Just a Lil' VI-Curious

[Tom]

Is there any truth to the stuff?

It all seems to be too subjective and, frankly, absolutely ridiculous that someone could be typed simply by looking at them.

So make me an argument worthy of all the allusions in this post!

I'd really like to know.

[Mediator Kam]

you can remove 12-14 types from consideration just by looking at them.

it is proven fact.

[Tom]

Great. Explanation?

[Mediator Kam]

It's all with matching a person's looks to a certain quadra, and then you decide if they are ethical or rational. That is all it is to me, although you are probably looking for a more wholesome rationale.

[munenori2]

Great. Explanation?

mustache

[Tom]

Sooo what sorts of things tip you off so well?

[Tom]

mustache

Apart from mustaches, of course.

[Mediator Kam]

Sooo what sorts of things tip you off so well?

You know, that I am not sure I can quantify. I just get a vibe from people's photographs and actions what quadra they are in. It can't be reduced to a checklist for me.

[Mediator Kam]

It's about undertones and expressions. I'm not great at VI, but I do believe that if you type enough people it gets easier.

go dual go

[Warlord]

Is there any truth to the stuff?

Well it works, so it must be. It just isn't very reliable. There are problems like:

One type has different looks, with interconnecting continuums of these looks.

There's lot of data to be learned to make the right connections, and person posesses only a fraction of it.

You have to look at the right features.

Ethnicity

Etc.

---
Expressions add lot of information to this, because they are more similar than the different looks.

[Bardia]

It is is kind of like the Rorschach inkblot test: not very reliable or valid but none the less useful in some situations.

[Steve]

What I find most helpful is watching videos of people or seeing people in action, and pictures usually convey aspects of this, which is why I look at a lot of pictures.

In videos you can get a sense of how a person interacts and you can even imagine how they'd interact with you - at that point you can start recognizing quadra values, temperament, and start seeing similarities and differences between yourself.

It really helps when you can see a bunch of pictures of people who are your identical so you can create a default vibe.

[strrrng]

It's more useful than reading some contrived bullshit someone writes about themselves. And especially in person, because then you see the person interacting with their environment, and the natural functional preferences evince themselves. Pictures only reveal so much, as do audio and video, albeit still illustrating legitimate patterns, if you know what to look for.

On the whole, I find it incredibly reliable, and almost always in line with any "behavioral description" a person writes about themselves. As long as you understand the stuff you're supposed to be looking for correctly, the patterns will naturally emerge in surprisingly consistent ways.

[Minde]

Is there any truth to the stuff?

It all seems to be too subjective and, frankly, absolutely ridiculous that someone could be typed simply by looking at them.

So make me an argument worthy of all the allusions in this post!

I'd really like to know.

It is subjective, mostly, as far as I can tell. I think some people have tried to tie it to physical characteristics, trying to make it more concrete maybe, but I personally don't try to do that. For me, it is akin to non-verbal communication - receiving the unspoken signals and communiques of the body and face and then translating that into a better understanding of the person.

So, basically, if you can tell that the person talking to you doesn't want to talk anymore, even if they don't say so, you've just done a version of VI.

How's that?

[UDP]

I think VI has its uses, but it's a more advanced technique, so to say. The problem with VI is that photographs are variable, and expressions are variable. There are tendencies, but, it depends much on the nature of the happening, so it can be misleading. Still, some things can be picked out, and I think over years of interacting and observing you can develop more consistent accuracy. I don't consider myself an expert at VI, and I've never met anyone who is particularly "always spot on".

I think some little-spoken-of prerequisites are being able to understand the vibes people give off that are non-verbal (similar to what Minde said). When you start realizing what Fe dominance feels like from someone; when you see how Se+Ti has a certain sharpness to it; and so on, then more recognizable physical traits may appear in photographs (or more so, in the person).

I think "VI" - as in, Video Identification - might be superior to picture ID, but even those can be posed. The best is seeing someone interact irl naturally. VI, video, or anything else - you need to know the person as well as the situation around them, the environment, and what the motivation behind their decisions in that situation is, then you can understand them, and see how behaviors play into physical things.

[ZTCrawcrustle]

VI (as it applies to stillframe pictures) is of very limited use. First, it requires a specific type of picture, one that shows the person's "natural expression." Half the time this means that the person should not be aware of being photographed. I imagine mugshots may work as well. However, as soon as the person is aware of being photographed, you cannot draw any conclusions apart from how they want to look. Generally, I see no need for VI as I would not trust a typing based solely on it until there was further confirmation from another source.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Hmm well, VI may well give an extra piece of information about a person's type, but it's not something I place all that much confidence in anymore...it seems so much more insightful to actually meet a person in order to get possible insights into their type.

[717495]

It's more useful than reading some contrived bullshit someone writes about themselves. And especially in person, because then you see the person interacting with their environment, and the natural functional preferences evince themselves. Pictures only reveal so much, as do audio and video, albeit still illustrating legitimate patterns, if you know what to look for.

On the whole, I find it incredibly reliable, and almost always in line with any "behavioral description" a person writes about themselves. As long as you understand the stuff you're supposed to be looking for correctly, the patterns will naturally emerge in surprisingly consistent ways.

I think you can put people into VI categories and claim the expressions and behaviors of people ESI, and these EII, etc. But you're not really identifying deep thought processes are you? You have a few images or videos of them that might not even be their traditional look or temperament. I for one never look like I do in my photos, extremely aware of the camera, dressed up, living in the moment. I'm just expending behavior that I believe suits a certain situation. All situations differ, I could be doing something completely different the next time I'm out. Who knows? I definitely don't have any photos of my brainwaves handy.

[strrrng]

I think you can put people into VI categories and claim the expressions and behaviors of people ESI, and these EII, etc. But you're not really identifying deep thought processes are you? You have a few images or videos of them that might not even be their traditional look or temperament. I for one never look like I do in my photos, extremely aware of the camera, dressed up, living in the moment. I'm just expending behavior that I believe suits a certain situation. All situations differ, I could be doing something completely different the next time I'm out. Who knows? I definitely don't have any photos of my brainwaves handy.

That's why VI isn't based on things like projecting an image, an emotional state, an outfit within a physical setting, or any other variable bullshit. It's about the nuances that manifest in certain types' looks, demeanors and energies, regardless of how they may (try to) appear in a given situation.

[717495]

It's all theoretical.

[strrrng]

It's all theoretical.

No, it isn't. And that's why you're misconstruing it here.

[717495]

I'm not saying I haven't been in the trenches.

[The Exception]

I think there might be something to the VI method if one knows what to look for but too often people focus in on the wrong things. I don't see how things such as a large nose or one's body type is type related. That's more of a genetic thing, not a behavioral thing. On the other hand, one's facial expressions and movements could give clues to one's type, especially if there are certain expressions/movements that seem to be favored with that person and one knows the context that leads to the expressions/movements.

[marooned]

I found this helpful tool: Totally Looks Like… Famous People and Celeb Look-A-Likes

Actually, I just ran into it and wanted to slap it on some VI thread somewhere because I felt VI wouldn't be complete without it.

[wilma]

is there a library system where people can find pictures of types or compareison??

[The Exception]

is there a library system where people can find pictures of types or compareison??

SOCIONICS: Functions, Types, Tests