Is Visual Identification a sound way to type someone?

[ruined]

I had been wondering, Visual Identification in Socionics seems to be taken seriously or not very serious at all by many people inside of the community. Is it possible that this method of type identification could be wrong or even discriminatory?

[Bertrand]

no, its just a preliminary step, and if you stop there its little more than ignorant prejudice. however, its not worthless either. as a first step, using your eyes is good

[ruined]

no, its just a preliminary step, and if you stop there its little more than ignorant prejudice. however, its not worthless either. as a first step, using your eyes is good

If one were to identify strongly with one type, knowing themselves in all their flesh and blood, mind, body, and soul and another came out of the bushes and VI'd them as a type they'd strongly decide against, who's to say who is more correct?

[Bertrand]

gulenko

[chrys]

No it's a visual way to type someone.

[chrys]

I think it works. Mostly the eye movements I think could have some legitimacy to one's type.

[The Reality Denialist]

Gulenko has written something about identification of IE's but it also greatly overlaps with DCNH.

Like Ne is about going deep into mind forming a fuzzy image while same is true with creative subtype.

[Sol]

Is it possible that this method of type identification could be wrong or even discriminatory?

In my experiment of 2015 made on socioforum VI by videos of bloggers (16 bloggers and random members which typed them) gaves real (when people did not knew beforehand opinions of other) the average typing matches 15-20% what is higher than chance and hence _objectively_ nonverbal has useful data for the typing. VI uses intuitive impressions from nonverbal. The known other experiment of IRL interview typing of 1999 have given close 17% of average match and typing by the big questionnaire on socioforum gave not significantly better matches.
As forum's members were not studed to type by VI much, the method can be used just by anyone. You see someone and intuitively assume to which types traits a man is closer - to E or I, etc. They'd typed better with more experience and correct studing.

> or not very serious at all by many people inside of the community

those people need to type better to notice the method as useful. also they do not know or "forget" about my VI experiment
meanwhile "many people inside of the community" trust more than should to speculations made by verbal data and different baseless bs like subtypes and Reinin's traits
also you may meet "inside of the community" strange opinions that intuition is not the function you may trust to use in typing. while in Jung's typology it's just a function like any others. especially it's funny to see from the ones who thinks own type as base N.

[Bertrand]

a picture is worth a thousand words. that VI does more work than questionnaires is not really the question though

[golden]

If you start googling terms like “facial morphology personality,” you’ll find that even static images convey some information about personality. Add in video with audio, and the amount of data is obviously going to be even greater.

[The Reality Denialist]

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...d-face/381697/

[Rebelondeck]

I wouldn't put too much stock in it; especially from posed photographs. Although mannerisms can reveal some information, a majority of people seem to have public and private personas, which can obscure how they're truly processing information. Much larger factors affect self-image and physical appearance: central nervous system, culture, upbringing, health, trauma/stress and playing a part. With social media, there seems to be a lot more expertise at presenting false characteristics - acting.......

a.k.a. I/O

[Number 9 large]

It can be

[Little Timmy]

I think VI can be very useful, but not just from looking what people look like, but judging them from their mannerisms, the way they move, etc., which could be seen as external expressions of things going on inside of their heads. That said, I've spent a lot of time observing (blatantly staring at) people to see if there's any similarities between psychological types in physical appearance, and there's quite a few that come to mind. The most prominent one is N vs S, N is usually "small and compressed" and S is "large and takes up space". I remember reading in some place about this and it's readily observable and confirmable by analyzing some people: A larger amount of intuitives are ectomorphs (small bones) and even if they aren't, they tend to be "compressed" into the area they're currently at, as if they're trying to occupy as little space as possible or hide from sight. A larger amount of sensors are mesomorphs (naturally muscular) or endomorphs (big bones) and even those who aren't, tend to take up space or "make their presence known" by widening the space between their arms and legs from their bodies, not slouching, etc. Although it's not a strict rule, it's a general thing that predicts quite better than chance can, and therefore it's useful for typing. Looking at people's mannerisms, movements, interactions with others is probably much more valuable in determining their type, though.