Visual Identification in Typing

[Joy]

Will someone who believes in this concept explain it to me please? The more I think about it, the less I believe that build or facial features could determine one's personality. I could see how they're facial expressions or clothes or body language could be influenced by their type, but what about things that they have no control over?

I decide what personality I'll have, not my build or facial features! I suppose not everyone is as resiliant, but still... I dunno. I'm not trying to be difficult, I guess just don't get this whole concept. Is it supposed to be a matter of socitey influencing a person's type based on their appearance? And if that's the case, wouldn't it vary according to culture?


*visual identification validity poll*

[Rocky]

I decide what personality I'll have, not my build or facial features!

Well then you're sorely mistaken, Missy.

Actually, we're not talking about personality, but socionic type. There's a diffrence. Your personality is what CAN change and be influenced by people and society, while your socionics type can't. It is what you were born with, like you were born with a brain, two legs, ten fingers and ten toes, etc...

The best explaination I can think of right now about typing people is to compare it to music. If you are a musician, then you can certainly listen to a song or a person singing and know what chords or notes are heard. Someone who has not spent their time studing music will have no idea or even recognize that diffrent chords exsist (they will know that everything is not the same, but won't be able to exaplin it). If you listen to music ALOT and practice an instrument, then you will be able to pick out the diffrent notes just by the way they sound (and this is a skill that many people have). It is exactly the same way with picking out a type. People who don't know socinics don't realize that everyone fits into one of 16 types (but we know that :wink: ). If you put some energy into noticing the little things about people (facial expressions, they way they hold themselves, their voice, mannerisms, movements, etc..) then you will be able to pick out certain types the way a musicain can pick out a note. With alot of work, you will start to notice alot of patterns, and typing people becomes almost secong nature. The only reason that some people don't see/accept this is that not as many people actually try and learn this skill as they do with things like music. It's not really any more difficult.

[Rocky]

to be honest my views on it change constantly, but i do know that no direct correlation has been PROVEN and the creator of Vi (Filatova) is skeptical about it's application as well.

... and yet a guy with MBTI roots, coming from a diffrent hemisphere, claims to type 95% of people by VI alone (and he gets paid for these physical evaluations). And, yes, I do believe typing by ONLY a picture does not always work, but if you do it through a video or interview or something then it becomes much easier. For example, I had a baseball coach who I typed LIE (ENTJ), then I just recently saw the manager of the Angles in an interview, and I immediatly thought of this other guy (speech patterns, appearence, expressions, etc.). Then, I checked to see what Niednagel typed him as. You guessed it... ENTJ! So we both seemed to agree on that. And just yesterday I saw John Edwards interviewed on the Daily Show and thought "Tom Cruise". Both of them most certainly must be EIE (ENFJ). Would you argue that?

[Joy]

the coding for a physical trait (round face or something) lie on the same chromosome as the coding for a particular 'type' feature. so when you have a particular chromosome both the physical trait and the 'psychological' trait are found together ALWAYS.

oh? I've not heard this before... but how much of your personality is genetic? Not all... And I maintain that I get to decide what type I am...

Rocky, I understand what you're saying about mannerisms and whatnot, but I'm asking about physical features. How is it that one is born with a socionics type? Again... I maintain that I get to decide what type I am...

[Rocky]

Rocky, I understand what you're saying about mannerisms and whatnot, but I'm asking about physical features. How is it that one is born with a socionics type? Again... I maintain that I get to decide what type I am...

Let me put it this way, if you weren't born with a certain type from birth we would all probably be diffrent types. Why? Well, Darklord has mentioned this before. We would be molded more by our parents and what THEY VALUE, and everyone would have a nice happy family. I am the complete opposite type as my Mother. My sister is the complete opposite of my Dad. Parents generally raise and treat their kids the same way that they want to be treated, but it doesn't always work out that way. As much as I can try, I have always looked at and done things (everything) diffrent from my Mom. I would have been some kind of Beta if I weren't BORN with the type I have now.

[Rocky]

Well, now that you brought the subject up:

http://braintypes.com/btistudy.htm

http://braintypes.com/eeg.htm

[Joy]

it is rare to find someone who "breaks" completely from their mold. people who do (persons with multiple personality disorder etc) can be viewed as never having developed a PERSONALITY at all, never having developed a type at all, or being conditioned to act in too contradictory a manner with themselves.

(and it's called dissociative disorder these days)

[Joy]

Okay, I concede.

[Gilly]

Particularly to those who are interested in such things (Rocky):

-What are the things you look for when visually identifying people? I know I look at the eyes, nose, and jawline more than other things, but I'm no expert by any means.

-On that note, how do you use said characteristics to differentiate?

-Do you feel that each individual type has unique physical features, or do certain things point to E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P?

-How effective do you really think VI is? Should it ever take precedence over testing, or should it just be used to tip the scales?

Just for clarification, I'm looking for personal responses/techniques, not just those prescribed by socionists (unless, of course, you really do go by the book). I know VI is a pretty fuzzy area, but I'm trying to see if there is really a general consensus on any of this.

[Rocky]

I wouldn't put too much stock in saying things like, "Wow, he has the nose of an INTp, he must be one!" The eyes, yes, they can often tell more. Intuitives have more of a wandering gaze, STs have that "eagle-eye" which makes them look like they are concentrating on one specific point in space, introverts have their attention more sucked in to their head, etc...

Sorry, I don't have time now but I'll respond on the other things later... :/

[Catholic Schoolboy]

INTp eyes ^. A good example, no Rocky?

[Creepy-]

INTp eyes ^. A good example, no Rocky?

Those eyes could belong to any type, your INTP nose could be from your father, your personality from your mother, who knows.

Things to look for in a face, are testosterone markers,( jaw, cheek bones, chin) it could indicate a more right brain dominance, suggesting a perceiving type. It's more of a male trait to have a right brain dominance. More feminine features, can suggest a more left brain dominance, but again, this is pure speculation

[Creepy-]

Another thing to look for are index, to ring finger ratios..

The longer the ring finger are, compared to the index finger, the more masculine the brain, atleast, thats a popular pop-psychology belif.

[Creepy-]

those with aspergers, or even worse, are often found to have abnormal long ring finger, to index finger ratios.

Lesbian girls, and gay men, are also found to have longer than normal ring finger, to index finger ratio..

The ratio is determined by the exposure to testosterone in the mothers womb.

[Catholic Schoolboy]

I agree for the most part. Why are you posting as a guest? Bashful are we?

[Rocky]

INTp eyes ^. A good example, no Rocky?

Yup, they look like that of a cold-hearted bitch.


That's ok though, a lot of guys like cold women, so you still have hope, Sycophant.


OK, back on the VI...

What I *do* believe in heavily in VI is the body movements. The system is very simplistic, and somewhat clear-cut (at least more black and white then the ambigous faces). Soon you will be able to break down people into groups of four soley on watching them move (and then in half, and then down to one if you couldn't tell by their personality at that point).

The other things is just look around you. After time you will notice that people you encounter remind you of people who you've known in the past based off of looks, mannerisms, voice etc... That's what VI really is. Not the stupid "chin", "nose", "finger length" crap.

[Gilly]

I like your take, Rocky, although I think there are certain facial features that tend to run with types (like the ENTP nose...heheh).

You say the process of determining type by movements is easy. What are some guidelines? Could you point me/us to a source for this info?

[Rocky]

I like your take, Rocky, although I think there are certain facial features that tend to run with types (like the ENTP nose...heheh).

You say the process of determining type by movements is easy. What are some guidelines? Could you point me/us to a source for this info?

OK, back on this. I have posted things like this several times in the past.



This is a diagram of the primary motor cortex. This is the explaination behind the movemets>type theory. The top of the motor cortex (toes, legs, torso, shoulders, etc.) is where the SFs are dominant. This means that the four SF types (and *only* the SFs) will demonstrate use of the *gross* motor skills (they're the only types that you can see move from the bottom-up as oppossed to the top-down).

After that, you move down the motor cortoex and get to the area that controls the arms, hands, fingers, and eyes. Here is where the STs are dominant. You can always see that thier *fine* motor skills are dominanting over their *gross* ones (oposite of the SFs).

You move down a little more and you get to the area around the lips, law, toungue, etc. These are the NFs. They will still be more fine than gross skilled, yet still different from the STs. The NFs are more "pliable" and flexible, as oppossed to the sensors who are more "compact". The NFs seem more agile and acrobatic.

We finnaly get down to the NTs. Like we said before, those are the handicapped ones; sorry. Actually, the NTs look somewhat like the NFs at first, but they seem somewhat more disjointed. You could say that of all the types, the four NTs have the most "distance" between their fine and gross skills. I guess they are just detached from the physical world, which has some plusses and some negatives.

After you have them down to four types, the differnece between the judgeers and percievers is more on how "hollistic" thier movements are. Percievers are more "smooth", and can even seem like they are all over the place. The judgers are more "mecahnical", but their movements seem more planned and sequential.

OK, so the only thing left is the E/I. This is probaby the hardest thing to tell *just* from movements (actually they're pretty much the same). One differences is that introverts are more energy concerving and extraverts are energy expending. Another thing is the attention to the outside world (extraverts) like I mentioned above, of the more "withdrawn attention, sucked into their heads (introverts). I guess you can notice other little idiosynchracies to differantiate, but that's a start.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this is quoted from BrainTypes.com:

The Brain Types that are most adept in this highest segment of the motor cortex are the 4 Sensing Feelers, or SF’s. These people have the greatest proficiency with the gross motor skills, or large muscle groups of the body. There are two major aspects of body coordination, which all Types have, yet the SFs are best at these. First, there is body “control,” which comes from the left brain and tends to specialize in the separate parts in a movement; the SFJ’s master this ability. Second there is body “rhythm,” a product of the right brain which processes multiple parts of movement into an artistic, graceful flow. The SFP’s are masters here.

Athletes with the 4 SF Brain Types normally show strong manifestations of these characteristics as they engage the large muscles groups with either “control” or “rhythm.” Picture in your mind such performers and SFPs, as basketball's Magic Johnson and Dennis Rodman, baseball's Ken Griffey Jr. and Barry Bonds, golf's Lee Trevino, tennis’ Lindsay Davenport, and track's Carl Lewis, Michael Johnson and Marion Jones.

The Sensing Thinkers or STs specialize in the second region of the motor cortex as we move away from the cerebral core and down the cortex; this area is responsible for fine motor skills. It covers the elbow to the fingertips and also the eye area. This helps explain why the 4 ST’s have a special inborn ability to master fine motor skills, especially as they relate to hand-eye coordina*tion. Two significant aspects are associated with hand-eye coordination: Calculated dexterity is the special skill or adroitness in using the hands to manipulate objects in a controlled fashion. This ability to handle detailed movements comes principally from the left brain. Here the STJ’s excel.

The other major aspect of hand-eye coordination involves spontaneous positioning, or placing the hand in the proper loca*tion at a given moment. The right brain primarily regulates this skill. Therefore, it now makes sense why the STP’s are masterful here. Some of the STP’s who’ve perfected fine motor movements are hockey’s Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, and Brett Hull, baseball’s Ted Williams and Henry Aaron, basketball’s John Stockton, Larry Bird and a guy named Michael Jordan. And by the way, the ST’s are only once removed from the SF’s on the motor cortex; thus they’re blessed with big muscle movements, but not as gifted as the SF’s. Conversely, the SF’s are very good with fine motors but not as expert as the ST’s.

The third and final region down the motor cortex is mastered by the 4 iNtuitive Feelers, or NFs. Here we see the face and mouth's area of control (such as language and hearing skills). Therefore, NFs specialize in the verbal and the auditory. Yet, they’re also adept with motor skills, able to coordinate gross and fine motor movements better than other Types. The left-brained NFJs coordinate the 2 muscle groups methodically and the 2 right-brained NFP’s synchronize the gross and fine motors with fluidity and grace. This demonstrates why ENFPs are the top figure skaters and divers in the world. Some NFP’s have included Kristi Yamaguchi and Michelle Kwan, golf’s Tiger Woods and David Duval, basketball’s Kevin Garnett, and diving’s Greg Louganis.

The 4 NT’s do rely on big and small muscle movements, but not as much as the other 12 Brain Types. In fact, many times NT’s excel in sports because their muscles aren’t so dominant. For instance, a baseball pitcher gets more movement on the ball when his grip is light rather than strong. This is why ENTP pitchers can create the most movement on a fastball.

Since the NT’s are farthest removed of the Types from the gross motor region, they are naturally better with fine motor movements. JN works with NT athletes all the time and their greatest physical hindrance is mastery over the large muscle groups, especially the lower body. ENTPs, for example, find tremendous benefit by widening their stances in such sports as baseball and golf—proving them the necessary balance to hit the ball most effectively. The 2 left-brained NTJ’s are more mechanical in their motor movements while the 2 right-brained NTP’s are smoother—even though their movements are often disjointed. Some left-brained NTJ athletes have included baseball’s Randy Johnson and golf’s Hale Irwin and Tom Kite. Right-brained NTP athletes have included baseball’s Kevin Brown and tennis’ Pete Sampras.

[Creepy-]

I like juggling, playing piano, guitar, and also have very good car driving skills, repair cars for fun, can write with bouth hands, even one hand mirrored, while writing in the right direction with the other hand at the same time. And have very good visual, kinestic, and musical skills. I'm the one to ask if drawings hang straight, or to draw a naturalistic drawing.
Also bothered a lot with gut feelings about things. Yes my stummic goes banana due to stock investments. My memory is mostly visual.

Keirsey would stereotype be as an ISFP, or ISTP, in that system for sure.

Type is ENTP on the test. But as far as I am concerned, I really dont care, what type I am, or if ENTP are my type.

Personally I think that brain site is so full of crap. Also fine motor skills seems like something that can be learned, to a large extent.

[Gilly]

I think you need to read more carefully, Guest. It says that NTs have reasonable access to fine motor skills; moreso than they have gross motor skills, in any case. After all, the stereotype isn't true for everyone. I have an INTJ friend at school who is a world class swimmer. That's a major gross motor skill activity, but, in spite of being the type with the weakest gross motor skills, he still accels in it.

And yes, fine motor skills can be learned, as can any other motor skill. BT simply tries to explain that certain types are more "in tune" with certain parts of their brains, giving them a slightly greater affinity for the motor skills controlled by said parts.

[Creepy-]

Lesbian girls, and gay men, are also found to have longer than normal ring finger, to index finger ratio..

...

Bah, you're right, I was hoping to prove you wrong. It only works for the left hand though, so I've read. In any case, lesbian =/= masculine.

@Rocky: I keep thinking I must be an NT when I read that (what you posted), except it doesn't make sense personality-wise

[Rocky]

*sigh*

Guest, you keep proving to me that you still don't get it. It's not about how athletic someone is. I think a lot of people have problems in misunderstanding this stuff. For example, I have an ISTp who is *not* athletic, at all, yet he is still ISTp. Even by the "movements system" above, you would type him as xSTp. Sorry if you can't see the difference.

[Creepy-]

*sigh*

Guest, you keep proving to me that you still don't get it. It's not about how athletic someone is. I think a lot of people have problems in misunderstanding this stuff. For example, I have an ISTp who is *not* athletic, at all, yet he is still ISTp. Even by the "movements system" above, you would type him as xSTp. Sorry if you can't see the difference.

Im not really having any firm opinion, other that I think some are to locked onto certain belif systems to mutch. I think motor skills can be learned...I dont see it as related to types really.

But If one was to say it was, well, then I would think of the brain dominance factor, someone with a more right oriented an masculine brain, would probably be better at things related to right brain activity, but
of course, quantity is not quality, so any type can be suprior to another, at anything.


Like that world class swimmer someone mentioned, I would not view it as something to do with type, rather I'd say she/he, had luck with their genetic makeup, things like hormone levels, how their body respons to training, how mutch training they can take, musclefiber ratio between slow and fast fibers, genetic blood% level, heart volum, lungs, in general things like that, more than things like type. Maybe their personality type was related to genes, that had nothing related to the genes that predicted the other factors..

I mean, myself I like to think of type as just one of lots of possibillities, nothing more.

A thing I want to learn more about are things that are backed up by research, published, in recogniced medical, and psychological journals..

Research that are not only speculations but can be proved, by scientific research..Unlike the things like the braintype site, or this ssystem.

[Rocky]

Like that world class swimmer someone mentioned, I would not view it as something to do with type, rather I'd say she/he, had luck with their genetic makeup, things like hormone levels, how their body respons to training, how mutch training they can take, musclefiber ratio between slow and fast fibers, genetic blood% level, heart volum, lungs, in general things like that, more than things like type. Maybe their personality type was related to genes, that had nothing related to the genes that predicted the other factors..

And *none* of this has any thing to do with the BrainTypes system, so why would you mention it? Unless of course you still misunderstand.

Research that are not only speculations but can be proved, by scientific research..Unlike the things like the braintype site, or this ssystem.

I think that is part of the problem. It seems like you and other people are falling too much in love with that saftey blanket that they call science. Not that science is bad (my Dad is a neuroscientist), but you have to except the fact that somethings we can neither prove nor disprove with science at this point, if ever.

[Rocky]

BTW, if you want to here the two different sides agruing for and against BrainTyping, go here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/page2/tvli...ranscript.html

[Creepy-]

Like that world class swimmer someone mentioned, I would not view it as something to do with type, rather I'd say she/he, had luck with their genetic makeup, things like hormone levels, how their body respons to training, how mutch training they can take, musclefiber ratio between slow and fast fibers, genetic blood% level, heart volum, lungs, in general things like that, more than things like type. Maybe their personality type was related to genes, that had nothing related to the genes that predicted the other factors..

And *none* of this has any thing to do with the BrainTypes system, so why would you mention it? Unless of course you still misunderstand.

Research that are not only speculations but can be proved, by scientific research..Unlike the things like the braintype site, or this ssystem.

I think that is part of the problem. It seems like you and other people are falling too much in love with that saftey blanket that they call science. Not that science is bad (my Dad is a neuroscientist), but you have to except the fact that somethings we can neither prove nor disprove with science at this point, if ever.

I sure this sounds extremely cocky, b
ut I cant belive how you can fall for that crap.

Maybe it's because I'm intuitive, or have this thing that people who make a site like that built upon sand lack, I'm not sure, but I dont have to like look into every detail, or spend more than a few minutes looking at it, to realise it's complete nonsense, I see that instantly. Their obsession with football players, their commercial moneysucking attitude, their science style, even they have no science in it, their web page layout just dont make me a beliver, it seems like a scam to me, if they belive in it themselves, or if it's a plain rip off, I'm not sure, but it dont fool me.
What suprise me is that people would want to waste their time on it, i'd say it's even worse than this system.

I'd say the system is a joke, and this reminds me of a discussion I had with a INTJ nerd at scool lots of times, he was able to do abstractions, and understand theory, but not to have any grasp on reality. I guess beliving brain types are somewhat schizotypal .

So why dont I write proof, logical reason, because I dont have to. If you belive that page, and take it seriosly, then I cannot help you, nor would any discussion have any meaning. That would be like trying to explain someone in a rational manner, why they could not use thoughts to control their dog, living in another town.

