Visual identification doesn't work and is nonsense

[Creepy-]

Sheldon did this in the past, and later it have proved to be completely wrong, and I cannot see any reason this should be right.

Should I for one, be an INTP just because I look like one of the celebrities typed INTP. Nope, it's nonsense if you ask me, like astrology, driven by intellectual mono mania.

I should also ask, are there really 16 types. A thing I have noticed is that people get sucked in to beliving in it because of their intellectual vanity, after they find a description that appeal to them, and they can identify with.

This just leads to not finding your true preferences.

Also this function stuff, are simply taken to far. All people have different brains, and if someone think that someone they perceive to be extroverted intuitive should suck at sports, or be impractical because Extroverted sensation should be a weak function, I think are simply missing the point, because it does not happen that way, not in the real world. Things cant be taken so word for word (as most people do), that is a very S thing, by the way

My guess is that most people who indentify themselves as intuitives are mostly not, but again within each person it can be a split, not black/white, that is why this function stuff, really do suck, because the system try to be more accurate, than it really can be in the real world, with real people.

My hint, would be for people to start with observation, then make theories, not trying to pin your theories upon observation.

[FDG]

Should I for one, be an INTP just because I look like one of the celebrities typed INTP. Nope, it's nonsense if you ask me, like astrology, driven by intellectual mono mania.

This is not the way VI works. You're just changing ad hoc the methodology of VI to prove your point.

The only point you're proving, is that you don't know VI. Sorry.

[Rocky]

Should I for one, be an INTP just because I look like one of the celebrities typed INTP. Nope, it's nonsense if you ask me, like astrology, driven by intellectual mono mania.

This is not the way VI works. You're just changing ad hoc the methodology of VI to prove your point.

The only point you're proving, is that you don't know VI. Sorry.

Agreed.

I should also ask, are there really 16 types. A thing I have noticed is that people get sucked in to beliving in it because of their intellectual vanity, after they find a description that appeal to them, and they can identify with.

Yes, I believe that there are 16 types, but descriptions and models to describe them are only done by humans who are limited to observeing these traits, and the word is not the word of God.

Things cant be taken so word for word (as most people do), that is a very S thing, by the way

I don't think so. There are intuitives on here (who I'm not going to name) who follow the "systems" much more closely than I do or put trust in.

My guess is that most people who indentify themselves as intuitives are mostly not, but again within each person it can be a split, not black/white, that is why this function stuff, really do suck, because the system try to be more accurate, than it really can be in the real world, with real people.

I agree that people's typings or self-perceptions can be distant from reality, but those things happen with anything.

[Creepy-]

My point, as proved by the VI tool, is that it happens by looking at a picture, and my point is that any picture, can be any personality type, looks and MBTI type are not related, that simple. Any type can also have any facial expression, at any given point in time, facial expressions are pretty universal.

Atleast to me, from my point of view, it would be natural to think about this matter in a DNA (genetical ) matter, someone could easy get looks as a mix here, personality there, and display any energy, at any given time.

Just to simplify it, of course it's not this simple, but lets say that the parents each have 20 personality related genes each, and 20 related to looks each, and I get 5 dominant personality genes from mom, only 2 from dad, while getting 7 dominant genes related to looks from dad, and 3 from mom. Assuming that none of the personality genes, and genes related to looks are related, just pure slump, as I think and are taught at school, I cannot see how visual identification from a picture, can have any validity at all.

I mean for Visual Identification so work, it must atleast be done by observations, using several indenpendent observers, over some time, following the individual in his/her daily life, or in a lab setting. But then it's something very different from just looking at a picture.


Sure, it could be that those who use VI, attribute certain facial expressions, and traits, to certain types, so it's possible to learn it as a system, or arrive at somehow similar conclusions as those who invented the systems. But this does not mean it is true.



I looked at the russian site, who use different examples of types, and 8 of 19 ENTP use glasses, there seems to me, like there is some bias towards the ENTP beeing the smartest type in this system, biggest geek (if not the INTP) using glasses dont ask me why, but this seems unfair.

