Archive of ‘Style Systems’ category

Dressing Your Truth: Getting Cluebombed, Part Two

In my last post, I briefly went through my history with Dressing Your Truth, and I’ll pick up from where I left off.

So I recognized that I was actually a T3, and figured, again, that I had gotten my primary and secondary reversed, and I was a 3/4, like I had originally thought back in 2014. But again, I was faced with it not feeling quite right. I wasn’t as formal as 3/4s seemed to be. My facial features seemed to be less strong. I have a degree of cuteness and youthfulness. I realized, as I dressed T3, that there was a kind of disconnect between how I think I dress, and how I actually dress. While I may not wear the outfits that Anna K (the 3/1 expert) wears, the reason behind why she wears what she wears started to resonate with me. I like graphic tees, stuff swiped from the kids’ section, and a more young, casual look. I look best in a degree of animation. I can wear a lot of things other people can’t–I am a Flamboyant Gamine, after all!

But again, I was stymied by the fact that 3/1 is a double extrovert energy. I wouldn’t say I was obviously high movement as a child. I spent a lot of time doing quiet, solitary activities, and while I may move loudly, I wasn’t talkative or especially active compared to others; in fact, it was the opposite. And as an adult, I love reading and writing and getting deep into topics. These are things that had put me on the path to T4.

Then Carol did a Coaching Call with the 1/3 expert, Jeny, and Anna K. I don’t want to get too into what they said, since it’s only for Lifestyle members, but it made me realize that if you’re one of these types, you might not realize how high your energy is when you aren’t aware of how high it is, and you might have stifled yourself. I decided to try 3/1, and posted in Lifestyle asking if anyone else was a 3/1 or 1/3 who didn’t recognize their high energy, and I added some photos of myself. I got some great responses from other people of these energy types who felt the same way.

Eventually, it was closed and I got in touch with Support, who offered me a Truthbomb. A Truthbomb is where, instead of Carol randomly leaving a comment, it’s a structured experience where you are asked to post on a specific date and people are asked to guess your type based on facial profiling. I accepted the offer to join the queue for this, but then Carol reopened my thread and commented on my type.

Carol confirmed that I am a 3/1.

My reaction to this was to cry for about 15 seconds, and then I made a joke on Facebook about the Eagles’ new head coach. I saw my secondary 1 come into play there with connect/disconnect. In fact, that’s a way I see it a lot. You can even see on this blog, where I start a bunch of projects and then get bored and pick them up again two years later.

I can see that while I may not be the most social or visibly active person, I like to keep busy. I am involved in a ton of different things, from work to volunteering to admining the SK groups to creating an entire side business with Personality Squared. If I’m watching TV, I have a game open on my phone. I need some degree of movement around me or it’s hard for me to concentrate (aka I’m messy). It shows up in ways that aren’t as obvious as what you might think of when you think of a 3/1 person, but I can see that it’s there now.

Just a note about figuring out your secondary: the recommended way is through your style preferences. Carol can generally see it in your face as well, but it’s not recommended to use facial profiling to figure it out, because people get confused enough looking for their primaries! I can see that there are facial similarities among people of the same secondary, i.e., I can see that the fact that I have a more cute and youthful look compared to other T3s points toward S1. But again, it’s not recommended to do it this way!

In my next post, I’m going to talk about how this has affected how I see my style going forward. If you have any questions about my experience, please leave a comment. 🙂 There is probably a lot of stuff I’m leaving out!

Dressing Your Truth: Getting Cluebombed, Part One

If you’re not familiar with Dressing Your Truth and aren’t a member of the Lifestyle Facebook group, getting “cluebombed” means Carol Tuttle comments on your post and confirms your type for you. You can’t request this; it’s something she does when she feels like it would help the person and they’re ready.

I’ve a long journey with Dressing Your Truth. It’s a system I discovered around the same time as Kibbe, so 2014. I initially typed myself as a Type 3 from watching the beginner’s videos and reading It’s Just My Nature. Facial typing is the determining factor when typing yourself, and I related to the T3 face description somewhat, like the lump of clay nose, but not really the parts like having textured skin or a lot of lines on my face. In fact, I look much younger than I am. But T3 seemed closest, so I went with it.

