Sharon Stone's type

[Speed Gavroche]

did you have a sex change? what happened to you? you were a sexy blonde guy last time i saw you

I'm always blonde at heart, but, come on! always keep the same sex is so old fashioned, I like to alternate.

By the way, you have change of species, isn't it? And wow, you're fat!

 

[pinkgraffiti]

ahah
..and also ahah you're such a bitch (to call me fat)

I'm always blonde at heart, but, come on! always keep the same sex is so old fashioned, I like to alternate.

By the way, you have change of species, isn't it? And wow, you're fat!

 

[highlander]

ENTP

 

[yeghor]

ESTP

She has vindictive, smug eyes. She has used sexuality as a means of furthering her goals. She is starting to look more like Madonna in her older years.

 

[Lets_Get_Freaky]

Methinks she's either a smart ISTP or a seductive INTP...

 

[yeghor]

Methinks she's either a smart ISTP or a seductive INTP...

I just called Ayn Rand an INTP in another thread.

 

[Lets_Get_Freaky]

I just called Ayn Rand an INTP in another thread.

Why couldn't both of them be an INTP with the only difference being that they work in different professions? Stone, unlike Rand, was blessed with an attractive look, which is why she became a model and actress, not a philosopher.
Sharon Stone reportedly has an IQ of 154, Ayn Rand one of 160 and that's very close together. INTPs are believed to be the smartest MBTI types.
However, on the website of thoughtcatalog.com both are typed quite differently than by us: Sharon Stone as an ENFP and Ayn Rand as an INTJ.

 

[yeghor]

Why couldn't both of them be an INTP with the only difference being that they work in different professions? Stone, unlike Rand, was blessed with an attractive look, which is why she became a model and actress, not a philosopher.
Sharon Stone reportedly has an IQ of 154, Ayn Rand one of 160 and that's very close together. INTPs are believed to be the smartest MBTI types.
However, on the website of thoughtcatalog.com both are typed quite differently than by us: Sharon Stone as an ENFP and Ayn Rand as an INTJ.

I believe good looks is correlated with presence of high sensing function. That's why Ayn Rand has poor looks yet has more theoretical intelligence (booksmarts) whereas Stone has good looks and also practical intelligence (streetsmarts).

Stone has a more masculine attitude and mindset and a fine physique and is not eccentric. That means she is not an intuitive or a feeler.

 

[yeghor]

So you exclude the possibility that someone could be both booksmart, have a theoretical intelligence, and good looks?

Yes. There's a tradeoff in all types. When one trait excels, the opposite trait suffers.

 

[yeghor]

You know that this is not true and there's no proven connection, hence you're speaking of thin air?

She's Clara Immerwahr, a great chemist. As you can see, she's gorgeous.

S has to be with being able to interprete concrete data.
Yes, a sensor could be drawn to caring more about their looks because of this, so looking more beautiful. But this doesn't mean that you are just beautiful.

To the admins, you can move this post to Off topic if you wish.

She is probably an STP.

 

[yeghor]

What if I told you that she killed herself 'cause she didn't want to submit to men? She was a declared feminist and advocated for that.

I do not know. Maybe her husband shot her and framed it as suicide.

 

[yeghor]

Nope, Mr Haber wasn't even there when it happened, but in Russia. She was found by her kid, who was elementary school aged.

She left plenty of scripts about feminism.

"Shortly after Haber's return from Belgium, Immerwahr shot herself in the chest using Haber's military pistol. On 2 May 1915, she died in her son's arms.[5][8] The morning after her death, Haber left for the first gas attack against the Russians on the Eastern Front.[17][18]"

Sounds fishy to me. Why chest? How did she get hold of the pistol? Maybe she threatened to expose her husband to newspapers or the sort and he shot him.

Anyway what should I make of it?

 

[yeghor]

Different from italian Wikipedia. Mh.

Expose about what? Everyone knew what Haber was doing.

I made of it something, that you'd rather believe in a conspiracy you just made up than that a person can be both smart and good looking.
But at least you made me realize that you've been trolling all along.

