Visual Identification in Typing

[tcaudilllg]

There are some standardized methods for typing with VI:

N vs S: N eyes are usually not focused on their surroundings -- they have direction but not slant. S eyes are about always slanted toward one object in particular that they are studying at that moment.

T vs F: F expressions look more emotional, like those of a dog. T expressions seem more poised and calculated, like a cat's. F also has a tender physical frame, where T has a very structured frame and a muscular build to match.

I vs E: difficult to determine without full motion video, however E is more likely to look directly at their interlocuter than I, who will usually demur and cast their glance to the side as they speak. (away from the eyes)

J vs P: P has an angular face that will appear smaller than J's when body mass is similar; J has strong, rigid features. P rolls with the punches, J is built to absorb the punch full on. Their builds reflect evolutionary coherence with their styles of interaction.

[Creepy-]

There are some standardized methods for typing with VI:

N vs S: N eyes are usually not focused on their surroundings -- they have direction but not slant. S eyes are about always slanted toward one object in particular that they are studying at that moment.

T vs F: F expressions look more emotional, like those of a dog. T expressions seem more poised and calculated, like a cat's. F also has a tender physical frame, where T has a very structured frame and a muscular build to match.

I vs E: difficult to determine without full motion video, however E is more likely to look directly at their interlocuter than I, who will usually demur and cast their glance to the side as they speak. (away from the eyes)

J vs P: P has an angular face that will appear smaller than J's when body mass is similar; J has strong, rigid features. P rolls with the punches, J is built to absorb the punch full on. Their builds reflect evolutionary coherence with their styles of interaction.

Very, very interesting breakdown. Can you go more in-depth with this? Particularly the j vs p descriptions....

[strrrng]

umm...it's neither superficial nor bullshit...if you understand the true nature of functions, you are able to discern patterns in vibes and demeanors of people. obviously you're not looking at their size and stuff; it's about the subtleties.

[Kill4Me]

VI has already been proven with samples of identical twins. Identical twins have the same micro-expressions. To date, opponents of VI have not been able to disprove VI by showing examples of identical twins where the vibe is totally different. I put the challenge out there but nobody has been able to meet it. You will never find a set of identical twins where one vibes like henry kissinger and the other vibes like Jim Carrey. More than that, identical twins tend to know what the other is thinking and they can easily finish each other's thoughts/sentences. It goes beyond just a sibling bond.

Not every person of the same type will be identical twins, of course. So it becomes a question of where to draw the line. That's where VI has to be tempered by common sense. The Intelligent Design Method of Typing is just that, VI + Common Sense. That's where reading up on these people is a good way to find out where one type ends and another begins. You can find a chain of VI proofs in the beta examples thread, where I build one example off previous examples. So very often, the same personality markers appear in people that VI alike. VI is also effective because it undercuts all those socially constructed differences/similarities between people, like race, gender, status, occupation. It also undercuts other factors such as differences in IQ.

VI opponents point out that identical twins can often be very different from each other and identical twins often tout their differences. But the desire to individuate is very common in human nature. It may be more of a hang up for identical twins such that they can develop an aversion to their replica. So they find areas of differences, and intentionally cultivate areas of differences, from their twin as if to emphasize that they are not like each other. In other words, they attempt to exert conscious control over their personality in order to distinguish themselves from their twin. And some can be successful at it. But mother nature has the final word on it....the vibe doesn't lie, as vibe and micro-expressions speak more directly to the nature of your personality.

[Resonare]

VI has already been proven with samples of identical twins. Identical twins have the same micro-expressions. To date, opponents of VI have not been able to disprove VI by showing examples of identical twins where the vibe is totally different. I put the challenge out there but nobody has been able to meet it. You will never find a set of identical twins where one vibes like henry kissinger and the other vibes like Jim Carrey. More than that, identical twins tend to know what the other is thinking and they can easily finish each other's thoughts/sentences. It goes beyond just a sibling bond.

Not every person of the same type will be identical twins, of course. So it becomes a question of where to draw the line. That's where VI has to be tempered by common sense. The Intelligent Design Method of Typing is just that, VI + Common Sense. That's where reading up on these people is a good way to find out where one type ends and another begins. You can find a chain of VI proofs in the beta examples thread, where I build one example off previous examples. So very often, the same personality markers appear in people that VI alike. VI is also effective because it undercuts all those socially constructed differences/similarities between people, like race, gender, status, occupation. It also undercuts other factors such as differences in IQ.

VI opponents point out that identical twins can often be very different from each other and identical twins often tout their differences. But the desire to individuate is very common in human nature. It may be more of a hang up for identical twins such that they can develop an aversion to their replica. So they find areas of differences, and intentionally cultivate areas of differences, from their twin as if to emphasize that they are not like each other. In other words, they attempt to exert conscious control over their personality in order to distinguish themselves from their twin. And some can be successful at it. But mother nature has the final word on it....the vibe doesn't lie, as vibe and micro-expressions speak more directly to the nature of your personality.

Interesting. What do you make of these two?

[Kill4Me]

Check it out:

https://www.pinterest.com/socionics/

Each section contains a workable, easy to master VI template that you can use to type yourself and others with. Each section has its own notable physiological markers and micro-expressions like i spoke of in the previous post. More than that, the groupings work in terms of the cognition.

One objection is that ‘well, if you are saying to supplement VI with common sense, doesn’t that mean VI is not sound?” No, not true. Common sense tells you this person is not a LSE even if you can't make a strong VI connection between them and that type. That doesn’t mean to give up on the VI. It just means your eye isn't yet trained enough to pick up on the VI connection. That the connection is more subtle than you are giving it credit for and that you have to be more cogent in looking at it. I have already done all that. That’s why I will say it now, and will likely say again, Socionics doesn’t work unless you break the types down in the way that I have. Of course, if you don’t believe me, go ahead and browse around other socionic schools of thought. Be my guest. See what else is out there.

A second objection is that it can’t be this clearcut. It’s not. There are plenty of look-a-likes such that it’s not always clear-cut. I run into many ambiguous examples. The VI also changes ever so slightly with stacking that you really do need a trained eye. So there are a number of variations even within the same socionics type. Knowing what to look for to resolve those ambiguities is the difference between an expert socionics typer and one that is not. Again, I have already put the time in the trenches working these ambiguities out.

A third objection is that people that VI the same type are not always a hundred percent alike. Of course, they are not always going to be a hundred percent alike. But that's where enneagram and stacking come into play, and where the list is particularly flexible. For example, Robert Redford and Bill Clinton are both IEE-Fi. But Clinton is a 3w2 and redford is a 6. Clinton is more ambitious, competitive and confident by nature/temperament than Redford is. If you don't have a firm grasp on enneagram, though, you may be duped into thinking they have a different socionics type. nevertheless, both Redford and Clinton have a similar cognition when it comes to using their NeFi to mirror, to adapt themselves to different roles, to change masks in order to suit the occasion, to engage in fluffy, pop pseudo-psycho analysis of others, etc. Redford channels that into acting and Clinton channels his cognition into politics.

I stand by the pinterest list 100 percent as the best diagnostic typing tool out there. If you like typing celebrities, or other members, this makes typing time manageable. Why should you waste time out of your life researching celebrities before you can type them or confirm your typing of them. VI provides the ultimate shortcut and the pinterest list lays out the blue print. In the real world, when you meet somebody and you have the VI down pat, you can very quickly size up the person’s type. You won’t need to know their life story, you won’t need to ask them eighty to a hundred questions, and you don’t a year to chart down their cognition so that you can come here, start a ’type this person’ thread and lay out a 1000 details about the person only to get ten different answers.

If you are not signed up for pinterest, an easy way to get around that is just to add on the socionics type to the link....as such:

https://www.pinterest.com/socionics/ese-fi/

[MrsTortilla]

@Kill4Me sorry but a lot of the Pinterest typings you reference are highly suspect and disputable. :/

[Kill4Me]

Reposting from another thread:

by K4M:

VI plus common sense is the best method and the most objective for typing real life characters and learning about the actual cognition for each type (obviously it doesn't work with fictional examples). Human beings have an easy time believing in evolution, but don't believe that physical tells evolved over time that give human beings a way to size up key parts of people's personalities. Strange. The other methods just mainly rely on subjective assessments of behaviors. You can still get to the right typing through the longer method with enough time, knowledge and practice but you can reach the same typing in a much shorter time if you know the VI for each socionics type (plus subtype).

