Ronda Rousey, LSE
Interesting type. I like her.
Breakdown of rationale?
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
- logicalOriginally Posted by Pookie
- asking
- sensing
- negativist
That's about as detailed as it'll get, lol; I worked with a dude just like her and oddly enough he used to practice MMA (I used to tell him that he should get back into the octagon, but his excuse was "I'm married now and besides, I'm too fat"). I liked throwing "fake jabs" at him; he'd laugh and tell me he'd kick my ass, and then we'd stand around and tell jokes.
Notice how her body is always moving, how she's almost "buzzing" with energy. She's clearly good-natured, if a bit "rough-around-the-edges".
Longer version:
The line between quasi-identicals is a blurry one.
Having said that, xSTx, either ESTp, ISTj, ESTj.
This episode is the most revelling, I laughed when she "asked" her gay Bff to go back home for her belt @ 10:50.
Last edited by wacey; 03-19-2014 at 05:45 PM.
The way that she fights demands alot of priopreception, so Si makes sense to me. But the otherworldly skill she has in that department might push me to think ISTJ might not be inaccurate. Especially since negativist/positivist is the least apparent thing on there to me.
She's a pokemon fan, how endearing.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
+1 for emotivism
She is a fucking champion, just like her identical, Novak Djokovic:
For comparison, here's LSI:
Figuratively speaking, if Positivists are shown the front side then they will be looking at the front side, while Negativists will try to look at its inverse. If this inverse is not readily apparent, they will start searching for it. Thus Negativists do not seek to present a "negative" or "pessimistic" view of things, but simply the inverse or the alternative one.Positivist types are more inclined to voice affirmative statements designed to point out contradictions, or depict the topics in an ironic or absurdist light in order to demonstrate their disbelief or critique something that they've found to be untrue; while criticisms delivered by Negativist types contains a higher proportion of negating, eliminating, or invalidating statements and propositions.
lol I agree
What do you think this is all about Kenny?
It wouldn't be the first time I've seen an LSE emotivist fall out of a chair while talking.
I love how she handles this douche bag.
Cesar Gracie = SLE
I think the interviewer started dropping some Fi toward the end there, and that's why Cesar was like, "screw you guys, I'm going home"
pretty sure that dude is SEI
Sensing his vulnerability, revisee is inclined to make attempts to escape this control, especially around other people: he one-ups the auditor, tries to argue with him, gives him orders.Supervisee tries to resist and even to fight back: puts on a show of deliberate crudeness, orders the Supervisor around, gives him assignments. Things may even progress to use of physical force. In this manner, Supervisee can create a lot of problems for the Supervisor, but the effect in the opposite direction is much more devastating.
Attachment 3279 Attachment 3280 Julie Stiles can play her in the movie.
lol she'd have to bulk up a little bit beforehand, but I agree
An exceptional amount of priopreception, even amongst the elite athletes that are her peers. I mean, you could have an Ni-Ego champion like Jose Aldo, or possibly Georges St. Pierre, and they have different attributes that make them champion. The fighters known for their ability(among their peers) to understand movement in relation to another object and the distance quandaries that come with have typically been strong in Si.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I'm trying to see how the Te-base comes through here in her vids. Where are you seeing it?
because she's all about "what things do"
"why do you think I do things like the ESPN body issue" - > "that's why I do what I do, young padawan"
"see, that's a really good way to say it" - > "see, that's a really good way to do it"
"why couldn't you say it tactfully the first time" - > "why didn't you do it that way"
Sidenote: remove "Xy-base" from your vocabulary; positivism/negativism is how I distinguish between mirror types. I would just ask, "where do you see Te?"
The third tier reinin dichotomies are not reliable in the least. I've been doing this for over 7 years, trust me. The only ones worth paying atten to are the Jung's ones.
lol no way. Positivism/negativism is one of the easiest traits to spot. And I don't care how long you've been at this for (I don't value Ni, after all).
You are so predictable. I wrote how long I had been at it to see if you are a paint by numbers sociotyper cause its such an obvious connection: amount of time equals Ni.
Apparently you can dish it, but you can't take it. example: remove "Xy-base" from your vocabulary; positivism/negativism is how I distinguish between mirror types. I would just ask, "where do you see Te?".
"Where do you see Te?" In lots of sociotypes, the creative Te's, the Role function Te's, the poLr Te's. SO you tell me, how exactly does Te manifest in a Te-dom? Cause yes, that's kind of is a good question.
lol, a "paint-by-numbers sociotyper" is the last thing I am; if I really were that, then I don't think my typings would be so wildly different from everybody else's. I associate "history" and "time" with Ni because I've observed it to be the case.
wat
duh
Role function "notices but can't name".
PoLR function "neither notices nor names".
The same way it does in a Te-creative: "noticing and naming" "what things do".
how does she "look pretty LSI"? did you watch the Phil Robertson video? how are those two anything alike?
Yes, he is LSI.
Because he is LSI.
so? if they're the same type then there will be similarities in their behavior
again, if they're the same type then there will be similarities in their behavior
dunno, i have nothing but your word to go off of.
sure but there are so many other factors involved that it's not very smart to use him as a basis for type comparison. you can't easily delineate relevant and irrelevant factors. age, gender, background etc play a huge role in shaping one's personality and it affects how a person interacts with the world. type isn't the only thing that matters.
basically all i'm saying is, if you want a fair comparison, pick a better examples (female LSE and female LSI) to make a point.
wasn't she typed as one of the Beta ST benchmarks? after watching the videos in this thread i gotta agree, she is too direct and in your face for any Si types
applying your force to objects in order to do something with them is called volitional sensing, Se
1. Se is merely perception of the explicit and static properties of objects; if I say, "you have a bulbous nose", I'm using Se.
2. LSE is as strong in Se as they are in Te.
or you could just watch the video and realize that it's true
but they don't play nearly as big of a role in determining behavior as does a person's "type" or "nature" or "essence"
sure, but "type" or "nature" or "essence" is what determines what your world will be
maybe, but it's definitely the most important part; it comes before any experience; everything "filters" through it
gender doesn't matter if you have a keen enough eye
i did and i have no opinion. maybe you can convince me for why he's LSI and make a case for it rather than being lazy and assuming everyone should believe you by default.
if that's what you think type is, then i guess we disagree on a fundamental level.
if it was merely perceptions it wouldn't be called volitional sensing, there is will and the need to exercise it, not only perception
if you have ever met someone with Se you would know that they don't just sit around observing static properties so your explanation sounds off base
SLE, LSI, SLI all have strong Te as do all of the NT types, so why did you type her as LSE?
I noticed HereticWacey has already asked this question but you haven't explained your choice
I think I'll just be lazy and assume that everyone will believe me; I know I'm right and I don't feel like making the effort.
then what is a type?
I'm not the one calling it volitional sensing, I'm merely calling it Se
perhaps the need to exercise it comes from the "explicitness" of the perception, i.e. "it is in plain sight, it is right there"; that's assuming that "will" and "the need to exercise it" have anything to do with Se
did I claim that "all an Se-ego does is sit around and observe static properties"? no, I just said "Se is the perception of explicit and static properties of objects"
furthermore, "fighting in a cage for money and sport" =/= "having a strong will and imposing it on others in social situations"
Reinin
what can be shown, cannot be said
you would make for a good cult leader
"let me tell you something but give no logical explanation for it, you only need to have faith in me that I'm RIGHT"
Ti is my PoLR, dork; you're asking me to give you something that I'm incapable of givingyou would make for a good cult leader
"let me tell you something but give no logical explanation for it, you only need to have faith in me that I'm RIGHT"
furthermore, I don't think "typing" is something that can be explained via logic; it is "intuitive" and "feeling-based"
don't fret, though; I'm sure neuroscience will eventually explain the mechanisms behind "types"
if you're IEE you still have Te and should be able to logically explain things that you see as any Te types are able to do it, you don't need Ti for this
putting effort into applying your Te has many advantages, without filtering what you "feel" through some logic you risk adopting too many irrational notions that won't get you anywhere
that's fair. just remember that even Te is difficult for me, so "trying to explain myself logically" can get very tiring.
EDIT:
also remember that Te-egos are just as strong in Ti as they are in Te; that is not the case for me, unfortunately
Last edited by Olduvai; 03-20-2014 at 06:11 PM.
Oh c'mon kenny, you know you're LSI
Do Shogun next! Shogun!
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
haha I love you, Pookie
you tell me! all I know is that he's a beast
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote