A Panoply of VI Hints

[astralsilky]

Rick - Expat - anyone ... can you retrieve what I last wrote here, before accidentally splicing in the "Mistakes around the ring of supervision" bit? They were general tips on v.i. Thanks.

[Jarno]

1) VI skills grow automatically when you have more then one year experience with typing.

2) Not every person can be typed using VI.

3) Most of the time VI works, or at once, or not at all.

4) There are 2 main streams of VI

- VI by comparison
(someone's face will remind you of someone you know)

- VI by VI rules
(the way their eyes are used etc)

[astralsilky]

Fe vs. Fi dominance

Fe > Fi types, especially Fe dominant or creative types, have focused energy at and below the chin level in FRONT of them.

Fi > Fe types, especially Fi dominant or creative types, have focused energy BEHIND their neck, perhaps even appearing to shoot straight out from behind it.


Sample application/mental construct:

Imagine the subject having a ball of semi-white or golden, fuzzy energy in front of their face at and especially below the chin level, projecting forward. Now imagine the subject having that same energy behind their neck, perhaps. Which scenario seems to amplify the natural energies resonant within the individual?

Fe dominant types may seem like they are even HOLDING a large, fuzzy ball of energy in front of them with their chin, the energy may appear so strong. At the same time, behind their necks, the space is notably vacant and sparse.

For some reason, one of the (many) methods I have found useful when id-ing INFps is to imagine them wearing a stethoscope. INFps have a lot of energy concentrated heavily in all these areas, in front of them. ISFps too, to some extent.

On the other hand, Fi > Fe types may as well have a big "X" written on their necks, given the way in which their energy in that region of the body appears to draw backwards. (This can reinforce the "martyr" appearance which INFjs can occasionally project).

Interestingly, I have seen this general pattern apply even on T types - that is - you should be able to discern whether someone is from an Fe > Fi quadra or vice versa.

[ScarlettLux]

Haha, really interesting thread astralsilky! I'm looking forward to reading more of your hints you've noticed. TBH though, I really don't get what you're trying to say about Fe vs Fi and I have not noticed this myself.

[astralsilky]

Mistakes Around the Rings of Supervision

Once you really begin honing your v.i. skills, you may be surprised to find yourself most often making mistakes by mistyping around the rings of Supervision - especially if you form associations between types and animals they typically remind you of (a helpful, but not a foolproof method alone!) Then, a person's energy reflects their Supervisor and Supervisee in their "top notes" and "bottom notes" (that is, upper and lower portions of their face).

For example, ISTps sometimes remind me of owls ... "on top" ... a swirl of energy at the top of the forehead, and doleful eyes looking up ... Strangely, ESFjs remind me of owls HEAD-on (that is, centered on the face rather than at the forehead). Sometimes their eyes seem almost beady to me, and then there's this fanning energy on the sides of their eyes sometimes when they get exuberant.

Weird, I know.

As a side note - if you are observing a person's behavior, consider also that s/he MAY actively express pursuits typically native to his/her Supervisor.

For example, some ISTps can become academic overachievers (competing with the typical ESFjs as valedictorians, e.g., for the sake of "being the best") ... ENTjs can get caught up in the latest technological gadgets, comfort and conveniences (kind of "overdoing" ISTp's natural arena of expertise and sound judgment) ... ENFps can throw themselves into the hard sciences and analysis for a sense of mastery and expertise (INTj) ... ISFjs may idealize and want to pursue psychology as a profession and develop skills in this area (ENFp) ... etc.

That is, a supervisee might be inclined to push themselves to master SOME of the "stereotypical behaviors" indigenous to their supervisor, for a sense of "real" personal accomplishment. Or they may not. Just remember that typing by general behavior isn't entirely simple as "what you see is what you get"! Similar external behaviors may have different inner motivations and cognitions.

[Gilly]

Are you for real? This shit is insane.

[astralsilky]

Are you for real? This shit is insane.

Then tell me why I am able IRL to discern many people's types before they even open their mouths, much less in getting to know them, and oftentimes reach a point whereby I can ask them to take a type test, or find out they did, only for them to disclose the type which I already knew they were anyway.

When you're making sense of a mass of impressions, you have to draw some lines somewhere, even if arbitarily. The key for me is consistency with mental constructs so that I can consistently recognize my own inner impressions in response to them, to see how they compare over time, with PRACTICE. You have to set boundaries somewhere. Maybe this is an Ne/Fi thing, dunno. Or maybe it's my old hyper-sentience kicking in again.

OK, I'll just leave it at that.

[Gilly]

Maybe you're fooling yourself? This sounds like complete hocus pocus to me, and I believe in VI.

[astralsilky]

Actually, astralsilky, since you're knowledged about the energy stuff, how one identifies which of his/her chakras are problematic, 'cos I've read that different types have a unique combination of two different chakras that are problematic, which is a result of the endocrynological problems specific to each type? P.S. The energy thing I try not to get too much into 'cos it very quickly leads into esoterics and stuff like that, which I disagree with on an ethical level, which doesn't imply that I am an Fi type, but it's just that I'm religious and, though not saying I am Fi PoLR, there are pleanty of people with it who ARE also. So just for the sake of type identification, do you have any information? I have the table of combinations, by the way.

Hi dee, I avoid the chakra stuff, too, anymore, so really don't have much to comment on if we incorporate that theory/approach. I'd rather not.

But I do agree that the endocrine system probably plays a large role in types. The particular, innate balance of neurotransmitters within an individual may set up a particular palette for their average cognitions. What's "normal" for one person may not be for the next, so wonder certain kinds of pharmacology can get complicated. Anyway, I know this is "old thinking" - glands correlated with personality type. It's reminiscent of the "four humors" personality approach, 100s of years ago - but there's probably some validity to the general idea. We just don't know exactly what, yet.

[astralsilky]

Maybe you're fooling yourself? This sounds like complete hocus pocus to me, and I believe in VI.

I've considered that. Sometimes, I probably have. That's why experimental validation is important. Speculation is fun, but it has to work.

I respect your opinion and can see why it sounds like hocus pocus. I'm not forcing this down everyone's throats ISO wide acceptance. Only sharing ideas for those who may also recognize what I'm talking about and find it useful like I have.

There are some people in the world who are far more intuitive than others. Now, maybe if these intuitions take the form of visual associations for such folks, then so be it - the brain is processing that abstract information in some way, to be represented to the self SOME how, at least that is identifiable. Maybe, if nothing more, it's like how some people claim they can "see colors" when they hear music? That just sounds weird, but obviously their brains are consistently making those connections SOMEhow.

Anyway, at the risk of sounding like a freak, I sadly and reluctantly admit that I am an unusually intuitive and sensitive person when it comes to *feeling* and *visually perceiving* certain vibrations, in any number of contexts. I have had many experiences in life whereby my (visual and/or feeling) intuitions of various forms have subsequently been validated by other people. But anymore, I generally try and ignore this as much as possible, insulate myself against it, and try to live like everyone else. Don't know how much this is factoring into my v.i., though. Perhaps it has, more than I knew.

[astralsilky]

On Si or Ni dominance ...

To recognize an individual who has Ni or Si dominance, for some reason I find it helpful to imagine a triangle on his/her forehead, even extending down to the eyes.

Contrast this with someone who's forehead region typically appears wider, flatter ... Your attention goes to the sides of the head more often than focusing on this triangular region of the face.

Watching the individual's motions over time amplifies this inside vs. outside emphasis. One photo alone may be misleading.

Don't know how else to explain this. Maybe it's as simple as eyes being close-set versus wide ... but it seems to be a bit more than that, like how their eyes tend to focus. In this case, dominant introverted perceivers have a gaze that naturally tends to converge (more closely).

Contrast ISFp Vincent Spano with ISFj Chazz Palminteri

..............

Contrast INTp Stacy London with INTj Maria Bello (far right)

..............

[s:f0205fcabf]The pic of Maria above is a curious example. At first, in this pose, your immediate impression may be of close set eyes and/or gace - but notice how strange and unnatural this expression looks on her ... the energy above and on the sides of her forehead is still much more pronounced. Most of the (restricted loading) pix of her on the web reveal the "wide, flattened" forehead of dissipating energy previously mentioned.[/s:f0205fcabf] EDIT -- Original Maria pic not loading - new one added. Sorry for the inconvenience. (Increasing difficult to link to good pix, as sites keep restricting this functionality ...)

OK, here's another shot: Maria Bello (extraverted perceiving > introverted perceiving) vs. Eva Longoria (introverted perceiving >> extraverted perceiving) ... can you see the distinction I've been trying to describe? Whether there IS "energy outside" or "inside" or whatever ultimately doesn't matter ~ it's however you want to develop a consistent perception so you that can recognize the energetic distinction between certain types regarding these regions.



If you are straining hard to see any of this, just give up. This method doesn't work for you. Moving on ...

[astralsilky]

Here might be an example of how types - strangely, visually and subtly - MAY be interrelated along the rings of supervision, as previously mentioned:

Watch Jacques Brel in the 2nd video clip of this thread. Two of us suspect this fellow is ENFj, so far.

What I also naturally noticed is that if you carefully watch this fellow from, say, the 2:30 mark of this clip ONward, there are "undertones" of his facial expressions, at times, which subtly (even "hauntingly") resemble George Harrison. But then I realized, yeah, the potentiality of that perception already makes sense. George Harrison has been typed by some as INTp. INTp is the supervisee of ENFj. And "coincidentally," notice another forum member has already somehow perceived the energies of, and suggested, the ENFj's Supervisor, ISFp, in that thread ((along with INFp, however)).

The problem with subtleties, of course, is that they are by defn hard to detect, or might even be too impulsively and thus mistakenly perceived. But they also might serve to be small, helpful clues in support of other forms of type evidence, UNTIL you finally achieve certainty with recognizing a particular type in an instant.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[FDG]

That is, a supervisee might be inclined to push themselves to master SOME of the "stereotypical behaviors" indigenous to their supervisor, for a sense of "real" personal accomplishment. Or they may not. Just remember that typing by general behavior isn't entirely simple as "what you see is what you get"! Similar external behaviors may have different inner motivations and cognitions.

You're overanalizying. Supervisors and supervisees share the same function as base and creative, and share a dual-seeking function. That's the reason for this behaviour, nothing else.

For example, in the ENTJ-ISTP case, you're simply seeing Te.
In the ISTP-ENFJ, it's the Ne that you're seeing.
ISFJ-ENFP well, I don't see why ISFjs can't be psychologists - they are Fi dominants.

On Fe Fi VI distictions: I agree with them and it's due to the basic nature of Fe and Fi in my opinion, or rather the relative balance between expressed emotions and felt emotions. If you notice in fact, there are certain specific sub-types as male ENFjs that have trained themselves to be stoic that will have a vibe similar to the Fi types; the same, but inverse, applies to the bubblier and friendlier ESFps that have learnt not to control themselves emotioanlly in an excessive way. However your generalization is especially great for the ExTj-IxFj dual pair, and it becomes the more valid the more we approach the peak of objective-grave (so acc Te-acc Fi and cre-Te cre-Fi).

[FDG]

Actually, astralsilky, since you're knowledged about the energy stuff, how one identifies which of his/her chakras are problematic, 'cos I've read that different types have a unique combination of two different chakras that are problematic, which is a result of the endocrynological problems specific to each type? P.S. The energy thing I try not to get too much into 'cos it very quickly leads into esoterics and stuff like that, which I disagree with on an ethical level, which doesn't imply that I am an Fi type, but it's just that I'm religious and, though not saying I am Fi PoLR, there are pleanty of people with it who ARE also. So just for the sake of type identification, do you have any information? I have the table of combinations, by the way.

Yes I am interested in the overactive charkas of types, too. I have read something on socionics.org on the matter, but the document was not complete. Do you have any material?

[FDG]

On the secondary "supervisor feel" bit...it's been noted by a couple of people that certain subjects have secondary VI-traits or "impressions", and that these secondary impressions actually match up with the person's own opinions on thier possible types. In other words, are you noticing secondary impressions of supervisors specifically?

This is an interesting area (that is the "secondary impressions") because these could be pointing to a certain percentage of folks having split types of some systematic and determined nature, instead of being neatly categorized by the Socionics. I don't believe in split types, I think it can be explained in some other way, however it is very clear that something that is more fundamental then the Socionics (but still systematic and connected to it) is apparent.

I think those types are the ones that have learnt how to master a bigger area of their clock, as smilingeyes put it. So the impression is given by the fact that the person can actually switch between creative function or base function.

So my opinion is that there are some ISTps that if you have

|----Te----||----Si----||----Fe----|

Take the specific ISTp's center of gravity being at the 3rd step of Si from the left. Take another ISTp having the same center of graivity at a given point in time. Secondary impression is given by one of the two ISTps being able to extend his range to say, the 4th step of Fe thus becoming an ISFp for certain time. However since a person observes the ISTp over a longer period of time in comparison to the one in which this change happens, he'll notice the change in "vibe" but not the real change in personality, since realatively speaking the person will still be ISTp. Notice tough that since the ISTp shares the charateristic of being optimistic/constructivist/result/etc with an ESFj, his usage of Fe for a limited time will be perceived as ESFj and not ISFp.

Of course ISTp can be changed to every other type, it's an example.

This leads to the conclusions that there is indeed such a thing as an IJ/IP/EJ/EP capable of complete homeomorphism between his functional states. I have never met such beings though.

[ScarlettLux]

Hey, what I really want to know about something you said FDG -- ESFps who have not yet learned to control overexcessive emotional expression.. that could quite possibly be me! I've always wondered.. cause it seems ESFps and ENFps are so friendly and expressive? Well, yes, I know their Fe is strong, but then what is the difference between their Fe and types who have Fe in their Ego block? It's strange to me.. because I feel that most of the time I am very emotionally expressive but .. in groups, I feel I do kinda value Fi. I tend to split up groups as I see fit and I focus on only one or a couple people at a time. Large groups are alright, but I feel slightly lost in them.. I'd rather have a meaningful conversation with one or two people, you know? But then again.. doesn't everyone have that? It's confusing. I like the whole "pouring heart out" idea that is supposedly Fi but I again don't understand how that is Fi. For me, Fi is understood to be like.. cold. Just an underlying thing that never really bubbles over..

How would a mature ENFp/ESFp use their Fe/Fi? And how would it look different from an INFp/ENFj?

[Exodus]

Hey, what I really want to know about something you said FDG -- ESFps who have not yet learned to control overexcessive emotional expression.. that could quite possibly be me! I've always wondered.. cause it seems ESFps and ENFps are so friendly and expressive? Well, yes, I know their Fe is strong, but then what is the difference between their Fe and types who have Fe in their Ego block? It's strange to me.. because I feel that most of the time I am very emotionally expressive but .. in groups, I feel I do kinda value Fi. I tend to split up groups as I see fit and I focus on only one or a couple people at a time. Large groups are alright, but I feel slightly lost in them.. I'd rather have a meaningful conversation with one or two people, you know? But then again.. doesn't everyone have that? It's confusing. I like the whole "pouring heart out" idea that is supposedly Fi but I again don't understand how that is Fi. For me, Fi is understood to be like.. cold. Just an underlying thing that never really bubbles over..

How would a mature ENFp/ESFp use their Fe/Fi? And how would it look different from an INFp/ENFj?

I think demonstrative Fe (at least combined with leading Se) is more about *undermining* a unified emotional atmosphere than creating one. For example, an ESFp would intentionally make a joke that he knows is not funny or not appreciated by most others around him. Another is using shock value for no specific reason at all (ego Fe generally tends to have a Ti "point" behind it). I think you have ego Fe, fwiw.

[astralsilky]

A new, general note ~ and then I'll get onto some replies.

Over the weekend, I had the fleeting recollection of how, in Reiki, simple geometric symbols are sometimes mentally employed in order for an indivudal to "get in touch" (to put it crassly) with certain kinds of energy before "working" with it. The potential parallel which may exist between this concept ~ and ~ the "symbolic" descriptions I have thus far disclosed ... troubled me. Although I have messed around with "energy work" of various kinds years ago, I gave it up (personal reasons incl. a worldview shift). Perhaps my natural intuition has unwittingly lead me to develop a similar system. This would mean that Gilly's accusation that some of this "sounds like hocus pocus" may be a little more valid than I initially considered. I certainly do not want to promote "mysticism."

On the other hand, it is also possible that all I am describing in terms of these "symbols" (and I have many not yet shared) are typical boundaries of negative space*** commonly traced out by the individual's motions (and perhaps even including fine facial expressions). I really don't know. But this latter explanation is more comfortable to me.

So for now, I hesitate to share more propositions along this "symbolic" approach, until I come to better terms with this issue.

*** (If you weren't already aware, in art theory, negative space would refer to, e.g., the "blank" area surrounding an object of interest.)

[jessica129]

No idea what you people are talking about but how on earth is Stacey London an INTP??

[astralsilky]

On the secondary "supervisor feel" bit...it's been noted by a couple of people that certain subjects have secondary VI-traits or "impressions", and that these secondary impressions actually match up with the person's own opinions on thier possible types.

How interesting.

In other words, are you noticing secondary impressions of supervisors specifically?

I am not sure what you mean by "specifically." Referring to v.i. alone, with some individuals I see their core type in a very "focused" - errr, "manifest" way. Others, I see their core type, and OVERtones of their Supervisor. Some, I see their core type plus UNDERtones of their Supervisee. For some types, I actually see attributes of their Supervisor AND Supervisee in top and bottom notes MORE than some standardized associations I have with their core type! As a result, one of the (many!) checks I use when typing someone by appearance alone is whether or not I can subtly also see characteristics of their Supervisor and/or Supervisee in them. The least likely type, then, that I could see the person being along the ring of supervision is the Super-ego. But I admit, sometimes I make this mistake on a quick glance - thinking I see their superego first. All in all, it should be no surprise at this point to learn that occasionally, (if really perplexed), I have found it useful to first identify *which* ring of supervision the person belongs to, and then focus my search from there. Again, it is interesting to me how I am not the only person that has temporarily mistyped along a ring of supervision and then changed my mind during analysis, as I have seen examples of others doing the same in this forum. It would be interesting to discern the underlying dynamics for this phenomenon in an objective fashion.

I have not yet considered how the variations described above correlate with the individual's expressed behavior, but it certainly sounds like a good landscape for future exploration.

This is an interesting area (that is the "secondary impressions") because these could be pointing to a certain percentage of folks having split types of some systematic and determined nature, instead of being neatly categorized by the Socionics. I don't believe in split types, I think it can be explained in some other way, however it is very clear that something that is more fundamental then the Socionics (but still systematic and connected to it) is apparent.

For instance, there are many people (probably at least half) who have clear, set, *type*, and they behave in the same old boring way as everybody else in their type, and then there are people who have some seemingly random traits thrown in. Sometimes even enough to obscure the main type.

I agree, I don't agree with "split" types per se - rather, the fluidity of type. One has an essential orientation - i.e., core position - but may develop in any number of ways. Life circumstances might even necessitate an individual to grow into other functions in order to cope and adapt. At least, that could be one reason for such complications (because, if your environment is naturally rewarding you for your core type behaviors, and the individual is "reasonable content" (i.e., the rewards are really perceived as rewards!), what impetus is there for the psyche to grow beyond present functioning? That would sort of be a waste of energy).

Since indeterminate types aren't considered as "data" when thinking about Socionics, we kind of auto-prove the validity of the theory to ourselves by the ommission, but suppose that indeterminate types ARE actually "indeterminate" and not that we just can't figure out what types they are. Is there a systematic way in which this occurs? Because we don't wanna throw out the baby with the bathwater, because obviously socionics is a very very "true" theory.

Ha! That's funny ... because I now have to admit, I am not fully convinced that socionics incl. model A is necessarily a "clean" theory. I have many reasons for this, but won't belabor it. For one thing, the fact that people mistype so often indicates flaws with the system, not to mention the WIDE ways people apply and interpret phenomena with the system, when in fact other interpretations may be possible. Another consideration: how do we even know we're working with ALL of the right, fundamental building blocks?! Just because "Jung said so"? Gimme a break. :wink: And the western tradition of thought has been so hung up on 4 axes underpinning various type philosophies? What if the easterners actually had it right with "5" elements?! (Despite differing delineations.)

I totally agree with you about indetermine types and auto-proving validity ... The poor folks who fall between the cracks while the "focused" types happily parade about ... and the many hail the postulates of socionics as "finished"!

