DCNH visual identification

I got the impression that problems with typing have something to do with facial structure. Similiar discussions occur on this forum. There is certainly a correlation between consensus and facial structure.

1.) People with round faces have a strengthened base function. So the base function can easily be determined whereas the creative function is frequently hard to tell.
Example: Colin Powell is clearly Ti-dominant, IxTj. Hard to say if LII or LSI.

2.) People with square faces have a strengthened creative function. This frequently leads to problems with typing the temperament.
Example: Barack Obama is clearly xNFx. Temperament is hard to say.

3.) People with rectangular faces have a strengthened ignoring function. This leads to problems with the E-I-dichotomy.

4.) People with oval faces have a strengthened demonstrative function. So the 4-dimensional functions are obvious but it is hard to determine which is which. The j-p-dichotmomy is the problem here.
Examples: Jennifer Lopez (SEE or ESE), George W. Bush (LSE or SLE).

I don't think we can tell anything from facial structure beyond physical facial structure.

The facial expressions that a face makes can tell us a person's type by giving us hints about what their brain is doing. Expressions show on a face. But the size of someone's forehead tells us nothing.

You can VI only using facial expressions, not the size or shape of features.

For example, an ISTp usually looks calm, eyes more unfocused than an ISTj, blank expression or a slight closed smile or a bit of a smirk. The size of their nose? Doesn't tell us anything. I've seen ISTps with all kinds of looks, shapes and sizes, guys and girls. But the expression remains the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jewels

The facial expressions that a face makes can tell us a person's type by giving us hints about what their brain is doing.

---

http://www.suddenlyseniortravel.com/...brainwomen.gif

lol :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jewels

lol :)

---

Keep it coming :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jewels

You can VI only using facial expressions, not the size or shape of features.

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jewels

I've seen ISTps with all kinds of looks, shapes and sizes

---

I 'm of the opinion that there are 4 facial structures for each type. Are you familiar with the DCNH system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDo

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...

I 'm of the opinion that there are 4 facial structures for each type. Are you familiar with the DCNH system?

---

That's total crap. I know that exists, but it's wrong. It was once "common wisdom" that black people were stupid because of their facial features...haven't we learned we can't tell anything from facial features size/shape etc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jewels

That's total crap. I know that exists, but it's wrong. It was once "common wisdom" that black people were stupid because of their facial features...haven't we learned we can't tell anything from facial features size/shape etc?

---

According to this study we can (well, physical appearance):

Dec-11-2009 "Personalities Accurately Judged by Physical Appearance Alone"
Personalities accurately judged by physical appearance alone

I get your point though jewels - it smacks of some antiquated turn of the 20th century stuff that was used to condemn anyone who wasn't a cracker-white English dude.

Hope we've learned by now that's stupid. For what I do (programming), I see bright people from all over the planet.

If someone off the street can accurately type based on photographs (which may tell a different story - things the person was doing, what they were wearing, who they were engaged in a conversation with), it seems there's something there.


...exILEd :Ne::Ti:

PS: another study that was kind of freaky and related - "People identify the sexual orientation of strangers as fast as 50 milliseconds"

People identify the sexual orientation of strangers as fast as 50 milliseconds : Cognitive Daily

What's his type?

http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumb...ss-1525-30.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exILEd

According to this study we can (well, physical appearance):

Dec-11-2009 "Personalities Accurately Judged by Physical Appearance Alone"
Personalities accurately judged by physical appearance alone

I get your point though jewels - it smacks of some antiquated turn of the 20th century stuff that was used to condemn anyone who wasn't a cracker-white English dude.

Hope we've learned by now that's stupid. For what I do (programming), I see bright people from all over the planet.

If someone off the street can accurately type based on photographs (which may tell a different story - things the person was doing, what they were wearing, who they were engaged in a conversation with), it seems there's something there.