[Rocky]

I wouldn't say that that post makes you sound cocky, it just makes you sound like a prideful, ignorant douche. You just *know* it's bullshit? Believe me, I have heard it a hundred times from prudes like you. You are just like those "experts" (psychologists) in the link above. The people there who took the time to get to know Jon and listen to what he had to say (with an objective, open mind) went on to ESPN defending him because they have worked with him for a long time (one of them claimed he was "batting 1.000"). I find it funny that the only people who criticize this are the people who don't take the time to understand it or explore it for themselves, first. You feel sorry for me? Whatever...

I kind of feel sorry for the other intuitives on here. You make them all look like closed-minded, pathetic, dick-heads, to be honest. All you have admitted in that post is that you are weak. Don't fool yourself, avoiding exploring the system and making an objective judgement about it is *weak*.

And maybe you should also learn how to spell.

BTW, I never said I believed this because it was on some stupid website or in a book. I believe this because my eyes convince me of it over and over again everyday.

[Creepy-pokeball]

I wouldn't say that that post makes you sound cocky, it just makes you sound like a prideful, ignorant douche. You just *know* it's bullshit? Believe me, I have heard it a hundred times from prudes like you. You are just like those "experts" (psychologists) in the link above. The people there who took the time to get to know Jon and listen to what he had to say (with an objective, open mind) went on to ESPN defending him because they have worked with him for a long time (one of them claimed he was "batting 1.000"). I find it funny that the only people who criticize this are the people who don't take the time to understand it or explore it for themselves, first. You feel sorry for me? Whatever...

I kind of feel sorry for the other intuitives on here. You make them all look like closed-minded, pathetic, dick-heads, to be honest. All you have admitted in that post is that you are weak. Don't fool yourself, avoiding exploring the system and making an objective judgement about it is *weak*.

And maybe you should also learn how to spell.

BTW, I never said I believed this because it was on some stupid website or in a book. I believe this because my eyes convince me of it over and over again everyday.

How do you really feel? =D

I shouldnt encourage anyone with brownie points for using the word douche, huh? Sigh... + 10 points for the word douche in a complex sentence structure.

btw, I know we went over this before (and I really dont want to rehash it), but the flaw in being convinced from seeing correlations daily and believing them to be true as is, is that one must rule out many other possibilities before it has any strength/validity, etc/whatever. This must be done by looking at a systematic whole and by multiple-causality. At least that is where we are now for info.

[Creepy-]

I wouldn't say that that post makes you sound cocky, it just makes you sound like a prideful, ignorant douche. You just *know* it's bullshit? Believe me, I have heard it a hundred times from prudes like you. You are just like those "experts" (psychologists) in the link above. The people there who took the time to get to know Jon and listen to what he had to say (with an objective, open mind) went on to ESPN defending him because they have worked with him for a long time (one of them claimed he was "batting 1.000"). I find it funny that the only people who criticize this are the people who don't take the time to understand it or explore it for themselves, first. You feel sorry for me? Whatever...

I kind of feel sorry for the other intuitives on here. You make them all look like closed-minded, pathetic, dick-heads, to be honest. All you have admitted in that post is that you are weak. Don't fool yourself, avoiding exploring the system and making an objective judgement about it is *weak*.

And maybe you should also learn how to spell.

BTW, I never said I believed this because it was on some stupid website or in a book. I believe this because my eyes convince me of it over and over again everyday.

Well thanks for the compliments, I do my best, as a scandinavian with dyslexia, you write some stuff in my native language :wink:

Anyhow, I feel you are saying the braintypes webpage are shit, it's just that the system is right, so that even they are idiots they are on to something, and you of course know the truth, by observations everyday?

People can use things like cognetive schemas, if you do, then well you have incorporated the "system", into your head, and everthing is viewed through your "glasses", and get's hmm, distorted , if you like. Think of post modernism..In YOUR reality, well, of course everything is as you see it, but dont think what you see, is not through a set of "glasses", if you make the fault to think, you have some direct connection with reality, well, congrats.

Anyhow, regarding your critism, towards me. I can make a comparison.

I have not spent many minutes reading about jehovah witnesses, probably none, but I've heard about them, had them at my door, known a member, so does it make me an idiot, thinking their whole religion are more or less bullshit from such a brief encounter, and thinking their member are more or less brainwashed?

You decide. I really dont see the difference between that and the braintypes stuff. It's all stupid to me. Just like jehovah witnesses, the braintypes does not get any better, the more I look into it, rather the oposite, the more I know, the more sure I am, it's bull.

But some people probably belive more in jehovah witnesses , or things like braintypes, the more they read, and know about it. So what does that tell about those people? Well, you decide, my perceptions on that matter are more or less set.

[Creepy-]

Research that are not only speculations but can be proved, by scientific research..Unlike the things like the braintype site, or this ssystem.

I think that is part of the problem. It seems like you and other people are falling too much in love with that saftey blanket that they call science. Not that science is bad (my Dad is a neuroscientist), but you have to except the fact that somethings we can neither prove nor disprove with science at this point, if ever.

Oh, bloody science. I'm with you, Rocky. Half of science is pseudo-science, anyway. Physics is worse than psychology if only in that people take it seriously

Maybe it's because I'm intuitive

OMG make me Sensor now.

[Creepy-]

If I went onto a discussion board with jehovah witnesses, I'm sure they would think I was an idiot, if I told them I thought it was all crap, even I had not read any of their papers.

This is the same thing, thats why the last time I met one of them at my door, I told them, I once knew a member, who tried to make me one of them, and I realised, it was not for me...That kind of comment make it easier for them to go, then they dont have to think, that I decided it was not for me without first hearing about it.

I simply dont need more facts, I've seen all at the braintypes site that I need to see. It would simply just work at making my conviction stronger, to view more facts..Just like with jehovah, not to appear close minded, but, I find some thing, just to stupid to put my time into. In that sense, I'm an idiot to post this post, and waste my time on you

[Rocky]

I have not spent many minutes reading about jehovah witnesses, probably none, but I've heard about them, had them at my door, known a member, so does it make me an idiot, thinking their whole religion are more or less bullshit from such a brief encounter, and thinking their member are more or less brainwashed?

Actually, I would say that that makes you an idiot. I know one forum memeber on here who follows that religon, and he sent me some stuff about them to see what my opinion was about it. I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, but I at least read the articles and considered it first.

[Creepy-]

I have not spent many minutes reading about jehovah witnesses, probably none, but I've heard about them, had them at my door, known a member, so does it make me an idiot, thinking their whole religion are more or less bullshit from such a brief encounter, and thinking their member are more or less brainwashed?

Actually, I would say that that makes you an idiot. I know one forum memeber on here who follows that religon, and he sent me some stuff about them to see what my opinion was about it. I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, but I at least read the articles and considered it first.

Atleast these discussions are fun, that you say this makes me an idiot, say a lot about yourself. My general opinion about religion are rather agnostic, and I feel more or less all religions are man made, and fine, if it makes people feel better and have meaning in their life, to have something to belive in, well fine for them.

I have nothing against people, or think less of them because they follow a religion, like the one I mentioned, I feel sorry for the one I know, since he was brought up by parents already into it, given him that religion with the birth milk. When I hear of religios leaders, beeing rich men, with fancy cars, well, that's all it takes to know things are far off.

Just the word watchtower, who in their right mind, would be taken in by that?

Infact, I remember, once I was stopped on the street by a cult called smith friends, they gave me a personality test, a long test, called the oxford personality inventory and told me they would contact me later. They never did.

[xyz]

I really don't have faith in VI. It's just fun to speculate on little to no data, I guess.

[Slacker]

I really don't have faith in VI. It's just fun to speculate on little to no data, I guess.

I agree.

I think VI can point toward or away from something, but isn't even that useful for adults. I think it's probably slightly less useful even for kids. Kids have very distinct personalities, but kids have a childishness to them obviously, and that could point people in the wrong direction.

Some people will say that any typing of kids is impossible, or even dangerous (lol), and I certainly disagree with that. I was pretty sure my daughter was ENFp by 3 or so, and I'm quite sure the little girl across the street is ISTj. Or maybe ESTp, but probably ISTj.

I think my daughter probably does generally VI as ENFp, but even then, as an example, here are three photos and each photo could lead someone to a different impression of her type (please don't quote because I will take these down at some point):

(photos deleted)

[leckysupport]

"VI" isn't sufficient to type someone accurately. That's the biggest lie you can hear/read.

I hate liars.

So whenever you get something 'wrong' and voice it your lying?

[machintruc]

So whenever you get something 'wrong' and voice it your lying?

No, but I don't think Ganin had godly motives when elaborating VI.

[theMime.]

I really don't have faith in VI. It's just fun to speculate on little to no data, I guess.

yeah me too.
err but then I get confused because some people of the same type that I've observed have such similar mannerisms and stuff.
Bleh i dunno but I would never trust V.I. alone to determine someone's type.
You're right about the fun part tho...it's kinda like playing the board game "Guess Who" but with real people.

[jason_m]

Here are some problems with visual identification:

1) It's a superficial means of typing someone. For example, I have a friend who has a similar appearence to me. He is tall, thin, wears glasses, keeps his hair neat, and isn't much of a dresser. I could see how people would type us the same way; we both look like nerds. The problem is that we are two very different people. He's very stubborn, "correct", regimented, and could live without any comfort. I am none of these things. I am very disorderly, flexible, and much more focused on coming up with ideas than him. I think it would be unlikely that we're the same type.

2) As far as I know, there is no evidence that demonstrates that it's true. Fantastic claims require evidence to show that they're true. Otherwise, what reason is there to believe them? If you don't have any evidence as to why it's true, then there should at least be some theory as to what causes the relationship. Either there is something which causes both characteristics (personality and appearence), or one characteristic somehow causes the other. This should be explained.

3) Different people have proposed different methods of visual identification. If no one can agree on how the types look, then there is less reason to believe that it's true.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think that visual identification is a completely bogus idea, but some people take it too far. It has to be kept in perspective. The best way to use it is when it's a close call between several types and you need some other way to determine one's type, or to further support a typing made by looking at how one describes themselves. How one describes their personality should come first.

Jason

[Expat]

1) It's a superficial means of typing someone. For example, I have a friend who has a similar appearence to me. He is tall, thin, wears glasses, keeps his hair neat, and isn't much of a dresser. I could see how people would type us the same way; we both look like nerds. The problem is that we are two very different people. He's very stubborn, "correct", regimented, and could live without any comfort. I am none of these things. I am very disorderly, flexible, and much more focused on coming up with ideas than him. I think it would be unlikely that we're the same type.

Well, anyone who'd type people based on their height, or on wearing glasses or not, would not be using VI properly. "Thin" is not quite as bad but it brings us to the issue of body type which is anyway more complex than just whether you are thin or not.

The point I'm making is that what you are illustrating is a case of incompetent VI, not a demonstration of the weakness of VI as such.

2) As far as I know, there is no evidence that demonstrates that it's true. Fantastic claims require evidence to show that they're true. Otherwise, what reason is there to believe them? If you don't have any evidence as to why it's true, then there should at least be some theory as to what causes the relationship. Either there is something which causes both characteristics (personality and appearence), or one characteristic somehow causes the other. This should be explained.

VI from videos - where you can see and hear the person talking and moving - has as much evidence as anything in socionics, imo.

As to VI from pictures: precisely in order to check its validity, now and then I post here (or to some people in private) pictures of people I have known for a very long time and whom I have typed through other methods, and ask them to VI them. Not everybody gets the correct type, but the percentage of correct or near-correct answers is far higher than mere chance would account for.

Now, it's not "exact science". Personally I see VI from pictures as a sort of educated guess. But, in the absence of any other evidence, it's correct often enough to be useful.

3) Different people have proposed different methods of visual identification. If no one can agree on how the types look, then there is less reason to believe that it's true.

The best thing to do is perhaps to leave VI alone for a while, and concentrate on typing people you know through other methods. After you have typed enough people, your own VI method will emerge. Or not.