[astralsilky]

That is, a supervisee might be inclined to push themselves to master SOME of the "stereotypical behaviors" indigenous to their supervisor, for a sense of "real" personal accomplishment. Or they may not. Just remember that typing by general behavior isn't entirely simple as "what you see is what you get"! Similar external behaviors may have different inner motivations and cognitions.

You're overanalizying. Supervisors and supervisees share the same function as base and creative, and share a dual-seeking function. That's the reason for this behaviour, nothing else.

For example, in the ENTJ-ISTP case, you're simply seeing Te.
In the ISTP-ENFJ, it's the Ne that you're seeing.
ISFJ-ENFP well, I don't see why ISFjs can't be psychologists - they are Fi dominants.

Overanalyzing - LOL. At least, I know an INFp who would heartily agree with you (altho` for HER, it seems like a kneejerk reaction to most anything I'd say.)

I agree that one is seeing those functions, but you can't leave out context. So I don't think I overanalyzed. How a function emerges in relation to other functions gives it a particular character w.r.t. manifest behavior.

For example, some ISTps may be tempted to achieve in ways which are widely considered socially admirable, to "be the best" ((or else, maybe not even bother trying)). Secretly in their heart, these particular ISTps may HEAVILY invest their identity with this external affirmation of their achievement. They may not *immediately* and consciously care what others think of them - yet, on SOME very abstracted level, they DO. But have they yet manifested the deeper, more immediate levels of Fe like ESFjs have? No. They're not quite there yet. But to (first?) engage in Fe, as everyone does to some degree, you have to start somewhere, on some level ... and the ESFj supervises them in these more immediate manifestations of Fe.

ISFJ-ENFP well, I don't see why ISFjs can't be psychologists - they are Fi dominants.

FYI, I did not say that ISFjs could not inherently succeed as psychologists due to their type. But, e.g., I've known multiple (yet not ALL) ISFjs who put the field on a pedestal more than most, etc. per what I explained in my previous post (re: ambitions, pursuits, sense of self-worth, etc.).

My original proposition re: supervision was a simple conclusion based on several recurring observations I've made across many types (including multiple incidences within the same type). It was not based on pure analysis. I shared it because, based on ways some reason here, they might easily say, e.g., "he can't be an ISTp - he was valedictorian!" - even though this would not be sufficient criteria to rule out someone's type if other data strongly supports it. Sort of like loosening the palette of stereotypes a bit ...

On Fe Fi VI distictions: I agree with them

Cool! Thanks for the validation.

and it's due to the basic nature of Fe and Fi in my opinion, or rather the relative balance between expressed emotions and felt emotions.

Could be.

The weird thing is, it seems like I can perceive this phenomenon in photographs of individuals I've known who are extreme thinking types. They *don't ever* express emotion (apart from, say, enthusiasm) and others we know really DO think they're "droids"! But I believe there's still something in there ... ? Hmm. Maybe not, because I do agree that relative balance is the key here. :S

If you notice in fact, there are certain specific sub-types as male ENFjs that have trained themselves to be stoic that will have a vibe similar to the Fi types; the same, but inverse, applies to the bubblier and friendlier ESFps that have learnt not to control themselves emotioanlly in an excessive way.

Maybe. I had not noticed that.

However your generalization is especially great for the ExTj-IxFj dual pair, and it becomes the more valid the more we approach the peak of objective-grave (so acc Te-acc Fi and cre-Te cre-Fi).

[astralsilky]

No idea what you people are talking about but how on earth is Stacey London an INTP??

No? What type do you think she is?

(Not that I'm now UNconfident about my assertion. Just curious. Outside input is good ...)

Man, has this thread ever "unravelled"!!

[jessica129]

I was actually going to start a VI thread about her..I just never thought of her as an introvert of anykind. Definetly got the ENT* vibe....but continue on with the discussion at hand ; )

[somethingsomething]

No idea what you people are talking about but how on earth is Stacey London an INTP??

No? What type do you think she is?

(Not that I'm now UNconfident about my assertion. Just curious. Outside input is good ...)

Man, has this thread ever "unravelled"!!

I thought intp too, because of the VI description on socionics.com.

[Exodus]

For one thing, the fact that people mistype so often indicates flaws with the system

That could be. Or it could mean that socionics is a difficult theory to understand and apply correctly.

Unfortunately there is no way to know objectively, since socionics is not objective. Crap.