want a throne at all, because I don't view myself as a queen; I view myself as one of my fans."*

Now here's Bowie on fame, as we posted before:

*"Fame itself… doesn’t really afford you anything more than a good seat in a restaurant.”

"Fame can take interesting men and thrust mediocrity upon them."*

4's integration to 1 because it's less of a focus on the self, but connection with others, moving outside one's self, and there's even a concern with ethics:

*"I suppose for me as an artist it wasn't always just about expressing my work; I really wanted, more than anything else, to contribute in some way to the culture that I was living in. It just seemed like a challenge to move it a little bit towards the way I thought it might be interesting to go."

"The humanists' replacement for religion: work really hard and somehow you'll either save yourself or you'll be immortal. Of course, that's a total joke, and our progress is nothing. There may be progress in technology but there's no ethical progress whatsoever."

"Music has given me over 40 years of extraordinary experiences. I can't say that life's pains or more tragic episodes have been diminished because of it. But it's allowed me so many moments of companionship when I've been lonely and a sublime means of communication when I wanted to touch people. It's been both my doorway of perception and the house that I live in. I only hope that it embraces you with the same lusty life force that it graciously offered me."*

Growth for a 4. Notice how he's focused on his identity ("I didn't think that was part of my makeup") throughout:

*"I'm very at ease, and I like it. I never thought I would be such a family-oriented guy; I didn't think that was part of my makeup. But somebody said that as you get older you become the person you always should have been, and I feel that's happening to me. I'm rather surprised at who I am, because I'm actually like my dad!"*

And Bowie on Holy Origin:

*"Searching for music is like searching for God. They're very similar. There's an effort to reclaim the unmentionable, the unsayable, the unseeable, the unspeakable, all those things, comes into being a composer and to writing music and to searching for notes and pieces of musical information that don't exist."*

Also, compare Gaga's song "Fashion!" with Bowie's song "Fashion". Two very different outlooks, and she basically ripped him off.








> Fashion!
> Looking good and feeling fine [x3]
> Slay, Slay
> Looking good and feeling fine [x3]
> 
> Fashion!
> Step into the room
> Like it's a catwalk
> Fashion!
> Singing to the tune
> Just to keep them talking
> Fashion!
> Walk into the light
> Display your diamonds and pearls in mine
> Fashion!
> Married to the night
> I own the world, we own the world
> 
> Look at me now!
> I feel on top of the world in my Fashion!
> Look at me now!
> I feel on top of the world in my Fashion
> Looking good and feeling fine [x3]
> Slay, slay
> Looking good and feeling fine [x3]
> Slay, slay
> 
> You've got company
> Make sure you look your best
> Fashion!
> Make up on your face
> A new designer dress
> Fashion!
> There's a life on Mars
> Where the couture is beyond, beyond
> Fashion!
> Married to the stars!
> I own the world, we own the world!
> 
> Look at me now!
> Like we're on top of the world in my Fashion!
> Look at me now!
> Like we're on top of the world in my Fashion!
> Looking good and feeling fine [x3]
> Slay, slay
> Looking good and feeling fine [x3]
> Slay, slay
> 
> I take it off, I put it on
> I feel alive, when I transform
> But this love's not material
> Now take it in, and turn me on
> Zip me up, it can't be wrong
> Cause your new look's ethereal
> Looking good, and feeling fine [x6]
> 
> Je me sens
> Fashion!
> Donnez moi Christian Louboutins
> Fashion!
> Le monde est témoin
> C'est la vie en
> Fashion!
> Je suis en haute couture en
> Fashion!
> Fashion, fashion! [x4]









> There's a brand new dance
> but I don't know its name
> That people from bad homes
> do again and again
> It's big and it's bland
> full of tension and fear
> They do it over there but we don't do it here
> 
> Fashion! Turn to the left
> Fashion! Turn to the right
> Oooh, fashion!
> We are the goon squad
> and we're coming to town
> Beep-beep
> Beep-beep
> 
> Listen to me - don't listen to me
> Talk to me - don't talk to me
> Dance with me - don't dance with me, no
> Beep-beep
> 
> There's a brand new talk,
> but it's not very clear
> That people from good homes
> are talking this year
> It's loud and tasteless
> and I've heard it before
> You shout it while you're dancing
> on the whole dance floor
> Oh bop, fashion
> 
> Listen to me - don't listen to me
> Talk to me - don't talk to me
> Dance with me - don't dance with me, no
> Beep-beep
> Beep-beep


And last, here's Gaga song:








> I live for the applause, applause, applause
> I live for the applause-plause, live for the applause-plause
> Live for the way that you cheer and scream for me
> The applause, applause, applause


And what she's says about its meaning:

*"I realized it was the applause of the fans that really kept me going. Because I would be ready to go onstage and just be crying hysterically not understanding even how I was feeling. I was feeling very dizzy, I had a lot of vertigo, I had pain but it's like fuck if I know what hurts the most because I'd been on tour for a year. But I didn't want to let them down and I just couldn't cancel because the thought of leaving 50,000 kids in the arena just broke my heart. So I went out every night and I played and I played and I played until I couldn't walk one night."*

And what did Bowie say?


----------



## BelladonnaPoe

Animal said:


> A few questions -
> 
> How did you come to this understanding about the types? I have never seen anything like this in any textbook, so I wonder if we are studying the same enneagram. Which authors have you read? Would you claim this is a good sum-up of their views?
> 
> What do you make of the sin of envy?
> 
> Also, do you disagree with what I wrote here? And if so can you explain what you disagree with and why?
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/enneagra.../864393-david-bowies-type-8.html#post28816082
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/enneagra.../864393-david-bowies-type-8.html#post28816690



To answer your first round of questions, I've read almost all of the information on the Enneagram that is available on the internet, which, I believe include the Fauvres, Fitzel, Riso-Hudson, and Palmer. I think they are typical authors in this topic. I've absorbed a lot of their understandings, but one of the things that I strive to do is look at everything from a different perspective. Many of the things that I end up believing about personality types comes from personal experience and understanding. I've absorbed the authors' understandings and have boiled them down to a form of understanding for myself, if that makes any sense.

Basically, I have added a personal touch to my understanding of the types. 

I should give you a little bit of background of myself, so you can better understand where this is coming from. In college, I was an English major and the main aspect of that field is analysis and developing an understanding of people and their forms of expression through text. (You can understand a person so much more through their writing, it isn't even funny.) I feel like this form of analysis can be very easily transferred into understanding the Enneagram and other types of personality typing. One of the things that I don't always like to do is to take a textbook as law (it pisses my teachers off sometimes). Like interpretations of literature, there can be many different and unique ways to understanding a person's persona or personality.

Anyway, my understanding of the difference between 3s and 4s is largely through a synthesis between my knowledge of the text book understanding and personal experience and interpretation. This might not be the most acceptable way of analyzing the Enneagram, but that is generally how I end up approaching it.

To be completely honest with you, I think it is short-changing 2s, 3s and 4s to call them "image types" in this way. They are heart types first. They are defined by their emotions and inner feelings and a need to express them in some way. This is where image comes in. In my experience as a 5 being friends with a 4 and other heart centers, I can say definitively that there is a specific kind of language when it comes to emotion that the heart centers speak that other types do not understand in anyway. However, they still need a way to express themselves and their needs to others. Therefore, the feeling types use image as a vehicle to express themselves in a way that others will understand and appreciate. Like you have outlined in your previous posts, 2s want to be loved, 3s want to be admired and 4s want to be authentic. 

Moreover, I would agree with your posts to a certain extent. I believe that your understanding of the heart types is very thorough, well informed and extensive. However, I think you focus very much on the superficial image of the types a lot. When I say 'superficial' what I mean is the physical image. You can learn quite a bit about a person from how they present themselves, but I believe that the clearest form of expression is writing. Reading someone's writing is the closest you will ever get to reading their mind. 

For the purposes of this forum, I think when it comes to interpreting David Bowie's type, it is important to look at his writing and his image, his writing being his song lyrics. Most of them drip with a need for expressing emotional clarity. This need for emotional clarity is directly related to a 4's need for understanding their own emotions and their need for acceptance from others. Bowie uses his image to explore the many facets of his personality, searching for the authentic him and trying to express this to the audience, looking for acceptance of these many facets. This is where my belief of him being a 4-3 comes from.

3s are focused more on image as expressing who they want other people to think they are. They present themselves in a very specific and controlled manner and surround themselves with items that play into their personal image, believing that it will eventually reflect themselves. If you read some of the lyrics of Taylor Swift's songs, she is very much caught up on her prestige and image and her personal success. his can be seen easily in her song, _Style_. There is a lack of real awareness in her lyrics, but also a very honed in understanding of detail in them as well, which plays into the 3 being "so emotional that they are not" trait. 

When it comes to your envy question, I find that I'm not completely understand exactly what you are asking of me. Are you asking my opinion of it in general or how it pertains to the heart centers?

I hope that I have answered your questions to satisfaction and that it helps with your understanding (god I've used that word a lot, haven't I?) of my perspective more. If you ever have any other questions, please feel free to ask. 

Sorry about the length of this post, by the way...


----------



## Animal

BelladonnaPoe said:


> To answer your first round of questions, I've read almost all of the information on the Enneagram that is available on the internet, which, I believe include the Fauvres, Fitzel, Riso-Hudson, and Palmer. I think they are typical authors in this topic. I've absorbed a lot of their understandings, but one of the things that I strive to do is look at everything from a different perspective. Many of the things that I end up believing about personality types comes from personal experience and understanding. I've absorbed the authors' understandings and have boiled them down to a form of understanding for myself, if that makes any sense.


By contrast, I own (and have read cover to cover) 3 books by Naranjo, 2 books by Maitri, 1 by Palmer, 1 by Ichazo, 1 by Beatrice Chestnut, the Fauvre's manual, 3 books by R&H. I have also studied (online) Condon, Rhodes and a few other authors, as well as interacted directly with Condon, the Fauvres and a handful of other enneagram specialists on other forums. I would never be so bold as to claim I "absorbed" an author's understanding based on a few watered-down sites on the internet, when they have written so many long books. That is quite a bold statement.



> I should give you a little bit of background of myself, so you can better understand where this is coming from. In college, I was an English major and the main aspect of that field is analysis and developing an understanding of people and their forms of expression through text. (You can understand a person so much more through their writing, it isn't even funny.) I feel like this form of analysis can be very easily transferred into understanding the Enneagram and other types of personality typing. One of the things that I don't always like to do is to take a textbook as law (it pisses my teachers off sometimes). Like interpretations of literature, there can be many different and unique ways to understanding a person's persona or personality.


I appreciate you giving your background, but believe it or not, we are not as different as you think in that regard.

I have two parents who are psychiatrists, a father who was a rockstar before becoming a psychiatrist. So they have taught me a lot about both psychology and music. 

I began music lessons at age 4 and wrote my first full song at age 8. I also read psychology books around the house all my life, and read through about 10 of Jung's books on psychology in college, of my own volition. When I was a kid (like age 10-15) I read through a lot of fiction that was about psychology and exploring the soul and the mind - I was addicted to Hermann Hesse, Carlos Casteneda and the like.

I wrote my first fiction book at age 11 - 400 pages, sci fi, but I was young and embarrassed by it so I didn't show it to anyone except one friend until much later. I also had a music career at age 13, and lost my voice at 16 to Chronic Lyme Disease which I have suffered since, and which left me speaking in a whisper after a series of terrible decisions by doctors (since nobody knew anything about Lyme at that time). 

Despite being very sick, to the point I had IV nurses coming to my dorm room, I graduated from an Ivy League Sister School. My major studies were comparative religion (including some philosophy, history and anthropology), literature and photography, but I took two writing classes as well. Both teachers made me promise to go on and continue writing because they were sure I would "make it."

I finished my third novel after college and a prestigious agency in NYC took me on as a writer, but the publishers wanted rewrites on a level I was not prepared to execute. I was still chronically ill (still am to this day) and had to work hard at jobs despite suffering very difficult symptoms after college, so I could not complete the rewrites of my book at that time. However now, I have improved a lot as a writer - albeit I am still improving and hoping to continue doing so - and I am about to send a different 400 page draft (the first book in my long fantasy series) off to publishers. In fact I'm likely meeting with someone who is interested in my work this weekend. 

In the years in between college and now, I also recorded my own music album - wrote every song and lyric, produced, played piano, organized all the musicians, sang through my whisper, did all the album art myself (even posed twice in the photos as myself and my male alter ego) etc. You can hear one song in my signature, and there are others in the music segment of my blog. I made my own music video, edited and recorded and everything on my own. I also have a lot of photography there of me and my male alter ego, so you can see I have studied some body language in how I portray them (this comes from studying acting and dancing from age 10-16, when I was preparing for a serious career on Broadway, which did not pan out due to losing my voice to illness. My acting teacher had lots of professional students and she taught me how to execute and read body language of characters I would want to imitate or play, etc). However I should specify that both portrayals are aspects of myself and my deep psyche. One is always in white and represents my origin, which is a singer and a musician. She is animalistic, pure but naive. The other is a prince who killed the queen in childbirth and brought destruction to everyone he touched. He fails to believe in love and thus is exiled from his homeland, sent to dystopia. She follows him, hoping to bring him back, but she cant because now they are both corrupted by leaving utopia. So instead she brings memories of utopia to earth/dystopia. These memories come in the form of my music, photos, etc.

You can also check my blog if you'd like to see some writing - although it is mostly posts from the forum that I put up on the blog, since I want to keep my fiction work private until I get published. But at the very least, you can see that I care a lot about writing if you read a few of the posts and thoughts that I've logged. 

So as you can see - there is no real difference between our priorities here, except that I have done music as a career as a teen and in my late 20s (including both writing and performing; I sold my first song to a play at age 11, and I fronted my band for which I wrote all the music for years in NYC, and also wrote background music for a few local low-budget films) and writing itself is what I am aiming to do for my life's career. 

My priorities in life are apparently not what you presumed?


And I want to add one more point. Since my teen years when I had an actual music career, I have not made much money in music, and I have yet to make money in writing. I work a boring normal job to support myself, I fight my illness, and I strive as an artist because of my passion for it and my will to express myself. Obviously the depths of psychology and writing are intensely meaningful to me. And even though my books were awful as a pre teen, I spent my lunch periods at school and after school time practicing music and writing books. I have always been this way, so to think of me as someone who isnt concerned with reading, writing or meaning is ... frankly absurd. Whether I am masterful or not (I will be the first to say I still have a long way to go)... I am passionate. I give my blood sweat and tears to my creative passions.


> Anyway, my understanding of the difference between 3s and 4s is largely through a synthesis between my knowledge of the text book understanding and personal experience and interpretation. This might not be the most acceptable way of analyzing the Enneagram, but that is generally how I end up approaching it.


I would suggest actually reading through textbooks before claiming to have a textbook understanding.



> To be completely honest with you, I think it is short-changing 2s, 3s and 4s to call them "image types" in this way.


Then there's nothing to argue about really, because that is exactly what enneagram calls them, and without calling them image types you are ignoring the very foundation of a system (which again is bold considering you have barely skimmed its depths on the internet). Enneagram is about basic fears and compulsions, and all humans have an image. The image types are just fixated in that area.

I would suggest reading the textbooks though. Considering you have put so much thought into your interpretations of the websites online, and that you have a background in literature, you could definitely have potential to excel at enneagram study, but as far as I can tell right now, it seems you have yet to grasp its foundation in full. That's ok though. I was there once. We all were. If you want me to recommend some of the best authors, I'm happy to. 



> Moreover, I would agree with your posts to a certain extent. I believe that your understanding of the heart types is very thorough, well informed and extensive. However, I think you focus very much on the superficial image of the types a lot. When I say 'superficial' what I mean is the physical image. You can learn quite a bit about a person from how they present themselves, but I believe that the clearest form of expression is writing. Reading someone's writing is the closest you will ever get to reading their mind.


Well as you may glean from the paragraphs about myself, I am also a writer and someone who appreciates writing, so you were quick to make a judgment about me there - but no cigar. 

I do believe in the merit of typing body language or at least gleaning more information from it. However, I've been on this forum since 2012 and never brought that up until this year, and typed people just fine without it up until that point. (Though I am not claiming to be perfect - of course I still have so much more to learn - it's such a deep system! And beyond that, nobody can type everyone perfectly every time.)

Since my foundation in this has built some solid ground over the past 4 years when I've been studying all the textbooks and interacting with people who have studied much more than I have on other forums, adding vibe-typing expands my information intake. It is also in line with what every single author suggests - that there is a certain body language to each type.

That does not mean I limit myself to image or appearance however. You don't know my history with enneagram or my views, but maybe you have a better understanding of me now. In fact I do quite the opposite; I built the foundation of my understanding of enneagram very deeply on words and then delved in deeper, even, by attempting to add body language to the repertoire of cues I am able to read.



> For the purposes of this forum, I think when it comes to interpreting David Bowie's type, it is important to look at his writing and his image, his writing being his song lyrics.


What would make you think I haven't done that? 



> When it comes to your envy question, I find that I'm not completely understand exactly what you are asking of me. Are you asking my opinion of it in general or how it pertains to the heart centers?


Envy is the "sin" associated with type 4. What does that mean to you?

____


I want to point something out: you made a lot of assumptions about me in this post which were clearly untrue, and in order to figure that out, all you would have had to do was ask, or click on the links available in my signature. You also assumed to have a textbook understanding of authors whose books you have never read. In general, it might help to step back and realize how much you _don't_ know. Then you can start building a solid foundation in anything in life. 

I am excited to see where you go with enneagram, and how you feel about these ideas after you have read a few actual books and interacted on forums for a while. It's a wonderful journey and an exciting study; so thought-provoking, and also, it is a great tool for communication and soul-searching. I would encourage you to dig further into it than the superficial descriptions online that you are interpreting. It is really worth it.


----------



## Daeva

Hmm, a question popped into mind for those who type him at 4:

*Where is his POD @ 2 ?* Does it show anywhere in his life? In his lyrics?


----------



## throughtheroses

Sun Daeva said:


> Hmm, a question popped into mind for those who type him at 4:
> 
> *Where is his POD @ 2 ?* Does it show anywhere in his life? In his lyrics?


I would expect that to be extremely personal and private. Maybe you should track down Iman and ask her, since she actually lived with him.


----------



## Daeva

throughtheroses said:


> I would expect that to be extremely personal and private. Maybe you should track down Iman and ask her, since she actually lived with him.


Do you really expect a type 4 singer songwriter to keep that private?

Also, I'm not entirely sure anyone really *can*​ keep their POD entirely private...


----------



## Daeva

As for how it's so "difficult" to see the type 3 case, a quick google search on his quotes makes it all too obvious where the case comes from:

[in 1973] Offstage, I'm a robot. Onstage, I achieve emotion. It's probably why I prefer dressing up as Ziggy to being David.










































(note: "the realms of eccentricity" sounds strangely disconnected from what you'd expect from an E4. Why would it matter whether the E4 considers themselves eccentric or not, when their focus lies on emotional authenticity?)


----------



## throughtheroses

Sun Daeva said:


> Do you really expect a type 4 singer songwriter to keep that private?


Yes, actually. In my experience, the disintegration to 2 typically happens in extremely private, personal contexts. If I was a musician, I wouldn't want to expose that side of me to the world.

Then again, I have a 3 wing... As did David Bowie.


----------



## throughtheroses

Sun Daeva said:


> As for how it's so "difficult" to see the type 3 case, a quick google search on his quotes makes it all too obvious where the case comes from:
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [in 1973] Offstage, I'm a robot. Onstage, I achieve emotion. It's probably why I prefer dressing up as Ziggy to being David.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (note: "the realms of eccentricity" sounds strangely disconnected from what you'd expect from an E4. Why would it matter whether the E4 considers themselves eccentric or not, when their focus lies on emotional authenticity?)


(I put the quotes in spoiler tags for the sake of brevity.)

Hmm, I actually see a great deal of 4w3 in those quotes. Would you also argue that Oscar Wilde was a 3 based on his status-concerned witticisms?


----------



## Daeva

David Bowie - Quotes - IMDb


I find that he refers to his music as a somewhat mechanical process. I'm not seeing the pourings of a vulnerable heart, but instead the refinement of work.

*I reinvented my image so many times that I'm in denial that I was originally an overweight Korean woman.*

*[on his pop sound during the 1980s] There was a period when I was performing in front of these huge stadium crowds at that time and I'm thinking: "What are these people doing here? Why have they come to see me? They should be seeing Phil Collins." They were definitely Phil Collins type audiences, you know? And then, that came back at me and I thought: "What am I doing here? I should be playing to people who don't look like they've come to see Phil Collins." That's what I'd been used to up until that point. I don't know the guy. There's a certain kind of mainstream field that I'm not comfortable in. I'm just not comfortable in it.*
(note: he focuses on what >field< he finds himself in. This points away from a focus on emotional authenticity)

*The whole animal of rock keeps changing itself so fast and so furiously that you just can't plan ahead.*
(oh yeah, never mind playing music from the heart, let's focus on the fact that it's hard to adjust to the current trends. He instead chose to set the trends himself. 3w4, the professional, the trendsetter)

*I like crazy art and, most of the time, out-there music. Rather than having a hit song these days, I like the idea that I'm in there changing the plan of what society and culture look like, sound like. I did change things; I knew I would. It feels great, and very rewarding.*
(again, where's the focus on emotional realness? He cares about changing the face of pop => attachment triad focusing on achievement)

*"Hunky Dory" gave me a fabulous groundswell. I guess it provided me, for the first time in my life, with an actual audience - I mean, people actually coming up to me and saying,"'Good album, good songs.". That hadn't happened to me before. It was like, "Ah, I'm getting it, I'm finding my feet. I'm starting to communicate what I want to do. Now: what is it I want to do?" There was always a double whammy there.*
("What is it I want to do?" .... an E4 who is out of touch with the message they want to bring through their art? Right...)

*[speaking in 2002] It seems to be traditional now that every album since "Black Tie White Noise" is the best album I've put out since "Scary Monsters".
*
*[in 1972] Sometimes I don't feel as if I'm a person at all. I'm just a collection of other people's ideas.*
(attachmentattachmentattachmentattachmentattachmentattachment. This quote is *the opposite*
from the Frustration (idealist) triad.)

