Visual Identification from ancient statues

[snegledmaca]

Maybe I can add some insight into this because I'm quickly finding this process a fun exercise as well.

Because the statues are so lifelike, it's almost as if I can see them alive. I can give them irises and watch them move around. I don't necessarily need to hear their voice, but it's almost like I can see their body language and subtle movements as they move about. I try to put them in scenes and scenarios that would make sense based on how they have been captured. There's usually a theme that can be extrapolated from several pictures. I start to see similarities among a set of statues because even with different facial expressions, I can still see things elsewhere on the face that go along with the other statues of the same person. Some scenarios are more out of place than others, but once I have found a scenario that makes sense, then I can expand on it and really see how they might look like they fit in or how they react to certain social situations or how comfortable they are in those situations.

Hmm, this look like nice for an analysis.

The focus here is on the dynamic state of the object and the stimulus for change is alternative scenarios. Through placing the object in various flows of the environment you collect data on the dynamic change of the state the object is in. You also gather direct data on constants in the system. Through interpreting this data you build a static model of the person's interaction, their personality model. I'd say irrational dynamic information + rational dynamic information = rational static information.

The irrational dynamic information presented here IMO is . The focus lies on perceiving the readily observable traits in the process and not on the process itself. The actions, reactions of the person, what actually happened. would be for example a focus on the absurdity, hopelessness, on an aspect of the situation.

The rational dynamic information focused on IMO is . Although facial expressiveness and social reactions would stereotypically fall under I completely disagree with that interpretation. These aspect are clearly external dynamic information, there is no chance they are . doesn't care about facial expressions, social reactions, readily available external information, it concerns itself with states of arousability, openness to suggestibility, internal states of the subject. The external information is only used to gain this type of information and is readily discarded (Why for example types are not really bothered by extremism in expressions like loudness, crassness and so on, and are quick to forget such instances, even not notice them).

I don't know what the rational static element is, or if there is an irrational static element, as I haven't read your posts on this thread (Or diana's or minde's). But if I had to guess I'd say you are taking in and and are dishing out and .

It is a guess of sorts, but... well, think about this. How many times have you seen someone where you just know they've got a lot on their mind and you ask "Hey, what's wrong?" or you ask yourself maybe "What's wrong with that guy?" Maybe you don't think about that, I don't know.

You are correct, I do not do that. I have also never though that in my life, assumed things about the person based on their appearance. I if want information I get it and do not assume it. For example in such a situation my reaction would be if the other person wanted to engage me they would. I would not approach them or wonder about their situation.

What is it about them that makes the other person ask the question? I think the clues that come from that are from their body language and their more subtle facial details (it might include the facial expression, but not necessarily because that can be used as a facade sometimes). I mean it might certainly be the case that my assumption is completely off base. It is, after all a subjective opinion. But I think the facial and body language clues really do speak volumes about a person's essence. It's an educated guess based on facial clues.

Although I agree, I strongly disagree that it is relevant. Facial and body language clues are used for synchronization and not as points of reference, as stable. For example, if I treat you like a prick it doesn't mean I think you are a prick. It's a message sent to you to which you respond, for example, say something back, and I respond to that and the body language and facial cues are a form of communication, not a reflection on people's essences (In the same manner language is not a reflection of a person's essence but means of communication). An example on the statues, how do you know that face is not one simply designed to convey a message to the masses or those who would look upon it?

The reason why this particular exercise is fun for me is because there's a freedom for me to express my impressions about what I have observed. A freedom of opinion. In everyday life it's different for me because I should be mindful and considerate of others and not judge them just based on the way they look. Therefore I choose not to actively analyze someone unless I'm asked to do so. In this exercise we are being asked to analyze and subjectively give our impressions about these statues.

The reason you do not do that in real life is because your analysis is not of the person but the superficial external impression of them. It's completely on the surface, it has no depth. As is the case with these statues. And that is my problem with it. I guess I just don't understand how can anybody actually focus on and .

I'll be honest, there are times when I get lost in analysis of another person. I have to catch myself and shake myself off and make myself stop because it is... it is wrong to be judgemental based on little information. I've found myself at times being surprised about a person's character because they turned out to be different than I thought. Yes, I am guilty of that. I really try hard to actively be mindful of how I might be judging another person and I really try to focus on gathering more and more information about the person to paint a better picture about the other person. But the difference between that and what we're doing here is that people are actively asking us for our opinions to do the analysis whereas no one is asking me for my opinion about my introspective analysis about other people (Edit:) in everyday social situations.

Well if it is any consolation, if I knew you in real life I most certainly would. Analysis is my favorite exercise, especially of social/people nature.

I just look at the person and pay attention to how I feel about them, imagine meeting them and how our interactions would go. Some of them remind me of other people, and so I might go off of how I felt about/around them. Maybe the "mechanism involved" is Fi? I don't know. It can be fun, because it doesn't really matter what judgements you come to, unlike real life where misjudging a person has consequences. Yes, I actually do the same thing in real life, but I don't voice my opinions, and I try to withhold judgement until there's evidence to back it up.

But how can you imagine "how your interactions would go"? It's not the person. All you are doing is indulging in interaction with somebody in your mind. How can you link that person to the actual person? Because the image in your mind looks like the image of the real person? Your method sounds like teen fantasies to me. Wishful thinking at best. Although I can see the fun in that "playing with the person". But I guess you could home this "skill" so that the models you build in imagination correspond to reality at least to some degree and can be used as predictive models of behavior at least in certain aspects. But I think the best you could do is simply raise the probability rate of correspondence, nothing more, so I strongly advise you to not use this method to judge people, or at least, be aware that these are *necessarily* guesses, *do not* expect them to be true (As I get the impression you might hold these judgments to be true).

The majority of a person's communication is non-verbal. Face-to-face, that is. Obviously in this online context it's going to be a little different. (But notice how even so we manage to put in the non-verbal in the form of smilies and even acronyms.) A portrait is simply a frozen section of that non-verbal communication. If an artist is good, they'll put in more than one moment of who that person is into that frozen section.

Yes. But I don't see how this is relevant. A picture might fantastically capture a moment, but it doesn't capture the communication. All you can do is use your imagination to fill in the blanks. Which is precisely my point, you're just making stuff up. You can't define people by making up stuff about them (Especially personal traits).

So, what I determine about what I see here doesn't really spring from "nothing." It comes from what's been captured in that frozen communication.

Oh but it does. Everything you say is "around the corner" from where you are. You cannot see beyond that statue. To look beyond you necessarily have to resort to imagination (Or mathematics/logic but nobody has taken an impersonal approach here so I'm ignoring that option).

Also the aspects captured in the frozen communication are meaningless as the context of the communication is missing. He could have that face because he was taking a crap. Perhaps he was taking a crap while having his portrait made precisely because it made him look like that. Akin to modern concepts of make up, dress up and in general manipulation of ones image. What if this is what was really captured in this frozen communication?

I guess it's fun to me because it's like I'm letting something that I was made for freedom to play. I also know that I'm causing no harm in this (apart from making you nervous, evidently). And it's fun because it's a kind of game, a test of skill (though I still tend to think it's more luck than skill ).

What makes you think I'm nervous? Or in any way upset? And even if I am, what makes you think it's got anything to do with you? What if, for example, currently my circumstances are stressful or some such thing?

To continue answering snegledmaca -

Hm, I thought of an example. When I read, I don't read every letter of every word, I scan. In fact, I don't always even read every word. This makes it easy to read quickly, though it increases the chance that I'll miss something. If I sense I'm missing something I'll slow down and focus more on the details.

If I take a book and put it further away from me so I can't read the words anymore, I could still get an idea of what's being said based on how the words are arranged, as in paragraphs. It takes more guesswork, but by focusing and using previous experience and logic I can come to reasonably accurate genralized conclusions despite the fact that I really have no idea what the words are saying. To illustrate, think of how the pages of a magazine, a dictionary, a story with a lot of dialogue, and a cookbook all look. They have consistently different forms and looks to them, which makes it easier to categorize and recognize them.

In normal, everyday life, I "read" people more closely before I decide what they're "saying." But the nature of this exercise/experiment is that I can stand much further back and still get a decent idea of what's going on. For one, important characteristics are slightly exaggerated and, two, like I said above (and Diana, too), if I do misread there are no bad consequences except a bruised pride and perhaps a faulty understanding of a historical figure.

Ha, a perfect example. I'll continue this in PM. I see now that both parties (Or should I say four parties) agree on the aspects but not on the way they should be used/addressed (Take a look at informational element correction here). In any case, no point in continuing the discussion as it will be long and fruitless.

[Minde]

What makes you think I'm nervous? Or in any way upset? And even if I am, what makes you think it's got anything to do with you? What if, for example, currently my circumstances are stressful or some such thing?

Because you said what I was doing was making you uncomfortable. Should I not believe you?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Gilly]

7 is a sensor, probably ST. LSI>SLE>LSE>SLI is my stance.

[Expat]

Feedback on

6

I feel a bit like this is a shot in the dark, but...LSI?

I think rational is a good bet. xSxj, unless LIE or (maaaaayybe?) EIE.

6. The first and the third picture both have something that makes me uneasy, almost frightened. He's quite passionate about something. Very intense. The middle one, where he's older, looks like experience has tempered that a little. He looks almost approachable in that one. Almost. He still looks mean and perhaps even cruel.

I get the feeling that I might get along better with 5 than with 6, if all things were equal. 5 looks like he might like some comforting and perhaps even advice from time to time. 6... I don't know... looks like he needs to satisfy some inner drive or something. 5 looks more like a public servant and 6 looks more like an orator or something where you talk a lot and very cleverly (or what he thinks as very cleverly). 5 looks more down-to-earth and realistic, if not particularly successful and popular like 6.

6. The guy is very alert to his surroundings, clearly extraverted, a senser rather than intuiter I think. I see him as ESTx, I'll go with a p, as I have GW Bush is an ESTp and that statue of the guy as older reminds me a lot of some of Bush's expressions you frequently see when he listens to someone eg, or holds a speech.

6. That middle picture actually gives me the worst impression because it reminds me of a professor I had in college who after assuming I was jewish scheduled every single exam on a jewish holy day, without exception to try to put me in a bad position knowing I wouldn't be in class. Unfortunately for him, the jews' calendar and mine were slightly off from each other that year. The surprise on his face when I showed up to that first exam was really funny. Hehe, I won.

The other two pictures - he just doesn't look very perceptive. I have a feeling it would be very difficult to talk to him about anything he disagreed with. Very close-minded, set-in-his-ways look about him. He also looks like he likes the sound of his own voice.

And Rick said LSE.

Overall it's very impressive.

That guy is Lucius Cornelius Sulla, of the late Republic. Of the highest patriciate but of a declining branch, he was penniless in youth but managed to rise through drive, passion, cruelty, and luck (he later added "Felix" to his name). One of Republican Rome's most successful generals, in the increasing political tensions of the time he ended up becoming the first Roman ever to march on Rome at the head of an army. Also the first Roman ever to have himself appointed Dictator for Life (instead of for 6 months in emergencies) in which capacity he proscribed and/or executed lots of enemies, besides re-writing the Republic's constitution to concentrate power in the hands of the aristocracy. Resigned the dictatorship after 3 years and retired to a seaside villa to dedicate himself to eating, drinking, partying, and writing his memoirs. He wrote his own epitaph: "No better friend - no worse enemy".

I think LSI makes the most sense.

[guest32456]

For what it’s worth, here are my thoughts on number 7:

This guy looks quite logical. He seems somewhat cold and stiff. Perhaps a little immoral. Accomplished, but by his mind, not by his charisma; authoritative and able to make difficult decisions. Certainly not weak, but perhaps susceptible to materialism. Possibly insecure and/or awkward (maybe socially?).

...

I honestly don't know where that came from

[Expat]

Feedback on

7

For what it’s worth, here are my thoughts on number 7:

This guy looks quite logical. He seems somewhat cold and stiff. Perhaps a little immoral. Accomplished, but by his mind, not by his charisma; authoritative and able to make difficult decisions. Certainly not weak, but perhaps susceptible to materialism. Possibly insecure and/or awkward (maybe socially?).

