Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: How do you actually learn VI?

  1. #1
    photon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    49
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default How do you actually learn VI?

    I've seen the visual identification article, filatova portraits & photographs, pinterest boards, etc. But I can't find any sources that actually explain how to use VI as a typing method. I noticed it's a common typing method on here for other members, but what criteria are you using? I've seen a page about the demonstrative function, and many photographs. Do you use the dichotomies or memorise the appearance of each socionics TIM?

    The visual identification article discusses this;

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    Extroverts: open look, lively in communication, active, with somewhat superficial curiosity (with no intention to go deeper into the subject), strive to grasp as much as possible, unconstrained gesticulation "from the shoulder on", quick movements, tendency to dominate in interaction and upon contact. In conversations extraverts express impressions about the things they've seen rather than evaluate them.
    Introverts: they are looking "from inside a shell", alert, reserved behavior, submission in contacts, their curiosity slowly awakens (they have a tendency to go progressively deeper into the discussed topic), reserved gesticulation "from the elbow". Introverts express their attitudes rather than facts (I like or dislike; it is ok or not ok, etc.).

    Rationals (dominant T or F): possess certain sharpness and distinction in their well-coordinated movements, there is certain tension in their bearing (rigid back, upright posture). Their gait is straight, motions sharp. When person of a rational type sits down, he keeps his back straight, rarely bends over to the side, even when he leans upon the chair back. There is a tendency to be punctual and rarely late. His speech does not contain cyclical repeats or excessive associative images, is unlikely to contain "Um" between phrases. During conversations this person either does not gesticulate or the gestures appear only after the phrases that these gestures are supposed to "illustrate".
    Irrationals: their whole appearance seems "fluid", loose, their body easily bends, takes the shape of the arm-chair, sofa etc…; when they sit down, they may lean upon the chair elbow-rests or back, their own back may bend a lot. Their gait is floating, rolling, soaring, their motions may make impression of being unexpected or poorly coordinated. When an Irrational stands, some parts of his body are moving "separately from the others" – hands, fingers, torso, or head. It is difficult for an Irrational to keep his body in a steady position. They do not like long meetings, reports, or performances – in the duration, they often want to "leave for a minute to have a cigarette", distract themselves, or take a nap. Their speech contains cyclical repeats i.e. when they complete a thought, it is as if they recall something and come back to what they already said; it is often either too slow (introverts) or tangled and "stumbling" (extraverts). Compared to Rationals, it more often contains parasite words ("here", "um", "like", "you know" etc). Their phrases are lacking in verbs (this is especially characteristic of intuitive irrationals), are often preceded by "Um", or by hand gestures, as if they are catching something in the air – from aside it looks as if the person is trying to find the right verbal form for the image he has already created in his mind. Irrationals like an abundance of sensory impressions, especially visual, and get tired of lengthy conversations.

    Logical: his face is contemplative; emotions are contrasting; his interests are related to objective reality. Eyebrows are lower compared to the Ethical types and approach eyes. Look is somewhat dull, "without a glimmer". Sensing Logicians, though, may have a fixed and attentive look, but most of the time it remains cold and unlively. Their emotional dynamics are only vaguely reflected on the face, but can manifest in voice modulations. Very often Logical types make the impression of being unflappable. They pay attention to facts and possess great erudition. Often they allow themselves to make unethical remarks, because "they want to say the truth". Their speech, compared to Ethical types, is more strict, "dry", and logically relevant; it may include foreign words or special terminology. They easily operate long complex or compound sentences.
    Ethical: their faces are changeable depending on their mood, and exhibit a spectrum of feelings and shades of emotions. Their interest often lies in people and their relationships. Their own mood is depended on the mood of others. They are sensitive, even touchy. They often have a smile on their faces. Eyebrows are often raised over their eyes, and even bent upwards. To a Logical type, the speech of an Ethical type to be fragmentary, as if built on hints. However, the "hints" of the Ethical types can be distinguished from the associations made by Intuitive Logical type in that they lack the "second associative layer". Their seeming incompleteness is perceived by the Ethical type himself as total completeness: he has marked an object with certain emotionally colored words and thus gave it a full characterization – "why cannot others understand then what I meant?"

    Sensing: Sensors look well groomed; their clothes are selected with taste; their hair and fingernails are in order. Women Sensors often have perfect manicure and makeup. Their gaze is focused and attentive, as though scanning their conversation partner's eyes or the surrounding space. Their interests in conversations are often practical (career, money, renting a new apartment, purchasing a new TV, house, car, etc.). Sensors like to talk to their partners about the progress in their common activities – this is because they, unlike Intuitives, cannot easily replenish missing information by their imagination, and so they strive to be always informed about what's going on, to keep the situation under their control.
    Intuitive: they are keen on talking about ideas rather than practical needs; they don't live in the "here-and-now" reality but rather in themes and general topics. Intuitive types often have a defocused look that looks into the distance, into infinity, somewhere above or through the partner, which is especially observable in their photographs. In conversations, Intuitive tends to make generalizations; often he perceives in larger, universal scale scale but does not easily pick up on smaller things. Very often Intuitives are negligent in dress, their rooms are disorderly. Their speech, compared with Sensors, is more associative-figurative, often with humor or irony, rich in adjectives and nouns, but poor in verbs.

    ----------------------------------------

    Is the above an accurate typing method?

    If a person is not using their ego functions, would they still show the same characteristics? For example, would an LII using their PoLR Se appear more like a sensor?

  2. #2
    I don't see it that way BFGDoomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Examining the next one
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    412
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think there are many differing models on how to visually type someone. Most of the things described in your post doesn't seem strictly ''visual'' but also concerned with substance and content in what a person says, how he/she says it, how a person models his thoughts, how he/she structures and zooms on various components of phenomena etc. I think that the consensus on what types have which energy/look comes from inductive observation of people already soundly typed based on interviews, and categories are created for each type, quadra, IE etc. So that there is an overarching trend of similarities, subtle or apparent, that can be referred to when immediately coming into contact with another person. It generally seems more vague and less at the core of the personality system, but many people on this forum vouch for it and use it actively in typing.

    I do not know if that specific article describes the common method that is used, but i have heard very similar descriptions specifically referring to the eye movements, positioning of body etc.
    Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself.

  3. #3
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,795
    Mentioned
    462 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    a person is a blend of all 8 of these factors and these factors roughly correspond to what they say they do. the problem is, however, they all vary in strength and prominence, and exceptions always apply. depending on the whole person certain things can more than offset what is also really there. the problem with VI is it usually forms a snap judgement on the basis of a singular prominent characteristic. because socionics is about exceptions and so forth and VI only corresponds to normative descriptions, it makes it its own system that cuts out a lot of sophistication of socionics. VI is, and I feel this should be obvious but apparently its not, is unpsychological, because it flattens out the psychological characteristics into simple normative factoids which are then related to appearance. VI has also always existed, it has very little to do with socionics ultimately, because for it to truly have something to do with socionics you'd have to have the underyling system in place in its fullness, in which case you could just use that instead of VI. in essence its a mirage, but if all you have is half a second, its a jumping off point, but not a conclusion. it orients you on the basis of simplistic norms connected to appearance as a way to sketch the first pass of the territory. the idea that is more would be tantamount to literal x-ray vision, which no one has

  4. #4
    Haikus ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,709
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    and what if someone VIs as a type they're the most distant from, in terms of functions?

  5. #5
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,795
    Mentioned
    462 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    you get socionics new wave

  6. #6
    Aki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    ISTp D sx/sp
    Posts
    1,912
    Mentioned
    245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Great article, I think its accurate. I fit in there with my type pretty much, same with ppl I know. I also think that VI portaits seems to suggest also physical features common to each type.
    For your last question I think its unlikely to happen that way. I think the types works as a whole program, not just as dislocated pieces.
    Last edited by Aki; 09-11-2018 at 03:07 PM.

  7. #7
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,056
    Mentioned
    130 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    @photon I made a thread on this subject in the past, it might prove useful, but your article is pretty good too:

    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...VI-for-Dummies
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  8. #8
    Avebury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    TIM
    LIE
    Posts
    894
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is something I've been thinking about too, especially since VI seems the best method for typing celebrities.

    The article is kinda confusing as it describes things both VI related and non-VI related, for example their expression, the way they move and walk, and the contents of their speech (the last thing seems to be an example of non-VI).

    Personally, I think the thing to look at it is the expressions across multiple photographs, not so much facial structure. You can also look at how they move and body language.

    The problem with VI is that it is presumes we know what visual traits correlate to what type. How do we figure out such a thing without first typing a bunch of people first through other methods, get them to agree to be photographed, and compare the photos? Fortunately, Filatova has done exatcly that, which is why her database of photos by type is precious work.

    There's probably much more information on the subejct in Russian.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •