True VI

[Raver]

I've always been critical of V.I., but most specifically one component of V.I. I am aware that visual identification takes into account several things in order to identify a person's type. However, I don't believe V.I. should even take into consideration of a person's facial structure. That is because someone isn't going to have round eyes or a pointy nose because of the way their brain developed. They will have that as a result of their D.N.A., meaning whatever they inherited from their parents.

However, I believe that when it comes to facial expressions and mannerisms, it can be very efficient in identifying someone's personality type. I've noticed people that look alike, but their facial expressions made them look very different overall. If two identical twins had a different personality type, they will look different and give different vibes as a result of the different facial expressions.

[Olga]

I will be not surprised that in a few years when we shall have a school of socionincs, VI will be a very important component in identifying the type.
If you find it difficult to type by VI it does not mean that it is not a relyable tool. Tools should be many as different types have different gifts and have got right to choose to use them to their best ability.

I do agree that one and the same type can produce very different face features and display very different facial expressions. It can be very misleading if you have not got the practice of interacting with all types.
VI is can be very easy and very complex depending on experiences. Some types strike you and some types you need to analyse. so far in my book I have got only one picture attache to each type and each picture have got very distinctive type expressions. If I am not sure I try to look from different perspectives, taking into account all available info.

Type is is not just face features, it is a soul which looks through it, I mean an inner content of self. Up today there is no information about the differences within the type and that may be another reason that visually types do remind each other. For example, my face features are not that different from those of Napoleon and I am ISFJ. However, my daughter is ESFP and she does not look like Napoleon at all and so a few others ESFP I know. When we learn to see the psyche behind the face than we shall understand the magic of VI... However, if you think it is not your cup of tea... that's fine, isn't it? You can find something what will work for you!
Hugo seems not to rely on VI either since he is working hard on super power test.

[Raver]

I've always been critical of V.I., but most specifically one component of V.I. I am aware that visual identification takes into account several things in order to identify a person's type. However, I don't believe V.I. should even take into consideration of a person's facial structure. That is because someone isn't going to have round eyes or a pointy nose because of the way their brain developed. They will have that as a result of their D.N.A., meaning whatever they inherited from their parents.

However, I believe that when it comes to facial expressions and mannerisms, it can be very efficient in identifying someone's personality type. I've noticed people that look alike, but their facial expressions made them look very different overall. If two identical twins had a different personality type, they will look different and give different vibes as a result of the different facial expressions.

Yup yup yup. I've been trying to tell some people this, but no one will listen. I mean, you just can't say, "Heyy, that guy is ENFj because he has ENFj ears." THAT DOESN"T WORK LIKE THAT!

Nice to know that were on the same page on this one Kraus.

[Phaedrus]

However, I don't believe V.I. should even take into consideration of a person's facial structure. That is because someone isn't going to have round eyes or a pointy nose because of the way their brain developed. They will have that as a result of their D.N.A., meaning whatever they inherited from their parents.

So, what's the problem? Don't you believe that your personality is inherited and a result of your DNA? We should expect a correlation between traits of personality and physical characteristics, and one of the reasons for that is that we have (quite recently) discovered that we don't have as many genes as we previously thought we had. That probably means that the information that determines our personal traits have to "live together in the same apartment", i.e. be located in the same place, and therefore it is possible that, for example, one specific personality trait is always linked with some specific physical trait and almost never with a totally different physical trait. But this is rather speculative, and I'm not an expert on genetics, so maybe someone else could explain it better.

[Raver]

However, I don't believe V.I. should even take into consideration of a person's facial structure. That is because someone isn't going to have round eyes or a pointy nose because of the way their brain developed. They will have that as a result of their D.N.A., meaning whatever they inherited from their parents.

So, what's the problem? Don't you believe that your personality is inherited and a result of your DNA? We should expect a correlation between traits of personality and physical characteristics, and one of the reasons for that is that we have (quite recently) discovered that we don't have as many genes as we previously thought we had. That probably means that the information that determines our personal traits have to "live together in the same apartment", i.e. be located in the same place, and therefore it is possible that, for example, one specific personality trait is always linked with some specific physical trait and almost never with a totally different physical trait. But this is rather speculative, and I'm not an expert on genetics, so maybe someone else could explain it better.

Well, our personalities are the result of the D.N.A., which was formed from our parents. Our physical characteristics also come from the same source. I understand what your saying that our D.N.A. is inter-connected and everything is compressed and formed in unison. However, I feel that our D.N.A. is more complicated than that. You believe that our D.N.A. is equivalent to several liquids poured into one glass. I believe that is true, but there are several compartments that do not interfere with eachother, but not too many.

[Rick]

I agree with the posts so far. Why would perception be related to ear size or eyebrow shape? When I use V.I. (which is a lot), I look at what information the person's face is conveying, not what facial features they have. People of the same type tend to convey similar information with their faces. After all, much of communication is unspoken and is conveyed using movements and expressions.

There is a guy in Russia ("Typolog") who has a site on "physiognomic socionics." There you will find diagrams showing the proportions of different facial measurements and their correlation with type. This is absurd, and the guy is very peripheral in socionics. His typings also come out very lopsided (lots of some types and very few people of others).

I think V.I. gets a bad rap because of people like him and because it cannot be learned through some methodology, but only through experience. I would add, "years of experience."

Some people are very good at identifying personality traits through pictures, even with no knowledge of socionics.

I often see patterns of facial features and physical traits among types. However, in every case they hold only for a minority sub-group of the type. There are never traits that are true for every person of the type. The source of these patterns is a mystery.

One possible partial explanation is that non-random reproduction produces pools of certain traits. For example, if people significantly more than 25% of the time reproduce within their quadra, then certain gene combinations might accumulate within quadras. As a result, the most externally "typical" representatives of each type would be those whose ancestors reproduced most with people from that quadra. And the most unusual representatives would be people whose ancestors were more often from a different quadra.

[Catholic Schoolboy]

Perhaps it is only because I am Ni dominant, but I have a data bank of what everyone looks like and our interactions in my mind some how. So, I have the ability to "visually identify" those people that I will like and those that I will not like from a mere glance. Is this off topic? I hope not.

[Olga]

It is not just about how beautiful face features. It is intuitive knowledge of some sort of compatibility or not compatibility. Of course we may stil rationalise with our mind about the person and even get biased in perception and one day it is a conflict and then you know for sure. It happens to me because I am not intuitive subtype. I always knew what types of faces I like. It can be also comapred with some sort of a genetic
programm to sympothesize with those who may suit us better.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Hugo]

Yup yup yup. I've been trying to tell some people this, but no one will listen. I mean, you just can't say, "Heyy, that guy is ENFj because he has ENFj ears." THAT DOESN"T WORK LIKE THAT!

[emeye]

I think it would be cool to just do an "experimental" socionics, where people are just simply "grouped" together by other people. It would be ineteresting to see how many different "types" pop up, after correcting for things like socio-economic, race, interests, etc.

There's really only two: jerks, and everybody else. As to which group I belong to--your guess is as good as mine.

However, I vaguely recollect a quote of David Gerrold: the one who divides the people into us and them, automatically becomes one of them.

Cheers,
Marino