-
Female ESI faces: examples of ISFjs
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Expat
Cecilia ex-Sarkozy
For this time, I agree with you.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
machintruc
For this time, I agree with you.
Cool.
I know you disagree with me on Nicolas Sarkozy's type, but for those who might wonder, why then do I think he is LIE and she is ESI (duals) if their marriage failed -- to me that's precisely the point. I think a lot of his behavior can be explained as being messed up over losing her.
-
-
i can really see it with monica crowley somehow.
-
For clarification, I have typed them either from watching videos with interviews, or reading books they wrote, or reading what others wrote about them; in no case I'm going for just how they look.
For the record, if I were to guess their types just for their pictures, I think that ESI would come immediately to my mind in the cases of
Diane Sawyer, Queen Noor, Corinna Harfouch, Cecilia Sarkozy, and Joan Allen, and perhaps also Diane Lane.
In Meg Ryan's case, I only typed her as ESI after watching a lengthy interview - it wasn't otherwise obvious.
I'd probably have guessed EII for Jung Chang and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (but I'm pretty sure of ESI for them, especially in the latter's case).
So the above shows either the "typical" ESI look (if there is any such thing), or my own image of what a "typical" ESI looks like.
-
They've all got that look in their eyes. I don't know what it is, but they have that look.
Anyone seen the Parkinson with Meg Ryan? Didn't we discuss that not too long ago actually?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
esper
No. She's LII.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
esper
Whoa where did that come from? How is she Ti+Ne?
I know a 00- LII girl who appears like ESI, but definitely too absent-minded to be :Se:.
-
-
-
-
-
They have the coolest eyes. Especially when they look at you, and it seems as if they are analyzing your soul, looking for any "black spots".
Btw, those last two are not ESI.
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ProcrastinateTomorrow
What are they then ?
Something else. SEI and LSE would be my guesses.
EDIT: Respectively.
|
|
|
V
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
xkj220
They have the coolest eyes. Especially when they look at you, and it seems as if they are analyzing your soul, looking for any "black spots".
Btw, those last two are not ESI.
You mean how they gaze directly into you, scanning for any weakness that might help them devour your soul.
/conflictor rant
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jxrtes
You mean how they gaze directly into you, scanning for any weakness that might help them devour your soul.
/conflictor rant
Be careful with those assumptions. I might have to supervise you (H -> N).
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mimosa Pudica
Most ESIs I know are really nice and shy, but some of them look scary. It's the eyes. Scary eyes. Not the way you two write - "analyzing" - more like "hateful and evil" ... condors ... waiting.... :cry:
Most ESI I have known throughout my life are great people, it builds a good reputation for me that they are overall very good people, not diabolical or analyzing to get their way.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ProcrastinateTomorrow
ESE seems more likely
-
Do you guys even know these people, or are you just basing it off of their looks? If it's VI then gtfo of Gamma forum, we don't use VI.
-
lol.
Yes I happen to know all of these people and have read several books about them.
I'd say that they all are interested in the price of bananas and seem to not place value on loud gaudy emotionalism.
Also, they have willpower and always wear wristwatches.
So I'd say Gamma overall.
=D
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mimosa Pudica
Most ESIs I know are really nice and shy, but some of them look scary. It's the eyes. Scary eyes. Not the way you two write - "analyzing" - more like "hateful and evil" ... condors ... waiting.... :cry:
I was just joking. :p
Most of ESIs I've met are nice enough. I don't hate them. Our information elements just don't connect.
The only one that looks a bit intimidating is her IMO:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-imag...0938503298.jpg
Intense!
-
The blonde woman on CSI: Miami is ESI... (Gamma show btw.) NCIS is also a Gamma show... Mark Harmon, although not female, is pretty (lol) and also ESI.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
polikujm
Do you guys even know these people, or are you just basing it off of their looks? If it's VI then gtfo of Gamma forum, we don't use VI.
I assume you are using the "royal we" when you make a weak blanket statement like that.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Logos
I assume you are using the "royal we" when you make a weak blanket statement like that.
No, I'm speaking for most of the Gamma's I've met here when I say we. VI is not really effective, especially when you have a group who don't come to agreement when there is no way to. It's not a method most of us would trust, speaking from experience.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
polikujm
No, I'm speaking for most of the Gamma's I've met here when I say we. VI is not really effective, especially when you have a group who don't come to agreement when there is no way to. It's not a method most of us would trust, speaking from experience.
I think there is something to it. I think it's the most accurate way to type someone. However, the accuracy is proportional to the skill of the typer, and there aren't many experts.
VI theoretically is directly related to type. All other methods are indirect and subject to opinion and are therefore inaccurate. Skilled VI'er > long term interaction > descriptions.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Azeroffs
I think there is something to it. I think it's the most accurate way to type someone. However, the accuracy is proportional to the skill of the typer, and there aren't many experts.
VI theoretically is directly related to type. All other methods are indirect and subject to opinion and are therefore inaccurate. Skilled VI'er > long term interaction > descriptions.
What evidence is there that VI is theoretically directly related to type? I doubt a person with a severely collapsed skull could match up to a detailed VI description of a type (descriptions which don't actually exist yet), even though that person would presumably have the same personality type they were born with. On the otherhand, the way a healthy person processes information does not change significantly in their lifetime.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Subterranean
What evidence is there that VI is theoretically directly related to type? I doubt a person with a severely collapsed skull could match up to a detailed VI description of a type (descriptions which don't actually exist yet), even though that person would presumably have the same personality type they were born with. On the otherhand, the way a healthy person processes information does not change significantly in their lifetime.
It is true that the way a person processes information is the same throughout life, but the behaviors that result from that can change. So behaviors, which are one of the top ways of typing, are changeable, and therefore unreliable. VI is based on an unchanging factor unlike typing based on behavior. Obviously if someone is bashed in the head or born with a physical defect then the circumstances change... but in the more often case that nothing significant happens to their physical body it remains relatively the same through life and is more reliable as a result.
There's no real hard evidence that VI is directly related to type, but then again there's no real hard evidence for socionics either.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Azeroffs
There's no real hard evidence that VI is directly related to type, but then again there's no real hard evidence for socionics either.
Any VI description of a type would have been based on people who were typed through non-VI methods, and hence VI can never be more reliable than utilising the type descriptions.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Subterranean
Any VI description of a type would have been based on people who were typed through non-VI methods, and hence VI can never be more reliable than utilising the type descriptions.
If the VI descriptions are formed from a large same of people each typed over a period of close observation bringing together a variety of typing methods, they can indeed be more reliable than other methods for typing people who you haven't studied with the same care.
However, I worry that the greater ability of others to influence our appearance (as opposed to our thoughts) might spoil the usability of VI.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Subterranean
Any VI description of a type would have been based on people who were typed through non-VI methods, and hence VI can never be more reliable than utilising the type descriptions.
That's not necessarily true. You could define a type as someone who looks a certain way, and then match up the behaviors. Admittedly, I'm sure that's not how it happened, but without a doubt the behaviors came before the descriptions did.
Also, i'm sure that some of the original typings have changed, possibly through VI. It really doesn't matter which came first. All that matters is that there is a correlation between IEs and appearance, and only a partial correlation between IEs and behaviors.
btw, when I said description as a typing method, I meant self description. As in seeing someone's behavior is better than having them explain it to you.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Azeroffs
That's not necessarily true. You could define a type as someone who looks a certain way, and then match up the behaviors. Admittedly, I'm sure that's not how it happened, but without a doubt the behaviors came before the descriptions did.
Also, i'm sure that some of the original typings have changed, possibly through VI. It really doesn't matter which came first. All that matters is that there is a correlation between IEs and appearance, and only a partial correlation between IEs and behaviors.
