The point is that she is lacking charisma because she seems like maybe she is making negative assumptions in ambiguous situations, but we aren't entirely sure that's what she's doing, but let's dislike her because we are going to assume the negative in her ambiguous situation.
If Brie is uncharismatic for doing that then people who assume negatively on her are also lacking charisma. Same thing, right?
Why I am no longer going to complain about anti-S bias
My contention is that the two-variable power hierarchy in society looks like this: SJ > SP > NJ > NP.
SJs have the most power because:
When most people say "skills", they mean "SJ skills". When most people say "intelligence", they mean "strong Si and Je" (even if they don't use those terms), "factual knowledge", and "strong work ethic". Other skills don't count. SJs and everything about them are considered "normal"; by definition, then, everyone else is "other". In a more literal sense, SJs are 50% of the population (though estimates vary), and they probably hold more than 50% of the positions of power. The schooling and working worlds are designed for SJs to succeed, because they are held together by SJs.
SPs have second most power because:
We are a relatively prevalent temperament at 30%. There are enough SPs that some skills associated with strong Se are seen under the intelligence umbrella. Enough SPs that we are still seen as actual people.
NJ > NP in the hierarchy because NJ has top-two Je, which is also an SJ skill. The world seems far more stacked against Ns. I'd guess many feel devalued as people when their talents are invisible to or rejected by others. (This is just a guess. Please correct me.)
Now I think I understand why some Ns on this forum have an anti-S bias. IRL, Ss are unintentionally oppressing Ns most of the time. Some Ns find their sanctuary on an MBTI forum with favourable numbers (N > SP > SJ) and don't like it when we (S types) invade it to complain in the face of pro-N biased comments, or say we don't feel welcome on this forum, etc. Because a lot of Ns don't feel welcome in the world altogether, they are the victims of anti-N bias each and every day, etc. (I'm just guessing. Again, please correct me. The last thing I want to do is replace your words with mine.)
In comparison, I think I have no right to complain. I have the entire real world (mostly) in my favour, it would not kill me to let the Ns have this forum. I am sorry for being ignorant of this until just now.
All of this is open to correction, discussion, etc. and feel free to tell me I am just wrong. I apologize for any incoherence, I haven't slept in a while.
I'm actually a big fan of Craig Ferguson's show. It's off the air now, but I still occasionally watch clips on YouTube for a quick laugh.Craig Ferguson is insufferably irritating.
now I feel bad for Larsen. I’d be an uptight bitch too if I had to be around Hollywood people
All external functions are capable of reading their respective data from the environment as well as of being used as distinct means of expression. Se is a symbolism for how capable you are at using your body and expressing your body language, as well as reading others body language.I didn't mean for this thread to be about Brie Larson. I didn't even know who she was when I posted the video. She has a right to be whoever she is - even if that means being a little negative or cantankerous. That's not against the law.
Se is a perceiving function. It isn't about how you act in the world, but how you take in information. It does not define socialization. It means that your perception of the world is based in the literal, concrete, in-the-moment existence. It provides a data set that makes people skilled at improvisatory actions in which one interacts with reality like a racecar driver, a firefighter, a surgeon, a jazz performer, a rock climber, etc. Whether someone is using F or T based judging/action functions will impact the manner in which the internal data set is re-presented to the world. Se is not subjective. It is the most objective form of data collection of all the perceiving functions. If it is combined with Fe, then it will provide a literal sense of one's surroundings, which may indirectly impact charisma, but it is inconsistent with Jungian theory to say it is any foundation or source of social charisma.
It could be useful to have a thread about behaviors that create charisma and positive social exchange. I thought this video was helpful. I tend to read negative intent into ambiguous situations.
I'm not sure if I have Fe or not, but I can see that the outward focus has a lot to do with creating outcomes and not just reading accurately. Being positive even when it little bit distorts reality creates that positive reality, so I think that could be one aspect of Fe, but I'm not implying it's all of it. I think Fe is good at reading others accurately, but the expressed behaviors and word choice can be outcome oriented over defining. Maybe Fe is a bit like approach the subjective realm more like a verb than a noun? Feel free to share whatever thoughts.