T4 was the type I related to in terms of personality. I knew I had to had some degree of introversion there, and I loved T4 colors and clothing. Your style preferences clue you in to your secondary, so I figured I was a 3/4. But I never truly settled into it. I didn’t want to dress T3. I was way more drawn to T4 patterns, for instance, and I’d buy items from the Dressing Your Truth store, and they’d just sit in the cellophane wrappers they came in. Even the earrings seemed too big for me!

I briefly considered whether I was a 3/1, because I did look youthful, but I couldn’t imagine myself in a type that was the highest movement on the planet, a double extrovert, and I didn’t feel particularly drawn to lightness in my clothing. I felt like a lot of what people wore in the T3 group just wouldn’t look good on me, and my face just didn’t seem to have the same strength and substance. Eventually, I decided that I must be a 4/1 who mistook herself for a T3, and then eventually I settled on 4/3, and it made sense that I had just flipped my primary and secondary. I thought maybe my inability to see a type strongly in my face maybe meant that I had rectangles and parallel lines, even though I had never thought of myself as having a symmetrical face. I thought maybe I took the idea of facial symmetry too literally, as a T4 would.

I was very happy to be a T4, and I enjoyed the discussion with other T4 women, although I felt that they got upset about a lot of things I don’t care about. I figured that boldness showed itself more strongly in me than being reflective and still. I was very happy living in T4 for about two years, as I completed a masters degree, and I did very well and I felt like people were seeing me for who I was–a bold, analytical person who was more introverted, but could also lead. I actually had a classmate give me feedback that they saw me as someone who saw the big picture and could perfect things.

But I didn’t really feel like I looked stunning in T4. Black didn’t do much for me. I gained something like 40 lbs. very quickly. Once I finished school, and I needed to start finding a job and entering the real world, I had a hard time finding motivation and energy.

I also started to want to dress in the Autumn palette again. While I had loved the T4 hues, they suddenly stopped being as appealing to me. And I noticed that I never decorated my house in them. I had seemed to want to surround myself with more of an Autumn palette as well. At first I thought I would stay with T4, but just have some Autumn outfits, but the difference was stark. I came alive in Autumn; I looked dull in the T4 colors.

I also looked at my movement, which is loud, substantial, and swift. I don’t talk a lot or very loudly, but you hear me move, and I am rough on things. It’s been this way for as long as I can remember. I watched videos with an open mind, like on the T3 women’s purse and how T3s express themselves, and I saw how obviously T3 I am.

I’m going to stop this story here, and talk about my cluebombing experience in the next post. Carol actually gave me both my primary and secondary types, so I’d love to hear your guesses!

2020 Style Update: Zyla High Autumn

This post uses affiliate links.


This music video is a little strange, but the song fits where I am with my style right now.

Sometimes, we treat our style and season as if it’s going to last our whole lives. Often, though, it’s more of a stop along the way, rather than a lifelong thing.

I have noticed that I tend to change my style in some way when something major in my life changes. I started looking at Kibbe and Dressing Your Truth after I felt a shift in my life toward coming into my adult self, having my first real job, etc. I stayed in a kind of autumnal space until it just didn’t feel right anymore, and I went with 4/3 for the entirety of my time in grad school.

Now that I am done with grad school, and am working in my profession, I am again faced with my color palette feeling off. Flamboyant Gamine has been pretty constant, but wearing the T4 color palette no longer feels right to me. I know that these colors do not exist in my body, and it feels like at this point in my life, I would feel more self-assured wearing the colors that exist in me.

Wearing my season or body colors has always been something I’ve had resistance to, because I don’t get black, or neon, or many other colors that 4/3 “allowed” me to wear. For a long time, it felt like a compromise. But perhaps I’ve gotten it out of my system, because wearing the colors I loved now feels somewhat artificial.

Zyla is a system that I have been looking into for as long as I have been looking into Kibbe, Dressing Your Truth, and Sci\ART (which I no longer have faith in). But it was one where I felt like I didn’t have an archetype that felt “right” out of the box, meaning the description in the book. Zyla customizes the archetypes to the person, so some people end up with recommendations that vary greatly from what is in the book, and I’ve long felt that I would be one of those people. I couldn’t even narrow down my season apart from ruling out Summer.

But as I was thinking about it this weekend, something clicked for me. High Autumn is an archetype where other people have said that I come to mind when they read the description in the book. High Autumn is a direct, take-charge type, and that describes me pretty well.

When I was in Dark Autumn, it worked for me because it is the brightest Autumn available in Sci\ART. I do not really have the depth of Dark Autumn, though, so that was where I ran into trouble. I felt like I was a brighter Autumn. High Autumn, on the other hand, is based around the colors of Ancient Egypt. If you google this, this is one of the results that comes up:

Indeed, I recognize many of these colors from Zyla’s High Autumn Pinterest board. In particular, the realgar color seems to be the classic High Autumn color, and one that actually many who know me in real life have referred to as my “signature” color. I also find all the colors in the top row in my eyes. I went hiking yesterday, and as I looked at the water, I wondered why I have been so resistant to my body colors:

Point Lobos, Carmel, CA. October 2020.

As odd as it may seem to use someone’s Ancient Egypt college project as my color palette, I think it seems like a suitable base for a wardrobe (apart from the black and white) until things open up again and I can make an appointment with Zyla. I will perhaps add an olive green and a honey brown as additional neutrals.

The bigger challenge, I think, will be making sure I retain my style personality with the new color palette. Black is an easy way to give an Edgy sensibility to your look, and without it, it can be easy to lose it at the Core of my palette. Sporty and Sophisticated should be much easier, but they’re also not my Core. I can see that this is where I had issues with the Autumn palette before–it could be difficult for me to retain my focus on expressing what I wanted with my style, and not just buying things in the right colors.

Another issue with this High Autumn approach is that there is so little information on High Autumn. David has his Pinterest board and his book, and I have seen some information from the handful of High Autumns in the community. But it’s not like, say, Tawny Spring, where there are a ton of people in the archetype within the online community, so there is a variety of versions of that archetype you can read about, and see where you resonate in terms of style.

I have created my own Pinterest board, using some of Zyla’s High Autumn pins, some other High Autumn pins on Pinterest, and some of my own.

  • Ancient Egyptian color palette as the basis of a Zyla High Autumn wardrobe.
  • Armani Privé Spring 2012 - Details
  • Bird of paradise

How my style will work with this new palette, and how to bring out the special qualities of High Autumn, are something I’m going to be working out as I plan new outfits over these next few months. It is definitely a new stage in my style evolution, and I’m excited to share it with you!

Note: I know it has been a while since I have worked on some of my other projects, like putting a new video on my YouTube channel, finishing my next Cheat Sheet, or continuing my series on The Looks Men Love. The changes that led to the change in my style have also made it harder for me to work on these projects that take a lot of time and energy, but I hope that as things settle and I adjust that I will be able to pick them back up. So don’t worry; I haven’t abandoned anything. 🙂

Stylesyntax.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

New YouTube Video: David Kibbe’s Metamorphosis Book: Foreword

When I finally decided to start making YouTube videos, I wanted to start with what I identified as the most pressing need in this space, and to me, that was making the content of Metamorphosis available to people who don’t have the book. Parts of the book are online, like the quiz, physical profiles, and checklist, but not that parts of the book that explained the purpose of the system. Without it, Kibbe becomes just another body typing system.

So I’m going to be going through book, making videos explaining the content in each missing chapter. If you’ve never had the chance to read the book, I hope these videos help give you a better perspective on what the system is meant to do for your style and your life.

Click here to view the Style Syntax YouTube channel!

