|
Post by Roshan on Mar 19, 2020 14:46:06 GMT -5
vincent I had to edit out what I said about her definitions in my last post because it wasn't accurate. Have to listen again. But I still think her acting like her terminology is the be all and end all and there is no heated debate may indicate Si polr. She plays fast and loose with the archive. To just assert antisocial and psychopathic are the same as though this is universally accepted..HUGE over-simplification, mischaracterization. tbct'd.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 19, 2020 14:53:01 GMT -5
Indeed.
She talk a lot about the subtle differences, the distinctions and the criteria of those Si labels. As expected for an expert.
But you get the feeling these things doesn't really matter that much to her and somehow annoys her.
It's just words and semantics.
She is a hunter, not a naturalist nor an entomologist. Her comments on DSM criteria sounds like a "canary bird in the coal mine" warning about Si categories.
The complete lack of any "specific anecdote about any person", that you noted in your first post, is also a hint of Si polr, imo.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Mar 20, 2020 11:15:05 GMT -5
Well vincent I've now realized she makes a clear distinction between psychopaths and sociopaths in the discussion of these terms at around 20 minutes--and there is at least consensus among experts that there is a difference, though not particularly what she claims it is. So if she wants, as she said at the beginning, to replace the term 'antisocial' with 'psychopath'--which terms she claims are equivalent, though there's no consensus--where will those she deems sociopaths go? Hmmm.... To be fair I still have to rewatch the whole thing but I'm getting the feeling the archive she most values is the one she makes herself, and if pushing it forces Ti ignoring, so so be it. tbc'td.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 22, 2020 18:09:46 GMT -5
I'm not done watching the full thing, but for now TeSe jumper really seems to work for her.
I agree completely with your observation on her Si polr.
Everytime she could start being actually specific, she moves quite fast into N territory.
And then what we see is either :
-very expedient and instrumental Ni (the "bar fighter" stereotype for example)
-or weaponized Ne 6th, enumerating options without collapsing anything ("they can be this", "they can be that"). The subliminal message is : "You get the idea, and even if you don't, you still get that my ideas are brillant".
Ti ignoring is also quite obvious imo. She doesn't actually theorize anything and she conveys the feeling that theory is actually a non issue.
She does not really "respect" the canon but she also "flatten" the complexity of the topic.
For example, she never mention the etiological side, the causality and mechanisms of those mental illness. Not even the internal logic of the taxonomy. She is only concerned with practical, clinical diagnosis, and the hunt. All Te and Se.
Her Fe is either really obvious or almost invisible, and it follows a pattern.
She "give" us some of it at the beginning of the video, then progressively take it back almost entirely.
The more she talk the less Fe she is.
When the interviewer interrupt her, she shows some of it, for a bit, then it goes away again.
And when the topic really excite her, like when she talk about the most evil side of psychopaths, her Fi inf betrays her.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Mar 27, 2020 6:57:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Mar 27, 2020 6:58:37 GMT -5
Why not Se Te jumper instead of Te Se?
Se Fi Te Ni Si Fe Ti Ne
Te Ni Se Fi Ti Ne Si Fe
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 28, 2020 13:34:18 GMT -5
Why not Se Te jumper instead of Te Se? Se Fi Te Ni Si Fe Ti Ne Te Ni Se Fi Ti Ne Si Fe
She is too "consistent" to be Ti polr imo.
Her Fe is more consistent with role than with demonstrative (Fe 6th is kinda hard to miss, and would be even harder to miss in a jumper) She isa bit expedient with Ni, but not delegating it nor seeking it.
Also i would expect a Se/Te jumper to be even more extreme on the extraversion side, energetically.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 16, 2020 21:58:32 GMT -5
Like I don't remember her ever even offering a specific anecdote about any person. Dr. Ramani told an anecdote--about herself. She opened with it. She told about watching magic tricks a a child and wanting to perform them and also to imagine they were real. An extraordinarily pragmatic person (sp dom, 3w2[2w1], tons of 8) and yet, with lead still in 7 'magical child' and high sx desire for fusion, a mystical tropism seemed to assert itself in a fascination with magic--and both wanting it to be true and to master its tools of deceit. I suspect she became interested in psychology in part to 'not let herself be hoodwinked', so to say. Now, because she is high level health and with all that movement to 2, she wants to teach others how not to be too. Also, it's funny how when she tells an anecdote about herself t's like an 'anti-Si' narrative.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 16, 2020 22:36:16 GMT -5
Dr. Ramani had become quite overweight! It just kind of crept up on her (sounds like due to 7 basic fear deprivation) without her realizing, but once those dresses ripped she was on it.In more ways than one.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 16, 2020 22:41:34 GMT -5
Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 16, 2020 23:11:49 GMT -5
Her Fe is either really obvious or almost invisible, and it follows a pattern.
She "give" us some of it at the beginning of the video, then progressively take it back almost entirely.
The more she talk the less Fe she is.
When the interviewer interrupt her, she shows some of it, for a bit, then it goes away again. Or at the end. The difference between the legalistic Te and the gushy Fe once our Glamour Girl is no longer pressed for time discussing sex drive on ABC News is really, really striking.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on May 16, 2020 23:17:05 GMT -5
I've watched her stuff on again, off again, for a few years as it pops up on youtube. She seems very competent but not very compelling (to me, though she is to a more 'normie' audience for sure) My opening sentence on this thread and to be fair, she's a lot more compelling if you really stand to benefit from her practical advice. Theory-wise, still fair to middling.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on May 17, 2020 13:57:13 GMT -5
Dr. Ramani had become quite overweight! It just kind of crept up on her (sounds like due to 7 basic fear deprivation) without her realizing, but once those dresses ripped she was on it.In more ways than one.
Indeed
and it's not inconsistent at all with Se agenda / Si polr.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on May 17, 2020 14:00:32 GMT -5
Her Fe is either really obvious or almost invisible, and it follows a pattern.
She "give" us some of it at the beginning of the video, then progressively take it back almost entirely.
The more she talk the less Fe she is.
When the interviewer interrupt her, she shows some of it, for a bit, then it goes away again. Or at the end. The difference between the legalistic Te and the gushy Fe once our Glamour Girl is no longer pressed for time discussing sex drive on ABC News is really, really striking. The Matrix doesn't want me to watch this, apparently.
That video doesn't start, it just turns into a black screen.
Maybe a server issue on their side. I'll try again later.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Sept 15, 2020 9:25:09 GMT -5
bump This isn't quite 'finished' vincent, and I also need to do some editing due to the confusing parts about how she uses the terminology. And I have a couple of other vids of hers here.
|
|