↑

October 2019 archive

Style Systems | 3 Comments

The Line Between Inspired by and Copied from

I have seen the argument be made that, for instance, David Kibbe did not come up with yin/yang, or even the basic types he uses. Similarly, Carol Tuttle goes into detail about how she came up with her system in one of her early books (she went to a four-type seminar, tried to partner up with the person who gave it, and started her own thing when that offer was rejected), and David Zyla draws heavily from Caygill, with some of the names for his archetypes being exactly the same. So where is the line, and why do I come down hard on some people, while promoting the work of others that some say did the same thing? There are some important distinctions for me that I will attempt to explain here.

1. Originality of Point of View

Now, this doesn’t have to mean reinventing the wheel. This just means, to me, that you may have taken some inspiration from your forebears, but you’ve added enough to make it your own. David Kibbe may use Dramatic/Natural/Romantic/Classic/Gamine like McJimsey, but the way his system works is very different (I think Kitchener is the closest to her, actually). It’s a different way of using yin and yang than she presents, and is closest to Northrup, in my opinion. I don’t think I could get the same thing that I do from Dressing Your Truth from other four-type systems, and going to see Zyla is a very different experience from seeing a Caygill analyst.

2. Originality of Materials

Along with this, I look at whether someone has created their own materials. There is a tendency to, for instance, take David Kibbe’s Image IDs, change the vocabulary surrounding them, and continue to use the test from the book to type clients. It sounds unbelievable that people do this, but it’s true. People run businesses, pretending to have created something, while using the literal test David wrote and putting excerpts from his book on their websites with no citations. Are you doing something truly different, or are you just giving it a new coat of paint?

3. Distinctness

Lastly, the work should be original enough that for the most part, you can’t really have the systems be synonymous. Four-type systems have been around for millennia, so this applies less to DYT and more to something like Kibbe. If people tend to consider, however incorrectly, a typing from someone in the new system to be a typing in the source system, the systems are too close for my taste. (With DYT, though, I still find that the combination of the style and energy work to be original enough that I consider it distinct–I don’t come out a 4/3 in every single four-type personality or style-typing system that I’ve looked at, for example.)

Factors of Quality

There are also systems where I feel like the system is original enough, but the systems just aren’t as good as the people they drew from. A major factor I’ve identified is whether the creator of a new or “new” system has a good enough understanding of their source material. This is something I’ve noticed a lot with people who have created a system after finding Kibbe. They feel like what they are doesn’t exist in Kibbe, or that they can’t be what they want, so they create something around this concept. Generally, they just don’t understand yin and yang and how David applies it. These systems are always going to be weak, in my opinion, because they come from a place of misinterpretation.

So I’m not totally opposed to systems based on other systems… in fact, I would like to make a system family tree–I think it would be fun! If you find something old and make it new again, I think that can be good, especially if the originator is no longer working. But if it’s simply a cheap imitation, then that person is better off going back to the drawing board.

These are just my thoughts on the topic… where do you draw the line when it comes to whether or not you consider style systems to be originals or copies, and does it even matter to you?

Flamboyant Gamine, Kibbe's Metamorphosis, Soft Gamine | 83 Comments

Why Taylor Swift is NOT a Gamine

Of course, I think most readers of this blog wouldn’t even consider the possibility.
Taylor Swift

She is 5’10”, and we know that this height rules out either Gamine. Per my recent post, however, this is something that Merriam Style teachers in her Taylor Swift video, where she tries to make the case the 5’10” Taylor is a Gamine—and you can read my Kibbe FAQ to find out why this is nonsensical. Someone who is that tall is yang-dominant, not juxtaposition of yin and yang. (When I look at Taylor, I see length all over. Even if I didn’t know she was 5’10”, I don’t think my mind would go to Gamine anyway.)

Now, David doesn’t make a ton of very clear statements. But this is one thing he has been extremely clear about. Soft Gamine will not be over 5’5″, and Flamboyant Gamine can be a little taller, but not Taylor Swift tall, and if you understand his system of yin and yang, this makes total sense.

Unfortunately, every Kibbe Image ID seems to be subject to certain incorrect ideas about it. As a Flamboyant Gamine myself, the ones for Gamines are the ones that I feel most acutely. For us Gamines, one of these ideas that seems to pop up frequently in various ways is the idea that Gamines are somehow not distinct Image IDs that stand on their own with their own very particular yin/yang balances.

Traditionally, this has taken the form of the idea of Flamboyant Gamine being a “small D” or a “small FN,” which I have addressed before. But as I watched some Merriam Style videos after writing my last post, however, I realized that she has come up with an entirely new way of turning Gamines into Image IDs that are somehow lesser and not distinct yin/yang balances like the rest.

In this video (starts at around 1:55), she says that Gamines are basically “everything else”–a mixture that doesn’t fall into any category. If you feel like you don’t fit anywhere else, she explains, you may be a Gamine. She says they are very common (not true) and misunderstood (true, but not in the way she thinks, because she has misunderstood them).

In her answer in this video at around 9:08, however, it becomes clear why she believes that someone who is tall can be Gamine: she says she is a 5’7” Soft Gamine herself and her own confusion is partially why she made her channel in the first place. Yet as I mentioned above, David has been very clear about height for Soft Gamine. SG is nearly half yang, and if they are taller than 5’5”, that is too much yang for the “recipe” to be Soft Gamine. Of course someone who very strongly identified with a certain Image ID that is not available to them would want to make the system into one that allowed them into the Image ID they wanted to be. It happens all the time. (This is also why the idea of very yang TRs persists.) Resistance is incredibly powerful. If you want to be a taller SG very badly, it would make sense that you would try to find a way to justify it and say that 5’10” Taylor or a 6′ woman could be Gamine.

But really, my motivation here is to stop these incorrect ideas about Gamines in Kibbe’s work. Gamines are not:

  • the Image ID of “leftovers”
  • tall enough to be automatically yang-dominant, for FG
  • over 5’5”, for SG.

    I felt I had said what I needed to say on the subject of this YouTube channel in my last post, but the ideas being spread are so contradictory to what Gamines actually are. And as Gamines, we should be given the space to revel in what makes our Image IDs special, and given the chance to understand our special star quality. The constant undermining of the validity of FG and SG as Image IDs makes that hard for Gamines who do not know any better, and leads people who aren’t Gamines to think that they are and thus miss out on their own special qualities.

    For months, I have been thinking about how to express the way I actually use Kibbe’s work in my life, because I say a lot about how it’s used incorrectly, but it is hard to explain how to actually use it correctly, since it is can be fairly abstract. I definitely understand that it can be hard to wrap your head around and it isn’t for everyone (which is why I have a post on which system is right for you), but I want people to understand when the system is being misrepresented to this extent. A 5’10” or 6′ woman would absolutely not be served by being told that she was any kind of Gamine. She would be served by an Image ID that celebrates what she is, and doesn’t put her into something that celebrates being shorter, among many other qualities.

    And with that, I hope that my commentary/criticism is done. I realize that my past several posts have focused on this subject, and I hope to get back to more interesting content. But this blog has always been about what’s on my mind, and this is just what has been at the forefront of my style thoughts lately.

    Edit: an earlier version of this post said that she thought Taylor was a Soft Gamine. She actually says she is a Gamine, which we know that David no longer uses. Style Syntax regrets the error, but the points made here still stand.

    • Uncategorized | 0 comment

    Workbook Announcement

    I’ve come to realization that the workbook I had available on this site, which was last updated over three years ago, does not represent my current ideas. For this reason, I have decided to stop selling it until the next edition is ready. I have created a Google form for those interested to fill out, so I can email them when it’s available. I will be offering a discount for people who purchased the first one that will basically amount to you paying just for the new sections. It will include more information/focus on personalizing your style. I hope that this is something that I will be able to make a reality very soon! Thank you for your patience.

    Kibbe's Metamorphosis | 62 Comments

    Response to Merriam Style Distancing Herself From Kibbe

    I had some free time finally, so I wandered into what is (for me) the darkest corner of the internet… the place where people outside of the Strictly Kibbe world discuss Kibbe. And I found that, to my surprise, three weeks ago, Merriam Style decided to distance what she does from David.

    On the one hand, I definitely applaud this move! Just by poking around the aforementioned dark corner, and seeing what people who come to our Facebook group from her work say, I know that what she teaches is very, very different from what he does–height not mattering to the point where the tallest of women can be put into the shortest of types, etc.

    I can see that she gets it, to an extent, and this is partially what spurred her to no longer use his work the way she has been doing. David is a “highly intuitive” person. He has a gift of seeing people. And he can help you see yourself.

    On the other hand, however, the post just made it even clearer for me that fundamentally, there is a disconnect between what David actually teaches, and what people who haven’t learned from David directly believe about this system.

    From her post:

    But going back to this difference between personality and body type: Even in one of my first videos on my channel that I’ve ever made, on the Soft Gamine, I say that Soft Gamines don’t have to be cute or fun. They can also be sexy or elegant or badass.

    And herein lies the humongous problem. David would absolutely agree that SGs can be sexy, elegant, and badass. All Image IDs have their own ways of being these things.

    Eartha Kitt

    SG Eartha Kitt, embodying these three characteristics.

    Tell Bette to her face that she is limited to “cute”!

    Anyone who spends time with David, virtually or otherwise, knows that he believes that we are all unique individuals who can be any way we want to be, and understanding our Image ID is just the way to be the most ourselves and to achieve our fullest potential, freeing us from what we think we have to be and giving ourselves permission and freedom to be how we are. I know that the advice he has given me as a presumptive FG is totally different from the advice he has given other presumptive FGs. He doesn’t give everyone the advice to wear the wild and edgy things he tells me to look for, for instance.

    So when I see things like this, from the same blog post:

    At that time, I didn’t realize the gravity of this ‘discovery’ so to speak, or just how fundamentally different this is from other approaches, and potentially even David’s approach.

    …it frustrates me to no end. This is not a “discovery.” It’s not David’s approach at all to use the Image ID as a box, not only for someone’s style, but even worse, their personality. It’s something that many have promoted, but it has nothing to do with David’s work. And even if his system were so limited, going back to the book, the SG was not at all merely cute and innocent. SGs are “Spitfire Chic”! How people get “cute and innocent” out of “spitfire,” I have no idea. It is clear the lineage of the current crop of Kibbe “instructors,” on YouTube and elsewhere, can be traced not to David, but those who came before and briefly made some cash and got hits on their sites from taking David’s work and turning it into something fit for Pinterest and video compilations and discernible from photos or a video call, if someone has hundreds of dollars to spare.

    So while I applaud Merriam Style for discontinuing the use of David’s lexicon in her work, the fundamental misunderstandings present in her “farewell to Kibbe” blog post show that really, she should not have been “teaching” his work in the first place.