Krishnan Guru-Murthy

[Contra]

I find him pretty entertaining, and, even though some find him.. well.. objectionable, I like the points he raises, and I like to see the reactions from whatever celebrity he's dealing with. I generally think of him as my identical based on how he talks and how he handles situations i.e. very divorced emotionally while still raising the issue. Interested to hear other opinions though.









Here I did think he was just being needlessly antagonistic even though I'd be curious too. FTR, I think Downey Jr. is LIE also. It was interesting to see how they handled each other. They seem like different subtypes, DCNH or otherwise.

[wacey]

From my experience LIE are emotionally authentic and these are apparent and their reactions unfiltered, almost raw.

In the Robert interview, not-with-standing that his questions were totally inappropriate for a movie promotion, I am a little taken a-back at the idea that an LIE would not be able to notice the obvious reaction in Robert, from the heavy chest, the shortened breath, his annoyance, and still ask the questions. A person becomes like this when they feel personally attacked. Robert is literally shutting down before his eyes.

Would an LIE really go for the jugular like this and do so consistently in so many different interviews?

Also, divorced emotionally is not how I would describe LIE.

[wacey]

Maybe I just find him distasteful :/

With further watching his earlier stuff, he seems more beta rational with a Te role, partly why his use of facts rubs people the wrong way.

Ni creative vision seems more beta orientated. Watch from here on.
https://youtu.be/zqHYW2fh4Jg?t=112

[wacey]

Isn't that like asking: how could an EII be a serial killer? Well it doesn't fit with the EII stereotype but I'm sure the potential is there and plenty of EIIs have killed people. So how is someone being an arrogant opportunistic narcissist reporter supposedly not in line with LIE? Doesn't that assume a universally pure moral compass for a type that is unjustifiable?

Yeah, so what?

[Contra]

Would an LIE really go for the jugular like this and do so consistently in so many different interviews?

Yeah, I noticed the reaction in Robert and I think Krishnan probably did too. I think he might just be reaching a point (maybe he was always at this point) where it's more purely for sensationalism than anything he really cares about. That's how it struck me in the RDJ interview, and it sort of left a bad taste in my mouth. I still find it entertaining, but it seems unnecessary. I definitely get his problems with Pharrell's song and I thought Tarantino overreacted a bit so those videos didn't bother me.

As for your question, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities at all. He doesn't really seem that aggressive to me in any of the videos, he just raises very sensitive issues, and lets the person react. If they avoid the question he pushes it more. Plus it's pretty much his job to be antagonistic, I'm sure he is the source of a lot of their viewership.

Also, divorced emotionally is not how I would describe LIE.

I mean I'm not divorced emotionally in casual interaction or with people I know well, but if I know I'm raising sensitive issues with people I can't predict, I stay completely detached. And it really is a choice for me.

Maybe I just find him distasteful :/

With further watching his earlier stuff, he seems more beta rational with a Te role, partly why his use of facts rubs people the wrong way.

Ni creative vision seems more beta orientated. Watch from here on.
https://youtu.be/zqHYW2fh4Jg?t=112

I think many, if not most, people find him distasteful. I agree that he seems sleazy. Some sort of Beta was also a suspicion of mine. I still favor LIE, but I think LSI or EIE are possible.

[wacey]

It means your argument is unsound, but then again I didn't provide one at all so

.

[wacey]

Yeah, I noticed the reaction in Robert and I think Krishnan probably did too. I think he might just be reaching a point (maybe he was always at this point) where it's more purely for sensationalism than anything he really cares about. That's how it struck me in the RDJ interview, and it sort of left a bad taste in my mouth. I still find it entertaining, but it seems unnecessary. I definitely get his problems with Pharrell's song and I thought Tarantino overreacted a bit so those videos didn't bother me.

As for your question, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities at all. He doesn't really seem that aggressive to me in any of the videos, he just raises very sensitive issues, and lets the person react. If they avoid the question he pushes it more. Plus it's pretty much his job to be antagonistic, I'm sure he is the source of a lot of their viewership.

I mean I'm not divorced emotionally in casual interaction or with people I know well, but if I know I'm raising sensitive issues with people I can't predict, I stay completely detached. And it really is a choice for me.


I think many, if not most, people find him distasteful. I agree that he seems sleazy. Some sort of Beta was also a suspicion of mine. I still favor LIE, but I think LSI or EIE are possible.

I found it entertaining as well. Yet, the motivation for sensationalism is so obvious. The first paragraph you wrote here I am onboard with one hundred percent (except the pharrell video, Krishnan was just trying to stir up needless sht).

Of course he is the source for a lot of viewership, and that was the point I was trying to make with the video clip I posted. He even says he has his finger on the public pulse, he is actively trying to gain more viewership in attention seeking ways, joking about the RDJ interview in a way that strikes me as callous and not very gamma.....disagree or no, but the same premeditating ways are similar to what is traditionally thought of as ethical intuitive extrovert style and patterns. A sort of look at me, I'm going to become the public scape goat, but you all love me for it and what I do for you anyway.

I get the sense he is not even in the interview with these people at all, mentally checked out, rather he is showing off like an attention whore the whole time for an audience he knows will be watching.

....and conversely, maybe he really is that daft. If he is that daft, then I would look into LSE.

[Amber]

not LIE.

Si EJ, probably LSE-Si

[wacey]

not LIE.

Si EJ, probably LSE-Si

This would be my second guess. Judging purely by VI, LSE si creative.

[wacey]

@Contra

If I was being really honest here, I will admit I have pressed an issue with other people well beyond its expiration date and it has both gotten me into trouble while growing up and alienated me from others (this happens mostly with close friends and family members)

So, its not like I'm on some moral high horse here. Just because I condemn Krishnan, does not mean I have not done exactly what he does trying to get my point across while coming out looking like an ass.

[wacey]

He's a television journalist and his program is to get a story -- meaning: of course he's plugged into the game. All you've said in your post is that he isn't LIE because he doesn't conform to your image (derived from experience) of one, but does to your stereotype of a Beta extrovert which is what I'm calling into question. The idea that a LIE isn't capable of a) being a media sensationalist due to b) being an immoral narcissist (assuming KGM is one) is patently absurd in my opinion. Also, as you mentioned some LIEs like to poke and prod people -- others also have a habit of saying inappropriate shit. Other than the controversy with Robert Downey Jr. which was just plain stupid of him to do -- I really see no problem with his interviews with Pharell and Quentin Tarantino, who should be called into question regarding the merits of their works in terms of the exploitation of women in the former and violence/racial tensions in the latter and who should not be placated by sticking to the typical press junket script. Is KGM renowned for being a sensationalist on par with a Bill O'Reilly (who is an extreme media sensationalist who isn't beta) or is he simply getting flak because of the major gaff with RDJ recently?

It goes back to his time at the BBC, which he was fired from...being a wash up journalist I guess he has got to do something. But, knowing when to press and knowing when to release pressure as all the best journalists do, is a lesson he seems to have yet learned.

I think relying on objective images derived from subjective experience is a perfectly legitimate way to type people in a typology setting that is closer to art then science. So back off.

[wacey]

Sure it's useful, but ought to be held up under scrutiny just as much as objective data too so that the subject's ability to interpret their impressions can be refined.

Then again as I said before: I didn't provide an argument for my typing of him so

Is it really so bad to come at sociotypings from different angles other then the traditional model A descriptions?

[wacey]

Alright, alright. I'm getting all butthurt like some kind of fan boy.

[Contra]

@Contra

If I was being really honest here, I will admit I have pressed an issue with other people well beyond its expiration date and it has both gotten me into trouble while growing up and alienated me from others (this happens mostly with close friends and family members)

So, its not like I'm on some moral high horse here. Just because I condemn Krishnan, does not mean I have not done exactly what he does trying to get my point across while coming out looking like an ass.

It really didn't strike me that you were being sanctimonious or anything like that. To be honest, I figured you'd post in this thread and I figured you wouldn't like him or his behavior, esp. with the RDJ video since it seems cruel.

As I said earlier, I don't actually have any problem at all with the two earlier videos since I think Blurred Lines is trash and Pharrell constantly seems like he is pandering, and, despite the fact that I don't think violence in movies is a problem, I think it's an issue worth talking about. I like that Krishnan brings up these issues regardless of his actual character or his motives. I also think he handles the issues relatively well, but maybe that's the weak ethics talking. Look here for contrast:

[darya]

Ugh Pharrell is so full of shit. At least own the shit you say, fucking hypocrite.

[wacey]

It really didn't strike me that you were being sanctimonious or anything like that. To be honest, I figured you'd post in this thread and I figured you wouldn't like him or his behavior, esp. with the RDJ video since it seems cruel.

As I said earlier, I don't actually have any problem at all with the two earlier videos since I think Blurred Lines is trash and Pharrell constantly seems like he is pandering, and, despite the fact that I don't think violence in movies is a problem, I think it's an issue worth talking about. I like that Krishnan brings up these issues regardless of his actual character or his motives. I also think he handles the issues relatively well, but maybe that's the weak ethics talking. Look here for contrast:

You figured I would post in this thread, predicting my movements now? : )

Its not like I thought the RDJ Krishnan was being cruel. I thought he was being obtuse and artificially apologetic, relying on some kind of phony journalistic duty. RDJ calling him Diane Sawyer was so on point.

The RDJ interview speaks for itself. In the Quentin interview, Quentin over reacted totally. People tend to type Quentin as LIE, or gamma NT. But, I would say closer to ILE or SLE. With Pharrell, I think Krishnan was beating a dead horse. Its a stupid song lyric. ... Age of political correctness I guess. :\

Type wise though... I guess I'll just take your word. Even throwing around some model A here might help to convince me.

[wacey]

Ej, probably LSE.

[Capitalist Pig]

the interviewer is annoying

but i can't stop watching celebrities tell him to go fuck himself