Visual Identification in Typing

[tcaudilllg]

There are some standardized methods for typing with VI:

N vs S: N eyes are usually not focused on their surroundings -- they have direction but not slant. S eyes are about always slanted toward one object in particular that they are studying at that moment.

T vs F: F expressions look more emotional, like those of a dog. T expressions seem more poised and calculated, like a cat's. F also has a tender physical frame, where T has a very structured frame and a muscular build to match.

I vs E: difficult to determine without full motion video, however E is more likely to look directly at their interlocuter than I, who will usually demur and cast their glance to the side as they speak. (away from the eyes)

J vs P: P has an angular face that will appear smaller than J's when body mass is similar; J has strong, rigid features. P rolls with the punches, J is built to absorb the punch full on. Their builds reflect evolutionary coherence with their styles of interaction.

[Creepy-]

There are some standardized methods for typing with VI:

N vs S: N eyes are usually not focused on their surroundings -- they have direction but not slant. S eyes are about always slanted toward one object in particular that they are studying at that moment.

T vs F: F expressions look more emotional, like those of a dog. T expressions seem more poised and calculated, like a cat's. F also has a tender physical frame, where T has a very structured frame and a muscular build to match.

I vs E: difficult to determine without full motion video, however E is more likely to look directly at their interlocuter than I, who will usually demur and cast their glance to the side as they speak. (away from the eyes)

J vs P: P has an angular face that will appear smaller than J's when body mass is similar; J has strong, rigid features. P rolls with the punches, J is built to absorb the punch full on. Their builds reflect evolutionary coherence with their styles of interaction.

Very, very interesting breakdown. Can you go more in-depth with this? Particularly the j vs p descriptions....

[strrrng]

umm...it's neither superficial nor bullshit...if you understand the true nature of functions, you are able to discern patterns in vibes and demeanors of people. obviously you're not looking at their size and stuff; it's about the subtleties.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

How one describes their personality should come first.

Personality is just another mask though. Your real self is how you act when nobody watches you. Well that's supposed to be your character. No, I believe that's more your real self. So I guess since diff people wear diff masks in different social situations, the 'Real You' can be discerned from those masks since that's all we have to work with. Uhh... I swear I had a point here lol.

I'd like to be videotaped when I didn't know I was being videotaped (not in a pervy way) just so I can see how I would act. If I knew it was happening, it would take the fun out of it. Just like how you can take the best pictures when people are the most off-guard...

I'm just saying, I disagree that you can rely on how people describe themselves. You are again, just telling people what you want them to see in some way. There's a filtration process that bugs me. I just try to get to know people slowly over time, if I can- but it's hard because usually we have to find some sort of common ground if we want to keep speaking to each other. (At least in a deeper way)

Now I feel sheepish because I'm giving people more credit for being deeper/interesting than they really are haha.

[jason_m]

Personality is just another mask though. Your real self is how you act when nobody watches you. Well that's supposed to be your character. No, I believe that's more your real self. So I guess since diff people wear diff masks in different social situations, the 'Real You' can be discerned from those masks since that's all we have to work with. Uhh... I swear I had a point here lol.

I'd like to be videotaped when I didn't know I was being videotaped (not in a pervy way) just so I can see how I would act. If I knew it was happening, it would take the fun out of it. Just like how you can take the best pictures when people are the most off-guard...

I'm just saying, I disagree that you can rely on how people describe themselves. You are again, just telling people what you want them to see in some way. There's a filtration process that bugs me. I just try to get to know people slowly over time, if I can- but it's hard because usually we have to find some sort of common ground if we want to keep speaking to each other. (At least in a deeper way)

Now I feel sheepish because I'm giving people more credit for being deeper/interesting than they really are haha.

Those are good points, but what I was trying to say is that personality should be placed ahead of appearance.

Jason

[Jarno]

Here are some problems with visual identification:

1) It's a superficial means of typing someone. For example, I have a friend who has a similar appearence to me. He is tall, thin, wears glasses, keeps his hair neat, and isn't much of a dresser. I could see how people would type us the same way; we both look like nerds. The problem is that we are two very different people. He's very stubborn, "correct", regimented, and could live without any comfort. I am none of these things. I am very disorderly, flexible, and much more focused on coming up with ideas than him. I think it would be unlikely that we're the same type.

Jason

- this is not how VI works. -

2) As far as I know, there is no evidence that demonstrates that it's true. Fantastic claims require evidence to show that they're true. Otherwise, what reason is there to believe them? If you don't have any evidence as to why it's true, then there should at least be some theory as to what causes the relationship. Either there is something which causes both characteristics (personality and appearence), or one characteristic somehow causes the other. This should be explained.

Jason

- if you know enough people of one and the same type, you will notice the evidence -

3) Different people have proposed different methods of visual identification. If no one can agree on how the types look, then there is less reason to believe that it's true.

Jason

- I don't think the methods differ that much -

Don't get me wrong. I don't think that visual identification is a completely bogus idea, but some people take it too far. It has to be kept in perspective. The best way to use it is when it's a close call between several types and you need some other way to determine one's type, or to further support a typing made by looking at how one describes themselves. How one describes their personality should come first.

Jason

- it works nice for a first glance or as an affirmation -

[tcaudilllg]

Visual identification, in my experience, is most effective as an estimation. Person A is type X because they look more like an X than they do any of the other 15 types. There are 256 dual-types which means 256 total VI scenarios, one for each pairing. If you go to a type-based dating service like TypeTango.com, you'll find what appear to be visual "subtypes" in the type-divided groups: nearly exact matches in terms of face shape, particularly, between two or more persons of the same type. As a general rule, people who VI so similarly, when inquired as to their interests, are remarkably similar; hold remarkably similar worldviews; and have similar levels of talent at the same activities.

[implied]

people who do this are basically complete morons. sorry, just a rant, but you're definitely doing it completely wrong. it's an interesting concept and sometimes highly accurate, but i think the mistypes based on v.i. alone are ridiculous around here.

[Jarno]

people who do this are basically complete morons. sorry, just a rant, but you're definitely doing it completely wrong. it's an interesting concept and sometimes highly accurate, but i think the mistypes based on v.i. alone are ridiculous around here.

you are right, it has been proven a couple of times here on this forum that VI sucks (in that form).

[1981slater]

people who do this are basically complete morons.

yes, but this sport is less dangerous than others

[sarinana]

agree.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Is there a saying that a photo tells a thousand words or something? I'm not advocating typing solely by VI, but I have seen people say so many untruths and mis-leading things about themselves only (and not always) to re-tract it at a later date that I can find myself thinking, 'hmm, they say the camera never lies'.

[1981slater]

My opinion: people between 25-50, slim, healthy usually have similar facial features to other people who are the same Socionics type.

Is VI the most reliable way of typing? No

Is VI useful? Yes

Is a video more useful than a picture? Yes

Is observing the lifestyle of a person the most useful way of typing someone? Yes

Is testing reliable? Not much (everybody is apparently ENTP)

Is Socionics everything? No

Is Socionics wonderful? Yes

WILL ROBIN ESCAPE?CAN BATMAN FIND HIM IN TIME?IS THIS THE GHASTLY END OF OUR DYNAMIC DUO?ANSWERS...TOMORROW NIGHT! SAME TIME, SAME CHANNEL!ONE HINT--THE WORST IS YET TO COME!

[Jarno]

VI using pictures is useless.

VI in real life has some great instant results sometimes, but often mostly useful for confirmation.

[Slacker]

Is there a saying that a photo tells a thousand words or something? I'm not advocating typing solely by VI, but I have seen people say so many untruths and mis-leading things about themselves only (and not always) to re-tract it at a later date that I can find myself thinking, 'hmm, they say the camera never lies'.

That's called a cliche. Not truth. Actually I see two cliches in there.

[Expat]

I don't think that implied's point is that VI is totally useless.

The key word is "solely".

It is one thing to use VI as an intuitive hunch of a person's type. It's a very different thing when you start discussing in detail the individuals's eyes, gaze, shape of their foreheads, of their cheekbones, etc etc, while not even attempting to discuss other evidence.

[Ezra]

VI is useful to get a "general picture" of the person you're typing. It's simply not possible to accurately type the person using photos alone. I'd argue that it is often possible to VI someone through video, but one might argue that this isn't just typing someone by VI - it's also evaluating their personal beliefs and opinions (if indeed they are discussing these). Those who type people solely based on VI are those - like Ganin - who believe that you can look at the physical make up of a person and know exactly what type they are. This is bullshit. It takes no account of a person's mental life into account. Ganin would type a wax model a certain type, or a brain-dead individual. I think we all agree what crap that is.

[Wynch]

I don't think that implied's point is that VI is totally useless.

The key word is "solely".

It is one thing to use VI as an intuitive hunch of a person's type. It's a very different thing when you start discussing in detail the individuals's eyes, gaze, shape of their foreheads, of their cheekbones, etc etc, while not even attempting to discuss other evidence.