*[in 1980] I have a lot of reservations about what I've done, inasmuch as I don't feel much of it has any import at all.*
(POD @ 9)

*[on "Live Aid"] I'd do it again like a shot. This has to become an annual event. It really does. And I think a lot of us would pledge to do a show like this every year until starvation in many areas of the world, not just Ethiopia, was under some kind of control. Everybody had such a fantastic time, I'd love to do it again.*
(this is a theme with him: uplifting, encouraging, positivity. Combined with a strong sense of elitism makes for 3w4. No signs of emotional authenticity, which would point towards 4>3)

*All my big mistakes are when I try to second-guess or please an audience. My work is always stronger when I get very selfish about it.*
(DING DING DING We have a winner!!!! The fact that he even has to tell himself to not please an audience is quite telling, don't you think?)

*[on declining the role of "Max Zorin" in "A View to a Kill", which ultimately went to Christopher Walken instead] It was simply a terrible script; I saw little reason for spending so much time on something so workmanlike. And I told them so. I don't think anyone had turned down a major role in a James Bond movie before. It really didn't go down well at all. People were very touchy about it.*
(elitism - could be either 3w4 or 4w3. But again, he didn't attack the emotional content and rather criticized how the script itself wasn't up to par. Type 4 focus on emotional realness, or type 3 focus on competency? My vote goes to the latter.)

*I've always cited who my influences are. I felt it was important for people to be able to see how things are put together at any given stage. I let people know what's going through my head. I've been quite vocal about that through the years. It often amuses me to see bands who lie about who they're listening to, because they don't want people to know who their real influences are. They leave a trail of red herrings. It's disingenuous, to say the least. I've always loved the process - to see how things are put together.*
(He STRONGLY focuses on outside influences in his work.)

*What I have is a malevolent curiosity. That's what drives my need to write and what probably leads me to look at things a little askew. I do tend to take a different perspective from most people.*
(So in other words, his inspiration are not his emotional battles, but his 'different' perspective.)

*[on his 1980s music] Commercially I sold an awful lot of albums with work that I now feel was very inferior. Artistically and aesthetically it was probably my lowest point.*
(Artistically and aesthetically, what about *personally*?)

*[on the massive success of "Let's Dance" and how it led to a creative low in his career] I was something I never wanted to be. I was a well-accepted artist. I had started appealing to people who bought Phil Collins albums. I like Phil Collins as a bloke, believe me, but he's not on my turntable twenty-four hours a day. I suddenly didn't know my audience and, worse, I didn't care about them.*
(He is so concerned about who he gets associated with. Attachment triad.)

*[on Tin Machine] A glorious disaster. But for better or worse it helped me to pin down what I did and didn't enjoy about being an artist. It helped me, I feel, to recover as an artist. And I do feel that for the past few years I've been absolutely in charge of my artistic path again. I'm working to my own criteria. I'm not doing anything I would feel ashamed of in the future, or that I would look back on and say my heart wasn't in that.*
(This tells me that apparently he actually runs the risk of making art where his heart wouldn't be "in it". I would imagine E4 to know their heart _before and during_ the makings of art, not after.)

*Some people call me pretentious for working like this, but I don't think there's anything wrong with thinking of pop as an art form - you've just got to think of it without a capital A. Lower-case art is always best. And anyway, a lot of what was considered art in 1978 is now just part of our vocabulary.*
(Always defining things by their exterior form.)

*I'm just a bloke doing his job, and it's not terribly complicated. What I do is I write mainly about very personal and rather lonely feelings, and I explore them in a different way each time.*
(FINALLY a quote about his feelings! That took long enough!! And yet, when talking about the feelings in his art, he suddenly calls himself "just a bloke doing his job." What happened to the elitist Bowie? He seems to consider his feelings almost "too normal". So normal that he almost never mentions them. Instead, he is elitist about who he gets associated with, and in which category he belongs in.I have yet to meet an E4 who calls themselves "just a bloke" and in the same breathe reference their emotional life. E4 is elitist about their emotions, E3 is elitist about categorizing their work.)

*I've made over 25 studio albums, and I think probably I've made two real stinkers in my time, and some not-bad albums, and some really good albums. I'm proud of what I've done. In fact, it's been a good ride.*​



Also, and this is another tell-tale of type 3, he refers to a lot of other artists in these quotes. Sx 4 tends to be more.. excluding... _self-absorbed_.

*I rate Morrissey as one of the best lyricists in Britain. For me, he's up there with Bryan Ferry.*

*I know about Kylie [Kylie Minogue] and Robbie [Robbie Williams] and "Pop Idol" and stuff like that. You can't get away from that when you hit the [British] shore, so I know all about the cruise ship entertainment aspect of British pop.*
(note: not at all out of line for the elitism of the 3w4)

*[from 1992] It would be my guess that Madonna is not a very happy woman. From my own experience, having gone through persona changes like that, that kind of clawing need to be the center of attention is not a pleasant place to be.*

*I once asked [John Lennon] what he thought of what I do. He said, "it's great, but its just rock and roll with lipstick on".
*
*[on Syd Barrett] The few times I saw him perform in London at UFO and the Marquee clubs during the '60s will forever be etched in my mind. He was so charismatic and such a startlingly original songwriter. Also, along with Anthony Newley, he was the first guy I'd heard to sing pop or rock with a British accent. His impact on my thinking was enormous. A major regret is that I never got to know him. A diamond indeed.*

*I think Mick Jagger would be astounded and amazed if he realized to many people he is not a sex symbol, but a mother image.*

*[speaking in 2002] Of the 26 albums I've made I think there were two when I really wasn't involved and that was "Tonight" and "Never Let Me Down", the two follow-ups to "Let's Dance". That period was my Phil Collins years.*
(His "Phil Collins years"? Oh yes, let's define my own art by other people. Said no 4 ever.)
*
**[on Freddie Mercury] Of all the more theatrical rock performers, Freddie took it further than the rest. He took it over the edge. And of course, I always admired a man who wears tights. I only saw him in concert once and as they say, he was definitely a man who could hold an audience in the palm of his hand.*
(Out of all the things to talk about, he talks about how great of a performer Freddie was. Interesting choice.)

*[on Annie Lennox] Most exquisite. Absolutely fabulous.
*
*[on the late Lou Reed] He was a master.*

*[on Kurt Cobain] I was simply blown away when I found out that Kurt Cobain liked my work, and I always wanted to talk to him about his reasons for covering "Man Who Sold The World." It was a good straightforward rendition and sounded somehow very honest. It would have been nice to have worked with him, but just talking would have been real cool.*
(He almost sounds surprised by Cobain's honest sound.)

*I often pull myself back if I feel something is becoming too melodic. But then melody comes in many forms. He'll hate me for saying it but the person who is better at hooks than almost anyone is Brian Eno, and the solo on "Virginia Plain" is probably one of the greatest three-note hooks in the history of pop.
*
*John Lennon was good at telling people off, but not me. Whenever I do didactic stuff it always seems ham-fisted.
*
*[on John Lennon] I always had such pleasure talking and being with John because there was nothing that didn't interest him, you know? He had a real appetite.*

*What happened at the beginning of the '70s with guys like myself and maybe Bryan Ferry and Brian Eno, maybe some of the guys in Floyd (Pink Floyd) before us, King Crimson, that nature of band: We were all pretty excited about letting people know what went into our work, that we weren't all trying to be Chuck Berry. I know Ferry was a huge Dada fan, for instance. He even did an album called "The Bride Stripped Bare". Eno and I went, "He shouldn't do that," thinking we should have done it first. We were excited by set design, by the way we dressed, by trying to create a whole landscape for the music we were making. The Beatles had done it to a certain extent because they had John (John Lennon).*




​And just about his life in general, many are so damn 'positive and uplifting', not what you'd expect from Sx4. Type 3 on the other hand...
*[on whether he thinks he is a good actor] I took you in, didn't I? I rest my make-up case.*

*[in 1976 interview with Playboy] It's true - I am a bisexual. But I can't deny that I've used that fact very well. I suppose it's the best thing that ever happened to me. Fun, too.*

*I always had a repulsive need to be something more than human.*
(doesn't seem to think of himself as _less-than_, instead, he focuses on becoming _more-than_)

*You would think that a rock star being married to a supermodel would be one of the greatest things in the world. It is.*

*I'm looking for backing for an unauthorized autobiography that I am writing. Hopefully, this will sell in such huge numbers that I will be able to sue myself for an extraordinary amount of money and finance the film version in which I will play everybody.*

*[on being 50] Fab. But, you know, I don't feel fifty. I feel not a day over forty-nine. It's incredible. I'm bouncy, I feel bouncy.
*
*[on Elvis Presley] I saw a cousin of mine when I was young. She was dancing to "Hound Dog" and I had never seen her get up and be moved so much by anything. It really impressed me, the power of the music. I started getting records immediately after that.*
(this makes me wonder, did he get into music because it impresses him?)

*The only thing I ever got out of fame was a better table in a restaurant. And for that I gave up being able to relate to people.*
(he gave up being able to relate to people? E4 doesn't give up relating to others by doing their music, they make art so they finally have the chance to relate and connect to others. He expresses the opposite.)

*[in 1975] I like fast drugs. I hate anything that slows me down.*
(as do most 3's indeed... -> a 4 will focus on what they'll learn about themselves, be it through fast or slow drugs, the focus will be on their emotional exploration. Bowie just likes "fast drugs".)

*[in 1973] Offstage, I'm a robot. Onstage, I achieve emotion. It's probably why I prefer dressing up as Ziggy to being David.*
(An E4 who feels like he can't achieve emotion in his personal life? Not happening. Also, look at the language he uses:* "I achieve emotion." => mechanized heart*)

*[in 2014] I'm completely delighted to have a Brit for being the best male but I am, aren't I Kate [Kate Moss]? I think it's a great way to end the day. Thank you very very much - and Scotland, stay with us.




*​All in all, I'm not seeing terribly much that would point towards core 4, if anything at all. I'm seeing a strong emphasis on competency, elitism, referrals, and what categories he fits in. And almost nothing that talks about emotional realness.*
*


----------



## Daeva

throughtheroses said:


> Yes, actually. In my experience, the disintegration to 2 typically happens in extremely private, personal contexts. If I was a musician, I wouldn't want to expose that side of me to the world.
> 
> Then again, I have a 3 wing... As did David Bowie.


I strongly disagree. E4 focuses on emotional authenticity. They are heart triad + reactive triad + frustration triad. In no way is an E4 going to create art about themselves while leaving out the depths of their soul.


These lyrics almost exemplify Sexual 4:


_Alice In Chains - Love Hate Love
_

* *





I tried to love you I thought I could
I tried to own you I thought I would
I want to peel the skin from your face
Before the real you lays to waste

You told me I'm the only one
Sweet little angel you should have run
Lying, crying, dying to leave
Innocence creates my hell

Cheating myself still you know more
It would be so easy with a whore
Try to understand me little girl
My twisted passion to be your world

Lost inside my sick head
I live for you but I'm not alive
Take my hand before I kill
I still love you, but, I still burn

Yeah, Love, hate, love [3x]
Oooh, Love, hate, love
Yeah, Love, hate, love




The POD @ 2 is clearly visible:
_*I tried to own you* I thought I would

You told me *I'm the only one*

My twisted passion *to be your world*_

_*I live for you* but I'm not alive
Take my hand before I kill
I still love you, but, I still burn_​




throughtheroses said:


> (I put the quotes in spoiler tags for the sake of brevity.)
> 
> Hmm, I actually see a great deal of 4w3 in those quotes. Would you also argue that Oscar Wilde was a 3 based on his status-concerned witticisms?


Where do you see the 4 ?


----------



## throughtheroses

Sun Daeva said:


> I strongly disagree. E4 focuses on emotional authenticity. They are heart triad + reactive triad + frustration triad. In no way is an E4 going to create art about themselves while leaving out the depths of their soul.
> 
> Where do you see the 4 ?


I disagree, especially if the 4 in question has 7 in their tritype. It's an observable trait that 47x types tend to hide their actual darkest moments from the world, preferring to keep it quiet and authentic instead of broadcasting it at large. This contributes to the 4's fixation on their image. As a 4 myself, I constantly struggle with it. Am _I_ my image, or is my _image_ me? I want to be seen as a sophisticated, intelligent, somewhat happy-go-lucky, and cool person, and that's often how I'm perceived. But is that really me? Most people don't come close to seeing my true melancholic nature, and that's by design on my part. I'm more comfortable with people seeing me as a quiet, individualistic person, but I don't want them to know about my inner turmoil. 

This crisis is central to 47x tritypes, according to Katherine Fauvre. It's most pronounced with mine, the 479, but it also factors into the 478 and 471 as well. I believe that David Bowie was a total Messenger, the 478, so it makes sense that he wouldn't expose his inner 2 to the world.

Honestly, you should read up on how tritypes affect 4s and their expressions of "darker" emotions. It might help a bit.

Also, I see the 4w3 in practically every quote you posted. It would be redundant to post them all, so you may have to revisit them under the 4 umbrella on your own time.


----------



## Daeva

throughtheroses said:


> I disagree, especially if the 4 in question has 7 in their tritype. It's an observable trait that 47x types tend to hide their actual darkest moments from the world, preferring to keep it quiet and authentic instead of broadcasting it at large. This contributes to the 4's fixation on their image. As a 4 myself, I constantly struggle with it. Am _I_ my image, or is my _image_ me? I want to be seen as a sophisticated, intelligent, somewhat happy-go-lucky, and cool person, and that's often how I'm perceived. But is that really me? Most people don't come close to seeing my true melancholic nature, and that's by design on my part. I'm more comfortable with people seeing me as a quiet, individualistic person, but I don't want them to know about my inner turmoil.
> 
> This crisis is central to 47x tritypes, according to Katherine Fauvre. It's most pronounced with mine, the 479, but it also factors into the 478 and 471 as well. I believe that David Bowie was a total Messenger, the 478, so it makes sense that he wouldn't expose his inner 2 to the world.


If you have to point to tritype to justify the core, you're on the wrong path.

And regardless, I myself have both 4 and 7 in my tritype. I know the struggle, and I know that this won't stop the Sx 4 from puking their souls out via art. Maybe the 7 makes it a bit more theatrical and gives it a bittersweet taste, but *it will still be there*.



> Also, I see the 4w3 in practically every quote you posted. It would be redundant to post them all, so you may have to revisit them under the 4 umbrella on your own time.


So now you excuse it with "3-wing".


I'll ask you again: where is the 4 ?



> Honestly, you should read up on how tritypes affect 4s and their expressions of "darker" emotions. It might help a bit.


Your condescension is duly noted. But why aren't you arguing for the core themes of 4 ? Or are you of the opinion that the core type gets overruled by wings and tritype?


----------



## Rose for a Heart

I'm not a musician but part of making anything that comes from the heart is talking about exactly how I felt, and a lot of painful/unhealthy places in 4's life involve that disintegration to 2... I actually can't imagine not doing that, the soul behind anything I were to make would be gone. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## throughtheroses

Sun Daeva said:


> If you have to point to tritype to justify the core, you're on the wrong path.
> 
> ...
> 
> But why aren't you arguing for the core themes of 4 ? Or are you of the opinion that the core type gets overruled by wings and tritype?


Not overruled, but the type is altered in a very crucial way, especially for core 4s. I'm one of them (and an sx!), and I can speak to the accuracy of considering wings and tritype theory. 

I don't pour out my heart for the undeserving masses (this is exaggerated to hammer in my true meaning). As an sx, that's typically reserved for someone I trust completely and feel a great deal of intimacy with. What you're arguing sounds much more like so/sx to me, but what do _I_ know? I'm just a 4w3 sx with 7 in my tritype. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also, I was focusing on the w3 because you clearly have it in your head that Bowie was a 3. I was trying to encourage you to subtly alter your perception of a 3w4 vs a 4w3. I thought that was obvious.


----------



## throughtheroses

Niha said:


> I'm not a musician but part of making anything that comes from the heart is talking about exactly how I felt, and a lot of painful/unhealthy places in 4's life involve that disintegration to 2... I actually can't imagine not doing that, the soul behind anything I were to make would be gone.


Then you're probably not a 47x, unlike me. It's crucial to that combination, especially the 479, to conceal "negative" emotions from the public.


----------



## Daeva

throughtheroses said:


> Not overruled, but the type is altered in a very crucial way, especially for core 4s. I'm one of them (and an sx!), and I can speak to the accuracy of considering wings and tritype theory.
> 
> I don't pour out my heart for the undeserving masses (this is exaggerated to hammer in my true meaning). As an sx, that's typically reserved for someone I trust completely and feel a great deal of intimacy with. What you're arguing sounds much more like so/sx to me, but what do _I_ know? I'm just a 4w3 sx with 7 in my tritype. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 
> Also, I was focusing on the w3 because you clearly have it in your head that Bowie was a 3. I was trying to encourage you to subtly alter your perception of a 3w4 vs a 4w3. I thought that was obvious.


You have made exactly zero arguments for core 4, instead you say that he doesn't show himself being a 4 because of tritype, and that he's pragmatic because of his 3 wing. How does that encourage me to alter my perception to E4 for him?


----------



## throughtheroses

Sun Daeva said:


> You have made exactly zero arguments for core 4, instead you say that he doesn't show himself being a 4 because of tritype, and that he's pragmatic because of his 3 wing. How does that encourage me to alter my perception to E4 for him?


Because of what everyone else keeps trying to say: he used his *image* (in all of its flamboyance and mutability, because he was a 478) to express his *authentic self* at any given time, in a roundabout way that is very familiar for 4w3s. That's the struggle: displaying oneself through one's image and using one's image to display oneself. The boundaries are very blurry and confusing. *This is the core struggle to 4w3s.* 

@BelladonnaPoe , @mistakenforstranger , and others have been saying the _same exact thing_ for pages now.


----------



## Rose for a Heart

Um but why do you have to an so first to want to share your experience with the world? The "Alice in Chains" example he shared is definitely not so/sx


----------



## throughtheroses

Niha said:


> Um but why do you have to an so first to want to share your experience with the world? The "Alice in Chains" example he shared is definitely not so/sx


My main point was more that it wasn't 47x. My apologies for conflating the two. The so/sx part was about something else in his post.


----------



## Daeva

Interesting article, a personal story about Bowie:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/feb/23/david-bowie-and-me


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Sun Daeva said:


> Hmm, a question popped into mind for those who type him at 4:
> 
> *Where is his POD @ 2 ?* Does it show anywhere in his life? In his lyrics?


Good question:






I could escape this feeling with my China Girl
I feel a wreck without my little China Girl
I hear her heart beating loud as thunder
Saw the stars crashing

I'm a mess without my little China Girl
Wake up in the morning wheres my little China Girl?
I hear hearts beating loud as thunder
I saw the stars crashing down

I'm feeling tragic like I'm Marlon Brando
When I look at my China Girl
I could pretend that nothing really meant too much
When I look at my China Girl

I stumble into town just like a sacred cow
Visions of swastikas in my head
Plans for everyone
Its in the white of my eyes

My little china girl
You shouldn't mess with me
I'll ruin everything you are
I'll give you television
I'll give you eyes of blue
I'll give you a man who wants to rule the world

And when I get excited
My little China Girl says
Oh baby, Just you shut your mouth
She says ... sh
She says

And when I get excited
My little China Girl says
Oh baby, Just you shut your mouth
She says ... shhhhhhh
She says


----------



## Animal

mistakenforstranger said:


> Good question:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could escape this feeling with my China Girl
> I feel a wreck without my little China Girl
> I hear her heart beating loud as thunder
> Saw the stars crashing
> 
> I'm a mess without my little China Girl
> Wake up in the morning wheres my little China Girl?
> I hear hearts beating loud as thunder
> I saw the stars crashing down
> 
> I'm feeling tragic like I'm Marlon Brando
> When I look at my China Girl
> I could pretend that nothing really meant too much
> When I look at my China Girl
> 
> I stumble into town just like a sacred cow
> Visions of swastikas in my head
> Plans for everyone
> Its in the white of my eyes
> 
> My little china girl
> You shouldn't mess with me
> I'll ruin everything you are
> I'll give you television
> I'll give you eyes of blue
> I'll give you a man who wants to rule the world
> 
> And when I get excited
> My little China Girl says
> Oh baby, Just you shut your mouth
> She says ... sh
> She says
> 
> And when I get excited
> My little China Girl says
> Oh baby, Just you shut your mouth
> She says ... shhhhhhh
> She says


How is this related to 2 exactly?


----------



## Daeva

mistakenforstranger said:


> Good question:
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could escape this feeling with my China Girl
> I feel a wreck without my little China Girl
> I hear her heart beating loud as thunder
> Saw the stars crashing
> 
> I'm a mess without my little China Girl
> Wake up in the morning wheres my little China Girl?
> I hear hearts beating loud as thunder
> I saw the stars crashing down
> 
> I'm feeling tragic like I'm Marlon Brando
> When I look at my China Girl
> I could pretend that nothing really meant too much
> When I look at my China Girl
> 
> I stumble into town just like a sacred cow
> Visions of swastikas in my head
> Plans for everyone
> Its in the white of my eyes
> 
> My little china girl
> You shouldn't mess with me
> I'll ruin everything you are
> I'll give you television
> I'll give you eyes of blue
> I'll give you a man who wants to rule the world
> 
> And when I get excited
> My little China Girl says
> Oh baby, Just you shut your mouth
> She says ... sh
> She says
> 
> And when I get excited
> My little China Girl says
> Oh baby, Just you shut your mouth
> She says ... shhhhhhh
> She says


I'm mostly seeing an Sx focus in that song, but not so much the* I give and take* of 4 > 2. Where's the drama, where's the hurt? The song is an upbeat pop song, where is the heartache and the hatred, where is the competition and the blood of the Sx 4 ?

And then there's the video itself. Does it get more Sx 3 than that?







I see more of a line to 9.