...exILEd :Ne::Ti:

PS: another study that was kind of freaky and related - "People identify the sexual orientation of strangers as fast as 50 milliseconds"

People identify the sexual orientation of strangers as fast as 50 milliseconds : Cognitive Daily

---

All of those studies are about how hormone levels influence facial appearance (so you know, big jaws on guys with lots of testosterone). And yes, you can determine things like the level of testosterone in a guy or estrogen in a girl based on this -- which tells you limited things, like how aggressive a guy may act. Same thing with looking at finger length which tells you about hormone exposure in the womb and testosterone levels, etc.

BUT, I see no link between hormones and personality type (I believe type is inborn). A girl with a manly face may have more testosterone, but she can still be an IEE. Her twin could be SLI with the same face.

And I've known some very manly big jawed faced IEE guys, so I don't see at all how it would be related to personality type.

Hi, CheGuevara. This stuff is pure bullshit.

oh so it *is* Che? That explains a lot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jxrtes

What's his type?

jpg

---

like, ESI? :):):)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDo

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...

Show them who's boss, John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

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
http://www.musicbabylon.com/files/Jennifer_Lopez.jpg

C-SEE: round face like Bill Clinton
http://temple3.files.wordpress.com/2...yeahihitit.jpg

N-SEE: square face like Ronald Reagan
http://www.forttumbleweed.net/presreaganyoung.jpg

H-SEE: rectangular face like Fidel Castro
http://www.nazis.de/inidia/Fidel_Cas...2wikipedia.jpg

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDo

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.

Let's improve our V.I. skills, type by type. If my hypothesis concerning facial structure is correct it will help with typing tremendously...

D-LII (rectangular face): Christian Rach, German cook (I couldn't find a better example)
http://www.topnews.de/wp-content/upl...0595920460.jpg

C-LII (square face): Al Gore
http://www.solarnavigator.net/media/...trait_1994.jpg

N-LII (round face): Frank-Walter Steinmeier
http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo...arge__blob.jpg

H-LII (oval face): Thomas Jefferson
http://www.uis.edu/sangamonauditoriu...p_image001.jpg

All of those faces are oval.

D-LSE (round face): Dick Cheney
http://www.brianbeutler.com/Cheney.jpg

C-LSE (oval face): George W. Bush
http://www.germanblogs.de/pub/german...ge-W-Bush.jpeg

N-LSE (rectangular face): a person from socioniko.net cause I don't know any celebrities of this type. But the father of my cousin's husband looks the same...
http://socioniko.net/img/ps_009.jpg

H-LSE (square face): Helmut Kohl
http://www.compu-seite.de/bilder/Politik/kohl.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polikujm

All of those faces are oval.

---

But some are more oval than others :lol:

Reminds me of animal farm:
All animals are equal - but some are more equal than others. :lol:

Look:
Steinmeier's face looks rather ( )-like.
Gore's face looks rather [ ]-like
Jefferson's face looks rather ()-like.
Rach's face looks rather []-like.

You have to compare people of one type (like LII in this case). It's pointless to compare them to people of other types and say "they are all oval".

This is fucking psychotic.

But what if it's true?!? :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilly

This is fucking psychotic.

---

But so epic!

That's not how VI works. Facial expressions are far more telling than anything else.

If this guy is LSE,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDo

D-LSE (round face): Dick Cheney
http://www.brianbeutler.com/Cheney.jpg

---

Then so is this guy...

http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikiped...ssMeredith.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arctures

That's not how VI works. Facial expressions are far more telling than anything else.

---

You're just not psychotic enough to understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyrano

If this guy is LSE,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDo

D-LSE (round face): Dick Cheney
http://www.brianbeutler.com/Cheney.jpg

---

Then so is this guy...

http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikiped...ssMeredith.jpg

---

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/1872/fdr2j.jpg

Thoughts??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subterranean

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/1872/fdr2j.jpg

Thoughts??

---

Simple. Bergess Merideth was going for the FDR look, Cheney is channeling The Penguin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polikujm

You're just not psychotic enough to understand.

---

I suppose not then

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arctures

That's not how VI works. Facial expressions are far more telling than anything else.

---

Yes, I agree. Analyzing facial structure is not a reliable method to determine the main type. But if my observations are accurate it is an excellent method to determine the subtype. Just try it and you will see...

If this article is correct then DCNH is the first subtype system to be empirically validated! So there must be visual differences between the subytpes and I think I found them...

Just analyze the DCNH types of people you know personally and you will see I'm right...

You are pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilly

You are pathetic.

---

Me? Why?

You're trying to standardize visual identification. It's hilarious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDo

I got the impression that problems with typing have something to do with facial structure. Similiar discussions occur on this forum. There is certainly a correlation between consensus and facial structure.

1.) People with round faces have a strengthened base function. So the base function can easily be determined whereas the creative function is frequently hard to tell.
Example: Colin Powell is clearly Ti-dominant, IxTj. Hard to say if LII or LSI.

2.) People with square faces have a strengthened creative function. This frequently leads to problems with typing the temperament.
Example: Barack Obama is clearly xNFx. Temperament is hard to say.

3.) People with rectangular faces have a strengthened ignoring function. This leads to problems with the E-I-dichotomy.

4.) People with oval faces have a strengthened demonstrative function. So the 4-dimensional functions are obvious but it is hard to determine which is which. The j-p-dichotomy is the problem here.
Examples: Jennifer Lopez (SEE or ESE), George W. Bush (LSE or SLE).

---

No man. It isn't that simple. Why are people always mistaking low-quality correlations for a high-quality ones? Is it due to laziness? It's what gave birth to astrology and similar crap. A lot of the problem can be attributed to generalizing when there's not the time, nor the place i.e. generalizing where the sample size simply forbids one to do so..sometimes sample being N=1.(I guess it's just the way how brain works) It's what gave birth to astrology, hateful nationalism and to similar crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tuturututu

No man. It isn't that simple.

---

You can easily prove that! Just tell me the DCNH type of 10 celebrities where it doesn't fit...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tuturututu

Why are people always mistaking low-quality correlations for a high-quality ones? Is it due to laziness?

---

It is due to confirmation bias. But in this case I'm sure of the correlation I described...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tuturututu

It's what gave birth to astrology and similar crap. A lot of the problem can be attributed to generalizing when there's not the time, nor the place i.e. generalizing where the sample size simply forbids one to do so..sometimes sample being N=1.(I guess it's just the way how brain works) It's what gave birth to astrology, hateful nationalism and to similar crap.

---

True.

Quote:

---

You can easily prove that! Just tell me the DCNH type of 10 celebrities where it doesn't fit...

---

I cannot do that because, in my opinion, in most of people, DCNH subtype is changeable. Therefore making absolute DCNH categorization of all people quite futile. Of course, you can categorize them once and for all in an absolute way, by spliting DCNH continuum into two, perhaps 50-50, categories. However, given that people are (so it seems) normaly distributed on DCNH dichotomy continuums it often makes the task futile(EDIT: 02/06/2010 - or not). DCNH relativity level is just repulsing. Only place where it's proper is the place where all relativity is proper => regarding relations between objects.

I don't try to standardize V.I. of the 16 main types. I just try to standadize V.I. of DCNH types.

If you think my observations are wrong - tell us the DCNH types of 10 celebrities where it doesn't fit! :O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDo

If Victor DarkAngelFireWolf69 is correct then DCNH is the first subtype system to be empirically validated! So there must be visual differences between the subytpes and I think I found them...

---

I fail to grasp the implication.

We don't need to lead the same discussion in two threads... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

I fail to grasp the implication.

---

People of different types look different. That's why V.I. is possible (besides facial expressions and body language).

People of the same type but different subtype will look different, too. If that wasn't the case we shouldn't use the term subtype.

If DCNH is right different DCNH types will look different.

You presume subtype implies it's unchangeable *and* outwardly visible.

Authors of the theory don't. They allow for the possibility of subtype change.

Quote:

---

It is well-known to all that the structure of the psyche is mobile. How to correlate this truth about the dynamics of personality with respect to the fixedness of a sociotype through the stretches of time? There are, thus far, no sufficiently valid answers to this regular question in the existing socionics literature, but within the framework of our theory it is possible to answer it as follows. Subtype is capable of evolving. It is a semi-rigid formation, which can change under spontaneous environmental effects or through goal-directed training. The rate of change is small however: for the explicit change of subtype many years are necessary. Apparently if this does occur, then not more than 1-2x times during a person’s life.

Change, in essence, originates from and revolves around the scale “Ignoring-Connecting”. If you, investigating the psychological type of an individual, reveal that this scale is not determined, this means that man is in an intermediate state. But if a similar state according to one reason or another remains for a long time, then appears the fifth subtype – transitional. We will designate it 0.

---

You probably noticed that the DCNH system described in this article from 1995 is not the same as the DCNH system DarkAngelFireWolf69 describes in an article from 2006 (D and H are switched). DarkAngelFireWolf69 might be wrong with his idea of changing subtype, too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDo

DarkAngelFireWolf69 might be wrong with his idea of changing subtype, too...

---

Which isn't enough to conclude that subtype "must be" related to permanent physical traits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

Which isn't enough to conclude that subtype "must be" related to permanent physical traits.

---

Just type enough people and you will see...

Next example: ESE.
I apologize for using german politicians and Formula 1 drivers again but it's hard to find American examples I'm sure of....

D-ESE (round face): Juan-Pablo Montoya (Formula 1, Nascar)
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2008/wri...t1-montoya.jpg

C-ESE (oval face): Gerhard Schröder (former German Chancellor)
http://www.systemkritik.de/bmuhl/jus...oeder_jung.jpg

N-ESE (rectangular face): David Coulthard (Formula 1)
http://www.dreamstime.com/david-coul...umb4211585.jpg

H-ESE (square face): Rubens Barrichello (Formula 1)
http://www.klm.gm/images/f1/barrichello.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

You presume subtype implies it's unchangeable *and* outwardly visible.

Authors of the theory don't. They allow for the possibility of subtype change.

---

ＡＣＴＵＡＬＬＹ it might be that subtype can change along with changes in facial structure． why not？ ppl's faces ｏｆｔｅｎ　ｄｏ　ｃｈａｎｇｅ　ａｓ　ｔｈｅｙ　ｇｅｔ　ｏｌｄｅｒ．people's strength in lower numbered functions also tend to grow stronger with age. the two phenomena could be interrelated. changes in facial structure may be indicators and products of changes in the body and brain. it's not a large leap of logic. it's definitely plausible. if someone smiles more and more often over the course of a few years as a result of life changes and changes in mood, that is going to strengthen and muscularize their jaw bone, and create 'smile lines'. if someone moves into a new job that requires them to be alert to and concentrate on small visual details (air traffic control for instance), over time, the muscles around their eyes, and the contours around the eye will change slightly as a product of adaptation. if one has a job that requires analysis of large amounts of complex data, they may take on a furrowed brow look over the years....feedback and feedforward processes may account for the underlying neurophysiological mechanism.

why exactly strengthening of functions causes roundness/squareness/ovalness/rectangularness is hard to say, but don't dismiss the pattern just because there doesn't seem to be a logical or clear reason for it. that doesn't mean a reason does not exist.

this seems absolutely crazy to me (although my husband's face does look the most like the D-ESE example in this thread).

In other words, a person who has been developing his or her superego function can look like his or her superego, and can even attract peeps from conflicting quadras.

Awesome for mass confusion, but taxing for self.

