from survivor and other
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bhkoUSmMIeE
Amanda Kimmel
from survivor and other
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bhkoUSmMIeE
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
She reminds me of SLI friend I have, but I don't know her in any other situation but this clip. . .Originally Posted by UDP
EII 4w5
so/sx (?)
This post is old, but I'm a big fan of Survivor and have watched every season that she's been on. She's ESI-Se 6w5 Sp/Sx or Sx/Sp.
She reminds me of my ex-wife’s half-sister, and I have never been able to figure out which type she is.
She's ESI babe(:
Unless you're referring to your ex-wife's half-sister, in which case I have no idea.
Either one. Survivor's Amanda Kimmel and my ex's half-sister both look and act and even laugh almost exactly alike. I was thinking she's Delta.
Why do you think she's ESI?
P.S. I do believe that this Amanda Kimmel is ESI: https://grayson.mugshot.press/arrest.../amanda-kimmel
Well, I definitely think she's Fi base, but it sounds like you think she's Fi valuing as well. As to why she is ESI, I suppose I'd have to think about how to explain why she seems so clearly ESI to me, as opposed to EII, for instance.
To me she has a very sensual, almost cat-like quality, and seems very in tune with her physical environment. From what I remember, she was very good in challenges, and really knew how to push herself. She just exuded an Se vibe.
Also, to me she has that "prickly gaze" that is mentioned in the ESI-Se subtype description. I can really see it in these pictures https://www.goldderby.com/wp-content...nda-kimmel.jpg
https://tribzap2it.files.wordpress.c...pg?w=320&h=180
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pLShQy3cxE
At times seems unapproachable, arrogant, and prickly. His gaze is piercing. His face sometimes assumes a guarded expression.
Seems somewhat inaccessible, vigilant, and alert.
At times he is overly distrustful and suspicious of others.
A lot of the ESI-Se description sounds like her to me, but those stand out. I think you can really see those demonstrated in the video of her I linked.
Last edited by bohemienne; 05-27-2019 at 06:24 AM.
mb ISFP
I'm beginning to catch on to how you ''feel out'' your system.
I thought SEI as well.
it's Jung's system. if it would be other - IR test would not give results which match with types gotten by VII'm beginning to catch on to how you ''feel out'' your system.
I thought SEI as well.
your skills improve with an experience, so you should more often agree with me
it's possibly to study VI on my bloggers examples. what is needed is to train to feel traits of those types in impressions from those people. traits as dichotomies, ego functions, valued functions, IR effects with your type, and mb something more from model A
To observe general phenotypical traits in people which has specific styles of interactions with other which are favourable/not favourable is a very intuitive, and nothing very specific. The system may work phenotypically, and may in general be used to study some very specific interactions, but it cannot tell us of the inner worlds of people, or dominate all interactions: you have noted yourself that ''non-IR'' effects are ever present in life - to regard the world as something static to be molded and clearly observed will cause you anxiety and you will, in the end, notice that your ideas will slip through your fingers, so to speak.
I respect the efforts and find it fun to play with, but the general observation of these traits say nothing of the 'realness' of anything, and this should, after all, be the goal of the endeavor, unless it is regarded as a tool that says nothing, but is only present for humans to orient themselves.
VI is to get impressions from nonverbal behavior related to types
"general phenotypical traits" would be about static traits, but not behavior
To determine that the nonverbal impression relates to a type is to determine a trait, and is thus static. The conceptualization of ''type'', ''trait'' and ''behavior'' are static, qua the use of language. To claim that a behavior is of a specific nature is to claim that it is static, definite and able to be categorised. If it weren't so, you would not be able to speak of it. This is where the danger arrives, which is present in all human language and ideal thinking.
This is not something specifically critical of Socionics, it is a general criticism of all systematics. It is believing the map instead of the ocean.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote