ILE (ENTp)
SEI (ISFp)
ESE (ESFj)
LII (INTj)
SLE (ESTp)
IEI (INFp)
EIE (ENFj)
LSI (ISTj)
SEE (ESFp)
ILI (INTp)
LIE (ENTj)
ESI (ISFj)
IEE (ENFp)
SLI (ISTp)
LSE (ESTj)
EII (INFj)
Margaret Thatcher
Still on the "Prime Ministers series" --
Brief clip
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rQ-M0KEFm9I
An (unfortunately edited) PM question with Margaret Thatcher.
It "takes off" after 1 min or so. Towards the end, look for the question by the LII Tony Benn.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=U2f8nYMCO2I
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1aZdAyHVjzQ&feature=related
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
After seeing this and the Gordon Brown thread, UK politics are sooo badass.
It's almost like watching an historical reenactment.
Eh, I guess I agree.
I can see the case for that, but her argumentation in the PM questions video, both in substance and the wording she chooses, is mostly
The videos that you've watched are mostly about important issues not the day-to-day trivial crap so, yeah I guess it would look grand and exciting.
I agree, she looks ESI to me (according to the latest version of my vi model).
Last edited by astralsilky; 02-17-2008 at 05:26 PM.
But she seems so solid and sturdy. Most Te types I've seen seem to get flustered, but she is totally unflinching in everything she says, with an attitude of "I'm right, and to hell with you if you disagree". I think that's more ISxj than anything. IDK, I'd need to see more of her.I can see the case for that, but her argumentation in the PM questions video, both in substance and the wording she chooses, is mostly
She was known as 'the iron lady' from time to time. From what I recall she was pretty quick to hire and fire her cabinet members. She even told the then president Ronald Reagan to 'mind his own business' when he tried to disuade her from taking direct action to reclaim the falklands islands. She did understandably imo display some tearful emotion tho at the end of her term as her own party forced her out of the PM role.
Just some general extra trivia for you. Might help.
I'm not sure myself. I was inclined to type her as LIE for some time; then I thought that LSI made more sense, for many reasons. But what I see her using - with relish - in the PM questions clip is" as in showing her contempt for individuals and the Labour Party, and - but perhaps you can comment on this - she mercilessly attacks her opponents's competence on
PoLR thing to do. I do agree, though, that she shows more
than what I'd expect in a LIE, from that point of view Tony Blair is a more typical
, but she keeps coming back to "what works" as a argument. Also, in the clip about the sinking of the "General Belgrano", she is unflinching in a
What do you think of LSE. Strong Te, very aware of her senses. Apparently very patriotic, and little patience for uncertainty in decisions in her and others could suggest Ni as PoLR?
I really have difficulties seeing her as LSE, and what you described would be an argument for Ni HA rather than Ni PoLR. She has a harshness, an open contempt for fools and incompetents, that I have difficulty associating with any Delta type. Her approach to.
The types I see as likely are (in no particular order) LSI, LIE and - yes - ESI.
Do you think her harshness has more to do with having an impatience with vagueness and uncertainty in matters that are of importance to her, which may appear as contempt but its really more like impatience? It kind of makes me think fourth function Ni in the LSE.I really have difficulties seeing her as LSE, and what you described would be an argument for Ni HA rather than Ni PoLR. She has a harshness, an open contempt for fools and incompetents, that I have difficulty associating with any Delta type. Her approach to
The types I see as likely are (in no particular order) LSI, LIE and - yes - ESI.
Including LSEs and SLIs?
In her manner, yes.
Another, longer video --
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cpdbEK3E4U8
Last edited by silke; 08-28-2013 at 10:51 PM. Reason: fixed link
As I already said, when you asked pretty much the same thing, this is more like Ni as sixth rather than fourth function.
LSEs aren't "impatient" -- they just don't see the point of thinking ahead if there is work to be done right now.
And I think that what she shows in the PM questions clip is open contempt for individuals and the Labour Party generally.
No worries Expat. I was thinking back to the functional discription on wiki. I see what you mean. She does give me a sense of an LSE with an attitude issue, or maybe even an LSI..which are the types she's not! Sorry I'll try not to suck so much next time round!
Sorry, I'm also sucking.No worries Expat. I was thinking back to the functional discription on wiki. I see what you mean. She does give me a sense of an LSE with an attitude issue, or maybe even an LSI..which are the types she's not! Sorry I'll try not to suck so much next time round!