Please check it out and let me know what you think! 🙂

Height in Kibbe: Why Tall People Can’t Be in Short Image Identities

Disclaimer: This information is not something I have learned from David Kibbe, and only represents what I think. Please join Strictly Kibbe if you would like help on your journey with Kibbe.

In my last post, I talked about how you can’t really add anything to length except width or curves, and that’s why D, SD, and FN are the only possible options for women who are tall. But this doesn’t really seem to be a sufficient explanation for why literal height is always length and thus yang, whereas literal shortness isn’t always yin. While I could repeat what David says, it was hard to get people on board if they felt that they had a short line, despite being tall.

I think I have come up with a way to explain it that makes sense. Let’s talk short lines. The Romantics (Romantic and Theatrical) and the Gamines (Soft and Flamboyant) have “yin size,” or a short body line. The Romantics have one due to their round shape, their curves. Think of yin as a circle, and yang as a line, either standing straight up (sharp yang) or on its site (blunt/strong yang).

Gamines, on the other, have a broken line. I can see this easily in my body. It is composed of short lines. My body line is basically in fits and starts, and it’s something I mirror in my clothing.

Jean Seberg, 5’3″ Kibbe Gamine (hasn’t been moved to F or S yet!)

Now, when you add length to either a broken line or a rounded line, it loses that quality. With length, I would lose that “broken” quality to my line. All of the individual lines in my body would be longer. A rounded shape lengthens and the curvature is less dramatic compared to the length of the body.

But you can have someone who is shorter, and yet doesn’t have a broken line visually.

SJP in 1991, a 5’3″ FN

This seems fairly common when you’re just on the lower end of moderate (5’3″ or so), and less so when you get very short. But again, a long line on a short woman is just possible in the way a short line on a tall woman isn’t.

I hope this explains why there isn’t necessarily a lower limit for the tall Image IDs, but there is an upper one for shorter Image IDs.

Height in Kibbe: About Dramatic, Soft Dramatic, and Flamboyant Natural

Before I start, I’d just like to say that while I usually try to stick to things I can find direct citations for when it comes to Kibbe, this is something that I’ve seen come up so frequently that I’d like to address it. Please do not ask me what you’d be with your vertical and outline combination; this is based on what I’ve been able to learn from David but is not authorized by him in any way. Please join Strictly Kibbe if you would like help on your journey with Kibbe.

With that, something I have been seeing a lot lately is people saying that D, SD, and FN are broader Image IDs, and tall women are going to find that their Image IDs are less to specific to them than to me at 5’4″, for example. It’s true that my height doesn’t rule out anything for me, but it doesn’t mean that every Image ID is open to me, either. I believe that D, SD, and FN don’t cater to wider variety of women than the rest, except for the fact that they cover a wider range of literal heights.

Let’s think about what goes into the yin/yang balance of different Image IDs. Putting flesh aside, we can divide them into two fundamental elements:

Your vertical can be:

  • Short
  • Moderate
  • Long

Your outline can be:

  • Curvy
  • Straight (nothing really in your outline to accommodate)
  • Wide (has width somewhere from the ribcage through the shoulders)

While there are subtler nuances, this is basically what you’re dealing with when it comes to the physical reality of your body. When it comes to the tall Image IDs, I often hear people say that they are so much more diverse in terms of appearance because they are the only ones open to tall women (over, I would estimate, 5’8″). But I would counter with this: tell me what is missing for these women, because I really can’t see it. If you are tall, and don’t have width or curves, you’d be D. If you’re tall, and have curves and maybe width, you’d be SD. If you’re tall and accommodate just width in your outline, you’d be FN. The other variations come from having short or moderate vertical. You have literal, physical length. You’re not going to be moderate/symmetrical/balanced, because the length rules out that symmetry. You’re not going to have a combination of opposites, because your length is too significant for that balance. You’re not going to be all curves with no vertical, because you have that vertical.

I don’t believe that tall women get the short end of the stick, and I’ve never seen anyone put forth a convincing argument for this. All the Image IDs have a broader range of women than Hollywood might make it seem, because generally to find success in Hollywood, you have to adhere to a certain beauty standard. In real life, you’re able to see the true range of each Image ID. Each Image ID includes a wide range of women who share particular features in their physicality, but every individual in an Image ID is unique. If you are a tall woman, you just happen to have one major piece of the puzzle solved for you, which is your vertical. So yes, ultimately, you can narrow down your exploration to these three, but it doesn’t mean that your actual options are narrower than anyone else’s, because we are all limited to one ID based on the constraints of our physical selves.

Kibbe Style Icon: Audrey Hepburn, the Misunderstood Flamboyant Gamine

We all know that Audrey Hepburn is one of the major style icons of the 20th century, and she also happens to be a Flamboyant Gamine. Her style is often talked about as if it is exceptional for FG, but really, it’s only exceptional in that she was so exceptional–it fits perfectly within an FG context.

I think this is due to the fact that Audrey dressed so well for her Image ID that she was able to make items with a lot of design elements, or adding these herself, look classic, chic, and sophisticated. I will often see guides to “dressing like Audrey,” but they generally miss the mark. They tend to feature very plain clothes, the kind of things relegated to the “basics” category, and claim that this is how you achieve an Audrey look.

If you actually look at how she dressed, however, it’s clear that even when she wore similar items to those on the lists, she did something to them to add more interest, what we might call “breaking the line” in Gamineland. Yes, she wore a plain white shirt, but she added a knot. She always added flourishes that provided what we need for our yin.

I think this is a mistake that a lot of people who have more of a classic sensibility make when they come to FG. They figure that can follow Audrey’s example, and that she is kind of an exception, but she really isn’t. She embodied what it means to be a Flamboyant Gamine because she always knew what an outfit needed to take it from something anyone would wear to the level of design a Flamboyant Gamine requires.

So don’t think of Audrey as some kind of model for the way to do FG that “isn’t like the rest.” By studying Audrey, any FG can learn how to create that special quality unique to us.

Is Kibbe’s Book Relevant Today?

Some people seem to view the book as completely separate from “new” Kibbe, as if what he does on Facebook is totally removed from what he wrote in 1987. What he does on Facebook and on his website is painted as something totally different from what he said before. David has continued to work and develop his theory since the book came out, so naturally some things have indeed changed:

The Clothing Checklist.

Part of this impression stems from the fact that only selected portions of the book have made it to the internet, primarily the quiz and the descriptions of the Image IDs and their recommendations. This not only makes it seem like the system is a set of stereotypes you fit into, but, since nearly 35 years have passed since the book’s publication and clothing construction has changed radically, we are not limited to exact styles described in the book. In fact, due to these changes in clothing construction, trying to replicate the effects in modern styles might actually not even work. I think this is especially true for anyone who has to accommodate width or curve. “Flow” or “drape” in a non-stretchy material is very different from a stretchy cotton jersey, for instance. Clothing construction now means that clothing also tends to take shape of the body it is on, instead of the other way around. So one garment may suit several IDs, but they would all style it differently.

Classic, Gamine, and Natural are no longer given as an Image Identity on their own.

Everyone now is either the Soft or Flamboyant/Dramatic versions of these IDs. This also has the effect of broadening the descriptions of these IDs, since people who may have been one of these base IDs are now in the Soft or Flamboyant/Dramatic category. There are going to be SGs and FGs, for instance, who are going to be closer to the 50/50 split than before, but still, one of the two will win out. (This is not something that Kibbe has said, but rather my assumption based on the fact that these IDs once existed, and now do not.)

Makeup!

I don’t think any of us would want to wear 80s makeup, and David doesn’t want that for us either. David now prescribes the same watercolor technique for everyone, and you work with your bone structure. Glossy lips are also favored for all. So please, do not listen to YouTube videos that try to follow the heavy 80s makeup recommended!

Height.

The upper limits still pretty much hold true, but there is no lower limit for height in an Image ID, and SG and FN are no longer portrayed as the only ones that are “very petite” and “very tall,” respectively.

What Hasn’t Changed

As I said in the beginning, sometimes people act is the book is just completely outdated, and what David teaches you in Strictly Kibbe is completely different. But when I go back to the book and read it, I see the same David on the page as the one I encounter in Strictly Kibbe.

The Process.

What unfortunately didn’t make it online–and what I really wish had!–is all of the content besides the quiz and the descriptions. In the book, David lays out how his system is different and the idea at the heart of it (creating your unique “Total Look” by integrating your finite outer appearance with your infinite inner self). He then introduces you to yin and yang as used in the system, and how you can rectify these two different selves, if there is a conflict. There are 25 pages of text before you even get to the quiz, and then there is a fantasy quiz, for you to understand your inner self better. Like today, you are thinking about yourself and your dreams, and you understand yin and yang, before you ever get to the quiz. The lack of this foundation in yin and yang is why people have such trouble with the quiz. I remember the first time I took it I scored myself as extremely yin, because I didn’t really understand that measurement and shape weren’t the same thing.

The Fundamental Yin/Yang Balances and Image ID Descriptions.

This is the portion before the checklist, where he describes each Image ID. This is really where I find the “meat” of the information about the Image IDs. They make it clear to me why David got rid of the “middle” types, because I think these work even when you don’t have those. For instance, for FG, the description of the yin/yang balance says: “Physically, you are Yang in shape (angular), Yin in size (height). Both sides are important, but Yang is dominant.” This makes complete sense to me as an FG. SG is “slightly angular” in bone structure and “Yin in shape (curvy flesh, rounded features).”

He describes the overall silhouette like this:

Your overall silhouette is composed of Yang shapes: very angular and geometric, straight lines with sharp edges. Your important Yin secondary characteristics are expressed by working with broken and staccato lines and detail.

This alone captures how I approach dressing for my yin/yang balance. Armed with this, I really don’t need all those “recs.” I work with these angular-but-short straight lines and add detail.

Color.

David’s color system seems to be largely ignored, but I definitely feel like he regards color as equally important to line. He teaches it basically exactly as described in the book, and works with the same seasons and, while the makeup application techniques have changed, the same colors still work.

If you have the book, I would definitely pull it out and read it and see whether you can see Contemporary Kibbe in its pages. I know it’s now hundreds of dollars on Amazon, but it really is a wonderful book with a lot of insight. He says he will write another, so let’s cross our fingers!

These are just the things that came to me when looking through the book, so if you have any other questions about the book vs. what David says today, please leave them in the comments.

Height in Kibbe: 2020

A couple of months ago, I rewrote an old post on this blog about the “curvy” Flamboyant Gamine. This blog has been around for a long time now, and the older posts date from before David joined the Facebook groups and changed the way all of us see and work with his system. It feels like the most appropriate thing for me to do, rather than make a whole bunch of posts private, is to continue to rewrite posts to update them to how I understand the Kibbe Metamorphosis system to work now.

Today, I’ll like to go back and write about height in Kibbe. This is a subject of some controversy. You can find all kinds of things on the internet, like height is just one factor of many, and shouldn’t be given more weight than something else. But let’s remember the basics of yin and yang. Yin is short and rounded; yang is long and angular. Your height is key to this very fundamental aspect of yin and yang.

1. Why can’t certain Image IDs be taller?

R, TR, SG, FG, and SC all top out around 5’5″ (SC 5’6″). Why? Because the taller you are, the more prominent yang is, and it starts to become too much length (yang) for these balances. TR is much more yin than people seem to think, especially. Gamines need to be compact, and you would lose that compactness with more length. SC, of course, needs to be moderate, with extra yin, and you cannot have that with length.

2. Why are tall women limited to three Image IDs?

Literal length is automatically yang. At a certain point (which seems to be around 5’9″), a woman automatically has a dominant vertical (Dramatic, Soft Dramatic, or Flamboyant Natural). You automatically have a strong vertical, because it’s literally there. And then what you have is vertical, vertical with curve (and perhaps width), or vertical with width. There is no way to get to moderate, or juxtaposition. You always have that vertical you must honor, because it’s literally there. You cannot ignore it while dressing, or you’ll look like you’re wearing the clothes of a much smaller person.

3. But [celebrity] is taller!

First, celebrities are not intended as data points. They should not be used as points of comparison. They are there as “lodestars,” i.e., inspiration. Some celebrities David has seen in person; others he hasn’t. There is far more emphasis placed on celebrities around the Kibbe-focused internet than there should be. The best examples of an Image ID are people who have actually gone to Kibbe and been given a Metamorphosis by him. Celebrities are fun to watch on screen for inspiration, but should not be taken more seriously than David’s own words on an Image ID. Please, please never bring up Rihanna being 5’8″ and in TR to me ever again. If she is truly 5’8″, she would no longer be in TR. Same with every other celebrity listed with a height taller than the range for the Image ID.

4. Why can shorter women be in the taller IDs?

Women who are shorter but in a taller Image ID (i.e., a 5’3″ SD) are there because they still have a vertical that needs to be addressed in clothing, even if they aren’t literally tall. But you cannot have it the other way around, because literal length always has to be addressed.

5. But what if people are taller in my country?

Your Image ID is the same no matter where you are. It’s not relative to your surroundings. If people tend to be taller in your country, that just means there are more yang people in your country. How your body needs to be accommodated in clothing doesn’t change. This is the same for ethnicities. You are assessed as an individual.

Conclusion

Basically, height comes from the way yin and yang works. If you think about it in terms of the basics I have in the beginning of this post–yin is short and rounded, yang is long and angular–it helps makes sense of why height plays such an important role in your Image ID. If you think about what “moderate” means, for instance, and why Cs are described that way, the fact that Classics aren’t going to be 6′ tall makes perfect sense. And if Gamines need to be compact, they just can’t be tall either. And so on. Thinking about yin and yang will help you make sense of the question of height.

Why Strictly Kibbe Is Private

This is something I see a lot in online chatter. People don’t really understand why Strictly Kibbe is a private group on Facebook, and why it’s not public. There are many reasons for this, and none of them have to do with being elitist, or making David’s work harder to access.

The first is history. The Kibbe community was already established in private and secret groups on Facebook, and it made sense to stay on Facebook so that when we started a group with a new philosophy, people could easily join from the old community.

The next reason is privacy. I personally don’t like posting a lot of pictures of myself online, and I’m sure a lot of other people feel the same way. The Kibbe process is a very personal one, and I believe it works best when it is done in a space where people can allow themselves to vulnerable. I have clicked on photos people post on imgur when they’re asking for Kibbe help on other sites, for example, and I see random people leaving rude comments. We want people to be able to go through the process in a supportive, protected environment.

The last is an element of control, although maybe not in the way you think. I do want as many people to be able to access the information as possible, and as long as people follow the process, they are allowed in. The only people I don’t allow in the group are people who have a profile picture that catches my eye in a negative way (something that sets off my radar) or people who I know have an online presence where they are putting forth Kibbe misinterpretations. I have seen people use his test to type people or put portions of his book on their website while letting people believe that it is their own work. And if people make YouTube videos or blog posts that propagate misinformation (it is easier to blog or make videos about the wrong way than the right way, unfortunately), we also don’t want them to have the privilege of getting feedback from David either. David gives the kind of help and feedback other people have paid thousands of dollars to receive from him. But while you do need a Facebook account, I don’t look for things like how long you’ve been on Facebook–I know people create accounts just to join the group.

Additionally, David has information on his own site, www.davidkibbe.co, so if you’re on the fence, I suggest checking it out. The way he works with his own materials is very different from the way it’s presented elsewhere. The process isn’t what everyone wants, but when it works for you, there is no comparison!

I hope this clarifies some of logic behind why we have made the choice we have. The intent has always been to create the best space we can to learn about and discuss David’s work.

1 2 3 14