7 is a sensor, probably ST. LSI>SLE>LSE>SLI is my stance.

Hehe, the first impression I had of # 7 was that he looks very much like a guy I know who is great fun at parties But I am beginning to think that Minde is correct this time again! I have been thinking about that guy all night and something may well not be alright there at all. Hope I didn't drop a classic clanger by calling him 'sympatico'

7: I keep imagining him as one of those people who show up at your door holding a bible. I can't seem to get rid of that image. He bothers me, irks me in a way I can't quite put my finger on. He's way too calm. (Although statues usually are pretty calm, lol) The last picture is the worst - I don't like how he's looking at me It's . . . that sort of . . . I don't know, I can't describe it. It makes you feel vaguely guilty, plus kind of angry, like there's a sponge there trying to take away all your energy - and the more you try to get them to react, the less they do, acting all calm and zen and stuff. Why that annoys me. . . I don't know, it just does. It feels like they're being self-righteous and your reaction just adds to their idea that they at least can remain collected, and you get the feeling they kind of feel sorry for you that you're not as super-special-calm and righteous or whatever as they are. Or maybe I'm just imagining all of that. . . but his expression is that of the people who make me feel that way. I also resent the fact that people want me to be like that. Who? I don't know exactly. Just people, and I feel like saying, "I'm not, and I can't be, and I don't want to be, so there!!" <-- odd reaction, I know.

I just noticed this about the 3rd picture in #7, but he has to be younger in the 3rd than in the other three.

He has a receding hair line in 1, 2 and 4. So, I think that maybe his sharper, youthful bravado that I noted in the first post is well-tempered in older age. Like he almost understood over time how not to be so "look down the brim of my nose"-ish and scoffing (maybe internally scoffing but not in a loud way?) but be more respectful of others in his observations. There's a much more peaceful, comfortable introspective look in 1, 2 and 4.

My thoughts on 7 -

Pictures 1, 2 and 4 tell a slightly different story than the 3rd.

In 1, 2 and 4, he seems like he's extemely confident in his intuition and knowledge, but yet isn't such a demanding forceful presence. He seems like he has great insight on things, but is more introspective about those things. Maybe soft-spoken but very well-mannered. His facial features are soft and inviting. He maybe takes his time detailing out his thoughts and observations when someone asks him of his thoughts and maybe he enjoys people asking him his thoughts.

In the 3rd picture, his eyebrows are slanted towards the center of his face. There's an air of cunning and bravado that comes out of that. Yet, it still has this stoic feel to it. Like despite the bravado, I don't get the sense that he's a go-out-and-get-it type. He prefers to see or watch things from a distance. Maybe he's slightly amused with some things that he observes but keeps those thoughts to himself unless asked.

All of the pictures seem like he enjoys observation and not being quick or rash in his decisions. Mild-tempered and very careful and thoughtful in action. Something grabs his attention and he inspects it very closely, very calmly and quitely but with a lot of confidence.

Edit: Maybe "confident" isn't the right word, but more like "comfortable". Like he's very comfortable in his own skin and very comfortable with the way he processes information in his mind.

7. His features remind me of you, Expat. That throws me off a little.

I feel like I'm about due for a mistake. And this'll probably be it. But, without reading anybody else's comments and trying not to think of Expat (because beyond that immediate thought, they don't really look that much alike), here are my highly subjective impressions:

The 1st, 2nd, and 4th pictures are all the same statue, right? Well, in that one he looks passive yet relatively happy. Just kind of thinking about things, observing, not particularly worried or upset or impassioned. Maybe even almost laughing, but not really. He looks smart and thoughtful, yet not totally disengaged. Perhaps even kindly.

The other one is much crueler. Spiteful is another word that comes to mind. He's got a sneer on his lips and his brows are lowered in the center. He looks as though he's gotten power-corrupt. The same intelligence turned sour. I wouldn't think it's the same person but for the features.

Although, looking at the first one again... I can sort of see an opening for the latter. There is, underneath the quirk of the smile, a kind of sadness about the eyes.

This one make me sad.


...

I would also like to say that I'm loving looking at these statues. Such craftsmanship! So well done! Brilliant combinations of technical skill and soul. (I'm the type that wanders off and happily gets lost in art museums.)

It also helps that what era they're from is one of my favorites in terms of art history. There's a reason it's called classical.

I could dwell on this topic for a long time, but I'll contain myself.

/end tangent

Five's conclusions were the most remarkable.

That guy is the emperor Domitian, and I have had a hard time typing him. Something of a recluse, he was a strategic thinker in military and economic affairs. Had thorough control of the administration, and during his 15-year rule the civil service was regarded as the least corrupt ever. Carried out an extensive, possibly excessive, but mostly necessary building program in Rome (still recovering from the fire during Nero's reign). High-handed in public morals, and deeply disliked by many senators who knew him personally, who saw him as a tyrant - which he did become, after a revolt aiming at depose him, which made him paranoid. He was murdered in a palace coup, involving some close ones.

My best guess is ILI.

On the receding hair -- he actually wrote a booklet, "On the Care of Hair". Which may have been satyrical. It hasn't survived.

Thanks Minde now I know I look like Domitian.

[Minde]

Thanks Minde now I know I look like Domitian.

The nice statue, not the mean one. Just to be clear. You don't look at all like the third picture.

[Expat]

The nice statue, not the mean one. Just to be clear. You don't look at all like the third picture.

I've kept my hair, though.

[Minde]

The nice statue, not the mean one. Just to be clear. You don't look at all like the third picture.

I've kept my hair, though.

I didn't even really notice the hair. If I could put your two faces side-by-side I'm sure I'd notice all sorts of differences. But I had to go from memory, in your case, which is largely impressions and not many details.

[Expat]

But how can you imagine "how your interactions would go"? It's not the person. All you are doing is indulging in interaction with somebody in your mind. How can you link that person to the actual person? Because the image in your mind looks like the image of the real person? Your method sounds like teen fantasies to me. Wishful thinking at best. Although I can see the fun in that "playing with the person". But I guess you could home this "skill" so that the models you build in imagination correspond to reality at least to some degree and can be used as predictive models of behavior at least in certain aspects. But I think the best you could do is simply raise the probability rate of correspondence, nothing more, so I strongly advise you to not use this method to judge people, or at least, be aware that these are *necessarily* guesses, *do not* expect them to be true (As I get the impression you might hold these judgments to be true).

Heh. You're funny. "Advising" me is particularly amusing.

A glimpse of benefit relationship? He provides but with rather than .

[Expat]

8

[Joy]

Funny how his ears stick out in some but not others.

He reminds me of someone I knew who was probably SLE. It's hard to say though. He also looks young and sort of quiet.

[Expat]

Funny how his ears stick out in some but not others.

I have reasons to believe that picture #4 is the most accurate representation overall, so perhaps the other artist decided to "airbrush" the ears for some reason.

[tereg]

My thoughts on 8 -

You know, it's really funny, but when I first saw the statues, I thought of the lead singer of Toad the Wet Sprocket, Glen Phillips (though I don't know his temperament)



Anyways, he looks very intense. His eyebrows are pressed in the 2nd, and most of the pictures depict eyebrows angled towards the middle. He looks very serious and generally not happy about a lot of things. He looks analytical instead of instinctual... definitely rational. He looks like he would outwardly show moods with things that annoy him or bother him... but I'm not sold on the fact that he would "snap" though. It just seems to me like he would be slightly annoyed, like he might roll his eyes or something benign like that.

He looks like the kind of person where you need to cut to the chase and cut the small talk if you're talking to him. I can almost see him saying something like "I don't have TIME to play any games"

In the 3rd picture he looks almost... like he's just tired of the state of things around him. Maybe a bit pessimistic?

The last one is most stunning and striking for me. He has an almost glazed expression. I just see an emptiness of emotion like something tragic that is deeply rooted within him.

I dunno... I feel kind of off base with this. Just my thoughts though.

[Gilly]

I think introversion is a good bet, as is intuition. Doesn't seem ethical to me. LII is my first guess, then ILI.

[guest32456]

My thoughts on number 8:

Quiet. Not too physically authoritative; however, picture 4 made him seem more like one who would take calculated risks and be a good soldier. Picture 5 makes him seem possibly slightly impetuous. Willing to use deception to get own way. Works well and hard, but perhaps has a slight disdain or scorn for systems he does not respect; in picture 4, I see him more as a cold, dutiful ‘robot’.

Possibly set in own views, or dismissive of things he does not agree with. High (but not exceptional) intelligence – more focused on pragmatic side, or what he can do with his knowledge; however, also an investigator.


I find this difficult in one way, because I feel that I ‘know’ him, and can ‘see’ through him, but it’s difficult to put into words.

It’s also sometimes difficult if the ‘vibe’ is slightly different in each picture. Picture 3, for example, is slightly more investigative, intuitive and open.

[Expat]

You're really good at this, Five!

[Expat]

Another one of 8 --

It looks a bit different, though.

[Wittmont]

Hmm, there are contradictions in this guy. I get the impression he is quite small and slight. He has big staring eyes that look straight ahead. He often has a pose where his head is tilting slightly. He looks very attentive to his surroundings, his bearing is very straight yet there is something limp about him, especially the mouth. This one is not a warrior. I get the feeling if I was to shake his hand he would have an extremely limp and soft handshake, squidlike, yet he would stare at me with big round eyes and the soft mouth wouldn't smile. Pic # 5 creepy! Doesnt look like he smiles much if at all. Not sure you can call him a wimp though, in pics # 1 and 4 he looks quite determined. There are things going on behind those big eyes.

His focus on his surrounding suggest extravert to me. I think SLE, statue # 5 suggests an intense stare, but he doesn't strike me as a conqueror type. Contradiction again.

Edit: just saw the last statue pic. He looks a bit like Alexander the Great in that one, similar stare and a similar mouth if a narrower version.

[guest32456]

You're really good at this, Five!

Thank you very much, Expat

May I ask what a possible Socionics explanation of this is?

[PotatoSpirit]

Just to prove how much I suck at VI: #8 looks like Rick to me, I'd have said ENFp!

[Minde]

Just to prove how much I suck at VI: #8 looks like Rick to me, I'd have said ENFp!

You aren't the only one. I think resemblance to others must throw me off. So I'm not going to try to go in depth.

I'd say 8 is thoughtful and contemplative but not disengaged. Intelligent. Prone to looking before leaping. Is probably tougher than he first looks. Kind of intense, too, behind the calmness. Not wild intensity. Just... focused.

I don't think he's the type to get wildly or unstably emotional. Not on a habitual basis.

He looks responsible, too. Not particularly spoiled. Though, he's not necessarily inclined to go along with what others might think best or proper. It's more... his own decision.

Ok, that's enough. I think I'm beginning to stray onto too thin of ice.

[Expat]

You're really good at this, Five!

Thank you very much, Expat

May I ask what a possible Socionics explanation of this is?

I don't have any.

I'd guess it's due to a fairly balanced combination of Ni and Si.

[Minde]

May I ask what a possible Socionics explanation of this is?

I don't have any.

I'd guess it's due to a fairly balanced combination of Ni and Si.

Not Fi?

[Expat]

Perhaps Fi *shrug* as I said, I don't know.

[Gilly]

What could Fi possibly have to do with this? I wasn't aware that anyone here knew Sulla personally.

I would say it has more to do with Fe and some kind of sensing.

[hellothere]

my guess for #8 is LSI or LII

[Expat]

Ok, feedback on

8

#8 looks like he's prone to sexual depravity.

ETA: He also looks kind of "bossy" but I'm really not confident in that assessment.

He reminds me of someone I knew who was probably SLE. It's hard to say though. He also looks young and sort of quiet.

Anyways, he looks very intense. His eyebrows are pressed in the 2nd, and most of the pictures depict eyebrows angled towards the middle. He looks very serious and generally not happy about a lot of things. He looks analytical instead of instinctual... definitely rational. He looks like he would outwardly show moods with things that annoy him or bother him... but I'm not sold on the fact that he would "snap" though. It just seems to me like he would be slightly annoyed, like he might roll his eyes or something benign like that.

