Dr G, medical examiner

[consentingadult]

The Ineffable suggested elswhere that Dr. G, Medical Examiner, is SLI. So I have been watching videos of her and have some odd conclusions. I simply don't see the SLI descriptions reflected in her, but if I go by a process of elimination, I have no other option than to accept SLI, because she also doesn't give off an LSE vibe as I know it.

So, what do you think about her type, and why? Teach me how to recognize an SLI.

BTW, she's hot, isn't she? I wouldn't mind dating her, if she wouldn't be into poking dead people and turning them inside out.

ETA: Just watched another video on youtube, to which someone commented:

Dr. G's emotional detachment makes her a bit of an unsympathetic personality. She seems almost giddy about a tumor which may have caused the horrific and untimely death of two young people.
I know she is just excited from a professional standpoint, but it makes it seem like she doesn't care about what that tumor meant.

This is my problem: I don''t think she's unemotional or unsympathetic at all. Is this the problem with identifying SLIs by an IEE?

[Suz]

The Ineffable suggested elswhere that Dr. G, Medical Examiner, is SLI. So I have been watching videos of her and have some odd conclusions. I simply don't see the SLI descriptions reflected in her, but if I go by a process of elimination, I have no other option than to accept SLI, because she also doesn't give off an LSE vibe as I know it.

So, what do you think about her type, and why? Teach me how to recognize an SLI.

BTW, she's hot, isn't she? I wouldn't mind dating her, if she wouldn't be into poking dead people and turning them inside out.

ETA: Just watched another video on youtube, to which someone commented:

Dr. G's emotional detachment makes her a bit of an unsympathetic personality. She seems almost giddy about a tumor which may have caused the horrific and untimely death of two young people.
I know she is just excited from a professional standpoint, but it makes it seem like she doesn't care about what that tumor meant.

This is my problem: I don''t think she's unemotional or unsympathetic at all. Is this the problem with identifying SLIs by an IEE?

I mean... i also dont find them unemotional or unsympathetic. The ones i know (about 5 people now for sure--3 guys and 2 girls) have been very empathetic, caring people to all around them. They put me to shame, really, that way. They all do tend to speak in a relative monotone, but heck, so do i!!

[The Ineffable]

I think the problem is taking the descriptions too literally, that creates a representation a priori that doesn't necessarily fit the real person. Because those notions and statements have no one universal meaning each. Having good RL experience with all the types would solve it, assuming something can guarantee to us we type them correctly, the representation would be based on real people. Many SLI females (the current example only) typed means finding a common denominator that can be used independently of descriptions; but if you think about it, when you need to transmit that to others, your description will end-up similar to the existing Socionics one, there are no words to transmit a representation in your mind about anything to another person as it is, and it all starts over . I think one has to try to understand the bigger picture, the whole context in which one makes a description, where the author is coming from. This implies, of course, that the description should be very large, that the author has to explain every issue from different perspectives and gives many examples. This is at least what I do, I type the people relative to all the others, using the descriptions and the model as an a filter to decide the memberships [1].

Having no much experience with this precise sort at the time, I too used exclusion for typing my SLI female acquaintances, including my ex, after using some reduction: they were informative (Dynamic) in opposition to explicative [2] and convincingly a Si type but not a Fe type based on a large number of reasons. To my mind, the exclusion of the opposite IEs and some dichotomies is perfectly sensible in Model A, not sure about others [3].

My ex typed SEI in a test.
---

[1] - this takes years, though . I wonder whether some sort of shortcut is possible...
[2] - don't mind this too much, it is something I was vaguely perceiving but I could not put into worlds until relatively recently, when I studied some philosophy of knowledge.
[3] - for instance deciding between Ti and Te when the Dynamic/Static partition of the Mental ring, among others, is not established.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Dr. G's emotional detachment makes her a bit of an unsympathetic personality. She seems almost giddy about a tumor which may have caused the horrific and untimely death of two young people.
I know she is just excited from a professional standpoint, but it makes it seem like she doesn't care about what that tumor meant.

I just watched the video, and that comment was made by a "MissJessyeNorman". I'm betting some teenager that doesn't understand an adult doing her job. I found the description of the tumor fascinating as well, and it doesn't matter that she takes a personal interest in the repercussions of the case, since there's nothing she can do about that. Maybe that's Fe-devaluing, I don't know, but I believe Dr. G's actions and emotions were entirely professional and acceptable.

I know what you mean... she doesn't strike boldly as a SLI, but there's not much else that really fits. I could *possibly* see ILE, but more as a longshot, looking for a suitable type other than SLI.

What gives it away is her physical description of the tumor, the level of detail she delves into, seems very Si+Te.

[consentingadult]

I just watched the video, and that comment was made by a "MissJessyeNorman". I'm betting some teenager that doesn't understand an adult doing her job. I found the description of the tumor fascinating as well, and it doesn't matter that she takes a personal interest in the repercussions of the case, since there's nothing she can do about that. Maybe that's Fe-devaluing, I don't know, but I believe Dr. G's actions and emotions were entirely professional and acceptable.