Myself I scored as ENTP on the MBTI test. Why should I be any smarter just because I scored ENTP, or why should I even be an ENTP, why should I put limits on myself, why not let me be a little of everything.

Back to taking things literal.

As far as I see it, thinking in a very literal, step by step manner ( non intuitive manner), really dont fit intuitives at all, even such non intuitive persons tend to be very school smart. The things they are good at, fit modern education very well.

As far as I am concerned, intuitives think more holistic, broad, general, less detail oriented, less verbal, faster to grasp situations (extroverted intuitives) and tend to be far more on the visual side, less left brain oriented. I could go on and on about this.

those auditory types, who are great at memorising the spoken word in detail, are usually more on the S side, those who remember their own understanding/view of what was said, are more likely to be more on the N side.

All for now, please get back to me, those of you who replied.

[Rocky]

Wow, there was so much bullshit in your last post, it's hard to comprehend. Give me awhile before I respond to all of that...

[FDG]

My point, as proved by the VI tool, is that it happens by looking at a picture, and my point is that any picture, can be any personality type, looks and MBTI type are not related, that simple. Any type can also have any facial expression, at any given point in time, facial expressions are pretty universal.

Atleast to me, from my point of view, it would be natural to think about this matter in a DNA (genetical ) matter, someone could easy get looks as a mix here, personality there, and display any energy, at any given time.

Just to simplify it, of course it's not this simple, but lets say that the parents each have 20 personality related genes each, and 20 related to looks each, and I get 5 dominant personality genes from mom, only 2 from dad, while getting 7 dominant genes related to looks from dad, and 3 from mom. Assuming that none of the personality genes, and genes related to looks are related, just pure slump, as I think and are taught at school, I cannot see how visual identification from a picture, can have any validity at all.

I mean for Visual Identification so work, it must atleast be done by observations, using several indenpendent observers, over some time, following the individual in his/her daily life, or in a lab setting. But then it's something very different from just looking at a picture.


Sure, it could be that those who use VI, attribute certain facial expressions, and traits, to certain types, so it's possible to learn it as a system, or arrive at somehow similar conclusions as those who invented the systems. But this does not mean it is true.



I looked at the russian site, who use different examples of types, and 8 of 19 ENTP use glasses, there seems to me, like there is some bias towards the ENTP beeing the smartest type in this system, biggest geek (if not the INTP) using glasses dont ask me why, but this seems unfair.

Myself I scored as ENTP on the MBTI test. Why should I be any smarter just because I scored ENTP, or why should I even be an ENTP, why should I put limits on myself, why not let me be a little of everything.

Back to taking things literal.

As far as I see it, thinking in a very literal, step by step manner ( non intuitive manner), really dont fit intuitives at all, even such non intuitive persons tend to be very school smart. The things they are good at, fit modern education very well.

As far as I am concerned, intuitives think more holistic, broad, general, less detail oriented, less verbal, faster to grasp situations (extroverted intuitives) and tend to be far more on the visual side, less left brain oriented. I could go on and on about this.

those auditory types, who are great at memorising the spoken word in detail, are usually more on the S side, those who remember their own understanding/view of what was said, are more likely to be more on the N side.

All for now, please get back to me, those of you who replied.

This seems nonsense, and not backed up by anything.

Basically, you're saying that socionics is crap, because you think it is.

[Creepy-]

I belive you can ask more or less anyone into genetics, or the human genome project. That is even science

[Creepy-]

Another thing, the stereotypical mensa member, is supposed to be an INTJ in the MBTI according to mensa surveys , hence INTP in this system. I just cannot understand why someone so smart, would want to be member of a club.. But interesting, and strange.

[Rocky]

Another thing, the stereotypical mensa member, is supposed to be an INTJ in the MBTI according to mensa surveys , hence INTP in this system. I just cannot understand why someone so smart, would want to be member of a club.. But interesting, and strange.

Wow, even more bullshit. First of all, an INTJ is in MBTI is not an INTp in socionics. Second of all, intelligence suppossively trensends type. No one "type" is smarter than another, you can tell that by watching the people around you. Third of all, in socionics, it is said that the ISFj tests with the highest average IQ, not INTp. Forth of all, people who are in Mensa ARE NOT SMART. Mensa's a form of pseudo-intelligent life in order to mask their own ignorance.

And that's just the start...

[FDG]

Another thing, the stereotypical mensa member, is supposed to be an INTJ in the MBTI according to mensa surveys , hence INTP in this system. I just cannot understand why someone so smart, would want to be member of a club.. But interesting, and strange.

HOW THE FUCK IS THAT RELATED TO SOCIONICS? AND HOW THE FUCK IS GENETICS RELATED TO SOCIONICS?

You cannot take a fucking point of a theory and build upon it a castle of counterproofs, basically because you're counterproofing NOTHING.

[Creepy-]

I feel like trying to argue against someone saying astrology is valid here.
Sorry everybody.

[FDG]

I feel like trying to argue against someone saying astrology is valid here.
Sorry everybody.

Like yourself?

[Creepy-]

I feel like trying to argue against someone saying astrology is valid here.
Sorry everybody.

Like yourself?

I am sorry for you.

[FDG]

I am not.

[Creepy-]

I feel like trying to argue against someone saying astrology is valid here.
Sorry everybody.

Lol, thanks for entertaining me with your crap.

You are welcome.

[Creepy-]

I feel like trying to argue against someone saying astrology is valid here.
Sorry everybody.

Lol, thanks for entertaining me with your crap.

You are welcome.

[Creepy-]

I am not.

How could you be.

[Creepy-]

Another thing, the stereotypical mensa member, is supposed to be an INTJ in the MBTI according to mensa surveys , hence INTP in this system. I just cannot understand why someone so smart, would want to be member of a club.. But interesting, and strange.

Wow, even more bullshit. First of all, an INTJ is in MBTI is not an INTp in socionics. Second of all, intelligence suppossively trensends type. No one "type" is smarter than another, you can tell that by watching the people around you. Third of all, in socionics, it is said that the ISFj tests with the highest average IQ, not INTp. Forth of all, people who are in Mensa ARE NOT SMART. Mensa's a form of pseudo-intelligent life in order to mask their own ignorance.

And that's just the start...

Well they are not smart you say? But they form a club. This is a club I'd say :wink:

[niveK]

Not all human development is governed by genetics. Height is determined by genes, but if you stick a man in a house with a low roof all of his life, and he'll come out rather short because of his environment.

While not entirely convinced of VI myself, I can see how type could influence appearance in a similar way. Better VI should look at more than just facial features and body shape, including movements and speech patterns and other things that are influenced at some level by personality, since personality is influenced by type. In theory, there should be some common visual themes amongst people of equal or similar types because of the influence.

I don't really like Mensa either. As Ann Robinson of "The Weakest Link" said, "You pay $200 to have someone tell you you're smart?"

[Creepy-]

Not all human development is governed by genetics. Height is determined by genes, but if you stick a man in a house with a low roof all of his life, and he'll come out rather short because of his environment.

By 90% height is on average. So says my psychology book.

Personality as scored in the big five (can be translated to traits in this system, even big five beeing the most valued system teh last 20 years in psychology), are also due to genetics, atleast thats what studies of identical twins reared apart from birth suggest. Numbers so far suggest genetics accounts for 30-50%, while the enviroment does 50-70%.

A trait such as beeing nevrotic, are 70% genetics, twin studies suggest.

Political views, religion and such, are about 0% genetics.


While not entirely convinced of VI myself, I can see how type could influence appearance in a similar way.