D-LIE (round face): Josef Ackermann, German top manager
http://p3.focus.de/img/gen/W/e/HBWeg...en_r_467xA.jpg

C-LIE (oval face): Silvio Berlusconi, Italian Prime Minister
http://db.rambleschmack.net/images/p...berlusconi.jpg

N-LIE (rectangular face): George H.W. Bush
http://woodenspears.com/wp-content/u...ge-hw-bush.jpg

H-LIE (square face): Bill Gates
http://www.ecoautoninja.com/wp-conte...bill_gates.jpg

:whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle:
And I'm still waiting for examples which disprove the pattern!!
:whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle:

Another person who thinks Bill Gates is an LIE. Thank you for existing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDo

:whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle:
And I'm still waiting for examples which disprove the pattern!!
:whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle:

---

http://images.fox.com.au/2008/06/19/...nt-600x400.jpg

Is it the boy from The Sixth Sense? I know neither his name nor his type but if you mean his facial structure changed - it looks oval and oval to me. Adults have broader faces than children, of course...

Can't seem to pinpoint my subtype, whether I'm creative or harmonizing.
I know for a fact that I'm initiating - clearly expressed irrationality, no doubt in my mind... but I'm unsure about the degree of extraversion/introversion and (especially) connecting/ignoring.

I can't do it in accepting/producing subtype form either... Wikisocion seems to be a little vague to me, since I can identify fairly well with both - or think I do, anyway.

What is the observable disparity between them? What kind of situations would they act differently in, and what exactly would they do differently?
I'm an SLI, 9w8-5w6-2w3 sx/sp, by the way.

Determining your subtype is only reliable if you already know enough people of your own main type. If you know 5 SLIs for sure you can compare them, determine their subtypes and determine your own subtype.

If you are the only SLI you know for sure subtyping is a rather pointless exercise.
If you are not even sure of your main type - don't think about subtypes.

You could post some pictures so that we can verify your typing...

do you have more of a square jaw or a sesame seed shaped jaw?

going by JohnDo's VI method...

square jaw*/ square face =creative
sesame seed jaw/ oval face =harmonizing

*rectangular faces can also have square jaws, but of course they have longer faces

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xixi

square jaw/ square face =creative
sesame seed/ oval face =harmonizing

---

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xixi

going by JohnDo's VI method...

square jaw*/ square face =creative
sesame seed jaw/ oval face =harmonizing

---

No, that's wrong. My method is a bit more complicated. It's not really a method but rather a discovery btw....

base - round
creative - square
demonstrative -oval
ignoring - rectangular

A C-LII has a square face, a H-LII an oval face. But that's only for Ixxj!
His self-typing is ISTp.

base function: :Si: --- harmonizing subtype --- round face
creative function: :Te: --- dominant subtype --- square face
demonstrative function: :Ti: --- normalizing subtype --- oval face
ignoring function: :Se: --- creative subtype --- rectangular face

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDo

Determining your subtype is only reliable if you already know enough people of your own main type. If you know 5 SLIs for sure you can compare them, determine their subtypes and determine your own subtype.

If you are the only SLI you know for sure subtyping is a rather pointless exercise.
If you are not even sure of your main type - don't think about subtypes.

You could post some pictures so that we can verify your typing...

---

I have a friend who's an ISTp.
Compare? When you say it like that, I have noticed that he's more contained than I am. I'm the one who likes speculating and joking around and what not, and he's usually the one who just listens and laughs at what people say (when he's not drunk or high, anyway...)
I guess this points more toward creative subtype for me.

I posted some pictures a while back but deleted them, too lazy right now to post them again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDo

No, that's wrong. My method is a bit more complicated. It's not really a method but rather a discovery btw....

base - round
creative - square
demonstrative -oval
ignoring - rectangular

A C-LII has a square face, a H-LII an oval face. But that's only for Ixxj!
His self-typing is ISTp.

base function: :Si: --- harmonizing subtype --- round face
creative function: :Te: --- dominant subtype --- square face
demonstrative function: :Ti: --- normalizing subtype --- oval face
ignoring function: :Se: --- creative subtype --- rectangular face

---

Going by your system, I would be a creative or normalizing subtype, and my friend would be of a harmonizing subtype.

How have you come to these conclusions, though?
I'm more than a little skeptical, in all honesty, but I'm no expert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default

How have you come to these conclusions, though?
I'm more than a little skeptical, in all honesty, but I'm no expert.

---

It is not an acknowledged method but I discovered this pattern by typing dozens of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDo

No, that's wrong. My method is a bit more complicated. It's not really a method but rather a discovery btw....

base - round
creative - square
demonstrative -oval
ignoring - rectangular

A C-LII has a square face, a H-LII an oval face. But that's only for Ixxj!
His self-typing is ISTp.

base function: :Si: --- harmonizing subtype --- round face
creative function: :Te: --- dominant subtype --- square face
demonstrative function: :Ti: --- normalizing subtype --- oval face
ignoring function: :Se: --- creative subtype --- rectangular face

---

...square face means having strengthened creative function, but that doesn't mean 'creative subtype'...
harmonizing/dominant/etc...is not defined as the position of the strengthened function, but its nature...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xixi

...square face means having strengthened creative function, but that doesn't mean 'creative subtype'...

---

True (if you ask me)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xixi

harmonizing/dominant/etc...is not defined as the position of the strengthened function, but its nature...

---

True. DCNH subtype is defined by the strengthened function, not by its position.
The problem is that shape of face seems to depend not only on the strenthened function but also on its position.

Aiss is of the opinion that I never explained what I mean by a "roundish" or a "longish" face e.g.

Here are some pictures of persons who where typed by Ekaterina Filatova. I'll subtype them by their facial structure to illustrate what I mean when I'm talking about a "rectangular face" or something like that. See Visual Identification of Subtypes.

Sooner or later this approach might help to find doppelgängers more easily. The problem is that one picture is not in all cases enough because the facial structure can be difficult to determine sometimes. So yes, I probably will make some mistakes but with more pictures it would be reliable. I'll start with roundish/longish...

SEI \ ISFp
roundish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/se_009.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/se_007.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/se_012.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/se_003.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/se_002.jpg

longish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/se_008.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/se_001.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/se_004.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/se_005.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/se_006.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/se_010.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/se_011.jpg



ILE \ ENTp
roundish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/il_008.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/il_011.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/il_012.jpg

longish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/il_001.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/il_002.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/il_003.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/il_004.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/il_005.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/il_006.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/il_007.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/il_009.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/il_010.jpg



LII \ INTj

roundish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/li_002.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/li_006.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/li_007.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/li_008.jpg

longish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/li_001.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/li_003.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/li_004.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/li_005.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/li_009.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/li_010.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/li_011.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/li_012.jpg

ESE \ ESFj

roundish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/es_004.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/es_005.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/es_006.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/es_007.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/es_010.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/es_011.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/es_012.jpg

longish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/es_001.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/es_002.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/es_003.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/es_008.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/es_009.jpg



LSI \ ISTj
roundish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/lf_006.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/lf_007.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/lf_009.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/lf_011.jpg

longish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/lf_001.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/lf_002.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/lf_003.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/lf_004.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/lf_005.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/lf_008.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/lf_010.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/lf_012.jpg




EIE \ ENFj
roundish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/et_006.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/et_010.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/et_011.jpg

longish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/et_001.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/et_002.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/et_003.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/et_004.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/et_005.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/et_007.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/et_008.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/et_009.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/et_012.jpg
[/B]

IEI \ INFp
roundish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/te_001.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/te_002.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/te_007.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/te_012.jpg

longish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/te_003.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/te_004.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/te_005.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/te_006.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/te_008.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/te_009.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/te_010.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/te_011.jpg




SLE \ ESTp
roundish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fl_003.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fl_006.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fl_009.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fl_011.jpg

longish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fl_007.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fl_001.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fl_002.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fl_010.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fl_004.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fl_005.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fl_008.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fl_012.jpg




ILI \ INTp
roundish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/tp_004.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/tp_006.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/tp_007.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/tp_008.jpg

longish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/tp_001.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/tp_002.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/tp_003.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/tp_005.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/tp_009.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/tp_010.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/tp_011.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/tp_012.jpg

SEE \ ESFp
roundish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fr_001.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fr_002.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fr_004.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fr_008.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fr_011.jpg

longish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fr_003.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fr_005.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fr_006.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fr_007.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fr_009.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fr_010.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/fr_012.jpg




ESI \ ISFj
roundish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/rf_002.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/rf_004.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/rf_007.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/rf_011.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/rf_012.jpg

longish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/rf_001.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/rf_003.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/rf_005.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/rf_006.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/rf_008.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/rf_009.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/rf_010.jpg



LIE \ ENTj
roundish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/pt_002.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/pt_004.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/pt_007.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/pt_010.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/pt_012.jpg

longish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/pt_001.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/pt_003.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/pt_005.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/pt_006.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/pt_008.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/pt_009.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/pt_011.jpg

My opinion is that given there is no criteria offered for these typings, they are mostly useless.

EII \ INFj
roundish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ri_003.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ri_007.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ri_008.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ri_012.jpg

longish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ri_011.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ri_001.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ri_002.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ri_004.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ri_005.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ri_006.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ri_009.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ri_010.jpg



LSE \ ESTj
roundish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ps_001.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ps_002.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ps_003.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ps_007.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ps_008.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ps_010.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ps_012.jpg

longish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ps_004.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ps_005.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ps_006.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ps_009.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ps_011.jpg




SLI \ ISTp
roundish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/sp_005.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/sp_006.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/sp_011.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/sp_012.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/sp_001.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/sp_002.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/sp_003.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/sp_004.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/sp_007.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/sp_008.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/sp_009.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/sp_010.jpg

IEE \ ENFp
roundish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ir_001.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ir_003.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ir_004.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ir_008.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ir_009.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ir_010.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ir_012.jpg

longish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ir_002.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ir_005.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ir_006.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ir_007.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/ir_011.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcaudilllg

My opinion is that given there is no criteria offered for these typings, they are mostly useless.

---

What do you mean?! This thread is supposed to offer criteria, actually. So why should there be criteria offered to offer criteria? Criteria for criteria for criteria...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDo

Aiss is of the opinion that I never explained what I mean...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDo

I'll subtype them by their facial structure to illustrate what I mean...

---

Is there a way to define/operationalize "roundish," "longish," "rectangular," and the like? Even if it's speculative and hypothetical, if you provided some specific dimensions (of facial structure) to look for, we might be able to better assess and apply them to people in our own lives.

Whether your system logically makes sense or not, I'd really like to take a stab at "DCNH-VI-ing" the people around me; but if I have to go through the filter of "because JohnDo says...", it might take a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CILi

Is there a way to define/operationalize "roundish," "longish," "rectangular," and the like?

---

yeah your face is roundish and longish and so is your moms face BURN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CILi

Is there a way to define/operationalize "roundish," "longish," "rectangular," and the like? Even if it's speculative and hypothetical, if you provided some specific dimensions (of facial structure) to look for, we might be able to better assess and apply them to people in our own lives.

Whether your system logically makes sense or not, I'd really like to take a stab at "DCNH-VI-ing" the people around me; but if I have to go through the filter of "because JohnDo says...", it might take a while.

---

Expect it to take an eternity....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CILi

Is there a way to define/operationalize "roundish," "longish," "rectangular," and the like? Even if it's speculative and hypothetical, if you provided some specific dimensions (of facial structure) to look for, we might be able to better assess and apply them to people in our own lives.

---

- A face is roundish if it is approximately as long as it's broad.
- A face is longish if it is much longer than it is broad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CILi

Whether your system logically makes sense or not, I'd really like to take a stab at "DCNH-VI-ing" the people around me; but if I have to go through the filter of "because JohnDo says...", it might take a while.

---

Just type enough people without VI, then compare your typings to the VI pattern.

Clearly a roundish face, not much longer than broad:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/tp_007.jpg



Clearly a longish face, much longer than broad:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/tp_001.jpg



Hard to tell from this perspective:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...its/tp_003.jpg

How to type someone just be the way they walk:

Dominant
Normalizing: move as a train, on imaginary rails
*
Creative
Harmonizing: move in smooth trajectories
*
Dominant
Creative: move quickly
*
Normalizing
Harmonizing: move slowly

Retarded theory is retarded.

dominant - brown hair

normalizing - red hair

harmonizing - blonde hair

creative - black hair

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kassie

dominant - brown hair

normalizing - red hair

harmonizing - blonde hair

creative - black hair

---

I was blonde until 1996 or so, brown since then

dominant (D) subtype - above average height and weight

creative (C) subtype - above average height, below average weight

normalizing (N) subtype - below average height, above average weight

harmonizing (H) subtype - below average height and weight

dominant (D) subtype - Muslim

creative (C) subtype - Christian

normalizing (N) subtype - Hindu

harmonizing (H) subtype - Buddhist

dominant - rugby

normalizing - baseball

harmonizing - sychronized swimming

creative - figure skating

dominant (D) subtype - meats, breads, nuts

creative (C) subtype - sweets, fruits, pies, cakes

normalizing (N) subtype - cheeses, pastas, eggs

harmonizing (H) subtype - soups, seafood, grains, vegetables

dominant - round, firm, black, high density

normalizing - long and snaky, brown, medium density

harmonizing - liquid, amorphous, brown

creative - chunky, green, low density

lol

Dominant: BDSM Top

Harmonizing: BDSM Bottom

Normalizing: Missionary Position

Creative: Toys

Dominant: A
Creative: B
Normalizing: AB
Harmonizing: O

Dominant: Family Guy
Creative: American Dad
Normalizing: The Cleveland Show
Harmonizing: shut up meg

wow. I don't think i've ever seen anyone get owned by so many people on here. XD

dominant (D) subtype - brass

creative (C) subtype - percussion

normalizing (N) subtype - woodwinds

harmonizing (H) subtype - strings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gooey

wow. I don't think i've ever seen anyone get owned by so many people on here. XD

---

Seconded :lol:

:popcorn:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kassie

dominant - round, firm, black, high density

normalizing - long and snaky, brown, medium density

harmonizing - liquid, amorphous, brown

creative - chunky, green, low density

---

AHahahahhahahahahhahahaaaa!

Connectors (H&D) have different eyes than ignorers (C&N). Connectors eyes are more "alive" and warm and - yes - connecting, dynamic. It's like they follow you very intensely and your changing inner states. Ignorers eyes are more static, the eyes don't follow you in the same way. Creatives can have very intense eyes (or some at least), but they don't grab you the same way like HD. This is probably very hard to explain but something I've been thinking about lately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nowisthetime

Connectors (H&D) have different eyes than ignorers (C&N). Connectors eyes are more "alive" and warm and - yes - connecting, dynamic. It's like they follow you very intensely and your changing inner states. Ignorers eyes are more static, the eyes don't follow you in the same way. Creatives can have very intense eyes (or some at least), but they don't grab you the same way like HD. This is probably very hard to explain but something I've been thinking about lately.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William

What do "H&D" & "C&N" stand for? Did you learn this from an article you could link for us?

(trying not to supervise too much)

---

L U L.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William

What do "H&D" & "C&N" stand for? Did you learn this from an article you could link for us?

(trying not to supervise too much)

---

There are three main articles on DCNH. You can read them here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tegory/47-DCNH

don't worry, Te-supervision is more intricate than just asking for facts :)