- Type: SeFi
- Development: ll--
- Attitude: Seelie
@bella – I also thought Bart Ehrman is TeSi. Well, first I actually thought he is SiTe because of his fixed gaze and because he seems eye centric. But then, after I compared him to SiTe’s and TeSi’s in the database, I couldn’t find any similar SiTe. The ones in the database don’t get at this level of snippyness, at this energy level and decisiveness. So, this is why I typed him TeSi.
I brought some arguments for all the typings, so here are the ones for him :
Here I think we can see a rigid posture, Te snippy head shakes and head nods, Pi fixed gaze, Si slanting edges, Si indented sockets.
Because of his fixed gaze, my first thought was he must be SiTe. But comparing him to the SiTe’s in the database, I arrived at the conclusion he is rather TeSi.
I found a video where I think this shows clearer because his hands can be also seen. I don’t think an Si lead even with conscious Te and unseelie, even with conscious Te and Ne gets at this energy level and maintains it for a long time. I might be wrong but it just seems unlikely.
Here I think we have Je pointed emphasis, Te snippy head nods, as well as Si slanting edges, Si indented sockets. He has a lot of conductor forwardness and we can see some head pushes. Most head movements seem to be to the front and not from side to side, which should show Te as first function.
Now looking again at the second gif though, his body posture is rather heavy than rigid and his wrists are softer than Te lead wrists, which would indeed show an Si lead with conscious Te.
So, my answer was more based on the fact no other SiTe reached this level of “I will show you how it is accompanying this with my very fast and snippy head nods and with my blunt humor” instead of putting more emphasis on energetics. 🙂
Still it is surprising to me that Si leads can look this similar to TeSi’s.
Oh, @auburn, you just mentioned this. He does, it’s strange !
In a way, it gives hope. It means we can modulate functions to a very high degree.
But for doing future quizzes, we can keep it to 1 given video, so as to have consistency in what precisely is being examined at the given moment/footage, and grade just that. I think that would be the most fair and consistent approach. I wonder what you guys think?
It sounds fair but I am not sure I can do it. Older people seem easier to type when watching videos of them when they were younger to see what function has priority (though I completely messed up the Queen’s typing exactly because I did this. 🙂 ). Doing the same thing was helpful in Marina’s case though. So…I am not sure what to say, I think the person’s type must be found, no matter how much you need to dig and I was seeing the given videos more as a starting point. But the issue with this approach is that people will naturally watch different videos and then type based on different content.
I propose that…if we should just focus on the given videos, next time we would get 2 videos for each person, to at least see them in 2 different situations…which is also required for typing people here. What do you think?