In the sense that someone with the genetics to have a more muscular body could pursue a more tough attitude as caused by the first, and yes, I even think the level of hormones incluence the way the brain devenlops.

Better VI should look at more than just facial features and body shape, including movements and speech patterns and other things that are influenced at some level by personality, since personality is influenced by type. In theory, there should be some common visual themes amongst people of equal or similar types because of the influence.

I have seen that some people look very similar in their ways, and behaviors, but still people can act and be very different to, and still be the same type, of course, however VI, like used in this system. I think it's as valid as astrology.

I don't really like Mensa either. As Ann Robinson of "The Weakest Link" said, "You pay $200 to have someone tell you you're smart?"

Yes, why would someone do that, I saw a program on TV not long ago about them, and it did not take a genius to that their EQ was not a genius worthy.

[Creepy-]

In the last post, my reply, got inside the quotes....

You registered users can edit your posts, lucky you, but I'll think I'll leave your group alone, and get back to my studies for now.

[xiuxiu]

in the initial post..

My hint, would be for people to start with observation, then make theories, not trying to pin your theories upon observation.

that is basically how socionics and mbti came about.

[Creepy-]

in the initial post..

My hint, would be for people to start with observation, then make theories, not trying to pin your theories upon observation.

that is basically how socionics and mbti came about.

Actually it all started with freud, who started to misdiagnose a drugaddict, having all kind of wild theories, for symtoms that turned out to be caused by a morfine addition.. Later things got more refined, Jung got into the picture, so on....

My view is that these theories are mostly deductive (top down), not inductive (bottom up). Meaning they are all theoretical constructs.

But interesting, yes....I just dont think it should be taken to literal, or things should be made more accurate or scientific than they really are.

[Scrummy]

But interesting, yes....I just dont think it should be taken to literal, or things should be made more accurate or scientific than they really are.

Socionics is admittedly nothing more than a theoretical contruct, and is at best a generalized blueprint for at least a part of human interaction. Socionics aims only to explain a part of human behavior - not the whole of the psyche - and it is actually quite succesful at explaining that behavior. While it is a minimalistic framework, there really is nothing within the theory to contradict scientific reason. What Jung did in laying out the framework by means of functions was merely to put a label to various behaviors we already knew existed and unify it into a workable system.

To place personality theory among the realm of the bunk that is astrology is really a naive and audacious gesture, so I'm going to assume you're only here for a little night's badinage (i.e. trolling). No one is saying the theory is complete, no one is saying it isn't perfect, and no one is saying Socionics is anywhere close to blueprinting the whole of the human condition. It is, however, a system that many here (obviously) find workable. At its most simplistic, it becomes a parlor game and nothing else. At its best, Socionics can make people reevaluate their behavior and motivations, and their interaction with others.

Anyway, I gotta run: Cosmo, my pet hamster becons for his night-time ale and bedtime story.

[Creepy-some other guest]

Huh. Lots of silly things being said here. Shall I start from the bottom up?

Deductive reasoning is when you eliminate what can't be possible, and what you're left with is the only possible solution. Inductive reasoning is when you take the facts and form a general conclusion based on how they're related. You can look at it like the two ends of a scope. Through one end you take the big picture and focus it down to a small area (deductive), through the other end you take a small thing and expand it to a large area (inductive).

That said, I don't take any of it too seriously. (Ducking for cover). I keep testing as INTJ on the MTBI and as INTj on the socionics. When I read the descriptions though, not one of the 16 types really seems to peg me down. There's probably parts of almost any of them that would fit if I really wanted it to. Then again, maybe I've answered the questions how I'd LIKE to be and not neccesarily how I AM. Possibly. It'd be nice to have an unbiased eye who really knows me take the test for me . At any rate Guest is right in that like astrology if you really want it to fit you can twist things around to make it fit.

On to the other silliness. A person will not grow to be shorter just because he lives in a smaller house. That is ridiculous. A person can be shorter or smaller based on poor nutrition however.

And finally, there's no reason for anyone to be defensive about VI. If you can back up your opinions and theories with facts that's the best way to win the argument one way or the other. Just prove your case. I'm not biased towards saying that it is or isn't valid because I haven't studied it or delved into any of the theories behind any of it.

[Creepy-some other guest]

Oh, and the last post, by Baby was not one of the silly things I was referring to. He seemed to be very articulate and made some very good points. I began writing my post before I saw his.

[Creepy-]

But interesting, yes....I just dont think it should be taken to literal, or things should be made more accurate or scientific than they really are.

Socionics is admittedly nothing more than a theoretical contruct, and is at best a generalized blueprint for at least a part of human interaction. Socionics aims only to explain a part of human behavior - not the whole of the psyche - and it is actually quite succesful at explaining that behavior. While it is a minimalistic framework, there really is nothing within the theory to contradict scientific reason. What Jung did in laying out the framework by means of functions was merely to put a label to various behaviors we already knew existed and unify it into a workable system.

To place personality theory among the realm of the bunk that is astrology is really a naive and audacious gesture, so I'm going to assume you're only here for a little night's badinage (i.e. trolling). No one is saying the theory is complete, no one is saying it isn't perfect, and no one is saying Socionics is anywhere close to blueprinting the whole of the human condition. It is, however, a system that many here (obviously) find workable. At its most simplistic, it becomes a parlor game and nothing else. At its best, Socionics can make people reevaluate their behavior and motivations, and their interaction with others.

Anyway, I gotta run: Cosmo, my pet hamster becons for his night-time ale and bedtime story.

Well, finally a more balanced, not brainwashed, answer, as in the thread, my main critism is against VI, not really the points you comment on, like when you VI guess at the web page, I just dont take it serious, other things like genetic research have convinced me personality type, body type and looks are not related.

A big problem with freud are general over analysing, trying to making things more accurate than they possibly can be, that's how I feel the function system from 1-8 function is.

When digging to deep into systems like this, the enneagram, the mbti, big five ......It's easy to get's lost.

THis page: http://www.braintypes.com/ are a good example, my view, is that they have taken this pseudo science thing way to far, when trying to make it science. Their football analysis thing, is totally nonsense.

Jung on the other hand made the 8 basic types, and I feel that's how accurate it's really is. When trying to make things more accurate it gets out of hand.

Another system like the enneagram (also based on freud and jung), are on the same level, but it focuse more on motivations.

Dave Kelly have web page www.ptypes.com are also interesting.

[Creepy-]

Just to get back to the topic.

This book : http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0070366055/

presents all the widly recogniced research that one needs to know about, to figure out VI is nothing more than bullshit.

If anyone belive in VI, I'd say read the book, or even better take a course in psychology.

[Rocky]

THis page: http://www.braintypes.com/ are a good example, my view, is that they have taken this pseudo science thing way to far, when trying to make it science. Their football analysis thing, is totally nonsense.

No offense, but here you are only proving your ignorance on the subject. You just don't "get it", but because you don't get it doesn't mean that something isn't true. You seem to be like 90% of the other people in the world; a couch expert. You sit back and criticize and force your opinions on other people without either a good knowledge of the subject or the experience of trying it out.

[Scrummy]

my main critism is against VI, not really the points you comment on, like when you VI guess at the web page, I just dont take it serious, other things like genetic research have convinced me personality type, body type and looks are not related.

Well, I actually agree. The V.I. that you see going on in this forum is not representative of V.I. as a theory, though. Most of what you'll see is still photography, which in and of itself will never lead to any solid conlusions about one's personality. You can only deduce so much about a person from a single photo without resorting to bullshit. Some of what you'll see borders on amateur phrenology.

The fact of the matter is, however, V.I. as it originally stood is actually the most accurate means of identifying someone's "type" (you'll notice I differentiate type from personality - type is a description of generalized behavior described in the context of this theory; personality is something much more complicated and variable). The functions, as I said, are merely labels for behavior that we already knew existed and that had been created by simple observation - not exactly scientific, but the observations were nothing new.

People of a certain type will exhibit certain behaviors in movement, speech, composure, thought process, etc. It's when one tries to make type something more than it really is that the problems arise and the bullshit surmounts. I've been guilty of that myself before I realized that not all INFps are like me - we may have a lot in common and may generally love each other, but type is not analagous to personality or experience.

Another system like the enneagram (also based on freud and jung), are on the same level, but it focuse more on motivations.

Actually, I was under the impression the Enneagram was based on numerology... which is actually bullshit.

[tcaudilllg]

My point, as proved by the VI tool, is that it happens by looking at a picture, and my point is that any picture, can be any personality type, looks and MBTI type are not related, that simple. Any type can also have any facial expression, at any given point in time, facial expressions are pretty universal.

Atleast to me, from my point of view, it would be natural to think about this matter in a DNA (genetical ) matter, someone could easy get looks as a mix here, personality there, and display any energy, at any given time.

Just to simplify it, of course it's not this simple, but lets say that the parents each have 20 personality related genes each, and 20 related to looks each, and I get 5 dominant personality genes from mom, only 2 from dad, while getting 7 dominant genes related to looks from dad, and 3 from mom. Assuming that none of the personality genes, and genes related to looks are related, just pure slump, as I think and are taught at school, I cannot see how visual identification from a picture, can have any validity at all.

I mean for Visual Identification so work, it must atleast be done by observations, using several indenpendent observers, over some time, following the individual in his/her daily life, or in a lab setting. But then it's something very different from just looking at a picture.


Sure, it could be that those who use VI, attribute certain facial expressions, and traits, to certain types, so it's possible to learn it as a system, or arrive at somehow similar conclusions as those who invented the systems. But this does not mean it is true.



I looked at the russian site, who use different examples of types, and 8 of 19 ENTP use glasses, there seems to me, like there is some bias towards the ENTP beeing the smartest type in this system, biggest geek (if not the INTP) using glasses dont ask me why, but this seems unfair.

Myself I scored as ENTP on the MBTI test. Why should I be any smarter just because I scored ENTP, or why should I even be an ENTP, why should I put limits on myself, why not let me be a little of everything.

Back to taking things literal.

As far as I see it, thinking in a very literal, step by step manner ( non intuitive manner), really dont fit intuitives at all, even such non intuitive persons tend to be very school smart. The things they are good at, fit modern education very well.

As far as I am concerned, intuitives think more holistic, broad, general, less detail oriented, less verbal, faster to grasp situations (extroverted intuitives) and tend to be far more on the visual side, less left brain oriented. I could go on and on about this.

those auditory types, who are great at memorising the spoken word in detail, are usually more on the S side, those who remember their own understanding/view of what was said, are more likely to be more on the N side.

All for now, please get back to me, those of you who replied.

I'm seeing threads of narcissism here. Exhaultation of the ego overtop of the superego, in particular.

[Creepy-]

THis page: http://www.braintypes.com/ are a good example, my view, is that they have taken this pseudo science thing way to far, when trying to make it science. Their football analysis thing, is totally nonsense.

No offense, but here you are only proving your ignorance on the subject. You just don't "get it", but because you don't get it doesn't mean that something isn't true. You seem to be like 90% of the other people in the world; a couch expert. You sit back and criticize and force your opinions on other people without either a good knowledge of the subject or the experience of trying it out.

My first meeting with the mbti was in 97, since then I've known all the functions of different types in the MBTI, honed, and developed my knowledge, later, not sure when, but years ago , around 2000?, when this system arrived on the web, I learned it, same with ptypes, enneagram and I've been through all the phases many of you are going through, only to arrive where I'm today. It was my personality interest, starting with hand writing analysis, later other systems, that god me started on the psychologist education. I'm talking from experience, not from some nit-wit view.



If anything, I'd recommend reading about Abraham Maslow, and Carl Rogers, these fellows really got insight on the subject of self actualisation.

I do understand the system, and I do believe VI by a picture only is bogus, other things, can be learned as a system, and well understood. Not saying it's correct, but yes it can be understood, the error as I see it happens first when it is applied to reality.

I mostly prefer dealing with the 8 Jungian subtypes, or function descriptions.

I also have plenty of experience with message boards, at one level, this stereotyping can go so far, that these boards, looks more like some cult, where only opinions who support the system are valued. Outsiders are viewed as threatening, same can be seen in Religious cults like Jehovah Witnesses, and so on.

Hope not to many here are addicted, and let their social life suffer because of message board activity, if anyone have problems with that, there is help to get.

I can, and have for many years been able to spot peoples types if I choose to think inside a system, but experience have also thought me, that the more you know someone, the harder this gets. Personality is a complex matter. And stereotyping, thinking, it is some bible, some law , that the system are fault free, black/white thinking, denying the possibility that the system just is a piece of pop psychology, are not very open minded at all (sorry to who this might offend).

Thank you.

[Creepy-]

Actually, I was under the impression the Enneagram was based on numerology... which is actually bullshit.[/quote]

The enneagram to is bullshit, but a different kind, if you find this system interesting, I'm sure you will find the enneagram interesting as well, I'd have to say the enneagram are more based on freud, compared to this system, who are more jung, however, the enneagram are more about motivations.

The similarity so to say, with this system, is that the enneagram can be breaken down to 9 types, while this have 8 functions, the point, if you read the 8 jungian types, or newer more updated function decriptions, and read basic enneagram descriptions, you will probably be able to draw some lines, as with this system, and most systems, things get off hand, when one try to take it to far, making it more than it really is, going to far down into details.

[Creepy-]

My point, as proved by the VI tool, is that it happens by looking at a picture, and my point is that any picture, can be any personality type, looks and MBTI type are not related, that simple. Any type can also have any facial expression, at any given point in time, facial expressions are pretty universal.

Atleast to me, from my point of view, it would be natural to think about this matter in a DNA (genetical ) matter, someone could easy get looks as a mix here, personality there, and display any energy, at any given time.

Just to simplify it, of course it's not this simple, but lets say that the parents each have 20 personality related genes each, and 20 related to looks each, and I get 5 dominant personality genes from mom, only 2 from dad, while getting 7 dominant genes related to looks from dad, and 3 from mom. Assuming that none of the personality genes, and genes related to looks are related, just pure slump, as I think and are taught at school, I cannot see how visual identification from a picture, can have any validity at all.

I mean for Visual Identification so work, it must atleast be done by observations, using several indenpendent observers, over some time, following the individual in his/her daily life, or in a lab setting. But then it's something very different from just looking at a picture.


Sure, it could be that those who use VI, attribute certain facial expressions, and traits, to certain types, so it's possible to learn it as a system, or arrive at somehow similar conclusions as those who invented the systems. But this does not mean it is true.



I looked at the russian site, who use different examples of types, and 8 of 19 ENTP use glasses, there seems to me, like there is some bias towards the ENTP beeing the smartest type in this system, biggest geek (if not the INTP) using glasses dont ask me why, but this seems unfair.

Myself I scored as ENTP on the MBTI test. Why should I be any smarter just because I scored ENTP, or why should I even be an ENTP, why should I put limits on myself, why not let me be a little of everything.

Back to taking things literal.

As far as I see it, thinking in a very literal, step by step manner ( non intuitive manner), really dont fit intuitives at all, even such non intuitive persons tend to be very school smart. The things they are good at, fit modern education very well.

As far as I am concerned, intuitives think more holistic, broad, general, less detail oriented, less verbal, faster to grasp situations (extroverted intuitives) and tend to be far more on the visual side, less left brain oriented. I could go on and on about this.

those auditory types, who are great at memorising the spoken word in detail, are usually more on the S side, those who remember their own understanding/view of what was said, are more likely to be more on the N side.