I know what you mean... she doesn't strike boldly as a SLI, but there's not much else that really fits. I could *possibly* see ILE, but more as a longshot, looking for a suitable type other than SLI.

What gives it away is her physical description of the tumor, the level of detail she delves into, seems very Si+Te.

My problem is that I want to recognize them at first sight, not after some level of interaction. Often it's not until they pick me out that I recognize them, and even then, I regularly mistype them at first.

[consentingadult]

I just watched the video, and that comment was made by a "MissJessyeNorman". I'm betting some teenager that doesn't understand an adult doing her job. I found the description of the tumor fascinating as well, and it doesn't matter that she takes a personal interest in the repercussions of the case, since there's nothing she can do about that. Maybe that's Fe-devaluing, I don't know, but I believe Dr. G's actions and emotions were entirely professional and acceptable.

I know what you mean... she doesn't strike boldly as a SLI, but there's not much else that really fits. I could *possibly* see ILE, but more as a longshot, looking for a suitable type other than SLI.

What gives it away is her physical description of the tumor, the level of detail she delves into, seems very Si+Te.

I've watched the video again with the hints you gave me, and that was very helpful. In fact, this is the first time I notice I'm more or less oblivious to such descriptions, like a blind spot.

[Suz]

just had a chance to watch the video. Yeah i dont know... she doesn't ring SLI bells to me either actually. Doesn't mean she isn't one though, maybe she's just a "look" that i'm not used to. The description she gives of the tumor though is just what pathologists are trained to do; it's not necessarily what she came up with of her own accord. She actually could have been a bit more detailed from that standpoint.

That said, i could potentially see SLIs being good pathologists, as they are all about the sensory descriptions and they can enjoy working alone and not have to deal with people. However, LSIs could as well, i guess. I'm not saying she's LSI, though. Her type doesn't clearly stand out to me tbh.

[consentingadult]

just had a chance to watch the video. Yeah i dont know... she doesn't ring SLI bells to be either actually. Doesn't mean she isn't one though, maybe she's just a "look" that i'm not used to. The description she gives of the tumor though is just what pathologists are trained to do; it's not necessarily what she came up with of her own accord. She actually could have been a bit more detailed from that standpoint.

That said, i could potentially see SLIs being good pathologists, as they are all about the sensory descriptions and they can enjoy working alone and not have to deal with people. However, LSIs could as well, i guess. I'm not saying she's LSI, though. Her type doesn't clearly stand out to me tbh.

Sigh... aren't there any SLIs on the forum who could help us out? That's should be their proper function in life, shouldn't it?

[blackburry]

She's a Si type. Ne valuer.

I'd say SLI isn't a bad typing, tho neither is LSE, but she seems more constant in her moods than a lot of the EJs I know. soooo SLI it is.

[consentingadult]

She's a Si type. Ne valuer.

I'd say SLI isn't a bad typing, tho neither is LSE, but she seems more constant in her moods than a lot of the EJs I know. soooo SLI it is.

So, what is it in her that demonstrates that she's Si and values Ne?

[Suz]

She's a Si type. Ne valuer.

I'd say SLI isn't a bad typing, tho neither is LSE, but she seems more constant in her moods than a lot of the EJs I know. soooo SLI it is.

What about SEI though? you haven't excluded that one yet...

[blackburry]

What about SEI though? you haven't excluded that one yet...

I've chosen SLI (or LSE), therefore have excluded all other types. hell no on SEI for her.

[The Ineffable]

What about SEI though? you haven't excluded that one yet...

SEI was disqualified from previously, by her emotional detachment.

[JuJu]

I remember Dr. G's testimony during the Casey Anthony trial.

Her demeanor was consistent with Si leading, in my opinion, and her conclusion regarding that poor child's homicide exhibited Te in a very, straightforward, matter-of-fact way.

I remember Dr. G. being questioned -- something along the lines of, "how can you be sure that this is a homicide?" Dr. G. responded, (paraphrasing,) "the only logical conclusion is homicide because children should not have duct tape across their mouths." Good point -- some might say, it's just 'common sense;' however, Te often manifests in that manner... I have a TeSi father, and I've come to accept (if not appreciate) that his reasoning is very matter-of-fact, along these same lines.

[Jarno]

Dr G is a LSI. I'm not sure which subtype. I've watched a lot of her programs on t.v.

[golden]

Why would she be LSI?

[Jarno]

Why would she be LSI?

well she's comparable in how she looks and behaves with some LSI women that I know.

[blackburry]

She's SLI. She exhibits TeSi. durrrrr

[Suz]

She's SLI. She exhibits TeSi. durrrrr

LSIs can also inadvertantly exhibit Te and Si in their quest for Ti and Se.

[blackburry]

Not the point ^. I'm saying she's SLI. Not LSI.

[Jarno]

I want to apologize, my typing LSI was wrong.

I can now see that Dr G is indeed SLI.

Just thought it would be fair to admit, and maybe now we can have new celebrity consensus if many people say she's SLI.

[Absurd]

Adhering to some consensus is quite funny to begin with.

[The Penetrator]

I once made love to this woman. If her skills in the bedroom had matched her skills in the theatre there would have been a second time.

They did not and we did not.