If you defined a type as someone who looks a certain way, it wouldn't be a hypothesis based on the observation that some type-pair relationships are more beneficial than others.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brilliand
However, I worry that the greater ability of others to influence our appearance (as opposed to our thoughts) might spoil the usability of VI.
How do people influence our appearance?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brilliand
If the VI descriptions are formed from a large same of people each typed over a period of close observation bringing together a variety of typing methods, they can indeed be more reliable than other methods for typing people who you haven't studied with the same care.
Presumin that your typing strategy was perfect to begin with...otherwise using VI will just be a quick way of telling you what you think already know - and that's if typing by VI is 100% effective, which of course it won't be.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Subterranean
Presumin that your typing strategy was perfect to begin with...otherwise using VI will just be a quick way of telling you what you think already know - and that's if typing by VI is 100% effective, which of course it won't be.
Actually a key assumption of my claim was that existing typing strategies aren't perfect. You apply many different typing strategies many times over large samples in order to get greater accuracy than you could possibly get in everyday life - then you use those results to formulate a new typing method (say VI) and you may have a method which is more effective than any previous method for daily life.
Most experimental methods have error - VI need not be an exception, it only needs to have lower error than other methods to be the best.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brilliand
Actually a key assumption of my claim was that existing typing strategies aren't perfect. You apply many different typing strategies many times over large samples in order to get greater accuracy than you could possibly get in everyday life - then you use those results to formulate a new typing method (say VI) and you may have a method which is more effective than any previous method for daily life.
Most experimental methods have error - VI need not be an exception, it only needs to have lower error than other methods to be the best.
But surely personality descriptions (rather than physiological descriptions) must necessarily always be at the bottom of the pyramid holding everything up? How do you test one VI strategy\set of descriptions versus another unless you've determined a type via the type descriptions?
If VI supposedly has a higher success rate than typing via descriptions (25% compared to 20% say), then typing via descriptions will have a success rate of 20%, while using VI will have an actual success rate of 5% (25% x 20%).
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Azeroffs
How do people influence our appearance?
Your mother/wife choosing your clothing... cultural expectations that we conform to, and if someone you want to please dislikes a certain feature of your body, you may change that.
It's hard to think of examples, but outward appearance is right out front where other people can react negatively/positively to it or attempt to change it. Realistically, though, thoughts can be changed by outside influences too, which is unlikely to change type... I sometimes worry that a type-related phrase that someone utters is being repeated from someone else, and thus isn't related to the speaker's type.
Appearance is simply easier for others to observe than thought, and the easier it is to observe something, the easier it is to control it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Subterranean
But surely personality descriptions (rather than physiological descriptions) must necessarily always be at the bottom of the pyramid holding everything up? How do you test one VI strategy\set of descriptions versus another unless you've determined a type via the type descriptions?
No - type descriptions are derived from lower-level parts of the theory, that is the elements and dichotomies, and the abstract concepts behind those. The abstract system of Socionics isn't terribly applicable to daily life, but it can be used to produce practical materials that aren't limited to the practical usefulness of previous practical materials.
VI can't be derived from the underlying theory in any clear way, but we could research it into existence by the statistical methods that I described.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Subterranean
If VI supposedly has a higher success rate than typing via descriptions (25% compared to 20% say), then typing via descriptions will have a success rate of 20%, while using VI will have an actual success rate of 5% (25% x 20%).
Huh? How do you figure? I can only think that you've made a mathematical error here... let's see...
If VI has a 25% correspondence with actual types as fit the underlying theory and descriptions have a 20% correspondence with the same, then VI is 125% as good (25%/20%).
If VI has a 25% correspondence with descriptions and descriptions have a 2o% correspondence with the actual types as fit the underlying theory, then VI will have an actual success rate of (25% x 20% + k x 80%) = anywhere between 5% and 85%.
