The thing I like best about the Enneagram is it’s unparalleled depth of motion and fluidity into the human psyche. I think that people hear ‘personality test’ and they instantly think, “You’re trying to box me in. I can’t be labelled.” And trust me, as the resident enigma, I feel you, and am here to tell you, the Enneagram does anything but. It goes as deep, and gets as complicated as you’re willing to take it. When all is said and done every person has a main type, which stays the same throughout your life and determines both of your wings (yes, you have two—so you can fly!), your stress type and your integration type, as well as your stacked instinctual variants, for a grand total of five types per person actively at work in the hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, etc. In addition to this there are nine levels of health to disintegration within each type, which are described in depth, and when you move within these levels in your main type, you move to the same level in all of your periphery types. This accounts for an insane amount of human diversity. With that said, I have never met a person who didn’t fit perfectly into their type, even if it took a little digging and truth seeking to figure out where exactly they were situated within their type at the moment.
"Critiques of the modern economy have some validity," writes Noah Smith. "But in the rush to bash capitalism — or to capitalize on the sudden unpopularity of the term — the critics haven't done a good job of defining what capitalism means. Does it mean private property? Private ownership of industry? Market economies? Public asset markets and joint-stock ownership? Often, the term capitalism seems like simply a stand-in for whatever market-like features of modern economies someone doesn't like." Before dismantling capitalism, he argues, it would be best to define it and address areas in need of adjustment.
"If you're interested in understanding the Trump-Russia findings, ignore what Barr wrote," says Virginia Heffernan. Instead, she says, watch the speech Rep. Adam Schiff delivered before the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday. "There was none of Barr's fuzziness or torque in what Schiff said. He didn't hypothesize," she writes. "He didn't speculate. He just laid it all out."