You are also completely ignoring the fact that someone that you type as STP was a feminist. It's another contradictory part in your theory.

It's how interpret MBTI.

If you want to delve further into Clara's case check Clara Immerwahr: A Life in the Shadow of Fritz Haber | SpringerLink

I am not invested in it enough myself.

I will not continue this discussion further as there does not seem to be any middle ground.

 

[Luminous]

You know that this is not true and there's no proven connection, hence you're speaking of thin air?

She's Clara Immerwahr, a great chemist. As you can see, she's gorgeous.

S has to be with being able to interprete concrete data.
Yes, a sensor could be drawn to caring more about their looks because of this, so looking more beautiful. But this doesn't mean that you are just beautiful.
By opposite, intuitives are more drawn to abstract data. That's it.

To the admins, you can move this post to Off topic if you wish.

There's also Hedy Lamarr...

 

[Frosty]

So, being a feminist points to being an NFP, as an STP, being masculine, can't be a feminist. BUT, Clara looks STP, so she must be STP.
And you're ignoring an argument that you, yourself, tend to make, just because it contradicts yourself. You'd rather say something completely illogical and won't deal with your own contradictions.
I hope you realize that if you don't address the contradictions in one's reasoning, or at least trying to solve them (because, you know, if there's a contradiction in my own reasoning, it means that I found a fault), makes the results completely useless.

You have an extremely rigid way of looking at type that is sort of fascinating. You do know people are complex right and arent made up of collections of stereotypes?

And while I wouldnt discourage anyone necessarily from studying type, tbh I think you might wanna scratch a lot of your understanding and move away from typing people based off their favorite cartoon characters and whether they get morning wood.

 

[yeghor]

You have an extremely rigid way of looking at type that is sort of fascinating. You do know people are complex right and arent made up of collections of stereotypes?

And while I wouldnt discourage anyone necessarily from studying type, tbh I think you might wanna scratch a lot of your understanding and move away from typing people based off their favorite cartoon characters and whether they get morning wood.

You should get your head off your blog thread, and start getting involved more in typing threads and offer your own typing methods rather than telling me how wrong mine are.

 

[Coriolis]

You should get your head off your blog thread, and start getting involved more in typing threads and offer your own typing methods rather than telling me how wrong mine are.

If you were more familiar with [MENTION=29687]Frosty[/MENTION]'s posting history, you would know she has a long history of weighing in on typing threads. You might consider making a blog yourself, rather than leave off-topic posts in the threads you visit.

Have you considered that Frosty's (and others') criticisms of your typing methods might have some merit?

 

[yeghor]

If you were more familiar with [MENTION=29687]Frosty[/MENTION]'s posting history, you would know she has a long history of weighing in on typing threads. You might consider making a blog yourself, rather than leave off-topic posts in the threads you visit.

Have you considered that Frosty's (and others') criticisms of your typing methods might have some merit?

No. So long as they do not offer logical judgments rather than emotional ones, I will not.

 

[Coriolis]

No. So long as they do not offer logical judgments rather than emotional ones, I will not.

You have not demonstrated an ability to recognize and make use of logical critique when presented. Emotional, or more accurately values based judgment has its place, too, and you would do well not to reject it entirely. As long as you cling to this mindset it will be difficult for you to engage with others here productively, whether on typology or other topics.

 

[yeghor]

You have not demonstrated an ability to recognize and make use of logical critique when presented. Emotional, or more accurately values based judgment has its place, too, and you would do well not to reject it entirely. As long as you cling to this mindset it will be difficult for you to engage with others here productively, whether on typology or other topics.

Emotional arguments only provide the information that the person is offended by my reasoning. They do not explain what part of the reasoning they do not agree with and their counter arguments for not agreeing.

Emotional arguments mostly come off as "What you say is hurtful to me and you are wrong because of that. You should also know that I do not like you." rather than "I do not agree or partly agree with what you say because of these and these reasons. Here are some examples for my counter arguments.".