DCNH visual identification

[JohnDo]

I got the impression that problems with typing have something to do with facial structure. Similiar discussions occur on this forum. There is certainly a correlation between consensus and facial structure.

1.) People with round faces have a strengthened base function. So the base function can easily be determined whereas the creative function is frequently hard to tell.
Example: Colin Powell is clearly Ti-dominant, IxTj. Hard to say if LII or LSI.

2.) People with square faces have a strengthened creative function. This frequently leads to problems with typing the temperament.
Example: Barack Obama is clearly xNFx. Temperament is hard to say.

3.) People with rectangular faces have a strengthened ignoring function. This leads to problems with the E-I-dichotomy.

4.) People with oval faces have a strengthened demonstrative function. So the 4-dimensional functions are obvious but it is hard to determine which is which. The j-p-dichotmomy is the problem here.
Examples: Jennifer Lopez (SEE or ESE), George W. Bush (LSE or SLE).

[jewels]

I don't think we can tell anything from facial structure beyond physical facial structure.

The facial expressions that a face makes can tell us a person's type by giving us hints about what their brain is doing. Expressions show on a face. But the size of someone's forehead tells us nothing.

You can VI only using facial expressions, not the size or shape of features.

For example, an ISTp usually looks calm, eyes more unfocused than an ISTj, blank expression or a slight closed smile or a bit of a smirk. The size of their nose? Doesn't tell us anything. I've seen ISTps with all kinds of looks, shapes and sizes, guys and girls. But the expression remains the same.

[Absurd]

The facial expressions that a face makes can tell us a person's type by giving us hints about what their brain is doing.

[jewels]

lol

[Absurd]

lol

Keep it coming

[JohnDo]

You can VI only using facial expressions, not the size or shape of features.

That is definitely wrong. V.I. not only works with facial expressions but also with facial features. People who have typed enough people are able to see characteristic facial structure...

I've seen ISTps with all kinds of looks, shapes and sizes

I 'm of the opinion that there are 4 facial structures for each type. Are you familiar with the DCNH system?

[jewels]

That is definitely wrong. V.I. not only works with facial expressions but also with facial features. People who have typed enough people are able to see characteristic facial structure...

I 'm of the opinion that there are 4 facial structures for each type. Are you familiar with the DCNH system?

That's total crap. I know that exists, but it's wrong. It was once "common wisdom" that black people were stupid because of their facial features...haven't we learned we can't tell anything from facial features size/shape etc?

[exILEd]

That's total crap. I know that exists, but it's wrong. It was once "common wisdom" that black people were stupid because of their facial features...haven't we learned we can't tell anything from facial features size/shape etc?

According to this study we can (well, physical appearance):

Dec-11-2009 "Personalities Accurately Judged by Physical Appearance Alone"
Personalities accurately judged by physical appearance alone

I get your point though jewels - it smacks of some antiquated turn of the 20th century stuff that was used to condemn anyone who wasn't a cracker-white English dude.

Hope we've learned by now that's stupid. For what I do (programming), I see bright people from all over the planet.

If someone off the street can accurately type based on photographs (which may tell a different story - things the person was doing, what they were wearing, who they were engaged in a conversation with), it seems there's something there.


...exILEd

PS: another study that was kind of freaky and related - "People identify the sexual orientation of strangers as fast as 50 milliseconds"

People identify the sexual orientation of strangers as fast as 50 milliseconds : Cognitive Daily

[xerx]

What's his type?

[jewels]

According to this study we can (well, physical appearance):

Dec-11-2009 "Personalities Accurately Judged by Physical Appearance Alone"
Personalities accurately judged by physical appearance alone

I get your point though jewels - it smacks of some antiquated turn of the 20th century stuff that was used to condemn anyone who wasn't a cracker-white English dude.

Hope we've learned by now that's stupid. For what I do (programming), I see bright people from all over the planet.

If someone off the street can accurately type based on photographs (which may tell a different story - things the person was doing, what they were wearing, who they were engaged in a conversation with), it seems there's something there.


...exILEd

PS: another study that was kind of freaky and related - "People identify the sexual orientation of strangers as fast as 50 milliseconds"

People identify the sexual orientation of strangers as fast as 50 milliseconds : Cognitive Daily

All of those studies are about how hormone levels influence facial appearance (so you know, big jaws on guys with lots of testosterone). And yes, you can determine things like the level of testosterone in a guy or estrogen in a girl based on this -- which tells you limited things, like how aggressive a guy may act. Same thing with looking at finger length which tells you about hormone exposure in the womb and testosterone levels, etc.

BUT, I see no link between hormones and personality type (I believe type is inborn). A girl with a manly face may have more testosterone, but she can still be an IEE. Her twin could be SLI with the same face.

And I've known some very manly big jawed faced IEE guys, so I don't see at all how it would be related to personality type.

[Aiss]

That is definitely wrong. V.I. not only works with facial expressions but also with facial features. People who have typed enough people are able to see characteristic facial structure...

You keep repeating "typed enough people". Sorry to break it to you, but practice alone doesn't make perfect. If you're typing them wrongly you're just making the same errors again and again, and confirmation bias will keep you happy about your abilities.

[Jarno]

You keep repeating "typed enough people". Sorry to break it to you, but practice alone doesn't make perfect. If you're typing them wrongly you're just making the same errors again and again, and confirmation bias will keep you happy about your abilities.

yeah that's theory. In practice you'll eventually type enough people right, and you'll start seeing some striking similarities in their faces. Nonetheless VI is still a bit overrated. We had a couple of experiments on this forum with typing friends of forum members, who knew their friends type. Nobody scored better guessing their type than a monkey would do... So for practical use, VI is limited. Though once in a while you'll spot someone in real life who's an exact copy of a known type. That's nice.

[Aiss]

yeah that's theory. In practice you'll eventually type enough people right, and you'll start seeing some striking similarities in their faces. Nonetheless VI is still a bit overrated. We had a couple of experiments on this forum with typing friends of forum members, who knew their friends type. Nobody scored better guessing their type than a monkey would do... So for practical use, VI is limited. Though once in a while you'll spot someone in real life who's an exact copy of a known type. That's nice.

Yes, but that's coming up with VI as a side-effect of typing. And then it may be not necessarily structure but expressions, which I see some people here advocate. The way JohnDo describes it in another thread, he assigns subtype according to his theory, then sees if it works. Purely deductive approach without verification (like finding out people's subtypes, then checking if it fits with his VI theory).

Not that it matters to me personally since I have no idea what shape my face qualifies as, nor what is my subtype.

[JohnDo]

Let's improve our V.I. skills, type by type. If my hypothesis concerning facial structure is correct it will help with typing tremendously...

D-LII (rectangular face): Christian Rach, German cook (I couldn't find a better example)


C-LII (square face): Al Gore


N-LII (round face): Frank-Walter Steinmeier


H-LII (oval face): Thomas Jefferson

[717495]

All of those faces are oval.

[JohnDo]

All of those faces are oval.

But some are more oval than others

Reminds me of animal farm:
All animals are equal - but some are more equal than others.

Look:
Steinmeier's face looks rather ( )-like.
Gore's face looks rather [ ]-like
Jefferson's face looks rather ()-like.
Rach's face looks rather []-like.

You have to compare people of one type (like LII in this case). It's pointless to compare them to people of other types and say "they are all oval".

[Gilly]

This is fucking psychotic.

[Crispy]

But what if it's true?!?

[xerx]

This is fucking psychotic.

But so epic!

[JohnDo]

D-LSE (round face): Dick Cheney


C-LSE (oval face): George W. Bush


N-LSE (rectangular face): a person from socioniko.net cause I don't know any celebrities of this type. But the father of my cousin's husband looks the same...


H-LSE (square face): Helmut Kohl

[Cyrano]

If this guy is LSE,

D-LSE (round face): Dick Cheney

Then so is this guy...

[Trevor]

I got the impression that problems with typing have something to do with facial structure. Similiar discussions occur on this forum. There is certainly a correlation between consensus and facial structure.

1.) People with round faces have a strengthened base function. So the base function can easily be determined whereas the creative function is frequently hard to tell.
Example: Colin Powell is clearly Ti-dominant, IxTj. Hard to say if LII or LSI.

2.) People with square faces have a strengthened creative function. This frequently leads to problems with typing the temperament.
Example: Barack Obama is clearly xNFx. Temperament is hard to say.

3.) People with rectangular faces have a strengthened ignoring function. This leads to problems with the E-I-dichotomy.

4.) People with oval faces have a strengthened demonstrative function. So the 4-dimensional functions are obvious but it is hard to determine which is which. The j-p-dichotomy is the problem here.
Examples: Jennifer Lopez (SEE or ESE), George W. Bush (LSE or SLE).

No man. It isn't that simple. Why are people always mistaking low-quality correlations for a high-quality ones? Is it due to laziness? It's what gave birth to astrology and similar crap. A lot of the problem can be attributed to generalizing when there's not the time, nor the place i.e. generalizing where the sample size simply forbids one to do so..sometimes sample being N=1.(I guess it's just the way how brain works) It's what gave birth to astrology, hateful nationalism and to similar crap.

[JohnDo]

No man. It isn't that simple.

You can easily prove that! Just tell me the DCNH type of 10 celebrities where it doesn't fit...

Why are people always mistaking low-quality correlations for a high-quality ones? Is it due to laziness?

It is due to confirmation bias. But in this case I'm sure of the correlation I described...

It's what gave birth to astrology and similar crap. A lot of the problem can be attributed to generalizing when there's not the time, nor the place i.e. generalizing where the sample size simply forbids one to do so..sometimes sample being N=1.(I guess it's just the way how brain works) It's what gave birth to astrology, hateful nationalism and to similar crap.

True.

[Trevor]

You can easily prove that! Just tell me the DCNH type of 10 celebrities where it doesn't fit...

I cannot do that because, in my opinion, in most of people, DCNH subtype is changeable. Therefore making absolute DCNH categorization of all people quite futile. Of course, you can categorize them once and for all in an absolute way, by spliting DCNH continuum into two, perhaps 50-50, categories. However, given that people are (so it seems) normaly distributed on DCNH dichotomy continuums it often makes the task futile(EDIT: 02/06/2010 - or not). DCNH relativity level is just repulsing. Only place where it's proper is the place where all relativity is proper => regarding relations between objects.

[JohnDo]

We don't need to lead the same discussion in two threads...

[Default]

Can't seem to pinpoint my subtype, whether I'm creative or harmonizing.
I know for a fact that I'm initiating - clearly expressed irrationality, no doubt in my mind... but I'm unsure about the degree of extraversion/introversion and (especially) connecting/ignoring.

I can't do it in accepting/producing subtype form either... Wikisocion seems to be a little vague to me, since I can identify fairly well with both - or think I do, anyway.

What is the observable disparity between them? What kind of situations would they act differently in, and what exactly would they do differently?
I'm an SLI, 9w8-5w6-2w3 sx/sp, by the way.

[JohnDo]

Determining your subtype is only reliable if you already know enough people of your own main type. If you know 5 SLIs for sure you can compare them, determine their subtypes and determine your own subtype.

If you are the only SLI you know for sure subtyping is a rather pointless exercise.
If you are not even sure of your main type - don't think about subtypes.

You could post some pictures so that we can verify your typing...

[xixi]

do you have more of a square jaw or a sesame seed shaped jaw?

going by JohnDo's VI method...

square jaw*/ square face =creative
sesame seed jaw/ oval face =harmonizing

*rectangular faces can also have square jaws, but of course they have longer faces

[FDG]

square jaw/ square face =creative
sesame seed/ oval face =harmonizing

lol

[JohnDo]

going by JohnDo's VI method...

square jaw*/ square face =creative
sesame seed jaw/ oval face =harmonizing

No, that's wrong. My method is a bit more complicated. It's not really a method but rather a discovery btw....

base - round
creative - square
demonstrative -oval
ignoring - rectangular

A C-LII has a square face, a H-LII an oval face. But that's only for Ixxj!
His self-typing is ISTp.

base function: --- harmonizing subtype --- round face
creative function: --- dominant subtype --- square face
demonstrative function: --- normalizing subtype --- oval face
ignoring function: --- creative subtype --- rectangular face

[Default]

Determining your subtype is only reliable if you already know enough people of your own main type. If you know 5 SLIs for sure you can compare them, determine their subtypes and determine your own subtype.

