Matthew Hussey
SEE
simple-minded advice which I guess some ppl actually listen to on youtube.
probably sx/so
Oddly enough, I like this guy. I think I would get a long with him in real life.
First impressions?
LSE - Daniel Radcliffe subtype. And I'm not just talking about what he looks like. The whole vibe is Radcliffe's, which I think speak volumes about his type. The dude is Fi/Te up the ying yang.
Don't ask me to justify atm, its 6 am in the morning.
Last edited by wacey; 11-04-2014 at 03:45 PM.
Not exactly a pick up artist. More something along the lines of a "romance/lifestyle coach".Originally Posted by lungs
I am actually watching his videos regularly, and enjoy them.
Play Matthew's Videos at the same time.
Matthew has the same energy as Radcliffe - his identical. He lectures on and on about Fi ethical "rules". "Have your fun, find someone you like, be prepared to focus on that person." "How do you find out if they have a partner, if you are hitting it off with them, and you don't want to waste time with a three hour exchange, theirs my friday night gone".
Got to be Ej,
Clearly values Fi to the max.
Hard pressed to see a Se base or creative, realistically.
ESTj
why would a Fi inferior lecture on "Fi ethical rules"?
anyway I don't see what this can't be SeFi, he has a casual and at the same time not totally idiotic style I usually see in SEEs. He vibes Ep, not ej.
"Have your fun, find someone you like, be prepared to focus on that person." "How do you find out if they have a partner, if you are hitting it off with them, and you don't want to waste time with a three hour exchange, theirs my friday night gone".
LSE by first impression.
um, cause that's what dual seeking looks like, people put out what they want around themselves in return? duh.
5th suggestive and 6th activating functions: verbal, overvalued, contact (outside).
That dude doesn't look like he wants to stimulate people to give him Fi. He sells "coaching on confidence and relationships".
But oh my, I must probably change my means of distinguishing Fi ego from Te ego. He may even be Fi polr, because people focus so much on the vulnerable function, that they may even use it more than those who have it in the burden of their ego.
He's hot enough though and you're right to want him as your dualie.
"Coaching on confidence and relationships". Ya, that doesn't sound like Fi what-so-eva.
On a personal note, I'm probably not his dual, so there's THAT moot point.
I see a man with Dialectical-Algorithmic Cognition style; a guy who uses "if, then, else" in the speech: "if a guy does this, then you do that"
I see a man as the rational dichotomy, teaching these ladies what to say ahead of time before the date. I see him as a Te-dom, with his endless rules plucked from his experiences. He has stiff movements, uncomfortable transitions. I see a man who is dynamic each situation requiring adjustment of his faculties. He describes his "how-to's" ver specifically and in concrete terms: if this, leads to this, then this, then that stage. I see the way he lumps men into inherent groupings and a lengthy pattern of this behaviour in his speeches as overall pointing to an aristocratic nature. I see the way he seems to state a "fact" as a process type nature. "Of course the answer is right, since we followed the correct procedure."
rational
dynamic
process
aristocratic
At this point, LSE, perhaps Si-subtype because of high emotionalism and his restless demeanor.
Last edited by wacey; 11-04-2014 at 09:43 PM.
fwiw i'm Fi base and i find the commoditization and standardization of how to attract and keep romantic partners pretty gross and undignified.
eg "what you should NEVER say to a guy"...ugh. if he doesn't like what you have to say, find a different guy, lol.
maybe theres something i'm missing since i can't actually watch the videos at work. but this sort of thing isn't what i typically associate with my leading function.
I don't have any such videos on youtube and I would never market relationships advice. But it's not very different from what the BoyCrazyGirl is doing in her videos and since she talked much more sex, bodily fluids, and how to be hot in the club by showing your breasts through a lateral shot, SEE was obvious.
Ti creative usually looks waaaay more like Pua, this guy doesn't really standardize and technicize a lot, just "common sense" stuff like "hey, if asked why you're single, keep yourself on an appealing level and be smooth" etc. I don't know what people expect Fi creative in SEE to look like -- only smth.- like Fi in Virginia Woolf?
When Fi is someones leading function, then sure, I would agree with you, his assessment of things does appear immature and under developed. My earlier point though still stands, Fi is not this guys leading function, but it's presence as a key value to himself seems verbal, overvalued, and contact. In other words, he is engaging the outer world with unconscious expectations of Fi-like information. I would wager he would be enraptured by some Fi-dom chick the minute she opened her mouth and "educated" him. IF she could get a word in edgewise that is because this guy is a talker.
LSE>SEE,
I can see your point, what does creative Fi look like? and another thing: I kind of thought Te was another term for common sense? Matthews advice is common sense and it's not really standardized and technical, but the outer logics of the advice is very apparent, would it need to be formulaic to qualify as extroverted thinking? I would think not. The dude is a Te/Si character.
By the way, I'm not really all that invested.
I also see LSE here. He does have a slight Ep demeanor about him, but the dominant Te is evident enough to warrant Ej. I would think that an Se dominant would go more with the flow and respond as needed in the moment and wouldn't need a list of "if, then"s like you mentioned.
I think he would be apt to misread signs of a woman being interested in him and has probably embarrassed himself a number of times and has learned how to avoid being humiliated by following a procedure aimed at optimizing his chances of scoring. After watching him for ten minutes, it became clear to me that his formulaic approach to dating in not only boring, but requires way too much effort.
Bingo, that was what I was thinking.
Thinking about taking a second look at him.
Guys like this always come across as douchebags, I kinda hate all people who speak on podiums thinking what they say is relevant, they just come across as narcissists looking for naive and gullible people to always agree with them, I always thrive on the audience getting balls & turning on the narcissist and throwing tomatoes at whoever is trying to be a 'star.' - it's what jesus would do.
Idk i'm not trying to be a hater or anything but I just hate his body type too it's so assholeish 'i have muscles' or something in this douchey way that's not even erotic to me. id rather fuck an ugly and fat person that had more heart then some person that just talked down to others.
I see what you mean.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote