To: Ilaine who wrote (32363 ) 3/11/1999 12:35:00 PM From: Rick Julian Respond to of 108807
On average, I think most women are unaware of the depth of the warrior archetype that is embedded in many men's consciousnesses. Business is an arena for "combat", and vulnerability and weakness are liabilities to be shielded from one's "enemy". Strength instills confidence and/or fear, while perceived weakness can, and often does, invite assault. One can look to nature and see this reality: predators do not target the swiftest and strongest prey--they target the slow and weak. There will be men who will say "that's not true, I'm not an aggressive warrior . . ." and it may be so. I believe men conform to general psycho-physical predispositions related to their somatypes: ectomorphs, mesomorphs, and endomorphs. Few men are pure incarnations of these somatypes, most often having a combination of somatypal characteristics. Pure ectomorphs are typically thin, sinewy, intellectuals who rely on their minds rather than their bodies--a stereotypical "Ec" is a college professor--a mind who finds a cloistered home which is conducive to imagination and intellectualism. Pure mesomorphs are more thickly muscled, agressively natured, warrior types who are the defenders of the tribe--Patton would be a good example. Mesomorphs are rounder, softer, socially oriented beings who are harmonizers. Within the realm of religions, we see these somatypes realized: Jesus reasonably conforms to the ectomorphic traits of thoughtful, peace loving, intellectual abstraction which eschews confrontation Mohammed appears mesomorphic, with an aggressive nature that informs Islam's perception of "infidel" others who need to be vanquished Buddha generally conforms to the soft, socially oriented, qualities endomorphs value and embody. As I said, most of us are combinations of these somatypes, and there are clearly exceptions to these generalities, but I have found somatypes to be fairly accurate indicators of people's fundamental natures. fitnesszone.com This link outlines physical attributes, but ignores the psychological traits that, IMO, accompany them.