***
Ground Control to Major Tom
Ground Control to Major Tom
Take your protein pills 
and put your helmet on

Ground Control to Major Tom
Commencing countdown, 
engines on
Check ignition 
and may God's love be with you

[spoken]
Ten, Nine, Eight, Seven, Six, Five, Four, Three, Two, One, Liftoff

This is Ground Control 
to Major Tom
You've really made the grade
And the papers want to know whose shirts you wear
Now it's time to leave the capsule 
if you dare

This is Major Tom to Ground Control
I'm stepping through the door
And I'm floating 
in a most peculiar way
And the stars look very different today

For here
Am I sitting in a tin can
Far above the world
Planet Earth is blue
And there's nothing I can do

Though I'm past 
one hundred thousand miles
I'm feeling very still
And I think my spaceship knows which way to go
Tell my wife I love her very much 
she knows

Ground Control to Major Tom
Your circuit's dead,
there's something wrong
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you....

Here am I floating 
round my tin can
Far above the Moon
Planet Earth is blue
And there's nothing I can do.


----------



## throughtheroses

Animal said:


> How is this related to 2 exactly?


Did you miss the extreme codependency? That's what the song is all about.


----------



## Animal

@Niha

I agree with you that it is not about instincts. I also think it has nothing to do with tritype. Marilyn Manson is a 4w5 with a clear 7 fix. He has a song called "speed of pain" about outracing the speed of pain..very 4-7. He also sings a lot about wanting more and more, and other gluttony based themes. I will post some later.

But still, he shares his dark emotions on a constant basis. He is social first, 7 fixed, and all of his songs are dark and pertaining to his feelings, with an underlying theme of critiquing a society that rejected him (which is very social 4, and also 1 fix).

His quotes, interviews etc are full of critiques about society but coming from a perspective of his own feelings about it, and his lyrics display very well that he feels rejected by common society (ie "the beautiful people"). That is type 4 envy/hate/self absorption. His image is consistent though he does portray two alter egos in mechanical animals, but they are both sides of him and both sing about whats wrong with the world and also whats wrong with manson himself.


----------



## _Blackstar_

Sun Daeva said:


> Hmm, a question popped into mind for those who type him at 4:
> 
> *Where is his POD @ 2 ?* Does it show anywhere in his life? In his lyrics?


I'd say our best bet is 1974ish - 1977ish. He describes that period as the "darkest days of [his] life":






"Word on a Wing" (and most of _Station to Station_) is a "cry for help".

A 4's disintegration to 2 does involve a dose of isolation, as they cut themselves off from others emotionally. As others have established (if not in this thread, then in the other), Bowie cut himself off from a large portion of his social circle during the 70s and lived alone in a state of paranoia, battling drug-induced delusions about satanic witches stealing his DNA in order to clone him (note that when he reached the pathological level 9, his greatest fear wasn't that he'd be dismissed as worthless ["I'm alone and they've abandoned me. They don't need me; they don't think I'm worthwhile - I'm not valuable enough."], but that he'd lose all identity and significance ["I'm alone and they've abandoned me. What if they're trying to replace me? Maybe they are. If they copy me, then there will be no need for the real me. I have to protect my identity" -- hence the delusional hoarding of bodily fluids, etc.]. And he didn't react by lashing out like a 3, but by trying to escape his own destructive personality through drugs and the creation of a sadistic 3-like character, on the surface, to escape himself (the Thin White Duke). He also went through several relationships with strong women like Ola Hudson at that time (trying to attract a rescuer), and recorded an album to articulate his distress and call for help.

He was only briefly at the nihilistic level of 4, however, and was a private person off-stage, so it's hard to analyse his POD to 2. It's interesting to note that he created the Thin White Duke when he was at his most unhealthy. This is a dark and aristocratic individual who sings about love ("a would-be romantic") but is evil at the core and lifeless on the surface. It's a volatile character: swinging from disdain and superiority to weakness and helplessness. He goes from removed superiority and cruelty to begging for his beloved to stay by his side like an unhealthy 2: 



David Bowie said:


> "Stay - that's what I meant to say or do something
> But what I never say is
> Stay this time
> I really meant to so bad this time
> Because you can never really tell
> When somebody wants something you want too"


----------



## Animal

throughtheroses said:


> Did you miss the extreme codependency? That's what the song is all about.


Is that what you think type 2 is about? Because I dont. 2 is about pride in being loved or needed. I am not seeing the pride and the "you need me, I give you love that no one else could" aspect. It just seems like love or a crush that literally any type could experience.


----------



## Animal

It would be a mistake to assume 3s cannot fall in love, become obsessed, or experience codependency. A great example of a lovestruck 3 who gives his whole life and does everything he does for a woman he can't have is The Great Gatsby.


----------



## throughtheroses

Animal said:


> Is that what you think type 2 is about? Because I dont. 2 is about pride in being loved or needed. I am not seeing the pride and the "you need me, I give you love that no one else could" aspect. It just seems like love or a crush that literally any type could experience.


2s at their _worst_--also as embodied by disintegrating 4s--are codependent and manipulative. I thought this was an established thing that everyone acknowledged.


----------



## Daeva

Daemonion said:


> I'd say our best bet is 1974ish - 1977ish. He describes that period as the "darkest days of [his] life":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Word on a Wing" (and most of _Station to Station_) is a "cry for help".
> 
> *A 4's disintegration to 2 does involve a dose of isolation, as they cut themselves off from others emotionally.* As others have established (if not in this thread, then in the other), Bowie cut himself off from a large portion of his social circle during the 70s and lived alone in a state of paranoia, battling drug-induced delusions about satanic witches stealing his DNA in order to clone him (note that when he reached the pathological level 9, his greatest fear wasn't that he'd be dismissed as worthless ["I'm alone and they've abandoned me. They don't need me; they don't think I'm worthwhile - I'm not valuable enough."], but that he'd lose all identity and significance ["I'm alone and they've abandoned me. What if they're trying to replace me? Maybe they are. If they copy me, then there will be no need for the real me. I have to protect my identity" -- hence the delusional hoarding of bodily fluids, etc.]. *And he didn't react by lashing out like a 3, but* by trying to escape his own destructive personality through drugs and the creation of a sadistic 3-like character, on the surface, to escape himself (the Thin White Duke). He also went through several relationships with strong women like Ola Hudson at that time (trying to attract a rescuer), and recorded an album to articulate his distress and call for help.
> 
> He was only briefly at the nihilistic level of 4, however, and was a private person off-stage, so it's hard to analyse his POD to 2. It's interesting to note that he created the Thin White Duke when he was at his most unhealthy. This is a dark and aristocratic individual who sings about love ("a would-be romantic") but is evil at the core and lifeless on the surface. It's a volatile character: swinging from disdain and superiority to weakness and helplessness. He goes from removed superiority and cruelty to begging for his beloved to stay by his side like an unhealthy 2:


"*A 4's disintegration to 2 does involve a dose of isolation, as they cut themselves off from others emotionally.*"

How does the line to the most codependent type make for an emotional cut-off? E4 does retreat, yes, but it's a retreat with the need for others to chase them => connection to E2.
It's a physical retreat, but emotionally they only become more dependent on others.

The state of living in paranoia also shows a connection to 6.

I'll reference the soul child of E3 by Maitri:

*****
_Six is the heart point of Three, so behind the efficient and composed veneer of a Three lies a very frightened child. Shy, timid, self-doubting and insecure, this soul child experiences the world as a hostile and malevolent place. Others appear threatening, sometimes to the point that he may develop paranoia that they are out to get him, and no matter how many achievements a Three has accomplished and how much outer success he has created, he still experiences himself deep down as one of the weaklings in the struggle for survival. In fact, all of a Three's efforts at attainment can be seen as a reaction to his fearful soul child - an attempt to overcome and counter this part of himself. This explains why no amount of success is ever enough for him. Without digesting and integrating his soul child, the inner fear and insecurity cannot be resolved by any amount of status and power. From the perspective of the soul child, a Three's image is an attempt to camouflage this scared and immature part of himself._
*****

Drugs connects us to our deepest fears, especially the way Bowie did it. And I'm seeing an E6 soul child underneath his masks of success.

Emotional cut-off like that is classic disintegration to 9.

When unhealthy, E3 connects to lower E6 and E9. Both extreme levels of sloth (emotional disconnect) and paranoia will be present.
This is exactly what Bowie went through.
I'm not seeing the connections to lower E1 and E2.


Feeling worthless and not valuable enough is, again, E3. There is a difference in feeling worthless(E3) vs feeling unlovable(E2) vs feeling insignificant(E4).
Type 4 @ E2 would feel too alienated and would fear that the loss of connection with others is permanent.
Feeling worthless of E3 is about accomplishments and acceptance. Type 3 @ E9 becomes apathetic and ponders on the "why" and "what's the point?"
It's a subtle difference, they are both image types after all and both concerned with self-worth, but the line to 2 vs 9 makes for a huge difference.


edit:

"*And he didn't react by lashing out like a 3, but*_"_

What 3 going to 9 is going to be prone to lashing out?

Lashing out is a histrionic quality, often linked to E2. So you'd expect lashing out from an E4 going to 2, as they are renowned for doing anyway.


----------



## BelladonnaPoe

@Animal

I'm going to be very honest with you. I don't think any of this has any real bearing on the argument at hand. My experience with the Enneagram is limited, yes, but that doesn't invalidate my points, which you have not addressed at all. It honestly seemed like you have simply asked me to expose myself for my lack of knowledge as if it in some way invalidates my points altogether and they do not require actual attention. I don't know if this is what you are actually doing, but I should inform you that you come off as very... condescending in tone of your previous posts. Again, I'm _not_ saying that you are meaning to be, but this is how I end up interpreting it.

I also would like to say that you seemed to have misinterpreted me misinterpreting you. I have not made any real assumptions about you, as I do not know you and reserve judgment until I have had more of a dialogue with you. What I was simply trying to do was explain my position and my understanding of the material that is being discussed. Thank you for the background, though. It will be insiteful for future discussions.

Moreover, you seem to have led a very full and interesting life so far, filled with enrichment and education. I am a very humble 21 year-old with barely a penny to my name without all these advantages that you have talked about in your previous post, so I apologize if I can't really do all of the research that you yourself have done at such an early age at this time. I have many more time consuming obligations at the moment. However, I do not believe that this should hold any bearing on the discussion at hand.

What we are discussing is David Bowie and his status as either a 4w3 or 3w4. We should keep that in mind. Now I ask you to please look back at my actual points that I've made, think about them in the context of your extensive amounts of research, and tell me if you think they are right or wrong and why.

On the subject of envy when it comes to 4s, from my understanding, 4s have a general feeling of deficiency. They feel like there is something fundamentally wrong with them and, in lieu of that, strive for acceptance and normality. They become envious of others because of this because they want to be "normal". This is where the contradiction comes in where they want to be original, different, _authentic_. They are at war with this need to be like everyone else and also different. They want and envy, other people and their apparent success. The way for a 4 to become healthy is to embrace their inner selves, let go of envy, and therefore become their true authentic self. Does that seem right to you?


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Sun Daeva said:


> I'm mostly seeing an Sx focus in that song, but not so much the* I give and take* of 4 > 2. Where's the drama, where's the hurt? The song is an upbeat pop song, where is the heartache and the hatred, where is the competition and the blood of the Sx 4 ?


Where's the drama? The hurt?

I hear her heart beating loud as thunder
Saw the stars crashing

*I'm feeling tragic like I'm Marlon Brando*
When I look at my China Girl

...

I stumble into town just like a sacred cow
Visions of swastikas in my head

The give and take?

I could escape this feeling with my China Girl
I feel a wreck without my little China Girl

vs

I'll give you television
I'll give you eyes of blue
I'll give you a man who wants to rule the world



Animal said:


> @*Niha*
> 
> I agree with you that it is not about instincts. I also think it has nothing to do with tritype. Marilyn Manson is a 4w5 with a clear 7 fix. He has a song called "speed of pain" about outracing the speed of pain..very 4-7. He also sings a lot about wanting more and more, and other gluttony based themes. I will post some later.
> 
> But still, he shares his dark emotions on a constant basis. He is social first, 7 fixed, and all of his songs are dark and pertaining to his feelings, with an underlying theme of critiquing a society that rejected him (which is very social 4, and also 1 fix).
> 
> His quotes, interviews etc are full of critiques about society but coming from a perspective of his own feelings about it, and his lyrics display very well that he feels rejected by common society (ie "the beautiful people"). That is type 4 envy/hate/self absorption. His image is consistent though he does portray two alter egos in mechanical animals, but they are both sides of him and both sing about whats wrong with the world and also whats wrong with manson himself.


And you don't think Bowie ever critiqued society? And that he wasn't in touch with darker emotions? Did you watch the interview where he said all of his albums dealt with negativity.






It's a god-awful small affair
To the girl with the mousy hair
But her mummy is yelling, "No!"
And her daddy has told her to go
But her friend is nowhere to be seen
Now she walks through her sunken dream
To the seat with the clearest view
And she's hooked to the silver screen

But the film is a saddening bore
For she's lived it ten times or more
She could spit in the eyes of fools
As they ask her to focus on

Sailors fighting in the dance hall
Oh man!
Look at those cavemen go
It's the freakiest show
Take a look at the Lawman
Beating up the wrong guy
Oh man! Wonder if he'll ever know
He's in the best selling show
Is there life on Mars?

It's on America's tortured brow
That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
Now the workers have struck for fame
'Cause Lennon's on sale again
See the mice in their million hordes
From Ibiza to the Norfolk Broads
Rule Britannia is out of bounds
To my mother, my dog, and clowns

But the film is a saddening bore
'Cause I wrote it ten times or more
It's about to be writ again
As I ask you to focus on






Pushing thru the market square
so many mothers sighing
News had just come over, 
we had five years left to cry in

News guy wept and told us 
earth was really dying
Cried so much his face was wet
then I knew he was not lying

I heard telephones, opera house, favourite melodies
I saw boys, toys electric irons and T.V.'s
My brain hurt like a warehouse
it had no room to spare
I had to cram so many things 
to store everything in there
And all the fat-skinny people, and all the tall-short people
And all the nobody people, and all the somebody people
I never thought I'd need so many people

A girl my age went off her head
hit some tiny children
If the black hadn't a-pulled her off, I think she would have killed them

A soldier with a broken arm, fixed his stare to the wheel of a Cadillac
A cop knelt and kissed the feet of a priest
and a queer threw up at the sight of that
I think I saw you in an ice-cream parlour
drinking milk shakes cold and long
Smiling and waving and looking so fine
don't think you knew you were in this song

And it was cold and it rained so I felt like an actor
And I thought of Ma and I wanted to get back there
Your face, your race, the way that you talk
I kiss you, you're beautiful, I want you to walk

We've got five years, stuck on my eyes
We've got five years, what a surprise
We've got five years, my brain hurts a lot
We've got five years, that's all we've got



Animal said:


> Is that what you think type 2 is about? Because I dont. 2 is about pride in being loved or needed. I am not seeing the pride and the "you need me, I give you love that no one else could" aspect. It just seems like love or a crush that literally any type could experience.


Metaphorically, yes, he says this exactly, and how did you miss it?

My little china girl
You shouldn't mess with me
I'll ruin everything you are
I'll give you television
I'll give you eyes of blue
I'll give you a man who wants to rule the world


----------



## BelladonnaPoe

I just need to say this about this thread. I see no real understanding of structure in either argument. People are throwing around long quotes from songs and interviews and the such that have no analysis or measure of interpretation behind them. The quote does not make the point, it supports it. What is it exactly that makes this song or this interview an example of Bowie being a 4w3 or a 3w4. What is it that shows this in the lyrics?

I'm asking everyone, from both sides to try to explain this for me. I think there would be more healthy and useful communication this way. 

Thanks for humoring me.


----------



## Daeva

mistakenforstranger said:


> Where's the drama? The hurt?
> 
> 
> 
> I hear her heart beating loud as thunder
> Saw the stars crashing
> 
> *I'm feeling tragic like I'm Marlon Brando*
> When I look at my China Girl
> 
> ...
> 
> I stumble into town just like a sacred cow
> Visions of swastikas in my head
> 
> The give and take?
> 
> I could escape this feeling with my China Girl
> I feel a wreck without my little China Girl
> 
> vs
> 
> I'll give you television
> I'll give you eyes of blue
> I'll give you a man who wants to rule the world
Click to expand...

I asked for the envy, the drama, the hurt, the *blood* of the Sexual 4. Competition, hatred. I'm asking for the "more 8 than 8" lust of the Sx 4.


This is not Sx 4.

_I'll give you television
I'll give you eyes of blue
I'll give you a man who wants to rule the world_

This is what E3 offers. Television = fake. Eyes of blue = society's ideal. A man who wants to rule the world = E3.
This is not the offer of E4.


----------



## Daeva

BelladonnaPoe said:


> I just need to say this about this thread. I see no real understanding of structure in either argument. People are throwing around long quotes from songs and interviews and the such that have no analysis or measure of interpretation behind them. The quote does not make the point, it supports it. What is it exactly that makes this song or this interview an example of Bowie being a 4w3 or a 3w4. What is it that shows this in the lyrics?
> 
> I'm asking everyone, from both sides to try to explain this for me. I think there would be more healthy and useful communication this way.
> 
> Thanks for humoring me.


----------



## throughtheroses

Sun Daeva said:


> I asked for the envy, the drama, the hurt, the *blood* of the Sexual 4. Competition, hatred. I'm asking for the "more 8 than 8" lust of the Sx 4.


I know that I decided not to argue any more with you, but I have one lingering question that I hope you'll answer.

Where on EARTH did you get that definition of a 4 sx???? Why the violence? 4 sx is about intimacy and competition, dealing with the constant envy and self-devaluation that most 4s have on a lesser level. But that is not "blood". Keeping emotional score, feeling unworthy of one's partner, and some mild codependency are all typical for this type, but your idea of the 4 sx is troubling and overly violent, to say the least.


----------



## Daeva

throughtheroses said:


> I know that I decided not to argue any more with you, but I have one lingering question that I hope you'll answer.
> 
> Where on EARTH did you get that definition of a 4 sx???? Why the violence? 4 sx is about intimacy and competition, dealing with the constant envy and self-devaluation that most 4s have on a lesser level. But that is not "blood". Keeping emotional score, feeling unworthy of one's partner, and some mild codependency are all typical for this type, but your idea of the 4 sx is troubling and overly violent, to say the least.


Do you think I meant actual blood? As in, literally? I'm not asking for a video of Bowie getting in a fight and getting stabbed lol.



I mean to emphasize the emotional volatility of this type. Their blood (lifeforce) lies in the heart. They start from the heart, and end in the heart. Wet, bloody, envious.

I'm looking for Bowie's metaphorical bleeding, but instead I get offered an upbeat pop song about a crush.






(Btw, this is a 478)


----------



## Animal

BelladonnaPoe said:


> @*Animal*
> 
> I'm going to be very honest with you. I don't think any of this has any real bearing on the argument at hand. My experience with the Enneagram is limited, yes, but that doesn't invalidate my points, which you have not addressed at all. It honestly seemed like you have simply asked me to expose myself for my lack of knowledge as if it in some way invalidates my points altogether and they do not require actual attention. I don't know if this is what you are actually doing, but I should inform you that you come off as very... condescending in tone of your previous posts. Again, I'm _not_ saying that you are meaning to be, but this is how I end up interpreting it.


You were describing an enneagram that is very different from the one I have been studying for years. So yes, I sensed you were new to enneagram. Surely you can still have good insights (and I definitely think you do!) but I am not prepared to take on the task of debating with you, because I would literally have to explain my view of enneagram from the ground up (which has evolved from reading entire books by several authors and interacting for years) in order for us to be debating the same system. Those books are available for you too, so if I feel like we can have a productive debate at some point, perhaps I will decide to engage. For now, I have written several posts on this matter already, so you can find them within the thread if you find them helpful.



> I also would like to say that you seemed to have misinterpreted me misinterpreting you. I have not made any real assumptions about you, as I do not know you and reserve judgment until I have had more of a dialogue with you. What I was simply trying to do was explain my position and my understanding of the material that is being discussed. Thank you for the background, though. It will be insiteful for future discussions.


You assumed I did not care about what people say, writing and other material, and all I care about is image and how things appear. A completely wrong assessment of me. I was simply writing about what it means to be an image type. (Which is not the same as saying that I only care about image.) But I'm glad it's corrected now.



> Moreover, you seem to have led a very full and interesting life so far, filled with enrichment and education. I am a very humble 21 year-old with barely a penny to my name without all these advantages that you have talked about in your previous post, so I apologize if I can't really do all of the research that you yourself have done at such an early age at this time. I have many more time consuming obligations at the moment. However, I do not believe that this should hold any bearing on the discussion at hand.


Advantages?

I have $50k a year medical bills. I have to take 50 pills or more every day just to survive. My illness is neither recognized by the government nor covered by Obamacare. Since age 16, I have, on and off - lost my hair, suffered 105 fevers, suffered really bad insomnia (this symptom is persistent), sometimes been unable to walk, swallow or move, undergone 7 surgeries, spoken in a whisper and lost my career. I also cannot work full time due to my condition. If you want to learn more about my "Advantages," here you go. This is a 5 minute trailor about the chronic illness I am dealing with and how it is received by the government and most medical professionals. Also, keep in mind that the video footage of these very sick people is what I have looked like for up to year-long periods at a time.






That hardly constitutes advantages. Imagine depending on $50,000 per year worth of medicine just to survive - PAID OUT OF YOUR OWN POCKET - while most doctors tell you that you're not really sick? Imagine being unable to work full time due to your condition, and yet having to meet those expenses?


I did not grow up rich either. I don't want to go into a long explanation about my family's financial status, but medical school is expensive, my parents were still in residency when I was born, and they eventually had to sell their house in order to cover my medical expenses so I wouldn't die. And now they are well past retirement age - yet still working due to this crisis - and don't have extra money (most of it went to other family members who have been sick, college and medication for both me and my brother who have Chronic Lyme, and they need to save for their own retirement) so there is no advantage to speak of. 

I recognize I have some privileges. But in the condition I am in now, you could hardly call that an advantage. I am stuck with these medical bills and symptoms for the rest of my life. Everything is relative, and relative to people in war-torn countries for instance I have tremendous advantages, and so do you, likely. But my life is hardly charmed. To say that a chronically ill person is advantaged is an "ableist" assumption.

_Ableism
"Ableism is the discrimination or prejudice against people who have disabilities. Ableism can take the form of ideas and assumptions, stereotypes, attitudes and practices, physical barriers in the environment, or larger scale oppression. It is oftentimes unintentional and most people are completely unaware of the impact of their words or actions.
The thought that people with disabilities are dependent and require the care and support of someone else is an example of ableism. Sometimes this comes out in the form of people helping people with disabilities without asking them if they need assistance (and of course waiting the affirmative response).

Another example would be in designing spaces, places, events, information, communication, and technology without considering the variety of needs of people with disabilities. For example, a building that is built to code can still be technically inaccessible if the ramp is around the back of the building or if there is no automatic door opener installed."
_




> What we are discussing is David Bowie and his status as either a 4w3 or 3w4. We should keep that in mind. Now I ask you to please look back at my actual points that I've made, think about them in the context of your extensive amounts of research, and tell me if you think they are right or wrong and why.


I think your entire assessment of what 4 and 3 mean is very different from mine. I showed you the long posts I've already written about what I think the types mean. Within those posts, I wrote a few things about Bowie and why I didn't think he lined up with 4. Your arguments don't change that, and I don't have time to pick apart any argument that happens to be made. I hope my long posts answered your questions. 



> On the subject of envy when it comes to 4s, from my understanding, 4s have a general feeling of deficiency. They feel like there is something fundamentally wrong with them and, in lieu of that, strive for acceptance and normality. They become envious of others because of this because they want to be "normal". This is where the contradiction comes in where they want to be original, different, _authentic_. They are at war with this need to be like everyone else and also different. They want and envy, other people and their apparent success. The way for a 4 to become healthy is to embrace their inner selves, let go of envy, and therefore become their true authentic self. Does that seem right to you?


It is not completely off from my views, but it's not exactly how I see it either. I am not sure where to begin, though.

I have referred several people to this amazing post by another 4 which talks about "longing" and what envy really is, as well as being "different" or "unique." I think this post explains it better than I am able to at the moment (I have a fever), so I will link it:

http://personalitycafe.com/type-4-f...2-difference-4-6-pattern-24.html#post13964858


I also started this thread, which lead to a lot of arguing, but at the beginning several 4s seemed to agree with it:

http://personalitycafe.com/type-4-f...n-not-about-uniqueness-its-about-meaning.html

That should explain some of my thoughts on the matter.


----------



## throughtheroses

@Animal

Even the experts can't agree on every detail of the Enneagram. Who are YOU to say that only _your specific interpretation_ is right and to be so condescending as to believe you'd have to "teach" everyone about it? As if other people's interpretations can't possibly compare with yours, because yours is infallible. My goodness.


----------



## Animal

throughtheroses said:


> @*Animal*
> 
> Even the experts can't agree on every detail of the Enneagram. Who are YOU to say that only _your specific interpretation_ is right and to be so condescending as to believe you'd have to "teach" everyone about it? As if other people's interpretations can't possibly compare with yours, because yours is infallible. My goodness.


I have said several times that I'm _not_ an expert and_ not_ a teacher, so I am _not _in a position to teach anyone. And that I still have a lot more to learn and that I am far from infallible. However, I cannot argue with either of you because your entire basis of enneagram is different from mine. So I don't even know where to begin, without getting on the same page about what the types even mean. And I don't have time to do that, so I would rather not argue with you. 
_*
I have never once said that my opinions were infallible!*_ Those are your words, not mine. All I said is that I've put a lot of time into research and I don't have time to frame my arguments for people who are basically presenting an entirely different understanding of the system (or even an entirely different system, lol).

Perhaps you're right and I'm wrong, but either way, we're debating two different systems, which I don't have time for.


----------



## Daeva

I have another argument to make.

Bowie was known to do live recordings in the studio - three takes at most. He'd get angry after that. Goes for getting it done, not getting it perfect.

How is this the idealistic 4 ? Where is the line to 1 ?
This is "as long as it gets the job done" 3 line to 9. E3 cutting corners.

Compare to Michael Jackson, a 9-fixer(!), who was renowned for redoing the smallest detail again and again and again ad infinitum until the entirety was nothing short from perfection.

Google 'Michael Jackson and perfectionism'

You won't find the same for Bowie.


----------



## Animal

@*BelladonnaPoe* @*throughtheroses*

I am going to respectfully bow out of this argument. You are both attacking my character, reading words into my posts that aren't there, and making assumptions about how I think and what my life is like behind the scenes. I don't appreciate that, and it is off topic anyway. And @*mistakenforstranger* - who knows a bit more about me and how much I have suffered and what I am about - is thanking these posts that are trashing my character, and I don't appreciate that either.

I might answer posts to other people, but I would rather not engage either of you on that basis. I wish you luck with your enneagram journeys and studies.

@*Daemonion*
Even though I don't agree with your typing of Bowie, I appreciate that you're taking the time to make very thorough arguments and refraining from attacking the character of those who disagree (or thanking posts that do so). I just wanted to say that. My annoyance here is not directed at you. And I still want to engage in that Josh Homme typing thread if you decide to start it.


----------



## Rose for a Heart

I have been wanting to say this for some time now: 

I can't say I relate to loving others to manipulate them into loving me. I have seen this behavior (in an actual 2 I believe), and at my worst I wasn't here. I do feel frantic and get scared of abandonment so I start throwing everything I feel, messages upon messages at the other person. The other is probably overwhelmed at this point and doesn't answer me immediately which reinforces my belief that I am "bad" and unworthy of love to them. Which is then followed by numbing because of acute state of crisis/fear it puts me through. 

I don't usually emotionally isolate myself either. I have only done this once and it was because I was giving up.


----------



## throughtheroses

@Animal

There are no attacks going on, but fine, do whatever makes you happy. You had the last word in both arguments, so I can see why you want to stop now. Good luck with "your" Enneagram.


----------



## throughtheroses

Niha said:


> I have been wanting to say this for some time now:
> 
> I can't say I relate to loving others to manipulate them into loving me. I have seen this behavior (in an actual 2 I believe), and at my worst I wasn't here. I do feel frantic and get scared of abandonment so I start throwing everything I feel, messages upon messages at the other person. The other is probably overwhelmed at this point and doesn't answer me immediately which reinforces my belief that I am "bad" and unworthy of love to them. Which is then followed by numbing because of acute state of crisis/fear it puts me through.
> 
> I don't usually emotionally isolate myself either. I have only done this once and it was because I was giving up.


Your experience is what the disintegration to 2 is really about, so don't let anyone convince you otherwise.


----------



## Daeva

throughtheroses said:


> Your experience is what the disintegration to 2 is really about, so don't let anyone convince you otherwise.


Disintegration to 2 is not the constant theme of emotional detachment that is present throughout Bowie's life.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/feb/23/david-bowie-and-me

_In the early days, we'd have a laugh, go clubbing, but later on it became apparent that he'd gone into character. You'd come off stage and he'd do interviews as Ziggy – you'd be sat in a taxi with this alien. You'd ask a question and he'd look right through you. He had turned into Ziggy Stardust._

Disconnect. 3 => 9



As for her experience, I'm sure she has a mind of her own.


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Sun Daeva said:


> I asked for the envy, the drama, the hurt, the *blood* of the Sexual 4. Competition, hatred. I'm asking for the "more 8 than 8" lust of the Sx 4.


It's one song, but Bowie implies there's a darker side to him.

My little china girl
You shouldn't mess with me
I'll ruin everything you are



> This is not Sx 4.
> 
> _I'll give you television
> I'll give you eyes of blue
> I'll give you a man who wants to rule the world_
> 
> This is what E3 offers. Television = fake. Eyes of blue = society's ideal. A man who wants to rule the world = E3.
> This is not the offer of E4.


That's one interpretation, but what does he mean? Do you also see the fascist symbolism? Nazi ("Visions of swastiskas in my head"), Aryan race ("Eyes of blue"), and perhaps Hilteresque ("A man who wants to rule the world," which may even be related to 8)? We can't really say for certain what he means, because Bowie is so subtle/symbolic, but he does talk about "giving" these things to her, which is why I interpret it as the arrow to 2. And in that light, it's quite twisted in the context of a "relationship".


----------



## Animal

throughtheroses said:


> @*Animal*
> 
> There are no attacks going on, but fine, do whatever makes you happy. You had the last word in both arguments, so I can see why you want to stop now. Good luck with "your" Enneagram.


You can have the last word. I cannot stop you from posting, and already you have slipped yet another TWO insults into this post, so clearly you are going to keep doing it.

After this, however, I will likely not respond. If it feels productive for you to continue telling me who I am, have at it.  I can't stop you. If I wanted to stop you from interacting with me I would ask the mods to give us a separation agreement. But I won't . Do whatever you want. I'm just letting you know that I'm getting literally nothing out of talking to either of you except for frustrated and depressed. I don't appreciate the assumptions and insults you are both throwing around about me and I'm not going to participate in a back and forth any longer.


----------



## Daeva

mistakenforstranger said:


> It's one song, but Bowie implies there's a darker side to him.
> 
> My little china girl
> You shouldn't mess with me
> I'll ruin everything you are
> 
> 
> 
> That's one interpretation, but what does he mean? Do you also see the fascist symbolism? Nazi ("Visions of swastiskas in my head"), Aryan race ("Eyes of blue"), and perhaps Hilteresque ("A man who wants to rule the world," which may even be related to 8)? *We can't really say for certain what he means*, because Bowie is so subtle/symbolic, but he does talk about "giving" these things to her, which is why I interpret it as the arrow to 2. And in that light, it's quite twisted in the context of a "relationship".


"*We can't really say for certain what he means*"

Then what have all of your interpretations of his lyrics throughout this entire thread been about? Or do you only mention this when you disagree with how I read it?


And again, how is it that you see Sx/So 4w3 in that song?

*Sexual/Social

This subtype is able to connect with others and with life itself, but always with an undertone of volatility and a tendency to dramatize. They are the most involved and connected of the subtypes of Four. They can go from relationship to relationship, seemingly tortured by each one. They are the most driven of the subtypes of Four to express themselves publicly and type Four celebrities are commonly found with this stacking. This subtype has a real difficulty remaining grounded, partly due to the undeveloped self-pres instinct. Although they can appear almost Eight-like at times with their lust for life and desire for passionate experience, they lack the focus of the Eight and the instinctual energy that would keep them grounded. Sometimes alcohol or substance abuse can be a problem. These Fours become more healthy when they learn to control their impulsiveness and focus their energies.

*




I remain unconvinced.


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Animal said:


> @*BelladonnaPoe* @*throughtheroses*
> 
> I am going to respectfully bow out of this argument. You are both attacking my character, reading words into my posts that aren't there, and making assumptions about how I think and what my life is like behind the scenes. I don't appreciate that, and it is off topic anyway. And @*mistakenforstranger* - who knows a bit more about me and how much I have suffered and what I am about - is thanking these posts that are trashing my character, and I don't appreciate that either.


I'm sorry, but I don't see how anyone trashed your character, besides saying you were coming off as condescending, and may not be necessary to say, but she did say that she may have been misinterpreting you. I thought she was being respectful, on the whole, and was actually looking for your opinion because you do have a lot of knowledge/personal experience to offer your insights. There was also more in that post to like than just what was referring to you, like her interpretation of 4. So, I don't wish you any harm by liking someone else's post, but not sure why I'm being brought into this too.


----------



## Animal

mistakenforstranger said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't see how anyone trashed your character, besides saying you were coming off as condescending, and may not be necessary to say, but she did say that she may have been misinterpreting you. I thought she was being respectful, on the whole, and was actually looking for your opinion because you do have a lot of knowledge/personal experience to offer your insights. There was also more in that post to like than just what was referring to you, like her interpretation of 4. So, I don't wish you any harm by liking someone else's post, but not sure why I'm being brought into this too.


Well if you didn't feel that it was insulting to say that all I think about is image and how things appear, and that I don't care whatsoever about writing and words (after we have exchanged long posts back and forth in more than 50-page threads, so you know I'm not like that ).... then I guess you were focusing on different aspects of the posts. It's all good. But I'm not going to argue here anymore, I think, unless something comes to mind. @Sun Daeva is handling this well on his own and any point I could make, he is making it more effectively. :blushed:


----------



## enneathusiast

To make this discussion more productive, I'm thinking we could focus on instinctual stacking by itself since it doesn't matter whether he's typed 4w3 or 3w4 to do that. Any takers?


----------



## Daeva

enneathusiast said:


> To make this discussion more productive, I'm thinking we could focus on instinctual stacking by itself since it doesn't matter whether he's typed 4w3 or 3w4 to do that. Any takers?


Well, my bet would be Sx/So, but I think there won't be much disagreement over that, lol.


----------



## Animal

Niha said:


> I have been wanting to say this for some time now:
> 
> I can't say I relate to loving others to manipulate them into loving me. I have seen this behavior (in an actual 2 I believe), and at my worst I wasn't here. I do feel frantic and get scared of abandonment so I start throwing everything I feel, messages upon messages at the other person. The other is probably overwhelmed at this point and doesn't answer me immediately which reinforces my belief that I am "bad" and unworthy of love to them. Which is then followed by numbing because of acute state of crisis/fear it puts me through.
> 
> I don't usually emotionally isolate myself either. I have only done this once and it was because I was giving up.


I can't relate to manipulating others into loving me either. I don't react exactly the way you do, but usually if I manipulate at all, I do so by withdrawing. In other words, I contact someone less, to see if he'll come after me, and then obsess over the interaction between us, writing songs or diary entries about it, and feeling "lesser" than him. I keep more and more feelings to myself. Then, much like you, I also feel like I don't deserve him because I have not been honest about my feelings, I've been selfish, and so forth.

So, I don't particularly see Bowie's "China Girl" song as something I can relate to in disintegration. That is not totally relevant since every 4 will experience disintegration in a very personal way... but I also don't see, theoretically, how any of it is specific to 2. And, I don't think 4s in disintegration (at least based on my experience and view) would become manipulative like an unhealthy 2... it's usually more about envy and comparisons, and indeed comes down to feeling like you're "lesser" than someone else.







Notice how Marilyn Manson puts his negative emotions at the forefront. "I'll lift you up like the sweetest angel, I'll tear you down like a whore" - this, to me, is much more "idealist" triad and specifically 4. It's about a process of comparison; holding the person above you, then seeing them as below you. Always a comparison. Envy is about comparisons, and coming up short. Here, he is yelling out his flaws: he is a DIRTY DIRTY ROCKSTAR. He is also taking _pride_ in his flaws. That is disintegration to 2.


----------



## Thomas60

*Thread Warning**
Keep to the Topic*

*This has reached personal criticism for several derailing posts now.*



> 1. Do Not Make Personal Attacks
> Posts that serve no purpose other than to flame and attack other users annihilate the quality of discussion. *You may critique or disdain argument and opinion posted by users, but you may not extend that method to maligning the users themselves*. Do not harass or bully other members, which includes the following:
> - "type-bullying," which we define as the persistent and unsolicited public questioning of another member's type when they have not expressed such an interest.
> - purposefully misgendering other members from the identification they have chosen on their profile.
> - unsolicited and especially repeated diagnosis of other members as having a particular personality disorder or mental illness.


+a time-out to make sure it's seen
Edit: Re-opened.


----------



## Rose for a Heart

Animal said:


> I can't relate to manipulating others into loving me either. I don't react exactly the way you do, but usually if I manipulate at all, I do so by withdrawing. In other words, I contact someone less, to see if he'll come after me, and then obsess over the interaction between us, writing songs or diary entries about it, and feeling "lesser" than him. I keep more and more feelings to myself. Then, much like you, I also feel like I don't deserve him because I have not been honest about my feelings, I've been selfish, and so forth.
> 
> So, I don't particularly see Bowie's "China Girl" song as something I can relate to in disintegration. That is not totally relevant since every 4 will experience disintegration in a very personal way... but I also don't see, theoretically, how any of it is specific to 2. And, I don't think 4s in disintegration (at least based on my experience and view) would become manipulative like an unhealthy 2... it's usually more about envy and comparisons, and indeed comes down to feeling like you're "lesser" than someone else.


I think I see a lot of sx 4 here too. Because for me it's the feeling I am undesirable/bad. It has more to do with well primarily not living up to a specific person's expectations, but in generally being in the "bad category" if that makes sense. Like I feel like I am part of a group of people that society couldn't give less of a fuck about, wouldn't care if I were living or dying, in pain or not - so why should _he_? That's what goes through my mind when I am in that place. I want the specific person's validation, but I don't compare myself to him - and I think this is specific to sx4. This reminds me a lot of Sylvia Plath, actually.


----------



## throughtheroses

So, back to David Bowie. I agree with @Sun Daeva that his instinctual variant would be sx/so. roud: What do you all think?


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Animal said:


> Notice how Marilyn Manson puts his negative emotions at the forefront. "I'll lift you up like the sweetest angel, I'll tear you down like a whore"  - this, to me, is much more "idealist" triad and specifically 4. It's about a process of comparison; holding the person above you, then seeing them as below you. Always a comparison. Envy is about comparisons, and coming up short. Here, he is yelling out his flaws: he is a DIRTY DIRTY ROCKSTAR. He is also taking _pride_ in his flaws. That is disintegration to 2.


Right, but don't you see nearly the same sentiment in Bowie's lyrics, only it's more subtle and under the surface:

My little China girl
You shouldn't mess with me
I'll ruin everything you are


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Sun Daeva said:


> "*We can't really say for certain what he means*"
> 
> Then what have all of your interpretations of his lyrics throughout this entire thread been about? Or do you only mention this when you disagree with how I read it?


I've posted lyrics that I think were representative of Type 4, but if you have a different interpretation based on your typing of him as a 3, then you have that right, too. We have to consider context. He also wrote that when he was in Berlin, so I think seeing it in those terms of fascism isn't too off the mark. Of course, nothing says I'm right, but I don't think you can ignore that part of it.



Sun Daeva said:


> And again, how is it that you see Sx/So 4w3 in that song?
> 
> *Sexual/Social
> 
> This subtype is able to connect with others and with life itself, but always with an undertone of volatility and a tendency to dramatize. They are the most involved and connected of the subtypes of Four. They can go from relationship to relationship, seemingly tortured by each one. They are the most driven of the subtypes of Four to express themselves publicly and type Four celebrities are commonly found with this stacking. This subtype has a real difficulty remaining grounded, partly due to the undeveloped self-pres instinct. Although they can appear almost Eight-like at times with their lust for life and desire for passionate experience, they lack the focus of the Eight and the instinctual energy that would keep them grounded. Sometimes alcohol or substance abuse can be a problem. These Fours become more healthy when they learn to control their impulsiveness and focus their energies.*


In this particular song, not really, but that does seem like a very close description of Bowie as a person.


----------



## Animal

@BelladonnaPoe 
To make one more thing clear - nobody addressed the one post that @Sun Daeva shared which incorporated Bowie's own quotes. That is what I was referring to. Most other points that were brought up were addressed. And that's why I wrote my previous post stating that excellent cases were made for Bowie being a 4w3, even if I still don't see it that way, and personally I find the 3w4 cases more persuasive, even if most of the 3w4 people just wrote a few posts and then left.

I apologize if my last post made it sound like I did not appreciate those points. This is why I edited it; I was admittedly angry and not thinking about the great cases; only thinking about how rude it is to write @Sun Daeva's posts off as "Shallow" when first of all, he made great points on this thread, he put a lot more effort into this particular thread than @mimesis, and 22 people agree with his typing of Bowie, and many people appreciated his posts. It is arrogant to dismiss them like that, without even bothering to argue against them. And I won't go back on that.


When you and I argued the other day, we both apologized. I meant it, and I stand by it. Again I'm sorry if I insulted you with the way my post initially came out. If the edited post still offends you, I am also sorry, but I can only say that it's not directed at you or any other posters except the two I mentioned, who I also argued with over the course of several other threads. I really, really appreciate the effort that both "sides" put into this thread. But if nobody will address Bowie's own quotes, I will not be persuaded. That doesn't mean some of the arguments weren't great, however.


----------



## Animal

Ah looks like since I left this thread 15 minutes ago, we got another vote for 3w4. Funny how those votes keep popping in, and yet anyone would say that SD and I are being stubborn and ignoring "overwhelming opposition." 

You're cool though @BelladonnaPoe. I really enjoyed your posts so far and I look forward to reading more. I understand why you were upset by my first post. I just want to make it clear that the "opposition" against 3w4 for Bowie is not as overwhelming as you are making it out to be; it's just most people posted a few posts and then stopped. I also want to remind everyone to please be cognizant of the effort that people put into their posts regardless of whether you agree with them or not. I appreciate all the posts here except for the ones that claim someone is shallow, stupid or thoughtless just because you disagree with their point or their arguing method does not appeal to you. And yes, there is irony there because I just trashed mimesis' arguing method, but I needed to make my point that he might see others as shallow, but I don't buy his view on what is shallow, nor do I find his posts deeper, flawless, or more intelligent than anyone else's. Again I would not feel the need to say that if he was not insulting someone who posted excellent and thoughtful posts (without even bothering to disprove or address his points).


----------



## Shadow Tag

@Animal

T'was me. :]

I'm not too invested into Bowie's typing because his music isn't my thing. But after he passed away I watched a few interviews and, in conjunction with reading quickly through the thread, 3w4 is pretty apparent to my shallow sensor mind ;] not sure what subtype he is though. 

I think that 3s are pretty misunderstood in general. They come in many shapes, sizes, and colors. And while they put an image, it's not like 3s are inherently dishonest manipulator Frank Underwood types. Deceit for 3s doesn't play out nearly as cunningly or dramatically as many people think imo. But I digress.


----------



## Animal

Views from Kanto said:


> @*Animal*
> 
> T'was me. :]
> 
> I'm not too invested into Bowie's typing because his music isn't my thing. But after he passed away I watched a few interviews and, in conjunction with reading quickly through the thread, 3w4 is pretty apparent to my shallow sensor mind ;] not sure what subtype he is though.
> 
> I think that 3s are pretty misunderstood in general. They come in many shapes, sizes, and colors. And while they put an image, it's not like 3s are inherently dishonest manipulator Frank Underwood types. Deceit for 3s doesn't play out nearly as cunningly or dramatically as many people think imo. But I digress.


I completely agree with you 

Bowie's type aside, it makes me sad that some people lump 3s in as being dishonest, not true to themselves etc; and consider 4s automatically deep or authentic just because they are 4s. It really doesn't work that way. A 4 can be dishonest and selfish; a 3 can be honest and open-hearted. 

I actually wrote a post about this in another thread just last night. I know you thanked it, but for those who haven't seen it, I'll quote it here.




Animal said:


> @*Phoenix Virtue*
> Your posts made me purr.
> 
> I also find it offensive that people think any "deep" person who expresses genuine emotions is a 4. It's not only offensive to all of my deep, intelligent friends, family members, etc, but also to me, because it belittles the issues I actually struggle with. Let me tell you - I have met some shallow as fuck 4s. One who I still wish I kicked in the face before she became a physical trainer. :laughing:
> 
> 
> Equating emotional depth with 4 is just about as _shallow_ as equating intelligence with 5. It misses the whole point of enneagram.
> 
> 
> A 4 can be fixated on her identity ad nauseum and still be a shallow jerk. And a 2 can be fixated on being loved and on others, and still explore a tremendous depth of emotion. In fact, my 8w9 friend is one of the most emotionally deep people I've met. He's downright philosophical about the mind, emotions etc, although his instinct is always to take action, and he has to work hard to stay "emotionally awake" and overcome 8 denial. He has 8 "issues," but if you talked to him about emotions, you'd see depth.
> 
> Again I agree with you that it's offensive to think anyone who is deep and emotional is a 4... I'm even offended by it and I am a 4. What is the point of enneagram really, then? Why not just use the usual words.. "That person is deep." "That person is smart." Why have the type structures at all? I'll never understand.


----------



## Shadow Tag

Animal said:


> I completely agree with you
> 
> Bowie's type aside, it makes me sad that some people lump 3s in as being dishonest, not true to themselves etc; and consider 4s automatically deep or authentic just because they are 4s. It really doesn't work that way. A 4 can be dishonest and selfish; a 3 can be honest and open-hearted.
> 
> I actually wrote a post about this in another thread just last night. I know you thanked it, but for those who haven't seen it, I'll link it here.
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/enneagra...a-del-rey-enneagram-type-15.html#post29023938


Aw thanks! Yeah I totally agree with that. But 4s, 5s, and 8s will be idealized, 2s, 3s, and sometimes 6s will be ridiculed, the world keeps spinning, etc. And that post you linked? Loved it.

I guess to throw out my particular reasons that I haven't seen in this thread, as well as my biases: I'll admit that 3 is hands down my favorite type. I wish I were one myself (there's someone we both know who thinks I'm sp 3, but idk...). Also, with so many 3s I've seen, there's this faux positive outlook vibe you get from them, but they're just a tad more serious. Like, you can see that he has a humorous disposition, but it often gets overrided by a calm, cool, and collected vibe. Just my observations. While I don't usually put the most stock in Late Night Show interviews, I see it creeping in here a lot:


----------



## Animal

ZiggyStardust said:


> I've never heard of a 3 who studied Nietzsche so closely and had such interest in occultism.


I realize this argument was on page 3, but this kind of argument really grinds my gears. You made good points in other parts of your posts, so this is not an attack on you overall, but just this sort of thinking.

Why can't a 3 study Nietzshe or be interested in occultism? First of all they're human and literally any person could have these interests. What does it have to do with enneagram?

Secondly, if we're going to get technical - 6 is the middle of the head triad - a VERY intellectual type. 3 has a line to 6. I have actually rarely met a 3 who didn't have an intellectual bent, and that applies especially to 3w4s.

What is the implication here - that 3s can't be interested in philosophy or occultist stuff? I know two 3s personally who are very into that.... and I have no idea what this has to do with being a 3 vs. 4. Care to explain? Anyone?


This is exactly along the lines of what I think you're getting at, @Views from Kanto - a lot of the arguments in this thread and the Lana thread are about "someone can't be a 2 or 3 if they're deep and have some dark interests." Really? _Really?_ Someone studies enneagram and _that's_ what they get out of it? What is even the point then? :sad:


----------



## Animal

P.S. 24 votes for 3w4 and counting. :wink:

I guess being persistent about Bowie being a 4w3 hasn't helped the "overwhelming opposition" to win overwhelming_ support_, even if it has managed to _overwhelm_ some people who argued for 3, to the point that they stopped arguing. 

I'm so glad there's a poll at the beginning of this thread. If there weren't, a handful of 4w3 supporters might have actually convinced @Sun Daeva and I that we were _the only people on Earth_ who still believe he's a 3 after all of the arguments here which are supposedly 'superior' or deeper than ours. They might have convinced us that it's us who is being stubborn, and absolutely everyone else except us sees him as a 4, especially after all of your amazing and superior arguments on this thread.

I do think there are amazing arguments here, on both sides, but still. The votes for 3w4 just keep going up, and that speaks volumes. Before criticizing our viewpoint, saying we're stubborn or refusing to see logic, just think about that for a moment. Let it sink in. 4w3 has less than half the votes 3w4 does.

I would never believe majority is right, of course. It's important to think for yourselves and have your own stance... I would never believe something just because the majority did. But I also wouldn't be so bold as to claim that only two people are making shallow arguments and they're the only ones who see it this way, when the proof that _more people think he's a 3_ is right at the top of the page. That is pretty demeaning toward 24 people who voted. Are they all shallow, inferior to the 4w3 people who "really see Bowie for who he is?" Really now?


----------



## Dragheart Luard

The occultism part can be just be a side effect of Bowie being an XNFJ, as people that value Ni and Fe tend to drawn to it. Funnier too that Nietzche is typed as an INFJ, so his way of thinking wouldn't be strange for Bowie.


----------



## Animal

Mordred Phantom said:


> The occultism part can be just be a side effect of Bowie being an XNFJ, as people that value Ni and Fe tend to drawn to it. Funnier too that Nietzche is typed as an INFJ, so his way of thinking wouldn't be strange for Bowie.


That may be the case, though I am still not convinced that personal interests can be explained away with enneagram, functions or any sort of typology. There may be trends, and I'm not denying that, but someone's personal interests is hardly an argument for their type. Unless you can explore WHY they get into it (indicative of enneagram, possibly), and how they go about studying it and sharing it (that would be more indicative of functions).

I do think he's an INFJ though.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Animal said:


> That may be the case, though I am still not convinced that personal interests can be explained away with enneagram, functions or any sort of typology. There may be trends, and I'm not denying that, but someone's personal interests is hardly an argument for their type. Unless you can explore WHY they get into it (indicative of enneagram, possibly), and how they go about studying it and sharing it (that would be more indicative of functions).
> 
> I do think he's an INFJ though.


That's true, but at least this stuff seems to be more fun for Ni-Se valuers overall. So it's a possible clue that points to specific types when you contrast all the information at hand. I agree with INFJ, as what I've heard of his music and quotes point to be influenced by Ni. Now about his enneagram I'm only sure that I see signs of 3 and 4 but not of which one is the core, only that 3w4 and 4w3 seem like the only plausible options for him. This is not like with Lana where the differences between 2 and 4 are easier to spot.


----------



## Daeva

mimesis said:


> Since you always agree with one another I suppose I can direct this to you also.
> 
> Personally I find @*Sun Daeva* 's one-liner analysis quite shallow, as compared to others here who make a case for 4. That would be like saying you can't be an individualist (4) and he a reformer (1) because you consistently agree with one another (or at least in public, on this forum), suggesting confluence of the symbiotic 9 or type 6 'wolf pack'.


It's ironic that with your arguments being stock-full on quotes and information, I still find them quite shallow as well. Overcomplication being the key word here.



Don't like my posts? Ignore them. Can't do that? Put me on ignore. Watch me care.


----------



## Animal

Mordred Phantom said:


> That's true, but at least this stuff seems to be more fun for Ni-Se valuers overall. So it's a possible clue that points to specific types when you contrast all the information at hand. I agree with INFJ, as what I've heard of his music and quotes point to be influenced by Ni. Now about his enneagram I'm only sure that I see signs of 3 and 4 but not of which one is the core, only that 3w4 and 4w3 seem like the only plausible options for him. This is not like with Lana where the differences between 2 and 4 are easier to spot.


Yeah I know what you mean  I do think there _is_ a strong case for 4, but so far the 3 case is stronger in my own mind - but I definitely agree that those are the only two options.  It's very hard for me to unsee the 3 though. I do try. And I do appreciate many excellent arguments here. I can't say that enough despite how strongly I've argued or my passion about distinguishing the two for its own sake. In other words my passion is more about dismantling stereotypes about 3 and 4 rather than being angry or upset by anyone seeing Bowie as a 4.

I'm sure i'm guilty of stereotypes too. I am not a perfect being. I try to think critically even about my own convictions, but nobody can always get rid of their own biases all in one fell sweep. So I'm not claiming to be above that. But if I see self-proclaimed stereotypes that catch *my* eye I try to dismantle or challenge them.


----------



## Daeva

BelladonnaPoe said:


> Seeing as there was no real explanation behind these quotes, I'll have to disagree. Posting a bunch of text posts and interviews does not provide adequate context for them. Nuance is needed here because _everything is subjective_. Quotes can be interpreted in any manner of ways and just because you say it shows him as a 3 does not automatically mean everyone else has to agree with your interpretation.


If you can figure out a way to interpret those quotes as E4, I'll be mostly impressed, because I sure can't.


----------



## Daeva

Just so people know which quotes I'm referring to:
(I must've copy/pasted like 90% of that link there lol)



Sun Daeva said:


> David Bowie - Quotes - IMDb
> 
> 
> I find that he refers to his music as a somewhat mechanical process. I'm not seeing the pourings of a vulnerable heart, but instead the refinement of work.
> 
> *I reinvented my image so many times that I'm in denial that I was originally an overweight Korean woman.*
> 
> *[on his pop sound during the 1980s] There was a period when I was performing in front of these huge stadium crowds at that time and I'm thinking: "What are these people doing here? Why have they come to see me? They should be seeing Phil Collins." They were definitely Phil Collins type audiences, you know? And then, that came back at me and I thought: "What am I doing here? I should be playing to people who don't look like they've come to see Phil Collins." That's what I'd been used to up until that point. I don't know the guy. There's a certain kind of mainstream field that I'm not comfortable in. I'm just not comfortable in it.*
> (note: he focuses on what >field< he finds himself in. This points away from a focus on emotional authenticity)
> 
> *The whole animal of rock keeps changing itself so fast and so furiously that you just can't plan ahead.*
> (oh yeah, never mind playing music from the heart, let's focus on the fact that it's hard to adjust to the current trends. He instead chose to set the trends himself. 3w4, the professional, the trendsetter)
> 
> *I like crazy art and, most of the time, out-there music. Rather than having a hit song these days, I like the idea that I'm in there changing the plan of what society and culture look like, sound like. I did change things; I knew I would. It feels great, and very rewarding.*
> (again, where's the focus on emotional realness? He cares about changing the face of pop => attachment triad focusing on achievement)
> 
> *"Hunky Dory" gave me a fabulous groundswell. I guess it provided me, for the first time in my life, with an actual audience - I mean, people actually coming up to me and saying,"'Good album, good songs.". That hadn't happened to me before. It was like, "Ah, I'm getting it, I'm finding my feet. I'm starting to communicate what I want to do. Now: what is it I want to do?" There was always a double whammy there.*
> ("What is it I want to do?" .... an E4 who is out of touch with the message they want to bring through their art? Right...)
> 
> *[speaking in 2002] It seems to be traditional now that every album since "Black Tie White Noise" is the best album I've put out since "Scary Monsters".
> *
> *[in 1972] Sometimes I don't feel as if I'm a person at all. I'm just a collection of other people's ideas.*
> (attachmentattachmentattachmentattachmentattachmentattachment. This quote is *the opposite*
> from the Frustration (idealist) triad.)
> 
> *[in 1980] I have a lot of reservations about what I've done, inasmuch as I don't feel much of it has any import at all.*
> (POD @ 9)
> 
> *[on "Live Aid"] I'd do it again like a shot. This has to become an annual event. It really does. And I think a lot of us would pledge to do a show like this every year until starvation in many areas of the world, not just Ethiopia, was under some kind of control. Everybody had such a fantastic time, I'd love to do it again.*
> (this is a theme with him: uplifting, encouraging, positivity. Combined with a strong sense of elitism makes for 3w4. No signs of emotional authenticity, which would point towards 4>3)
> 
> *All my big mistakes are when I try to second-guess or please an audience. My work is always stronger when I get very selfish about it.*
> (DING DING DING We have a winner!!!! The fact that he even has to tell himself to not please an audience is quite telling, don't you think?)
> 
> *[on declining the role of "Max Zorin" in "A View to a Kill", which ultimately went to Christopher Walken instead] It was simply a terrible script; I saw little reason for spending so much time on something so workmanlike. And I told them so. I don't think anyone had turned down a major role in a James Bond movie before. It really didn't go down well at all. People were very touchy about it.*
> (elitism - could be either 3w4 or 4w3. But again, he didn't attack the emotional content and rather criticized how the script itself wasn't up to par. Type 4 focus on emotional realness, or type 3 focus on competency? My vote goes to the latter.)
> 
> *I've always cited who my influences are. I felt it was important for people to be able to see how things are put together at any given stage. I let people know what's going through my head. I've been quite vocal about that through the years. It often amuses me to see bands who lie about who they're listening to, because they don't want people to know who their real influences are. They leave a trail of red herrings. It's disingenuous, to say the least. I've always loved the process - to see how things are put together.*
> (He STRONGLY focuses on outside influences in his work.)
> 
> *What I have is a malevolent curiosity. That's what drives my need to write and what probably leads me to look at things a little askew. I do tend to take a different perspective from most people.*
> (So in other words, his inspiration are not his emotional battles, but his 'different' perspective.)
> 
> *[on his 1980s music] Commercially I sold an awful lot of albums with work that I now feel was very inferior. Artistically and aesthetically it was probably my lowest point.*
> (Artistically and aesthetically, what about *personally*?)
> 
> *[on the massive success of "Let's Dance" and how it led to a creative low in his career] I was something I never wanted to be. I was a well-accepted artist. I had started appealing to people who bought Phil Collins albums. I like Phil Collins as a bloke, believe me, but he's not on my turntable twenty-four hours a day. I suddenly didn't know my audience and, worse, I didn't care about them.*
> (He is so concerned about who he gets associated with. Attachment triad.)
> 
> *[on Tin Machine] A glorious disaster. But for better or worse it helped me to pin down what I did and didn't enjoy about being an artist. It helped me, I feel, to recover as an artist. And I do feel that for the past few years I've been absolutely in charge of my artistic path again. I'm working to my own criteria. I'm not doing anything I would feel ashamed of in the future, or that I would look back on and say my heart wasn't in that.*
> (This tells me that apparently he actually runs the risk of making art where his heart wouldn't be "in it". I would imagine E4 to know their heart _before and during_ the makings of art, not after.)
> 
> *Some people call me pretentious for working like this, but I don't think there's anything wrong with thinking of pop as an art form - you've just got to think of it without a capital A. Lower-case art is always best. And anyway, a lot of what was considered art in 1978 is now just part of our vocabulary.*
> (Always defining things by their exterior form.)
> 
> *I'm just a bloke doing his job, and it's not terribly complicated. What I do is I write mainly about very personal and rather lonely feelings, and I explore them in a different way each time.*
> (FINALLY a quote about his feelings! That took long enough!! And yet, when talking about the feelings in his art, he suddenly calls himself "just a bloke doing his job." What happened to the elitist Bowie? He seems to consider his feelings almost "too normal". So normal that he almost never mentions them. Instead, he is elitist about who he gets associated with, and in which category he belongs in.I have yet to meet an E4 who calls themselves "just a bloke" and in the same breathe reference their emotional life. E4 is elitist about their emotions, E3 is elitist about categorizing their work.)
> 
> *I've made over 25 studio albums, and I think probably I've made two real stinkers in my time, and some not-bad albums, and some really good albums. I'm proud of what I've done. In fact, it's been a good ride.*​
> 
> 
> 
> Also, and this is another tell-tale of type 3, he refers to a lot of other artists in these quotes. Sx 4 tends to be more.. excluding... _self-absorbed_.
> 
> *I rate Morrissey as one of the best lyricists in Britain. For me, he's up there with Bryan Ferry.*
> 
> *I know about Kylie [Kylie Minogue] and Robbie [Robbie Williams] and "Pop Idol" and stuff like that. You can't get away from that when you hit the [British] shore, so I know all about the cruise ship entertainment aspect of British pop.*
> (note: not at all out of line for the elitism of the 3w4)
> 
> *[from 1992] It would be my guess that Madonna is not a very happy woman. From my own experience, having gone through persona changes like that, that kind of clawing need to be the center of attention is not a pleasant place to be.*
> 
> *I once asked [John Lennon] what he thought of what I do. He said, "it's great, but its just rock and roll with lipstick on".
> *
> *[on Syd Barrett] The few times I saw him perform in London at UFO and the Marquee clubs during the '60s will forever be etched in my mind. He was so charismatic and such a startlingly original songwriter. Also, along with Anthony Newley, he was the first guy I'd heard to sing pop or rock with a British accent. His impact on my thinking was enormous. A major regret is that I never got to know him. A diamond indeed.*
> 
> *I think Mick Jagger would be astounded and amazed if he realized to many people he is not a sex symbol, but a mother image.*
> 
> *[speaking in 2002] Of the 26 albums I've made I think there were two when I really wasn't involved and that was "Tonight" and "Never Let Me Down", the two follow-ups to "Let's Dance". That period was my Phil Collins years.*
> (His "Phil Collins years"? Oh yes, let's define my own art by other people. Said no 4 ever.)
> *
> **[on Freddie Mercury] Of all the more theatrical rock performers, Freddie took it further than the rest. He took it over the edge. And of course, I always admired a man who wears tights. I only saw him in concert once and as they say, he was definitely a man who could hold an audience in the palm of his hand.*
> (Out of all the things to talk about, he talks about how great of a performer Freddie was. Interesting choice.)
> 
> *[on Annie Lennox] Most exquisite. Absolutely fabulous.
> *
> *[on the late Lou Reed] He was a master.*
> 
> *[on Kurt Cobain] I was simply blown away when I found out that Kurt Cobain liked my work, and I always wanted to talk to him about his reasons for covering "Man Who Sold The World." It was a good straightforward rendition and sounded somehow very honest. It would have been nice to have worked with him, but just talking would have been real cool.*
> (He almost sounds surprised by Cobain's honest sound.)
> 
> *I often pull myself back if I feel something is becoming too melodic. But then melody comes in many forms. He'll hate me for saying it but the person who is better at hooks than almost anyone is Brian Eno, and the solo on "Virginia Plain" is probably one of the greatest three-note hooks in the history of pop.
> *
> *John Lennon was good at telling people off, but not me. Whenever I do didactic stuff it always seems ham-fisted.
> *
> *[on John Lennon] I always had such pleasure talking and being with John because there was nothing that didn't interest him, you know? He had a real appetite.*
> 
> *What happened at the beginning of the '70s with guys like myself and maybe Bryan Ferry and Brian Eno, maybe some of the guys in Floyd (Pink Floyd) before us, King Crimson, that nature of band: We were all pretty excited about letting people know what went into our work, that we weren't all trying to be Chuck Berry. I know Ferry was a huge Dada fan, for instance. He even did an album called "The Bride Stripped Bare". Eno and I went, "He shouldn't do that," thinking we should have done it first. We were excited by set design, by the way we dressed, by trying to create a whole landscape for the music we were making. The Beatles had done it to a certain extent because they had John (John Lennon).*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​And just about his life in general, many are so damn 'positive and uplifting', not what you'd expect from Sx4. Type 3 on the other hand...
> *[on whether he thinks he is a good actor] I took you in, didn't I? I rest my make-up case.*
> 
> *[in 1976 interview with Playboy] It's true - I am a bisexual. But I can't deny that I've used that fact very well. I suppose it's the best thing that ever happened to me. Fun, too.*
> 
> *I always had a repulsive need to be something more than human.*
> (doesn't seem to think of himself as _less-than_, instead, he focuses on becoming _more-than_)
> 
> *You would think that a rock star being married to a supermodel would be one of the greatest things in the world. It is.*
> 
> *I'm looking for backing for an unauthorized autobiography that I am writing. Hopefully, this will sell in such huge numbers that I will be able to sue myself for an extraordinary amount of money and finance the film version in which I will play everybody.*
> 
> *[on being 50] Fab. But, you know, I don't feel fifty. I feel not a day over forty-nine. It's incredible. I'm bouncy, I feel bouncy.
> *
> *[on Elvis Presley] I saw a cousin of mine when I was young. She was dancing to "Hound Dog" and I had never seen her get up and be moved so much by anything. It really impressed me, the power of the music. I started getting records immediately after that.*
> (this makes me wonder, did he get into music because it impresses him?)
> 
> *The only thing I ever got out of fame was a better table in a restaurant. And for that I gave up being able to relate to people.*
> (he gave up being able to relate to people? E4 doesn't give up relating to others by doing their music, they make art so they finally have the chance to relate and connect to others. He expresses the opposite.)
> 
> *[in 1975] I like fast drugs. I hate anything that slows me down.*
> (as do most 3's indeed... -> a 4 will focus on what they'll learn about themselves, be it through fast or slow drugs, the focus will be on their emotional exploration. Bowie just likes "fast drugs".)
> 
> *[in 1973] Offstage, I'm a robot. Onstage, I achieve emotion. It's probably why I prefer dressing up as Ziggy to being David.*
> (An E4 who feels like he can't achieve emotion in his personal life? Not happening. Also, look at the language he uses:* "I achieve emotion." => mechanized heart*)
> 
> *[in 2014] I'm completely delighted to have a Brit for being the best male but I am, aren't I Kate [Kate Moss]? I think it's a great way to end the day. Thank you very very much - and Scotland, stay with us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *​All in all, I'm not seeing terribly much that would point towards core 4, if anything at all. I'm seeing a strong emphasis on competency, elitism, referrals, and what categories he fits in. And almost nothing that talks about emotional realness.*
> *


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Animal said:


> His argument was not shallow at all. He used David Bowie's own quotes throughout his life and explained why they were 3ish, referring to the_ core elements of type 3 vs. 4, _which you and @*mistakenforstranger* are conveniently ignoring.


As I, @*ZiggyStardust*, and @*Daemonion* have been doing in terms of providing quotes of Bowie in support of 4 countless times throughout this entire thread, and which no one, and I mean no one, from the "Bowie is Type 3" side has addressed, so the ball's in your court too. @*Daemonion* provided an excellent analysis on this page with context to frame the argument and for understanding Bowie. No one from your side of Bowie has addressed his post. 

http://personalitycafe.com/enneagram-personality-theory-forum/864393-david-bowies-type-3.html



Animal said:


> It's shallow - and incredibly _intellectually dishonest_ - to add extra layers of interpretation and complication in order to twist someone's words and work so that you can interpret it as you see fit, rather than simply *being honest about what is right in front of your eyes. *To be clear, not everyone is doing that; some people have good cases and while they don't agree with me and Sun Daeva, they can still respectfully acknowledge our points and then state theirs. Yet you - the subjective analyzer and twister of words - dare to call other people's arguments "shallow." Because apparently it's up to you to decide who is shallow and who isn't.


Because this post from @*Sun Daeva *isn't adding extra layers of interpretation? I don't see this as the model of intellectual honesty. 



Sun Daeva said:


> Since you so _nicely_ "*asked*" for my elaboration on his body language, I'll go ahead and show you.
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how both men are tense, yet confident in their ability to charm. It's because they have their hearts closed off.
> "Have their hearts closed off, what does that even mean," you might wonder. Ah yes, good question! They talk about their work, and (sometimes) even themselves, but from a removed point of view. They aren't grasping for your heart with their words or tone, they either entertain or explain the workings, the 'system', of how they produce work. It's a mechanized heart. It is metallic, dry, shiny but removed. They aren't willing to put their heart out, they aren't willing for their heart to be open to rejection. Their heart gets systematized, updated for exactly the type of communication they want, reworked to fit the image. (note, Bowie's many faces are saying the same thing, essentially. He breaks with the old in order to present a new mask and refresh his influence on the music industry. This isn't fake nor inauthentic, because it is who he is. But it is a focus on the presentation, the work, and not the heart.)
> They love their work to be open for interpretation. It is adjustable, malleable.
> They focus on presenting themselves.
> *Engaging, but cold.*
> 
> (Note the confidence with which they address the other person. They don't have their heart vulnerable, so there is no fear of it being trampled.)
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't type 4. Type 4 seduces in a withdrawn way, but it is the opposed from removed.
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Messages _from the heart_. Even when they try to entertain, be funny etc,.. they speak with a softness in their voice. There is a vulnerability, _an open wound_ as it were, in their presentation. They don't speak from the workings of a mechanical heart. It's wet and vulnerable, it's soft meat. Open to rejection. Too soft, even. They betray an element of insecurity around baring their hearts like this, but they can't _not_ bare their heart. It's not an option. Incapable of adjusting, rigid about who they are. Take offense at being misinterpreted.
> Their heart is the first and last point with which they communicate to the world. The image gets worked on and perfected, in order to fit the heart.
> 
> (Also note the movement of their bodies being both stiff and sensual. Both retreating and inviting.)
> 
> ~~~~
> 
> As for the smile.
> 
> View attachment 539962
> 
> 
> View attachment 539970
> 
> 
> Again, notice the focus on presentation. These are not smiles from the heart. They are hard, rigid, cold. But(!) the eyes shine, they sparkle! They want your attention, they want your eyes to meet, but not your hearts. Pushing out. *Confidence*.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 539978
> 
> 
> View attachment 539986
> 
> 
> View attachment 539994
> 
> 
> Withdrawing smiles, shy smiles. Awkward. The heart is *vulnerable*. Insecure warmth. Drawing in. Inviting.


As I've been saying before this isn't merely about my own "standards" or "criteria" for truth, but for what constitutes truth itself. How can you even prove what @*Sun Daeva* is asserting to reach a consensus on anything? I can just as easily claim that in the interview he posted Bowie's showing the hidden essence of Type 4, Joy, as he's comfortable with himself and who he is at this stage in his life, and is able to be more open, playful, and connecting with the audience. 

From Riso-Hudson's description of Type 4 health levels:

While there is a certain seriousness about all of this, healthy Fours are not serious about everything. *They have a rich sense of humor because they see the poignant absurdity of much of human behavior in the light of the larger questions of life.* Healthy Fours have a kind of double vision on human nature: they can see the devil and the angel, the sordid and the noble in human beings, especially in themselves. The ironic juxtaposition of such opposites is as funny as it is deeply touching. The incongruities of the human condition are what make healthy Fours shake their heads in amusement, and nowhere are they more aware of human incongruities than in themselves.

Honestly, that's not a bad interpretation, but nothing says I'm right, nor does it for his argument, so it's a dead end as far as I'm concerned to argue in this manner, and why I take such issue with it. 



Animal said:


> More words, more complication, more picking apart and adding one's own subjective, twisted, roundabout analysis might appear 'deep' to some people at surface, but to me, it appears inefficient and intellectually dishonest. You and mistaken both ignore what's _right there_ but add posts and posts and posts about what isn't there and wear people down with thoughts and abstract analysis of how Bowie registers in your imagination. Yet you not only ignore posts about what is *RIGHT THERE*.. but dare to call them "shallow."


For me, and a few others, what's "right there" is how he is a 4, and I've said that about myself already in the thread, but I don't see how saying it alone means anything. You have to give reasons, and even use Enneagram sources, as I've done before, rather than your own subjective interpretation of the concepts to back up your points, or to invalidate how my view or anyone else's view is "wrong" according to you. From my view of your view of 4, if a 4 isn't screaming how they are real, authentic, or raw, then they're not a 4, because all of your examples of celebrities who are 4 seem to be in that vein, and why Bowie falls outside of Type 4 for you. He isn't "authentic" enough to you, all according to your own definition of authenticity.

And just because the majority see him as a 3w4 doesn't mean it's right. It's hive mentality, as far as I'm concerned, and it happens all over this forum. Flatter your supporters all you want, but they don't make reasonable, supportive arguments besides So-and-so's this type because of his/her "vibe," or feels that way to me.



Animal said:


> This brings me back to the time in around 6th grade when it occurred to me that if writing is way over my head, it's probably bad writing, it's not that I'm a moron. Some people never reach that conclusion. But if a writer can't communicate something obvious, visceral, real... and they have to bury it in abstract metaphor and interpretation.... they're making circles around the truth, and in essence, saying a whole lot of nothing.


So, you haven't evolved from how you were in 6th grade? Are you saying Bowie isn't saying anything because he buries his work in abstract metaphors? Because that's been one of your arguments before, that he isn't "splat" enough for you for him to be a 4. 



Animal said:


> I never fail to be amazed by the extent to which people manage to lie to themselves to avoid seeing what's right in front of their eyes simply because it doesn't fit their agenda. @*Sun Daeva* referenced Bowie's actual words, analyzed his body language, discussed the trends he has gone through in his life, and stated themes that were obviously ever-present, backing them up with Bowie's_ own quotes_. He and a few others have pointed out that the characters Bowie portrayed were there for show, and _the real Bowie_ is the showman, the one who wears whatever mask suits his current performance. How is that argument shallow? And how is that ignoring the deeper themes and the bigger picture? *Frankly, I find it insulting to say someone else is ignoring "the bigger picture" while analyzing Bowie's fictional characters and stage ploys, which Bowie himself admits were created in order to make fun of people, achieve a specific effect, or reference other musicians.* You are ignoring _Bowie himself_ and typing (or quoting) his self-proclaimed facades. Even while Bowie himself debunks the facades and owns who he truly is. (And no, owning who he is does not make him a 4, it makes him an intelligent and mature person.)


Is that what Bowie had to say? It seems nothing I've said has reached you then, if that's your view of him. I've posted all of these quotes at one point or another in this thread to refute this interpretation of him:

*"Should anyone think that [the theatrics] are merely distractions or gimmicks intended to obscure the music’s shortcomings, he mustn’t come to my concerts. He must come on my terms or not at all. My performances have got to be theatrical experiences for me as well as for the audience. I don’t want to climb out of my fantasies in order to go up onstage — I want to take them on stage with me."*

*"As an adolescent, I was painfully shy, withdrawn. I didn't really have the nerve to sing my songs on stage, and nobody else was doing them. I decided to do them in disguise so that I didn't have to actually go through the humiliation of going on stage and being myself."*


----------



## Animal

@*mistakenforstranger*
We can argue that all of our interpretations of David Bowie are subjective. That would be the most honest thing we can possibly say.

In my personal opinion, the deepest - and most open/honest/respectful long conversation here was between @*Sun Daeva* and @*Daemonion* . They were going back and forth addressing some depths that even I couldn't touch on and it was intriguing, regardless who I agree with.

But a lot of other people wrote great posts too - on both sides.

According to the poll 68% of people who voted, voted for 3w4. And the count keeps going up. So implying that we're crazy or stubborn to continue arguing for 3w4 is dismissive of more people than just the two of us.

You are incredibly stubborn. I'm not exactly the most open-mided, easily malleable person myself, but really, you came in here with your own idea and didn't even give credit where it's due when people made strong cases. After several pages of great arguments on both sides, you were bold enough to claim that you could not even see a case for 3, and could not imagine where this case is coming from. That just shows you're here to prove your own point and not to listen. That statement reveals your intentions and your character, and it was incredibly insulting.

For that reason, I don't care to address your points any further.


----------



## throughtheroses

@Animal

Tyranny of the majority does not equal truth. I thought that a 4 would be the first one to acknowledge that.


----------



## Animal

throughtheroses said:


> @*Animal*
> 
> Tyranny of the majority does not equal truth. I thought that a 4 would be the first one to acknowledge that.


I did acknowledge it in my post. If you read it again - I specifically said that I would never suggest going along with the majority simply because it is the majority.

I just find it insulting that anyone would say @*Sun Daeva* and I were being "stubborn" and arguing against "overwhelming opposition" when the majority happens to be in our favor. That is illogical. In fact the overwhelming opposition is on the 3 side, but I do agree with you that majority does not make it right, and I would never agree with anything for that reason - like I stated in my post. I just think it's not only disrespectful but also blatantly incorrect to imply that we're the only loons who see it that way when 22 others agree with us.


But really, I've been the one to argue, all on my own, points that NOBODY else agreed with because I believed in my point. I've done it before, but I would never say that everyone else was crazy to not see my point; I would simply try to strengthen my argument, or accept that perhaps there is something to their arguments that I should consider further.


----------



## Animal

@*throughtheroses*

Reread my post here:



Animal said:


> P.S. 24 votes for 3w4 and counting. :wink:
> 
> I guess being persistent about Bowie being a 4w3 hasn't helped the "overwhelming opposition" to win overwhelming_ support_, even if it has managed to _overwhelm_ some people who argued for 3, to the point that they stopped arguing.
> 
> I'm so glad there's a poll at the beginning of this thread. If there weren't, a handful of 4w3 supporters might have actually convinced @*Sun Daeva* and I that we were _the only people on Earth_ who still believe he's a 3 after all of the arguments here which are supposedly 'superior' or deeper than ours. They might have convinced us that it's us who is being stubborn, and absolutely everyone else except us sees him as a 4, especially after all of your amazing and superior arguments on this thread.
> 
> I do think there are amazing arguments here, on both sides, but still. The votes for 3w4 just keep going up, and that speaks volumes. Before criticizing our viewpoint, saying we're stubborn or refusing to see logic, just think about that for a moment. Let it sink in. 4w3 has less than half the votes 3w4 does.
> 
> *I would never believe majority is right, of course. It's important to think for yourselves and have your own stance... I would never believe something just because the majority did. But I also wouldn't be so bold as to claim that only two people are making shallow arguments and they're the only ones who see it this way, when the proof that more people think he's a 3 is right at the top of the page. That is pretty demeaning toward 24 people who voted. Are they all shallow, inferior to the 4w3 people who "really see Bowie for who he is?" Really now?*


^ See you missed this and chose to focus only on one tiny bit of my argument, missing the very direct statement I made, that majority is not necessarily right.

There is no tyranny here except for people claiming others' arguments are shallow OR they can't see why anyone makes a 3 case whatsoever after so many people put tremendous effort into their arguments. There is also tyranny in implying that we're THE ONLY ONES who could see it that way or who would dare to continue standing against "overwhelming opposition".. as if that should make us see it differently? (Not to mention, it's completely incorrect?)


Where is the real tyranny coming from, then?


----------



## throughtheroses

@Animal

I have to temporarily withdraw from this tedious argument, because none of this is getting anywhere. Arguing in circles doesn't accomplish anything, nor does playing the victim or dodging each other's points. All of this is just making me incredibly frustrated and upset, and I quite frankly don't have the time or patience to explain in detail exactly why I disagree with you. Just please understand that I _do_ disagree, and that none of this tediousness is going to solve that. We probably won't come to a point of agreement about this, and I've run out of volition to continue. I still harbor no ill intentions to you or anyone else on either side of the debate, but I can't deal with this at the moment and that is all.


----------



## Animal

In case I haven't been clear enough -

A few points:

1 - I am not claiming to be right.
2 - I am not claiming to be more objective than anyone else.
3 - I am not claiming that just because majority votes 3, they are right.
4 - I am not claiming that anyone who argues 4 for Bowie is stupid, shallow, pretentious etc, for that reason alone.
5 - I am not claiming that no good case has been made for Bowie being a 4.

__

1 - I _am_ claiming that there are good cases on both sides, and that it's rude for mistaken to say he can't even imagine where the 3 case comes from, after so many people put effort into explaining it.
2 - I _am_ claiming that it's incorrect to imply Sun Daeva and I are the only people daring to type Bowie at 3 against an "overwhelming majority," while the majority happens to be in our favor (which doesn't make it RIGHT, but it IS in our favor).
3 - I _am_ claiming that our posts are not more shallow than anyone else's posts. A lot of people on both sides have written some shallow, offhanded posts and some well thought-out posts.
4 - I am claiming that everyone's interpretation is subjective (including mine)
5 - I am claiming that I still haven't changed my mind on Bowie being a 3 - not because of a lack of good arguments, but because the foundation of the 3 argument hasn't been dismantled in a way that makes sense _to me_ - personally and subjectively.


__

I don't have anything personal against anyone in this thread. There were clashes earlier, we've all apologized, I want to move past it. My anger at mimesis and mistakenforstranger stems from long-standing problems which have arisen again in this thread.


----------



## Animal

throughtheroses said:


> @*Animal*
> 
> I have to temporarily withdraw from this tedious argument, because none of this is getting anywhere. Arguing in circles doesn't accomplish anything, nor does playing the victim or dodging each other's points. All of this is just making me incredibly frustrated and upset, and I quite frankly don't have the time or patience to explain in detail exactly why I disagree with you. Just please understand that I _do_ disagree, and that none of this tediousness is going to solve that. We probably won't come to a point of agreement about this, and I've run out of volition to continue. I still harbor no ill intentions to you or anyone else on either side of the debate, but I can't deal with this at the moment and that is all.


Sorry, I wrote my last post before I saw this post.

No problem at all, and totally understandable. I feel the same way. I have absolutely no ill feelings towards you either, I promise. Like I said in the last post. You're cool. If anything I've done offends you in the long run after you've had a chance to mull it over, feel free to let me know, PM me etc. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

And don't worry. Arguing a point with passion doesn't mean I hate you. If I dislike or am angry at someone I think it's pretty damn obvious, haha. I really do look forward to future posts of yours and I harbor no bad feelings either.


----------



## Scarlet Eyes

Personally, he seems like a 3 with a *very* strong 4 wing. I've heard a theory that the wing is a huge influence of the type to the point that one could look like the wing as opposed to its core. So maybe that's what people are seeing. Plus, as @SheWolf stated earlier, a lot of his lyrics are riddled with Ni and abstractions as opposed to 4-like emotional realness. He seems more focused on continuously refining and reinventing himself than identifying with his origin.
I'd tentatively type him as xNFJ 3w4-7w6-9w8 Sx/So.

David Bowie – a Shining Enneagram Three | Nine Rivers Wellness

And I don't think only 4s have an interest in Nietzsche or occultism. Any types can be interested in those subjects. The important thing is to determine _why_ they choose to study the subject. 

I'm not an expert on the man, but looking through some of his quotes, and his interests on Nietzsche, I wonder if he was particularly entranced by the Ubermensch. Perhaps this is what he tries to convey through Ziggy Stardust. 

Perhaps he wants to be his own Ubermensch.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Nietzsche's idea of being superman was based much more on primal desires and things like will to power. It is more macho than Bowie basically. 

I associate 5 with being into dark and the occult as much as 4. I think 5 is the darkest type probably. Most nihilistic. 

These are 5 quotes:

"All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth."

"Enemies of truth.-- Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Scarlet Eyes said:


> Personally, he seems like a 3 with a *very* strong 4 wing. I've heard a theory that the wing is a huge influence of the type to the point that one could look like the wing as opposed to its core. So maybe that's what people are seeing. Plus, as @*SheWolf* stated earlier, a lot of his lyrics are riddled with Ni and abstractions as opposed to 4-like emotional realness. He seems more focused on continuously refining and reinventing himself than identifying with his origin.
> I'd tentatively type him as xNFJ 3w4-7w6-9w8 Sx/So.
> 
> David Bowie – a Shining Enneagram Three | Nine Rivers Wellness
> 
> And I don't think only 4s have an interest in Nietzsche or occultism. Any types can be interested in those subjects. The important thing is to determine _why_ they choose to study the subject.
> 
> I'm not an expert on the man, but looking through some of his quotes, and his interests on Nietzsche, I wonder if he was particularly entranced by the Ubermensch. Perhaps this is what he tries to convey through Ziggy Stardust.
> 
> Perhaps he wants to be his own Ubermensch.



I can picture Madonna saying all these things too. Who also looks like a 3.

Real talk: basically what these 3s do is lift styles from other people and make them famous. Look how relevant Madonna has stayed. Michael Jackson. They popularize moves from lesser known people. Bowie seems like that. 

Muhammad Ali was also like that. He is a collage of other people. His personality was channeling of many others. Maybe it is Fe. I don't know.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

And another point. David Bowie is actually not dark at all. I considered Madonna a 3 and saw SOM I believe, and others, make a case for her being a 7. That made sense. Cuz Madonna is a bad girl. 7s are badder than 3s. lol. But then I heard good arguments how Madonna's "darkness" is too controlled to be a 7. Compare her to Fiona Apple for example. Fiona Apple is darker. Again, Bowie is like Madonna. They push the envelope and shit but actually don't have twisted minds like my girl Fiona or Nietzsche.

I consider NIN and even Smashing Pumpkins to be darker.

I really relate to this line:

Emptiness is loneliness, and loneliness is cleanliness
And cleanliness is godliness, and god is empty just like me


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Animal said:


> @*mistakenforstranger*
> We can argue that all of our interpretations of David Bowie are subjective. That would be the most honest thing we can possibly say.


Did I ever claim that my interpretation wasn't subjective? All I said was his post and approach is _too_ subjective that you can literally argue anything, ignoring any sort of context whatsoever. Even you saw the folly in it earlier on, when you brought up a post which you had written before, as posted below:



> Originally Posted by *Animal*
> _@*mimesis
> 
> Hmmm.. looking at this only makes my 3-case stronger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click this bar to view the original image of 560x380px.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marilyn Manson is looking up at the sky wistfully, wishing he could find the place where he belongs... somewhere out there. The longing is clear in his expression. As for Bowie, he's looking straight at the camera, seducing it, showcasing his glamour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click this bar to view the original image of 645x363px.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marilyn Manson is screaming his pain out to the world. Yet in a way, Bowie's picture here is more painful to look at, because his suffering is stifled by this mask of perfection. He looks like a doll; the humanity is almost erased in favor of his perfectly crafted image. Yet somehow, this attempt to gloss over his flaws and humanity makes him feel *more* vulnerable.. because it's a construct that could easily be broken down simply by removing the mask. Whereas Manson, more in touch with his pain and shame and suffering, is owning it all; a picture of emotional resilience. It's impossible to shame a masochist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most telling picture of all. Manson is leaning on Bowie with this air about him like he feels he is inferior to him, he idolizes Bowie.. he is showcasing his shame that he's not as good as Bowie, that he's so moved by Bowie's amazingness. Yet Bowie is not embodying any emotions at all; instead, he is flashing a perfected, crafted smile at the camera, seemingly oblivious to anything around him, including how much he is being worshipped. He's too busy upholding his flawless crafted smile to even appreciate the admiration fully; he's flashing the crafted smile because he can't NOT do it. Just as Manson can't NOT be masochistic and worshipful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bowie is not embodying emotions here. He's swaying around, smiling, seducing the camera, moving like a sculpture. Compare that to the body language of any 4, such as Marilyn Manson or Alanis Morisette.
> 
> 
> A lot of people relate to the narrative about being from another planet. I used to think it was 4ish but now I'm starting to think the narrative in and of itself is human; it's relatable perhaps to many people (5s, 6s, 7s, 3s, whoever...) .. and there are 4s who would never think to phrase it that way. It's a more social-4ish sentiment specifically.. that you don't necessarily *want* to be unique but you are painfully aware of the difference between you and them. Marilyn Manson embodies this well.
> 
> 
> [skipping irrelevant text]
> 
> This is what unites 4s, not the idea that they're from another planet.. which can also be glamorized. Manson glamorizes it, and so does Bowie.. but with Manson, there's a lot of expression about the pain and shame involved in being alien , and the anger and sadness that he can't reach others. With Bowie.. where's the embodiment of shame? Rather than embodying his sense of lack, he's embodying his idealized image of the perfect, beautiful alien that nobody else can keep up with or measure up to.*_


And as you replied a page later in this thread in regards to the post above:



Animal said:


> @*mistakenforstranger*
> 
> *My first post was more of a feeling I get from the types. maybe when I'm more awake I can explain why I get that feeling and why I think it makes sense with each type, but it might not be worth it because it's subjective as hell.* However - the other posts I quoted go into more depth about why he does fit 3 themes and not 4 themes, and contrasts him to 4s.
> 
> Thanks for saying you're sorry I'm exhausted  I have a chronic illness and a job and I've resumed working out, so I'll probably be exhausted for a while :/ but I'll try to explain myself if possible one day. For now I left a bunch of quotes I'd collected in an old thread about him.
> 
> I'm excited to see where this thread goes.


Subjective as hell. Yes, I completely agree.




Animal said:


> In my personal opinion, the deepest - and most open/honest/respectful long conversation here was between @*Sun Daeva* and @*Daemonion* . They were going back and forth addressing some depths that even I couldn't touch on and it was intriguing, regardless who I agree with.


That's fine, and I'm glad the conversation was productive.



Animal said:


> But a lot of other people wrote great posts too - on both sides.
> 
> According to the poll 68% of people who voted, voted for 3w4. And the count keeps going up. So implying that we're crazy or stubborn to continue arguing for 3w4 is dismissive of more people than just the two of us.


I never implied you were crazy, perhaps stubborn, but that summation of myself was thrown my way first from others, specifically from @*SheWolf*, in which she said I had a "strick view." That's a cop-out, as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps I know more about Bowie and have a better argument rather than to see me as "strict". I don't mind being called stubborn because I'm "stubborn" for a reason, so it isn't really an insult, but I've never said people were "crazy" or "stubborn" for thinking he's a 3, only that I'm truly confused by it based on what is the common understanding of what it means to be Type 4 in the Enneagram literature (and not according to your subjective understanding). You and others took offense at that, but I'm only speaking for *myself* that I can't see him as a 3 _based on everything that I know about him_. Do you and others know enough about him to make that call on his type so easily? That's for you to decide, but I haven't seen it from anyone in their arguments besides @*Daemonion* and @*ZiggyStardust*, and later @*throughtheroses*, @*BelladonnaPoe* have added their input, and from the other side you and @*Sun Daeva*, though I believe you're misinterpreting him, and have tried to show you why to no avail. I even said I was open to a Type 7 typing for him, because I find that more plausible than Type 3. Even in one of the first posts @*Swordsman of Mana *put forward that possibility. 



Animal said:


> You are incredibly stubborn. I'm not exactly the most open-mided, easily malleable person myself, but really, you came in here with your own idea and didn't even give credit where it's due when people made strong cases. After several pages of great arguments on both sides, you were bold enough to claim that you could not even see a case for 3, and could not imagine where this case is coming from. That just shows you're here to prove your own point and not to listen. That statement reveals your intentions and your character, and it was incredibly insulting.
> 
> For that reason, I don't care to address your points any further.


I've already addressed this above, and I think I've been pretty patient with you and everyone (besides my frustration with Sun Daeva's post, which I hope I've cleared up now), up until you decided to shame me and @*mimesis* in your latest post. Why is that even necessary? 

They say I talk with so much emphasis
Ooh, they so sensitive


----------



## Animal

@*mistakenforstranger*
All points have been read. I'm glad it was productive too... and it makes me happy to see you say that it was productive as well. 

I do have some problems with what you wrote though.

I'll start with this (because I'm exhausted right now..)



mistakenforstranger said:


> and from the other side you and @*Sun Daeva*, though I believe you're misinterpreting him, and have tried to show you why to no avail.


First of all, several people, not just me and Sun Daeva, posted arguments for 3 on this thread. It is annoying that you ignored everyone else's arguments just because they didn't persist for several pages.

Secondly, "tried to show you why to no avail." Like you're on a mission to convince us of your correct point, but not open to pay credence to ours at all, exactly as I suspected. How 1ish.. been integrating lately? :laughing:


----------



## Daeva

mistakenforstranger said:


> though I believe you're misinterpreting him


That's just it, isn't it? You think that Bowie being typed at E3 means that people "misinterpret" him.

A couple of things:

Type =/= personality

What makes you so sure it is not _you_ who is misinterpreting him?


----------



## _Blackstar_

I haven't been on PerC for a while due to work constraints, but I'll begin a response to @Sun Daeva's lengthy and substantial collection of quotes and make a case for 4 out of it either on Monday or Tuesday when I'm free.

In the meantime, I found this interesting: David Bowie: An Enneagram Profile by Gavan Kearney | Nine Points Magazine (This may have been posted in the INFJ-Bowie thread, but I think it's worth discussing here as well).

The analysis of Bowie-as-4 is limited mostly to his early work, but it is excellent nonetheless. However, while there is a lot of evidence for 4 in his first few albums, I'm aware that those who type him as 3 are going mostly by things he said and did in the 80s and thereafter. You've mentioned the 70s too, but the strongest examples for Type 3 seem to come from his work in the 80s and his reflective comments about his life in the 90s & 00s (being proud of his accomplishments, etc). I haven't, I hope, tried to force _all_ of those quotes into the box of "typical 4", but I do believe that there is some basis for considering the happier, more grounded Bowie we saw in the 90s & 00s as a product of 4's integration to 1. There is a definite shift in his focus from the world within to the world beyond (which isn't to say that he entirely stopped introspecting, envying or being a 4) once he reached the higher levels of health and began integrating. For instance, his focus on culture alongside personal meaning, and his sudden openness to criticism (he previously dismissed critics and insisted that he never read them) bespeaks a movement toward 1, and a concomitant surge in objectivity, groundedness and personal satisfaction. Part of a 4's movement to 1 is learning to accept reality, and I find it telling that in the _GQ_ interview which the strong, pro-3 post quotes from, Bowie concludes by saying he is "hungry for reality" and even titled his 2003 album _Reality_. Bowie admitted to being depressed in the 80s (hence the angst about being popular and "mainstream"), but regained his health and even began to integrate toward 1 once he took his artistic vision into his own hands with _Tin Machine_ and the assorted projects he completed in the 90s.

But I shan't delve too deep here, as I'm too tired to cite all of my claims and argue them convincingly. Suffice it to say that the above article makes a great case for 4 to a point, but does little to refute the claims made by those in favour of Type 3 which relate to his later career.


----------



## SheWolf

I'm done with this thread.
I agree with 3 for the reasons I had said and with what others such as @Sun Daeva @Animal and @Scarlet Eyes have said.

Dont mention me or quote me anymore here. It's exhausting and simply not worth it.


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Animal said:


> First of all, several people, not just me and Sun Daeva, posted arguments for 3 on this thread. It is annoying that you ignored everyone else's arguments just because they didn't persist for several pages.


Yeah, and the only one to do so with any elaboration besides you and your husband was @Quernus, which I acknowledged in an earlier post, so it is about giving credit where credit is due, because I doubt the people that you want me to acknowledge have put as much time into this as the people I've already indicated in my last post, which includes yourselves. It's not about "persisting," but about having a reason besides he's this type because I think so, and leaving it at, and speaking from both sides of the aisle. I still want to address the new points above that have been put forward. Stop belaboring this point at me, and judging my "character". It's irrelevant to the discussion of Bowie itself.


----------



## Animal

Daemonion said:


> I haven't been on PerC for a while due to work constraints, but I'll begin a response to @*Sun Daeva*'s lengthy and substantial collection of quotes and make a case for 4 out of it either on Monday or Tuesday when I'm free.


Can't wait to see it 



> In the meantime, I found this interesting: David Bowie: An Enneagram Profile by Gavan Kearney | Nine Points Magazine (This may have been posted in the INFJ-Bowie thread, but I think it's worth discussing here as well).


I had read this article about 2 years ago. Did you see his article on John Lennon? He made literally all the same points that I have always made (all on my own) about why I see John Lennon as a 6. Someone linked me to the article because I was making the same points, but this guy did it so much more efficiently and eloquently than I could.

http://www.ninepointsmagazine.org/john-lennon-an-enneagram-profile-by-gavan-kearney/

BRILLIANT ARTICLE!!!!!!!

After LOVING THE HELL out of his article (like YAY I'm not THE ONLY PERSON ON EARTH who thinks John Lennon is an obvious 6w5!!!! And for _all the same reasons!_) .... I read the Bowie article. Since I had so much respect for the guy, I really really tried to give attention to his case. This is why I may seem a bit stubborn now, since back then I took a while to think it through.. but I still couldn't unsee the 3.


BUT you know how much I enjoy your posts here so maybe you'll be the one to make me unsee it, lmao. :kitteh: I actually almost think you're making a better case than he did, even if I haven't caved yet.


----------



## _Blackstar_

Animal said:


> Can't wait to see it
> 
> 
> I had read this article about 2 years ago. Did you see his article on John Lennon? He made literally all the same points that I have always made (all on my own) about why I see John Lennon as a 6. Someone linked me to the article because I was making the same points, but this guy did it so much more efficiently and eloquently than I could.
> 
> John Lennon, An Enneagram Profile by Gavan Kearney | Nine Points Magazine
> 
> BRILLIANT ARTICLE!!!!!!!
> 
> After LOVING THE HELL out of his article (like YAY I'm not THE ONLY PERSON ON EARTH who thinks John Lennon is an obvious 6w5!!!! And for _all the same reasons!_) .... I read the Bowie article. Since I had so much respect for the guy, I really really tried to give attention to his case. This is why I may seem a bit stubborn now, since back then I took a while to think it through.. but I still couldn't unsee the 3.
> 
> 
> BUT you know how much I enjoy your posts here so maybe you'll be the one to make me unsee it, lmao. :kitteh: I actually almost think you're making a better case than he did, even if I haven't caved yet.


I haven't read his thoughts on Lennon. I'll read through it during my next free moment. :happy:

I'll look over some of Bowie's old interviews before I post my response. I'd actually overlooked that post completely! I was oblivious to it before you linked it (on page 25ish? :tongue

I appreciate that the majority are voting Type 3 for a reason. Personally, as I'm sure you already know, I believe it's because of general misconception, but if, by the end of this thread, people still believe he is 3, I suppose I'll have to capitulate to the popular consensus! Like you, I haven't been swayed from my initial analysis yet, but I do acknowledge that there are many points which scream Type 3 without their proper context.


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Animal said:


> First of all, several people, not just me and Sun Daeva, posted arguments for 3 on this thread. It is annoying that you ignored everyone else's arguments just because they didn't persist for several pages.


Just so you know, I have not ignored anyone's argument on this thread. I've read every single post thoroughly, in case you're assuming I just gloss over ones I like/don't like. It's just that I remain unconvinced by their arguments, as you do of mine, but that hardly constitutes "ignoring". You also haven't addressed any one of my posts either in terms of my rebuttal to your argument. Though, I'm glad you still want to continue talking about this topic.


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Sun Daeva said:


> That's just it, isn't it? You think that Bowie being typed at E3 means that people "misinterpret" him.
> 
> A couple of things:
> 
> Type =/= personality
> 
> What makes you so sure it is not _you_ who is misinterpreting him?


Well, when you say David Bowie is similar to Ricky Martin, at least visually (because that's where the comparison ends, if you want to believe they look the same, which I don't think they do at all), and framing the argument of 4 vs 3, as one of "Raw emotion vs smooth skin," then yeah, I think you're misinterpreting him. 



Sun Daeva said:


> He's not at all like Amanda Palmer or Siouxsie Sioux, wtf? Look at their overall energy, look what they *present*​. Raw emotion vs smooth skin.





Sun Daeva said:


> And yet you keep on missing what I've been trying to say: look at what he is presenting.
> 
> I'll give you a clue, it's not emotional authenticity.


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Expression of personal origin...

From 3:15 -4:03

"The Serious Moonlight period. That Let's Dance album. Nile [Rodgers] did wonderful things for me on that album. He created an extraordinary sound, but with the inclusion of the horns, and the smoothness of the whole deal, I started to become uncomfortable in carrying on with that direction because I felt a little lost in that, and it was approaching an area that I didn't really feel I belonged in. And so coming to this album I approached it from how I used to feel about bands when I started. I always go back to, when you get lost, you go back to point one, and so I approached the whole deal from what used to excite me about being in a band, and it just goes back to the guitar again. And so it became a guitar-oriented album."

And later from 4:23 - 4:30

"I've gone back to doing that because that was an integral part of what I used to do, and it produced the kind of sound that I really felt was me..."


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Scarlet Eyes said:


> Personally, he seems like a 3 with a *very* strong 4 wing. I've heard a theory that the wing is a huge influence of the type to the point that one could look like the wing as opposed to its core. So maybe that's what people are seeing. Plus, as @*SheWolf* stated earlier, a lot of his lyrics are riddled with Ni and abstractions as opposed to 4-like emotional realness. He seems more focused on continuously refining and reinventing himself than identifying with his origin.
> I'd tentatively type him as xNFJ 3w4-7w6-9w8 Sx/So.


Or, they're seeing 4 themes, and yes, lots of Ni or Ne. I lean towards ENFP for him actually, but INFJ is possible too. I think the constant reinvention has a lot to do with Ne, and a 7-fix.

I think this interview points to him seeking to identify his origin:






"You're given the impression that nothing can really belong to you, that you are sort-of in this wasteland. And I think there's a passion for most people who have an iota of curiosity about them to escape, and get out, and try and find who one is, and find some kinds of roots. Both of us got out for the same reasons, a desperation and exhaustion with the blandness of where we grew up." (1:30-2:03)

"This otherness, this other world, an alternative reality. One that I really wanted to embrace. I wanted anything but the place that I came from." (10:50-11:02)



Scarlet Eyes said:


> And I don't think only 4s have an interest in Nietzsche or occultism. Any types can be interested in those subjects. The important thing is to determine _why_ they choose to study the subject.
> 
> I'm not an expert on the man, but looking through some of his quotes, and his interests on Nietzsche, I wonder if he was particularly entranced by the Ubermensch. Perhaps this is what he tries to convey through Ziggy Stardust.
> 
> Perhaps he wants to be his own Ubermensch.


I think that's very likely, or one might say, to be his own Origin...

Anyways, you might like this song's Nietzschean influence:


----------



## Daeva

mistakenforstranger said:


> Well, when you say David Bowie is similar to Ricky Martin, at least visually (because that's where the comparison ends, if you want to believe they look the same, which I don't think they do at all), and framing the argument of 4 vs 3, as one of "Raw emotion vs smooth skin," then yeah, I think you're misinterpreting him.


You didn't answer my question.
You sneaky you :wink:



Sun Daeva said:


> What makes you so sure it is not _you_ who is misinterpreting him?


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Sun Daeva said:


> You didn't answer my question.
> You sneaky you :wink:


You believe he's a 3, so you think I'm misinterpreting him from your view. What is the point of your question? It's irrelevant to the discussion itself.


----------



## Matejko108

This discussion is tiring. Some of you guys seem obsessed with proving that he's a 4. Im not sure why. I guess that's because 3 is associated with many negative traits and you sort of feel like you're defending bowie against the "accusation" that he's a 3, or at least that's how it feels for me.
Or why else would you take 34 pages to argue the same points over and over again, posting the same quotes over and over again. It seems obsessive. 

I personally love David Bowie and I still think that 3w4 is more likely. I might be wrong of course, but luckily most of the Internet agrees with me. Not only this poll but almost every other source that I could find types him as 3. 
So I'm willing to let it go and enjoy some more of his music. I don't really care that much about his enneagram type to spend much more time with a fruitless discussion. Discussions are fun as long as people are open minded and willing to explore ideas and listen to the other side. 
Some of you seem hell bent on being "right" and defend your opinion as if Bowie's type is somehow personal for you.
I'm done here. See you in some other thread.


----------



## Cracked Actor

Matejko108 said:


> This discussion is tiring. Some of you guys seem obsessed with proving that he's a 4.


One can easily say the same for those debating that he's 3.


Matejko108 said:


> I personally love David Bowie and I still think that 3w4 is more likely. I might be wrong of course, but luckily most of the Internet agrees with me.
> Not only this poll but almost every other source that I could find types him as 3.


Well, lucky for us we don't have Te (extraverted thinking) therefore whatever the general consensus/groupthink believes doesn't sway our opinions. We prefer to come to our own conclusions through research, think for ourselves, instead of going along blindly with whatever the rest of the Internet believes.


Matejko108 said:


> I don't really care that much about his enneagram type to spend much more time with a fruitless discussion. Discussions are fun as long as people are open minded and willing to explore ideas and listen to the other side.


One of your arguments for Bowie being 3 was you posting a picture of him standing idly in a suit as if that is somehow a valid method to prove that someone is 3. If that's your idea of an open-minded argument (rather than a narrow one) that you believe is worth exploring, I'll respectfully pass. You say he's too charismatic to be 4, I gave you examples of several charismatic 4s. You asked for evidence of Bowie's introversion, suffering, shyness, emotional express, alienation, isolation, etc and we gave you not just one, but several examples of that which instead of looking into and addressing, you decidedly chose to overlook. Then you complain about the discussion being fruitless, project onto others that they're "obsessed", and in the end decide that Bowie's still a 3 because he doesn't look "sad and vulnerable" enough compared to yourself.


----------



## Matejko108

Me posting that picture and saying that he looks like a 3 was an obvious joke. He does look like a 3 in that picture, but using one picture as evidence was obviously done in a joking manner. I tried to indicate that by using a laughing smiley face and posting it in a context of me saying that I really don't know and that it's a close call. But I guess that's too much to ask from an internet forum. People tend to jump on every opportunity to be right and make the other person look stupid rather than arguing in good faith, which is sad. 

I am also not saying that I think he is a 3 because most people think that. Again, you intentionally misunderstand my point to be right or prove something. I think that he is a 3, because of my own observations and what most people believe confirms that I am not totally off and gives me enough confidence to let that discussion go. because I don't see anyone being willing to even consider that they might be wrong (which I did explicitly, repeatedly). 

I have no horse in this race. I am not personally invested in the idea that Bowie is a 3, it's just what seems most likely to me. Still. Even after you provided cherry picked quotes that sound somewhat 4ish. There are many quotes that sound very 3ish that have been posted in this thread a while earlier, as you surely know. 
I'm not a fan of typing based on quotes because people can say anything about themselves which is not necessarily always true. Especially image triad types, especially celebrities with a public image and especially 3s, for that matter.
I know 3s personally who admire 4s uniqueness and individuality and try to emulate them and project that kind of image. Also, Bowie was a celebrity who had a public persona. His wife said that when he was at home, he wasn't David Bowie, he was David Jones. His private and his professional life were kept totally separate. (Which is also very much what a 3w4 would do) You cant take public quotes that he said in a calculated and strategic manner in order to craft an image and infer his deepest motivations. 

I have a different approach to typing which is more intuitive. I look at the overall vibe, at behavior, body language etc because in my opinion that reveals more than what someone with a crafted public persona says about himself in an interview or a talkshow.

But in the end: I don't know for sure and you don't know either. It's difficult enough to type yourself or your parents and siblings. If you wanna believe that you're 100% sure that he's a 4 because of some quotes, go ahead.


----------



## Dangerose

Hermetica said:


> I'm not familiar with Marina and the Diamonds. Never listened to her music before and never read/listened to her interviews either so I wouldn't be able to give you an accurate assessment or opinion on her enneagram type.
> 
> As for Grimes, I'm not the only one who can identify her as 4. If you search her on PerC, you'll see there are a couple threads that mention her and the general consensus (mainly by a bunch of INFPs and ENFPs) is that she's an ENFP 4w3 sx/so. That said, I'm not one for following general consensus so I did my own research to come to a conclusion.


Fair enough, I'm not familiar with Grimes either (I'm intrigued by her, been trying to listen to her music but I'm having a lot of trouble understanding her lyrics when she sings :frustrating, I think it takes a while to get to know an artist's work enough to have opinions, like there's listening to the music and then there's really knowing it and then there's getting the feel for what their 'thing' is and that takes a while, not there with Grimes (and not there with Bowie at all, not even close, most songs I listen to I just mostly have no idea what he's singing about and it's confusing and the characters thing makes it even more confusing because I don't know if a song is supposed to represent David Bowie or an idea that I don't know about and :frustrating

Anyways definitely on board with ENFP for Grimes at least, I'm kinda wondering about 6w7 so/sx though, not against 4 however



> One thing that differentiates 4s from 2s is that 4s are interested in creating art out of ugly, at times even grotesque, subject matter. It's about finding the beauty in the ugly. That is a constant theme for us.


I wouldn't necessarily consider 'scary' and 'ugly' to be holding the same value in a statement like this; this sounds more Six and social to me because it sounds focused on things that objectively cause fear in society, to me 'scary things' is 'things that cause harm' which is a lot more head-ish and idk, this song, I get it's about trauma, assault, something like that but it still feels really head-type-ish and Sixish:






_I never walk about after dark
It’s my point of view
Cause someone could break your neck
Coming up behind you
Always coming and you'd never have a clue
And now I look behind all the time
I will wait forever
Always looking straight
Thinking counting all the hours you wait

[Chorus]
See you on a dark night
See you on a dark night
See you on a dark night
See you on a dark night

[Verse 2]
And now another clue
I would ask if you could help me out
It's hard to understand
Cause when you're running by yourself
It's hard to find someone to hold your hand
You know it’s good to be tough like me
But I will wait forever
I need someone else
To look into my eyes and tell me
"Girl, you know you've got to watch your health"_

It's not really about identity, but again this is bad because I don't have a good view of all her music



> Another thing that differentiates 4s from 2s is their image which is, to put it lightly, really "out there". When 4s experience growth into healthier levels, they begin to drop this material obsession they have with having a unique appearance. They realize they are still unique regardless of whether or not they have oddly styled hair, different makeup, costumes, etc. They can just _*be*_ without putting much effort and thought into what they look like and without feeling like their individuality is threatened if they decide to wear a suit or a plain t-shirt like "everyone else".