He looks like the kind of person where you need to cut to the chase and cut the small talk if you're talking to him. I can almost see him saying something like "I don't have TIME to play any games"

In the 3rd picture he looks almost... like he's just tired of the state of things around him. Maybe a bit pessimistic?

The last one is most stunning and striking for me. He has an almost glazed expression. I just see an emptiness of emotion like something tragic that is deeply rooted within him.

I dunno... I feel kind of off base with this. Just my thoughts though.

I think introversion is a good bet, as is intuition. Doesn't seem ethical to me. LII is my first guess, then ILI.

My thoughts on number 8:

Quiet. Not too physically authoritative; however, picture 4 made him seem more like one who would take calculated risks and be a good soldier. Picture 5 makes him seem possibly slightly impetuous. Willing to use deception to get own way. Works well and hard, but perhaps has a slight disdain or scorn for systems he does not respect; in picture 4, I see him more as a cold, dutiful ‘robot’.

Possibly set in own views, or dismissive of things he does not agree with. High (but not exceptional) intelligence – more focused on pragmatic side, or what he can do with his knowledge; however, also an investigator.


I find this difficult in one way, because I feel that I ‘know’ him, and can ‘see’ through him, but it’s difficult to put into words.

It’s also sometimes difficult if the ‘vibe’ is slightly different in each picture. Picture 3, for example, is slightly more investigative, intuitive and open.

Hmm, there are contradictions in this guy. I get the impression he is quite small and slight. He has big staring eyes that look straight ahead. He often has a pose where his head is tilting slightly. He looks very attentive to his surroundings, his bearing is very straight yet there is something limp about him, especially the mouth. This one is not a warrior. I get the feeling if I was to shake his hand he would have an extremely limp and soft handshake, squidlike, yet he would stare at me with big round eyes and the soft mouth wouldn't smile. Pic # 5 creepy! Doesnt look like he smiles much if at all. Not sure you can call him a wimp though, in pics # 1 and 4 he looks quite determined. There are things going on behind those big eyes.

His focus on his surrounding suggest extravert to me. I think SLE, statue # 5 suggests an intense stare, but he doesn't strike me as a conqueror type. Contradiction again.

Edit: just saw the last statue pic. He looks a bit like Alexander the Great in that one, similar stare and a similar mouth if a narrower version.

Just to prove how much I suck at VI: #8 looks like Rick to me, I'd have said ENFp!

Just to prove how much I suck at VI: #8 looks like Rick to me, I'd have said ENFp!

You aren't the only one. I think resemblance to others must throw me off. So I'm not going to try to go in depth.

I'd say 8 is thoughtful and contemplative but not disengaged. Intelligent. Prone to looking before leaping. Is probably tougher than he first looks. Kind of intense, too, behind the calmness. Not wild intensity. Just... focused.

I don't think he's the type to get wildly or unstably emotional. Not on a habitual basis.

He looks responsible, too. Not particularly spoiled. Though, he's not necessarily inclined to go along with what others might think best or proper. It's more... his own decision.

Ok, that's enough. I think I'm beginning to stray onto too thin of ice.

As I said, I think statue #4 is the most accurate one, because it shows hits of the receding hairline, as historians said he had (and was sensitive about). Also with the tall forehead and bulbous nose.

That guy is none other than our old friend the third Roman emperor, Gaius Caesar, a.k.a. Caligula.

Regarding the resemblance to Rick: when he impersonated a "inhibited SLE, obsessed by perversions", friend of his, as in "Hey Rick -- do you know those foreigners living upstairs together? Heh-heh-heh. They're perverse, and gay, Rick. Heh-heh-heh. Do you know what goes on there at night? Let me tell you: heh-heh-heh" - when Rick impersonated him, I immediately thought of Caligula.

SLE is almost certainly correct, although for a while I toyed with the idea that he might be an EXXP crosstype.

[Minde]

I think I've played long enough. I should have stopped while I was ahead.

It is fun, though.