All for now, please get back to me, those of you who replied.

I'm seeing threads of narcissism here. Exhaultation of the ego overtop of the superego, in particular.

Good analysis. That is one way to look at it, for sure.

[Rocky]

I'm talking from experience, not from some nit-wit view.

Are you claiming that you don't see it? How? I think it's as clear as the nose on your face when you look in the mirror.

I do understand the system, and I do believe VI by a picture only is bogus, other things, can be learned as a system, and well understood. Not saying it's correct, but yes it can be understood, the error as I see it happens first when it is applied to reality.

I don't put too much in VI when it is *soley* based on photographs.

I mostly prefer dealing with the 8 Jungian subtypes, or function descriptions.

Don't you believe that people have secondary functions as well? Leading to 16 types, obviously, even though Jung didn't bother to describe them in detail, although he mentioned the differneces.

I also have plenty of experience with message boards, at one level, this stereotyping can go so far, that these boards, looks more like some cult, where only opinions who support the system are valued. Outsiders are viewed as threatening, same can be seen in Religious cults like Jehovah Witnesses, and so on.

We don't know you and no one has told you to completely fuck off, have they? (No matter how sketchy your agenda seems to be).

Hope not to many here are addicted, and let their social life suffer because of message board activity, if anyone have problems with that, there is help to get.

[Creepy-]

By the way, if you choose to go into the enneagram, I'd reccomend this author, I've got 4 books on it myself, but you can get by with just one.

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/books_tapes.asp

I dont have the newest, this is the best of those I've got on the subject: http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/books/Books_PT.asp

So if you want to waste a few dollars..It's not great, but it's a fun system to read, great for tea parties if that is your thing

[Creepy-]

[quote="Rocky"]

I'm talking from experience, not from some nit-wit view.

Are you claiming that you don't see it? How? I think it's as clear as the nose on your face when you look in the mirror.

I do understand the system, and I do believe VI by a picture only is bogus, other things, can be learned as a system, and well understood. Not saying it's correct, but yes it can be understood, the error as I see it happens first when it is applied to reality.

I don't put too much in VI when it is *soley* based on photographs.

Great, then we agree.

I mostly prefer dealing with the 8 Jungian subtypes, or function descriptions.

Don't you believe that people have secondary functions as well? Leading to 16 types, obviously, even though Jung didn't bother to describe them in detail, although he mentioned the differneces.


I think that is an interesting abstraction to play with, I think people use all kinds of functions, really, it's the order, the over-accurateness, I do not like. The claim to know function order, trying to over analyse everything, I think that doing this, really is not needed. The best typers that I know of,
tend to be of the ENFP subtype in this system, and they are not known to be very detail oriented, but again, are ENFP, or is it just bogus, if you know for sure, then I'd say you know something you cannot know.

[Rocky]

The best typers are ISTxs and you know it!

[Creepy-]

The best typers are ISTxs and you know it!

An interesting thing, I've think systems like these appeal more to intuitives, or those who tend to be on that side..But , can devenlop an interest, or so I thinkm how you an , got into it, is a mystery..

But then again, now I'm doing, what I'm against, So I'd shut up instead.

[Rocky]

The best typers are ISTxs and you know it!

An interesting thing, I've think systems like these appeal more to intuitives, or those who tend to be on that side..But , can devenlop an interest, or so I thinkm how you an , got into it, is a mystery..

But then again, now I'm doing, what I'm against, So I'd shut up instead.

Yeah, you're right. Jonathan Niednagel (ISTj) mentioned that in his BrainTypes book. He claimed that people with his type are less likely to be draw to this stuff, yet his is irronically one of the better ones for noticing and observing traits in people on an everyday basis. What I found surpising about some people is that they don't care to "figure" out the types of every person they meet. I'm always curious to know with with every person I meet, in fact, I try with every person I see walking by. Strange.