(I would also argue that healthier Twos would be more likely to build beauty out of flaws and embrace a more individualistic style)

I wonder if you have an opinion about Emilie Autumn? She seems very Four (on the surface at least), I've heard some quite convincing arguments for Seven but I tend to be caught between Four and Two, not really relevant to the types, I'm never sure because she certainly romanticizes darkness and brokenness but I wonder if it's not so thoroughly romanticized that it's out of the Four ballpark, and I think I see a stronger line to Eight and a more...demanding viewpoint than from a Four, idk if I'm just overthinking it though, obviously shows signs of both types but both types will :/

(I know this is probably not the thread for it but just curious)

think sx/so or so/sx






_I'm your Opheliac
I've been so disillusioned
I know you'd take me back
But still I feigned confusion
I couldn't be your friend
My world was too unstable
You might have seen the end
But you were never able
To keep me breathing
As the water rises up again
Before I slip away
You know the games I play
And the words I say
When I want my own way
You know the lies I tell
When you've gone through hell
And I say I can't stay
You know how hard it can be
To keep believing in me
When everything and everyone
Becomes my enemy and when
There's nothing more you can do
I'm gonna blame it on you
It's not the way I want to be
I only hope that in the end you will see
It's the Opheliac in me
It's the Opheliac in me
I'm your Opheliac
My stocking prove my virtues
I'm open to attack
But I don't want to hurt you
Whether I swim or sink
That's no concern of yours now
How could you possibly think
You had the power to know how
To keep me breathing
As the water rises up again
Before I slip away
You know the games I play
And the words I say
When I want my own way
You know the lies I tell
When you've gone through hell
And I say I can't stay
You know how hard it can be
To keep believing in me
When everything and everyone
Becomes my enemy and when
There's nothing more you can do
I'm gonna blame it on you
It's not the way I want to be
I only hope that in the end you will see
It's the Opheliac in me
It's the Opheliac in me
Studies Show...
Intelligent girls are more depressed
Because they know
What the world is really like
Don't think for a beat it makes it better
When you sit her down and tell her
Everything's gonna all right
She knows in society she either is
A devil or an angel with no in between
She speaks in third person
So she can forget that she's me
Doubt thou the stars are fire
Doubt thou the sun doth move
Doubt truth to be a liar
But never doubt
Doubt thou the stars are fire
Doubt thou the sun doth move
Doubt truth to be a liar
But never doubt
Doubt thou the stars are fire
Doubt thou the sun doth move
Doubt truth to be a liar
But never doubt I love_

This song makes me think about 2s line to 4, maybe just Ne though too






_Here you sit in your high-backed chair
Wonder how the view is from there
I wouldn't know 'cause I like to sit
Upon the floor, yeah upon the floor
If you like we could play a game
Let's pretend that we are the same
But you will have to look much closer
Than you do, closer than you do
And I'm far too tired to stay here anymore
And I don't care what you think anyway
'Cause I think you were wrong about me
Yeah what if you were, what if you were
And what if I'm a snowstorm burning
What if I'm a world unturning
What if I'm an ocean, far too shallow, much too deep
What if I'm the kindest demon
Something you may not believe in
What if I'm a siren singing gentlemen to sleep

I know you've got it figured out
Tell me what I am all about
And I just might learn a thing or two
Hundred about you, maybe about you
I'm the end of your telescope
I don't change just to suit your vision
'Cause I am bound by a fraying rope
Around my hands, tied around my hands
And you close your eyes when I say I'm breaking free
And put your hands over both your ears
Because you cannot stand to believe I'm not
The perfect girl you thought
Well what have I got to lose
And what if I'm a weeping willow
Laughing tears upon my pillow
What if I'm a socialite who wants to be alone
What if I'm a toothless leopard
What if I'm a sheepless shepherd
What if I'm an angel without wings to take me home

You don't know me
Never will, never will
I'm outside your picture frame
And the glass is breaking now
You can't see me
Never will, never will
If you're never gonna see
What if I'm a crowded desert
Too much pain with little pleasure
What if I'm the nicest place you never want to go
What if I don't know who I am
Will that keep us both from trying
To find out and when you have
Be sure to let me know
What if I'm a snowstorm burning
What if I'm a world unturning
What if I'm an ocean, far too shallow, much too deep
What if I'm the kindest demon
Something you may not believe in
What if I'm a siren singing gentlemen to sleep_



> Grimes is definitely in the average 4 levels as she stands out in terms of appearance. Maybe she's not trying to stand out, maybe this is just how she naturally likes to look, but I'm sure to anyone who's not a 4 it probably comes across like she's "trying too hard to be unique".


Hm, idk



> For example, this still of her from one of her music videos shows me the split between E4 and E1. 1ish angelic imagery of an angel that's fallen from heaven contrasted with the grotesque image of being covered in blood and handling a knife. Not only that, but for some unknown reason she's also got a random milky contact lens in her right eye, not all that different from another famous enneagram 4 type (Marilyn Manson) who also likes to play around with bloody, violent imagery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, Grimes and Manson have slightly different visual aesthetic. Grimes' aesthetic is more colorful like Melanie Martinez who's xNFP 4w3. I believe a lot of that also has to do with tritype differences. Grimes and Martinez are both 479s, whereas Manson's a darker 468. Bowie's also got a 7 in his tritype so his visual aesthetic has more color than other, more darker 4s.
> 
> More of Grimes aesthetic under the spoiler tag. I've put it under a tag because her aesthetic gets a little gory with a few images of blood, self-harm, and possibly suicide.
> 
> * *


Hm, would agree about imagery

(I'm honestly going to have to do more research before I say anything else lol)


----------



## Spiritwalker86

mistakenforstranger said:


> That wasn't even the point. Of course, anyone can feel miserable at their lowest point, but he says his songs are more concerned about isolation and being miserable. You asked earlier where's his identification to suffering, if he's a 4...Well?
> 
> "My entire career, *I've only really worked with the same subject matter*," Bowie told The Associated Press in a 2002 interview. "The trousers may change, *but the actual words and subjects I've always chosen to write with are things to do with isolation, abandonment, fear and anxiety* — all of the high points of one's life."
> 
> “That’s the subject matter that I deal with,” he noted, “the content of most of what I write – *there’s been a continuity of alienation and isolation throughout everything I’ve written.*”
> 
> “I felt often – ever since a teenager,” he later confided, “*so adrift, and so not part of everyone else* – with so many dark secrets about my family in the cupboard. *It made me feel very much on the outside of everything*”.
> 
> And of the plethora of ‘alien characters’ in his songs, he once observed: “*they were metaphysically in place to suggest that I felt alienated, that I felt distanced from society and that I was really in search of some kind of connection*”
> 
> Please tell me why any of that isn't 4.
> Isolation, alienation, abandonment, and on the outside of everything. Yeah, he must be a 3! :bored:
> 
> Seriously, what more do you people want?
> 
> 
> 
> No one said he didn't care about his audience, but he _prioritizes_ his own artistry over what they want, which is again, more in line with a 4 than a 3. 3s are an attachment triad type, and will tailor their art to _others'_ expectations. He did that *once* in his life, and after he had already been following his own muse as an artist, and he now looks back on it as his biggest mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> And that makes him not a 4, especially with a 3-wing?
> 
> From Naranjo's Type 4 profile:
> 
> 
> And yes, he was compensating for a poor self-image in doing so, as I've already stated:
> 
> “As an adolescent, I was painfully shy, withdrawn. I didn’t really have the nerve to sing my songs on stage, and nobody else was doing them. *I decided to do them in disguise so that I didn’t have to actually go through the humiliation of going on stage and being myself. I continued designing characters with their own complete personalities and environments. I put them into interviews with me! Rather than be me — which must be incredibly boring to anyone — I’d take Ziggy in, or Aladdin Sane or The Thin White Duke. It was a very strange thing to do*."
> 
> Lyrics from The Width of a Circle:
> 
> 
> 
> *The monster was me.*
> 
> Exactly, with what @*Hermetica* was saying.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's revealing in that when he tried to be like a 3, it wasn't satisfying for him. Put it into context, which I already outlined above.


There's a lot of stuff there, I'll try to say the essential.

1. Bowie says that all his songs were about alienation, depression, fear and anxiety. Ok. Read the lyrics of his whole discography, listen how he sings them. I don't need to say anything else.

2. 4s identification and attachment to suffering is the basic distortion of E4 ego, together with envy, since the two things are linked. The source of suffering and envy is like a drug, and generates different responses (hatred, endurance and "whining" -no offense intended-) according to the main instinct. That is the E4 CORE. Saying that this was the main driving force and obstacle in Bowie's life seems like a misintepretation of Bowie or of the E4.

3. Alienation, depression, sense of abandonment, shyness, feeling outside everything, the need to be autenthic are some of the main themes of Bukowski's works. So he must be a 4. I don't think so. 

4. I think you missed what is said there between the lines, and what I think to be quite revealing, if you take time to look beyond the surface. "All my big mistakes are when I try to second-guess or please an audience. My work is always stronger when I get very selfish about it.” During the interview, he used the present form. He didn't feel that temptation once or twice in his career, it was a constant pull, and he had to make effort to *get* very selfish about it. If he said "I am always very self-centered about my work and when I happened to try to please an audience, that was a big mistake" I could say that your interpretation was right. Plus, describing the act of pursuing your own artistic vision in possible contrast to some hypotethical expectations of the audience as "selfish" is another big big clue.


----------



## Matejko108

One other thing: some quotes from his "China Girl" lyrics were posted as evidence that he's a 4. Like "I feel tragic, like I'm Marlon Brando." 
That's a great example of cherry picking and ignoring context.

China Girl is not remotely a type 4 song, by any stretch. At first glance, it's a clichéd, cheesy love song. Bowie performs it in character as a polished, corny pop singer. 
Look at the video, look at how it's presented: 




Now you might say, there are some dark undertones and that's true. There is irony and satire; the song is a sort of ironic exaggeration, it has satirical elemtents. 
The real message of the song (according to Bowie himself) is that it's a critical commentary on colonialism and imperialism. So, still, even if you see the song as a clever socio-political commentary performed in the cloak of a corny love song; there is nothing here that would point to type 4 - at all.
The line "I feel tragic, like I'm Marlon Brando" is neither meant nor performed with any sort of emotionality or personal significance; it's the satrically exaggerated performance of a corny love song with some clever, critical undertones. There is no personal self-revealing emotional expression at all in this, neither in the lyrics (if you interpret them in context) at even less in the performance and presentation. 
So to say that lines like "I feel tragic like Marlon Brando", "I'm a mess without my little China girl" or "I'll ruin everything you are" are evidence of type 4 is either cherry picked or it's just dishonest.

You might say that this is just one song, but many if not most of his songs work like that. They have satirical undertones and some dark themes - a sort of unique, artistic twist - but the overall energy is that of a polished, well-produced pop song. And if there is anything personal in them, it's very well hidden between the lines*.
The fact that he also adapted his "pop" presentation to the times and music scene he was in is also very revealing. And of course, every artist is influenced by his surroundings, but he would adapt totally and completely change who he was in order to adapt - over and over again - which is something I never saw a 4 doing. For a 4 this would feel like self-betrayal every time. Yet he said "I have no idea who I am but I am extremely happy".

*also, again, he kept his professional and his personal life very seperate, and he felt completely detached from his characters. Ziggy Stardust and the Thin White Duke were not David Bowie. In fact David Bowie was a persona, David Jones was the real man, as his wife said. He invented characters and personas and he embodied them on stage, yet privately he was "a completely different person". His personal life was kept totally seperate and he said that if he had to chose between his art and his family, he would chose his family without a doubt. Do you really think a 4 could be so detached and dispassionate about their art?

Ah well, I wanted to get out of the discussion but here I am.


----------



## Dangerose

Just hear to update that I've been pretty busy + lazy and will be responding to Bowie-related messages later, haven't forgotten

Been slowly listening to some music, what strikes me is how personal and obscure it is at the same time, it at the same time feels wrenched from reality, bizarrely detached, and like it could belong to no one else

Love this line 'if I never see the English evergreens I'm running to it's nothing to me'

(and apparently the following line is 'it's nothing to meet' but I don't think that makes sense and it doesn't sound like that)


----------



## Matejko108

Nissa Nissa said:


> Just hear to update that I've been pretty busy + lazy and will be responding to Bowie-related messages later, haven't forgotten
> 
> Been slowly listening to some music, what strikes me is how personal and obscure it is at the same time, it at the same time feels wrenched from reality, bizarrely detached, and like it could belong to no one else
> 
> Love this line 'if I never see the English evergreens I'm running to it's nothing to me'
> 
> (and apparently the following line is 'it's nothing to meet' but I don't think that makes sense and it doesn't sound like that)


Its very hard to pin him down. You're never quite sure "is this the real man or just another persona?" 
I never get the sense, even in his supposedly more personal interviews, that he's completely genuine. Always feels like what he's saying and how he's saying it is part of his artistic pose and his work.


----------



## mimesis

Matejko108 said:


> One other thing: some quotes from his "China Girl" lyrics were posted as evidence that he's a 4. Like "I feel tragic, like I'm Marlon Brando."
> That's a great example of cherry picking and ignoring context.
> 
> China Girl is not remotely a type 4 song, by any stretch. At first glance, it's a clichéd, cheesy love song. Bowie performs it in character as a polished, corny pop singer.
> Look at the video, look at how it's presented:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you might say, there are some dark undertones and that's true. There is irony and satire; the song is a sort of ironic exaggeration, it has satirical elemtents.
> The real message of the song (according to Bowie himself) is that it's a critical commentary on colonialism and imperialism. So, still, even if you see the song as a clever socio-political commentary performed in the cloak of a corny love song; there is nothing here that would point to type 4 - at all.
> The line "I feel tragic, like I'm Marlon Brando" is neither meant nor performed with any sort of emotionality or personal significance; it's the satrically exaggerated performance of a corny love song with some clever, critical undertones. There is no personal self-revealing emotional expression at all in this, neither in the lyrics (if you interpret them in context) at even less in the performance and presentation.
> So to say that lines like "I feel tragic like Marlon Brando", "I'm a mess without my little China girl" or "I'll ruin everything you are" are evidence of type 4 is either cherry picked or it's just dishonest.
> 
> You might say that this is just one song, but many if not most of his songs work like that. They have satirical undertones and some dark themes - a sort of unique, artistic twist - but the overall energy is that of a polished, well-produced pop song. And if there is anything personal in them, it's very well hidden between the lines*.
> The fact that he also adapted his "pop" presentation to the times and music scene he was in is also very revealing. And of course, every artist is influenced by his surroundings, but he would adapt totally and completely change who he was in order to adapt - over and over again - which is something I never saw a 4 doing. For a 4 this would feel like self-betrayal every time. Yet he said "I have no idea who I am but I am extremely happy".
> 
> *also, again, he kept his professional and his personal life very seperate, and he felt completely detached from his characters. Ziggy Stardust and the Thin White Duke were not David Bowie. In fact David Bowie was a persona, David Jones was the real man, as his wife said. He invented characters and personas and he embodied them on stage, yet privately he was "a completely different person". His personal life was kept totally seperate and he said that if he had to chose between his art and his family, he would chose his family without a doubt. Do you really think a 4 could be so detached and dispassionate about their art?
> 
> Ah well, I wanted to get out of the discussion but here I am.


You say a lot and nothing at the same time.

3 with a strong 4 wing, what does that even mean?

Is it possible to be a 3 with a strong 2 wing and a strong 4 wing? 

If not why not?

And if so, what's the difference with a 'plain' 3? Or with a 3 with a normal 2 and a normal 4 wing? 

When Trent Reznor talks about Bowie in the clip posted by @Hermetica , he explains his struggle between choosing to make the music he personally wants to make and the music he think will sell if he caters to his fanbase as to secure paying the bills he worries about. And mind you he says he still struggles with even though he's been doing this for 25 years now. 

Even when we argue individuality 4 has won (is stronger) over securing the future 6, because he's lauded for his originality, apparently despite this success he still seems to have as little faith about the future as 25 years ago which is why he still struggles with it. 

So 'strong' 4 or 'strong' 6? And how do you measure it, whether he caters to his fanbase or chose for his personal exploration? 

It's just a useless discussion just so we can peg a 5 somewhere between 4 and 6, while being ignorant of the dynamic that makes a 5 a 5, not a 4 or a 6.


----------



## Surreal Snake

I have seen him in concert my first concert actually I think I was 14. I am still somewhat undecided though I have said in the past Type. 3. But I also get a nagging he’s a 4 in my gut/intuition. All I know is he is one of my favourite Artists along with Leonard Cohen

Edit: I’ve been watching Bowie interviews one in particular really showed who he was. He said fame and Ziggy always somewhat forced. I would say David Jones the person 4w5.


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Surreal Snake said:


> I have seen him in concert my first concert actually I think I was 14. I am still somewhat undecided though I have said in the past Type. 3. But I also get a nagging he’s a 4 in my gut/intuition. All I know is he is one of my favourite Artists along with Leonard Cohen


Trust your gut. :wink:



> Edit: I’ve been watching Bowie interviews one in particular really showed who he was. He said fame and Ziggy always somewhat forced. I would say David Jones the person 4w5.


Which interview was it? Interesting you think 4w5, as I've wondered if he could be as well. What makes you say so?


----------



## Aiwass

I think one of the reasons why Bowie is difficult to type, is that he was so different from everyone else lol. He was a comet, and in a completely different level of development as most people are, regardless of their type. I wonder if his proactive/productive life was result of being well integrated to 1 + 3 wing.


----------



## Matejko108

my guess is 3w4 sx/so


----------



## Darkbloom

I know just about nothing about Bowie but I am curious about why most people are sure of him being sx first?
(not saying he is not, really don't know much about him and don't understand his music but conversations about him are interesting to me and he has a So-ish vibe to me, wanna know if there's something about him I'm not noticing or something I don't understand about instincts)


edit: I was curious about 4w5, sad that people stopped discussing it


----------



## Dangerose

Vixey said:


> I know just about nothing about Bowie but I am curious about why most people are sure of him being sx first?
> (not saying he is not, really don't know much about him and don't understand his music but conversations about him are interesting to me and he has a So-ish vibe to me, wanna know if there's something about him I'm not noticing or something I don't understand about instincts)


Was going to bring this up after I'd made it through it all his albums, but I was thinking the same (don't understand him well enough to really...understand though)

Some songs that struck me as so:






_The children of the summer's end
Gathered in the dampened grass,
We played Our songs and felt the London sky
Resting on our hands
It was God's land.
It was ragged and naive.
It was Heaven.
Touch, we touched the very soul
Of holding each and every life.
We claimed the very source of joy ran through.
It didn't, but it seemed that way.
I kissed a lot of people that day.
Oh, to capture just one drop of all the ecstasy that swept that afternoon,
To paint that love upon a white balloon,
And fly it from the toppest top of all the tops that man has pushed beyond his 
Brain.
Satoria must be something just the same.
We scanned the skies with rainbow eyes and saw machines of every shape and size.
We talked with tall Venusians passing through.
And Peter tried to climb aboard but the Captain shook his head
And away they soared,
Climbing through the ivory vibrant cloud.
Someone passed some bliss among the crowd.
And we walked back to the road, unchained.
"The Sun Machine is coming down, and we're gonna have a party."_






_Someday they won't let you, now you must agree
The times they are a-telling, and the changing isn't free
You've read it in the tea leaves, and the tracks are on tv
Beware the savage jaw
Of 1984
They'll split your pretty cranium, and fill it full of air
And tell that you're eighty, but brother, you won't care
You'll be shooting up on anything, tomorrow's never there
Beware the savage jaw
Of 1984
Come see, come see, remember me?
We played out an all-night movie role
You said it would last, but I guess we enrolled
In 1984 (who could ask for more?)
1984 (who could ask for more?)
(More)
I'm looking for a vehicle, I'm looking for a ride
I'm looking for a party, I'm looking for a side
I'm looking for the treason that I knew in '65
Beware the savage jaw
Of 1984_






(lyrics seem not worth pasting)

This however seems pretty sx:






especially _because my love for you would break my heart in two if you would fall into my arms and tremble like a flower_

So I can see sx/so, just curious in general why it would be sx > so, he's a very confusing figure for me and I can't really imagine why he'd make some of the songs if not for so reasons, but I do feel like I'm missing important key things that would make things come together for me


----------



## bundleofraindrops

3w4 with a really heavy wing. It seemed like he was just acting 4-ish as a cry for attention and it never seemed genuine to me.


----------



## Dangerose

Ok, I'll admit I suffered (mainly) through the first twenty albums, really picked up for the last five though 

(this isn't just for Bowie but it often seems that for most of the latter half of the 20th century everyone was allowed to just sing random stretches of words in a completely inaudible way and the listener was supposed to derive some sort of meaning from it; think there's a few threads I'm missing or just not used to the 'genre' if it can be called that, just the taste left in my mouth after a lot of that kind of music is 'wow that really sounds like it was supposed to mean something' but it's like an itch I can't scratch)

Anyways I think that's a reason Bowie comes across as 3 to me, the music feels 'branded' in many cases or like it was created by the Bowie Music Company, but I think it's more of a genre thing than a type thing honestly and it's me who's not getting it

like this leaves me with a lot more questions than answers:






why shouldn't I sit down? am I supposed to think it's sexy that you don't want me to sit down? ??? ??????

Anyways, in his later albums I think I saw more Four and sx, not sure if his focus changed or I was just able to understand it.

This still feels 3 to me, because it feels 'brand'y to make a song with just an artist's name (I don't know about Andy Warhol though or the story of this song, but Andy Warhol just seems like a vacuous self-defeating 3ish meme and that's inevitably how songs about him are going to come across to me):






(I learned NOTHING about Andy Warhol from this song, not generational my foot)

but then, again:






and I'm not getting the connection to Picasso (frankly not knowledgable enough) so it just feels to me like that 3 thing of 'oh here's a thing, so I will add this thing to my music', like a collage, if that makes sense, and it feels like a social commentary but not a very clear one

These songs are the most beautiful of his, in my opinion:






even phrases I don't really _properly_ understand like 'cash girls suffer me' still make me feel like I know what it means on some level, so it's really nice, I imagine that's how people feel about his other music and 'if I'll never see the English evergreens I'm running to', I hope he meant what I think when I hear it, it's so beautiful

and this:






Anyways, no strong feeling on type, I'll try to look at things more closely later, but I noticed 1w9 on the poll and I wonder about that option, think I could really see that, would maybe explain the competency 3ish focus and the 4ish elements as well

Anyways, feel appropriately armed to join this discussion now :laughing:


----------



## Darkbloom

Nissa Nissa said:


> Anyways, no strong feeling on type, I'll try to look at things more closely later, but I noticed 1w9 on the poll and I wonder about that option, think I could really see that, would maybe explain the competency 3ish focus and the 4ish elements as well


Yay, glad you mentioned this, almost forgot it was an option because everyone's always just talking about 3 and 4 like he can't possibly be anything else but tbh he doesn't even seem like an image type to me, that's why sx combined with image type seemed especially off, he seems so detached in a way, not sure if detached is the best word to use and I'm sure 3s can seem detached but hope you get what I mean.


----------