I think LSI makes more sense than LSE.
Her intonation and style reminds me of that guy with his talk on freedom of speech.
EDIT: Christopher Hitchens
Could you elaborate on that?
Notice how she refuses to be interrupted. That says strong Se to me.
Her arguments in defense of her policies basically all say that she replaced some bad corrupt thing with a good productive thing.
Not an ethical type at all. Probably EJ-Te without much emphasis on either Si or Ni.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Likely true.
Lol, I wouldn't say "not ethical at all", but I agree that a logical type shouldn't necessarily be ruled out.
I had a look at the initial video again, and thought it looked like Ti in the way she looked at and analysed the oppositions policies. It looked like there was Se there also, she seemed to be coming over as 'this is my view' without much or any room for negotiation. It seemed like the idea of giving up the pound to use the EU currency was more like a power thing and not wanting to give that up, at least that seemed of importance as much as in terms of any economic sense that it might have.
She has no charateristic that can be associated to an ethical type, and least of all to an IxFx type. From every possible angle.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_G4dHRN2Dug
This video, with an interview for an educational children's program, shows a softer side of hers.
The interview itself starts at around 3:00, after an introduction on the subject (ie the Khmer Rouge).
(the interviewer, Caron Keating, has since died of cancer).
Ethical type is totally out of the question. Impossible. She is a logical type for sure.
Care to explain why it is impossible?
Don't you see it by just looking at her presence, her behaviour, her facial structure, etc? Don't you immediately, and with almost absolute certainty, just know that she is a logical type?
No. I don't see it immediately.
But you do see it immediately, with absolute certainty, that it is impossible she is not a T type?
Yes.
Thinking back to what you said earlier on .. I don't like the way your are so quick to formulate your conclusions. That is bad science!
Last edited by Cyclops; 02-19-2008 at 12:54 PM.
Quick? It has taken me years to get to know the types as well as I do today. Before I had tested a lot of real life persons, spent hour after hour studying V.I., reading book after book, article after article, compared type descriptions, body types, facial structures, etc., etc., I wouldn't have been able to tell for sure that Thatcher is a logical type. My certainty in this case is the result of all the knowledge I have accumulated during the years -- it is not some mystic "intuition"; it is an analytical process, but it sometimes works so fast that you can tell immediately whether some person is for example an ethical or a logical type. This particular case happens to be clear-cut. There is no room for doubt in this case, even though I may not be that certain in some other hypothetical case.
Actually, I do too, but I should make explicit how: she shows all the traits associated with T descriptions, none of the traits associated with the F descriptions, many traits associated to extraversion, none of the traits associated with Fi dominance, none of the traits associated with Fe dominance, etc etc
When I say "associated" I have in mind type descriptions and dichotomic descriptions.
Yes, that is how it worked for me too; generally speaking though, there are some cases that are very clear-cut (such as Tatcher's), whereas for some others there is a lot of room for discussion.Quick? It has taken me years to get to know the types as well as I do today. Before I had tested a lot of real life persons, spent hour after hour studying V.I., reading book after book, article after article, compared type descriptions, body types, facial structures, etc., etc., I wouldn't have been able to tell for sure that Thatcher is a logical type. My certainty in this case is the result of all the knowledge I have accumulated during the years -- it is not some mystic "intuition"; it is an analytical process, but it sometimes works so fast that you can tell immediately whether some person is for example an ethical or a logical type. This particular case happens to be clear-cut. There is no room for doubt in this case, even though I may not be that certain in some other hypothetical case.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I agree completely with that.
And with that too.
Such as?
I would to know this too.
Last edited by Cyclops; 02-20-2008 at 10:37 AM.
Here's how we put it in the wiki:
I think the latter paragraph may be a bit exaggerated, but the idea is valid.The individual sees reality primarity through static personal ethics and stable interpersonal bonds between individuals, including himself, where the status of such interpersonal bonds is determined by his personal ethics. The individual is very confident in evaluating the ethical or moral qualities, and their consistency, of other people. This makes the individual seem "judgemental" or "self-righteous" to people less so inclined. If he has difficulty in deciding the status of a personal relationship, he will take action to try to reach a conclusion but if that continues to elude him, he will regard the relationship as not worth it. His own sense of constancy in personal ethics and in his relationships with others is a very strong factor in his sense of self-worth.
Doesn't Margaret Thatcher show any of the traits above? Or are they wrong?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote