DCNH visual identification

[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.

[Jarno]

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).

Yep, that's what I think too.


At this moment we simply can't draw certain conclusions about subtypes and VI, since we haven't figured the subtypes out.

Yet most of us have seen enough 'copies' of certain types which tells us we cannot call VI a coincidence anymore either.

[JohnDo]

The way JohnDo describes it in another thread, he assigns subtype according to his theory, then sees if it works.

No, that's not what I do. I just typed a lot of people and had the idea that there might be a pattern. And there is a pattern, indeed...

[Jarno]

No, that's not what I do. I just typed a lot of people and had the idea that there might be a pattern. And there is a pattern, indeed...

ah oke.

but, I know a lot of SEE's. I once put them in an excel sheet with all their distinctive behaviour traits and VI traits. (yeah I'm a geek sometime!)

And there is indeed a pattern, and it correlates with VI nicely too! But, I couldn't find the perfect grouping. I got 8 groups as the most logical division, with only copies of types in each one of them. But for every number of groups there is something to say. I can see 2 groups, yet also 4 and 8... So for me personally, those subtypes aren't clear enough yet to use them effectively. And even so, when there are 8 groups, them there will be many different VI faces...

[Absurd]

Show them who's boss, John.

[JohnDo]

but, I know a lot of SEE's. I once put them in an excel sheet with all their distinctive behaviour traits and VI traits. (yeah I'm a geek sometime!)
And there is indeed a pattern, and it correlates with VI nicely too! But, I couldn't find the perfect grouping.

Maybe you should try it with DCNH and facial structure. If your typings are accurate you should be able to confirm the following pattern:

D-SEE: oval face like Jennifer Lopez


C-SEE: round face like Bill Clinton


N-SEE: square face like Ronald Reagan


H-SEE: rectangular face like Fidel Castro


I don't know many SEEs personally but I'm confident that this pattern appears everywhere...
And to be honest, I'm not quite sure about the above mentioned celebrities, either...

[Jarno]

Maybe you should try it with DCNH and facial structure. If your typings are accurate you should be able to confirm the following pattern:

thanks for the post.

I'll compare it.