If you are the only SLI you know for sure subtyping is a rather pointless exercise.
If you are not even sure of your main type - don't think about subtypes.

You could post some pictures so that we can verify your typing...

I have a friend who's an ISTp.
Compare? When you say it like that, I have noticed that he's more contained than I am. I'm the one who likes speculating and joking around and what not, and he's usually the one who just listens and laughs at what people say (when he's not drunk or high, anyway...)
I guess this points more toward creative subtype for me.

I posted some pictures a while back but deleted them, too lazy right now to post them again.

No, that's wrong. My method is a bit more complicated. It's not really a method but rather a discovery btw....

base - round
creative - square
demonstrative -oval
ignoring - rectangular

A C-LII has a square face, a H-LII an oval face. But that's only for Ixxj!
His self-typing is ISTp.

base function: --- harmonizing subtype --- round face
creative function: --- dominant subtype --- square face
demonstrative function: --- normalizing subtype --- oval face
ignoring function: --- creative subtype --- rectangular face

Going by your system, I would be a creative or normalizing subtype, and my friend would be of a harmonizing subtype.

How have you come to these conclusions, though?
I'm more than a little skeptical, in all honesty, but I'm no expert.

[xixi]

No, that's wrong. My method is a bit more complicated. It's not really a method but rather a discovery btw....

base - round
creative - square
demonstrative -oval
ignoring - rectangular

A C-LII has a square face, a H-LII an oval face. But that's only for Ixxj!
His self-typing is ISTp.

base function: --- harmonizing subtype --- round face
creative function: --- dominant subtype --- square face
demonstrative function: --- normalizing subtype --- oval face
ignoring function: --- creative subtype --- rectangular face

...square face means having strengthened creative function, but that doesn't mean 'creative subtype'...
harmonizing/dominant/etc...is not defined as the position of the strengthened function, but its nature...

[JohnDo]

Aiss is of the opinion that I never explained what I mean by a "roundish" or a "longish" face e.g.

Here are some pictures of persons who where typed by Ekaterina Filatova. I'll subtype them by their facial structure to illustrate what I mean when I'm talking about a "rectangular face" or something like that. See Visual Identification of Subtypes.

Sooner or later this approach might help to find doppelgängers more easily. The problem is that one picture is not in all cases enough because the facial structure can be difficult to determine sometimes. So yes, I probably will make some mistakes but with more pictures it would be reliable. I'll start with roundish/longish...

SEI \ ISFp
roundish:



longish:





ILE \ ENTp
roundish:


longish:






LII \ INTj

roundish:


longish:

[JohnDo]

ESE \ ESFj

roundish:



longish:





LSI \ ISTj
roundish:


longish:







EIE \ ENFj
roundish:


longish:



[/B]

[JohnDo]

IEI \ INFp
roundish:


longish:






SLE \ ESTp
roundish:


longish:







ILI \ INTp
roundish:


longish:

[JohnDo]

SEE \ ESFp
roundish:



longish:






ESI \ ISFj
roundish:



longish:





LIE \ ENTj
roundish:



longish:

[tcaudilllg]

My opinion is that given there is no criteria offered for these typings, they are mostly useless.

[JohnDo]

EII \ INFj
roundish:


longish:





LSE \ ESTj
roundish:



longish:






SLI \ ISTp
roundish:

[JohnDo]

Clearly a roundish face, not much longer than broad:




Clearly a longish face, much longer than broad:




Hard to tell from this perspective:

[1981slater]

How to type someone just be the way they walk:

Dominant
Normalizing: move as a train, on imaginary rails
*
Creative
Harmonizing: move in smooth trajectories
*
Dominant
Creative: move quickly
*
Normalizing
Harmonizing: move slowly