Yes, I agree with Maria and with what you're saying here. There's something to be said about human intuition (not talking about Ne/Ni) in interpreting people's actions. While I don't think it's possible to say something firm and without a doubt off of these instincts, it is possible to gather impressions from people based on how they look.

Example, Maria and I sometimes talk about the types of people we know and we'll share pictures of people with each other. Before telling the other person what type we think the person is, we ask the other what type their impression is. This isn't so much to say that the person is without a doubt a certain type, but sometimes it's hard to filter out the thousand and one details you pick up on from the people in your life and it can be helpful to have someone from the outside give you their impressions. A lot of the time our guesses are bang on or at least close, but other times comparing VI and experience brings out certain thoughts and details about people that we hadn't considered before.

[FDG]

My opinion: people between 25-50, slim, healthy usually have similar facial features to other people who are the same Socionics type.

Is VI the most reliable way of typing? No

Is VI useful? Yes

Is a video more useful than a picture? Yes

Is observing the lifestyle of a person the most useful way of typing someone? Yes

Is testing reliable? Not much (everybody is apparently ENTP)

Is Socionics everything? No

Is Socionics wonderful? Yes

WILL ROBIN ESCAPE?CAN BATMAN FIND HIM IN TIME?IS THIS THE GHASTLY END OF OUR DYNAMIC DUO?ANSWERS...TOMORROW NIGHT! SAME TIME, SAME CHANNEL!ONE HINT--THE WORST IS YET TO COME!

I 5/2rts this.

[1981slater]

I 5/2rts this.

What does that expression mean? Io non capisco!

[redbaron]

I don't think that implied's point is that VI is totally useless.

The key word is "solely".

It is one thing to use VI as an intuitive hunch of a person's type. It's a very different thing when you start discussing in detail the individuals's eyes, gaze, shape of their foreheads, of their cheekbones, etc etc, while not even attempting to discuss other evidence.

HEY! nice to see you, Expat!

[Expat]

HEY! nice to see you, Expat!

Thank you!

[implied]

I don't think that implied's point is that VI is totally useless.

The key word is "solely".

It is one thing to use VI as an intuitive hunch of a person's type. It's a very different thing when you start discussing in detail the individuals's eyes, gaze, shape of their foreheads, of their cheekbones, etc etc, while not even attempting to discuss other evidence.

you understand me correctly. i don't think v.i. is totally useless, and i'd be stupid to act like i don't play with it constantly (i do, i find it incredibly fun.) indeed the main point is that typing someone solely based on physical evidence is entirely ridiculous.

i have a female friend who is constantly typed by forum members as ISTp by v.i. indeed, i think she really does have the "look" of a female ISTp (she actually looks somewhat like roger federer's sister, and almost exactly like anna paquin.)




however, i think her behavior points entirely towards ego, at least -valuing, and possibly in the ego as well. to be honest, i even considered an ISTp typing for her and attempted to make that "work" from all angles. but facing other evidence, i eventually figured out that ISTp makes no sense. i really don't care if other people use v.i. to type others, i just wish that they would look at other evidence as well.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Hmm, yeah, it's quite awful when that happens!

[tcaudilllg]

When doing VI, we try to eliminate every visual personality indicator that is not a direct factor of socionics type.

Several such indicators exist.

• Attitudinal indicators (e.g. deep malice, emotional instability, abiding calmness, "wild eyes", etc.) are irrelevant to socionics type.
• Fixation indicators (including skepticism, deep focus, intense focus, altertness, and active engagement) are also irrelevant.

What is relevant:

• attentiveness either to the qualities of the immediate situation (sensation) or a possible situation (intuition). *HIGHLY RELIABLE*
• tenderness (feeling) vs firmness (thinking) of the frame. *SOMEWHAT RELIABLE*
• comfort in interpersonal situations (extroversion) vs discomfort and unease (introversion). *RELIABLE (but requires practice)*
• Rigidness of the face (judging) vs softness of the face (perceiving). *DIFFICULT, MOSTLY UNRELIABLE*
• Characteristic features distinct to each type. *HIGHLY RELIABLE (but requires further academic study*

And I recommend that this be stickied.

[mfckr]

.

[Mattie]

Somebody who's actually good at VI should write up a guide for doing it, replete with pictures. Hard to talk about it just using words to describe the indicators.

^


I don't completely but into the VI that you have bulleted in your original post, but I've always been open to convincing if it is properly explained and showcased. Would you mind creating an exposition of sorts with pictures that clearly reflects your ideas and methods? Besides being better received, it gives you credibility behind your claims.

[Words]

I'm curious how you VI?

How accurate do you think VI is from stilll shot photos, and/or how would you rate yourself at it?

For myself, I think it's difficult to get a lock on most people, I can get an impression, and sometimes I think two people look similar, then when I talk to them, over time they seem to be rather different.

[717495]

Before I was skeptical and had little proof that it would work, but I've really learned that people of the same type do actually have some rather similar underlying expressions characteristic of the type. It's not just what their physical characteristics are or what kind of stereotype they physically resemble, or various silly things you might read in physical descriptions, but definitely their underlying expression, the kind of thing you can only see for yourself and that happens here and there you have to catch, and I think I'm getting a lot better at finding these too. I might one day be automatic with it, and look into my impressions as a good starting place. It's not someone's neck shape, forehead size, square head, jaw shape, being big-boned, bad eyesight-wears glasses, none of that fake stuff, but the deliverance of personality in expressions, all the various kinds of expressions. Stop trying to compute brain function and personality with external features, it's horribly inaccurate, and to think that people would try it, its demeaning. But expressions, how a person chooses to move his/her face/body, these instinctive practices and reactions line up with really "what a person does" that makes a correlation to who a person is on the inside, where it counts.

[Words]

Before I was skeptical and had little proof that it would work, but I've really learned that people of the same type do actually have some rather similar underlying expressions characteristic of the type. It's not just what their physical characteristics are or what kind of stereotype they physically resemble, or various silly things you might read in physical descriptions, but definitely their underlying expression, the kind of thing you can only see for yourself and that happens here and there you have to catch, and I think I'm getting a lot better at finding these too. I might one day be automatic with it, and look into my impressions as a good starting place. It's not someone's neck shape, forehead size, square head, jaw shape, being big-boned, bad eyesight-wears glasses, none of that fake stuff, but the deliverance of personality in expressions. Stop trying to compute external features with brain function and personality, it's horribly inaccurate, and to think that people would try it, its demeaning. But expressions, how a person chooses to move his/her face, and the instinctive practices and reactions like these line up with really "what a person does" that makes a correlation to who a person is on the inside where it counts.

Yeah, I think I can see VI as in terms of a video being much more affective, especially if there's other people around they are interacting with. I'll try to pay more attention to how their faces are in motion.

[DirectorAbbie]

VI via photos is dumb. VI via observation of movement and behavior is accurate.

[Creepy-male]

VI off static photos is hard. I can do it sometimes, though, since at the very least you can sometimes spot J/P based on the angles in various joints (consequence of the scaffolding/rubber bands look between rigid Js and flexible Ps, imo).

Then, some types just have really, really distinctive looks, like SLEs (who notoriously peer under their brow or over their nose at cameras).

I rely heavily on V.I. in real-life to get good guesses at people's types within a few minutes. Certain traits will manifest very observably (either as combinations of J/P rigidity and I/E energy levels, or temperament-specific mannerisms (ENps tend to remind me of cats, lol)), such as temperament, or Fe ego, or even Fi dominance. After that I narrow it down either by stealth-interview (a friendly conversation can do wonders, esp. w/ Identicals) or if that's not possible just waiting for a ping when they say something very distinctive to a certain type (again, some people will just never cause these pings, and resist me typing them on more than a 6/10 on confidence).

Of course there are always people that are resistant to being typed like this and will have me really stymied until I get my lightbulb and it all clicks into place.

[Trevor]

How accurate do you think VI is from stilll shot photos...

For an average socionist it's slightly better than random guessing.

[Krig the Viking]

It's mostly a matter of experience. Just as a highly experienced psychologist may treat so many patients for depression that he eventually learns to see the signs of depression in a patient who just walked into the room in his expression and body language, an experienced socionist may diagnose the type of so many people that he starts to be able to see the signs of type in people's body language and expressions.

However, V.I. is no substitute for a more thorough type diagnosis. It can give you a good starting point, something to work with, but it should never be relied upon for a final conclusion.

[The Exception]

May be a useless question to ask as many socionicists don't put much stock in VI.

I'm one the fence myself as to its validity. I think there may be something to it but it should never be the sole criterion used to type someone.

Still, I'm curious as to how one gets good at VI to the point where they can just look at someone and suggest or rule out types with a reasonable degree of confidence?

I've looked at numerous photos of people within each sociotype and while I was able to capture some common features for each type, there was still enough variation to the point where it just confused things. There were people who were supposedly that type who didn't have that key feature.

There can be several different looks among people of the same type which is expected because no two people can ever be exactly alike.

Still my wants a more cut and dried system for this. I've found too much conflicting stuff and when I attempt to VI, it's hardly better than random guessing so I rarely attempt it.

Which photos from which websites do you find more useful for serving as VI reference points? Less useful?

[Timeless]

May be a useless question to ask as many socionicists don't put much stock in VI.

I'm one the fence myself as to its validity. I think there may be something to it but it should never be the sole criterion used to type someone.

Still, I'm curious as to how one gets good at VI to the point where they can just look at someone and suggest or rule out types with a reasonable degree of confidence?

I've looked at numerous photos of people within each sociotype and while I was able to capture some common features for each type, there was still enough variation to the point where it just confused things. There were people who were supposedly that type who didn't have that key feature.

There can be several different looks among people of the same type which is expected because no two people can ever be exactly alike.

Still my wants a more cut and dried system for this. I've found too much conflicting stuff and when I attempt to VI, it's hardly better than random guessing so I rarely attempt it.

Which photos from which websites do you find more useful for serving as VI reference points? Less useful?

So far and the way I see it, spotting 1 of the 4 temperaments in someone is a nice doorway to figuring out the rest:

Let me know what you think of this thread.

And kinda related to VI, I made a thread about people's eye movement I made on typologycentral.com a long time ago. Personally, putting these puzzle pieces together just gives a good idea of what a person could be, obviously not what they "are" no questions asked!

By the way, I would re-do this whole unfinished experiment I also made a long time ago someday:

http://visualtypology.atspace.com/

...That's all based off of people's self-typings. Even though some, if not most are mistyped, personally I did notice, for example, the "-look."

[CILi]

By the way, I would re-do this whole unfinished experiment I also made a long time ago someday:

http://visualtypology.atspace.com/

One vote for: "Please very soon. Good stuff. We need this. Yes. "

Even if it's just self-typed folk from around here (or wherever), it'd be something simple, practical, and reliable to visually fall back on.

[Timeless]

One vote for: "Please very soon. Good stuff. We need this. Yes. "

Even if it's just self-typed folk from around here (or wherever), it'd be something simple, practical, and reliable to visually fall back on.

Let me make a thread and see how many people will allow me to use their picture... let's see how that goes.

[mfckr]

May be a useless question to ask as many socionicists don't put much stock in VI.

I'm one the fence myself as to its validity. I think there may be something to it but it should never be the sole criterion used to type someone.

Still, I'm curious as to how one gets good at VI to the point where they can just look at someone and suggest or rule out types with a reasonable degree of confidence?

I've looked at numerous photos of people within each sociotype and while I was able to capture some common features for each type, there was still enough variation to the point where it just confused things. There were people who were supposedly that type who didn't have that key feature.

There can be several different looks among people of the same type which is expected because no two people can ever be exactly alike.

Still my wants a more cut and dried system for this. I've found too much conflicting stuff and when I attempt to VI, it's hardly better than random guessing so I rarely attempt it.

Which photos from which websites do you find more useful for serving as VI reference points? Less useful?

Back in the day, I chalked VI off as 'physiognomical nonsense' and couldn't understand for the life of me how anyone could ever be so dipshitted as to take the idea seriously. Then one day someone showed me that it actually worked, and well, I ate crow about it and became—at least in some small measure—less of an arrogant pos.

The principle idea of VI (that face evinces personality) isn't as far-fetched as it may seem, and is apparently a topic of actual research in academia. For instance, the results of this paper attests to VI correlations in dimensions of the Big Five personality theory:




I have about 20 or so other papers along similar lines to this.

As to learning how to do it, all I can really say is 'lots of practice'. I don't know any hard fast rules for teaching it. There are certain heuristics I use for doing it; the problem is they aren't easily articulable. Ultimately it's just something you have to learn by going through many concrete examples. What Timeless said, about learning how to identify temperament, is a good 1st-step. Just by doing that alone, you'll have eliminated 12/16 possibilities in 1 step.

[Skeptic]

I honestly didn't put much stock in it and still don't, but I know about 4 LSIs and they are remarkably similar looking. Even their body types are somewhat similar and I feel like I could spot another if I found one (just toying with the thought, not seriously).

So yes, I recommend that you take all the types you know and look for similarities in them/as you get to know more people connect visual similarities. The chart above is as mystifying as it is remarkably subtle, and you will no doubt find similar ones if you want to try to condition yourself to VI in that way.