As an example, I put on a VI clinic in the Elon Musk thread. This was VI:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...55#post1253655

This was the longer way:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...16#post1258416

[Jarno]

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.

Jason

- this is not how VI works. -

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.

Jason

- if you know enough people of one and the same type, you will notice the evidence -

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.

Jason

- I don't think the methods differ that much -

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

- it works nice for a first glance or as an affirmation -

[tcaudilllg]

Visual identification, in my experience, is most effective as an estimation. Person A is type X because they look more like an X than they do any of the other 15 types. There are 256 dual-types which means 256 total VI scenarios, one for each pairing. If you go to a type-based dating service like TypeTango.com, you'll find what appear to be visual "subtypes" in the type-divided groups: nearly exact matches in terms of face shape, particularly, between two or more persons of the same type. As a general rule, people who VI so similarly, when inquired as to their interests, are remarkably similar; hold remarkably similar worldviews; and have similar levels of talent at the same activities.

[implied]

people who do this are basically complete morons. sorry, just a rant, but you're definitely doing it completely wrong. it's an interesting concept and sometimes highly accurate, but i think the mistypes based on v.i. alone are ridiculous around here.

[Jarno]

people who do this are basically complete morons. sorry, just a rant, but you're definitely doing it completely wrong. it's an interesting concept and sometimes highly accurate, but i think the mistypes based on v.i. alone are ridiculous around here.

you are right, it has been proven a couple of times here on this forum that VI sucks (in that form).

[1981slater]

people who do this are basically complete morons.

yes, but this sport is less dangerous than others

[sarinana]

agree.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Is there a saying that a photo tells a thousand words or something? I'm not advocating typing solely by VI, but I have seen people say so many untruths and mis-leading things about themselves only (and not always) to re-tract it at a later date that I can find myself thinking, 'hmm, they say the camera never lies'.

[1981slater]

My opinion: people between 25-50, slim, healthy usually have similar facial features to other people who are the same Socionics type.

Is VI the most reliable way of typing? No

Is VI useful? Yes

Is a video more useful than a picture? Yes

Is observing the lifestyle of a person the most useful way of typing someone? Yes

Is testing reliable? Not much (everybody is apparently ENTP)

Is Socionics everything? No

Is Socionics wonderful? Yes

WILL ROBIN ESCAPE?CAN BATMAN FIND HIM IN TIME?IS THIS THE GHASTLY END OF OUR DYNAMIC DUO?ANSWERS...TOMORROW NIGHT! SAME TIME, SAME CHANNEL!ONE HINT--THE WORST IS YET TO COME!

[Jarno]

VI using pictures is useless.

VI in real life has some great instant results sometimes, but often mostly useful for confirmation.

[FDG]

My opinion: people between 25-50, slim, healthy usually have similar facial features to other people who are the same Socionics type.

Is VI the most reliable way of typing? No

Is VI useful? Yes

Is a video more useful than a picture? Yes

Is observing the lifestyle of a person the most useful way of typing someone? Yes

Is testing reliable? Not much (everybody is apparently ENTP)

Is Socionics everything? No

Is Socionics wonderful? Yes

WILL ROBIN ESCAPE?CAN BATMAN FIND HIM IN TIME?IS THIS THE GHASTLY END OF OUR DYNAMIC DUO?ANSWERS...TOMORROW NIGHT! SAME TIME, SAME CHANNEL!ONE HINT--THE WORST IS YET TO COME!

I 5/2rts this.

[1981slater]

I 5/2rts this.

What does that expression mean? Io non capisco!

[Beautiful sky]

My opinion: people between 25-50, slim, healthy usually have similar facial features to other people who are the same Socionics type.

Is VI the most reliable way of typing? No

Is VI useful? Yes

Is a video more useful than a picture? Yes

Is observing the lifestyle of a person the most useful way of typing someone? Yes

Is testing reliable? Not much (everybody is apparently ENTP)

Is Socionics everything? No

Is Socionics wonderful? Yes

WILL ROBIN ESCAPE?CAN BATMAN FIND HIM IN TIME?IS THIS THE GHASTLY END OF OUR DYNAMIC DUO?ANSWERS...TOMORROW NIGHT! SAME TIME, SAME CHANNEL!ONE HINT--THE WORST IS YET TO COME!

LOL; love that Se Role.

[redbaron]

LOL; love that Se Role.

I love slater. Just so everyone knows. Almost as much as I love Ezra.

[Slacker]

Is there a saying that a photo tells a thousand words or something? I'm not advocating typing solely by VI, but I have seen people say so many untruths and mis-leading things about themselves only (and not always) to re-tract it at a later date that I can find myself thinking, 'hmm, they say the camera never lies'.

That's called a cliche. Not truth. Actually I see two cliches in there.

[Ezra]

VI is useful to get a "general picture" of the person you're typing. It's simply not possible to accurately type the person using photos alone. I'd argue that it is often possible to VI someone through video, but one might argue that this isn't just typing someone by VI - it's also evaluating their personal beliefs and opinions (if indeed they are discussing these). Those who type people solely based on VI are those - like Ganin - who believe that you can look at the physical make up of a person and know exactly what type they are. This is bullshit. It takes no account of a person's mental life into account. Ganin would type a wax model a certain type, or a brain-dead individual. I think we all agree what crap that is.

[Expat]

I don't think that implied's point is that VI is totally useless.

The key word is "solely".

It is one thing to use VI as an intuitive hunch of a person's type. It's a very different thing when you start discussing in detail the individuals's eyes, gaze, shape of their foreheads, of their cheekbones, etc etc, while not even attempting to discuss other evidence.

[Wynch]

I don't think that implied's point is that VI is totally useless.

The key word is "solely".

It is one thing to use VI as an intuitive hunch of a person's type. It's a very different thing when you start discussing in detail the individuals's eyes, gaze, shape of their foreheads, of their cheekbones, etc etc, while not even attempting to discuss other evidence.

Yes, I agree with Maria and with what you're saying here. There's something to be said about human intuition (not talking about Ne/Ni) in interpreting people's actions. While I don't think it's possible to say something firm and without a doubt off of these instincts, it is possible to gather impressions from people based on how they look.

Example, Maria and I sometimes talk about the types of people we know and we'll share pictures of people with each other. Before telling the other person what type we think the person is, we ask the other what type their impression is. This isn't so much to say that the person is without a doubt a certain type, but sometimes it's hard to filter out the thousand and one details you pick up on from the people in your life and it can be helpful to have someone from the outside give you their impressions. A lot of the time our guesses are bang on or at least close, but other times comparing VI and experience brings out certain thoughts and details about people that we hadn't considered before.

[redbaron]

I don't think that implied's point is that VI is totally useless.

The key word is "solely".

It is one thing to use VI as an intuitive hunch of a person's type. It's a very different thing when you start discussing in detail the individuals's eyes, gaze, shape of their foreheads, of their cheekbones, etc etc, while not even attempting to discuss other evidence.

HEY! nice to see you, Expat!

[Expat]

HEY! nice to see you, Expat!

Thank you!

[implied]

I don't think that implied's point is that VI is totally useless.

The key word is "solely".

It is one thing to use VI as an intuitive hunch of a person's type. It's a very different thing when you start discussing in detail the individuals's eyes, gaze, shape of their foreheads, of their cheekbones, etc etc, while not even attempting to discuss other evidence.

you understand me correctly. i don't think v.i. is totally useless, and i'd be stupid to act like i don't play with it constantly (i do, i find it incredibly fun.) indeed the main point is that typing someone solely based on physical evidence is entirely ridiculous.

i have a female friend who is constantly typed by forum members as ISTp by v.i. indeed, i think she really does have the "look" of a female ISTp (she actually looks somewhat like roger federer's sister, and almost exactly like anna paquin.)




however, i think her behavior points entirely towards ego, at least -valuing, and possibly in the ego as well. to be honest, i even considered an ISTp typing for her and attempted to make that "work" from all angles. but facing other evidence, i eventually figured out that ISTp makes no sense. i really don't care if other people use v.i. to type others, i just wish that they would look at other evidence as well.

[Enters Laughing]

Hmm, yeah, it's quite awful when that happens!

[Filambee]

There are some scientific studies which conclude that one's body type and/or facial features can be linked to specific hormones/chemicals within the body and those hormones/chemicals also affect one's temperament. In Helen Fisher's book, Why Him? Why Her?, she explains specific VIs and the chemicals and the personality traits associated with them.
I think that using VIs to help with the typing process is very beneficial but to use it solely would seem impractical and the margin of error would be high because of the vast differences in physical appearances.
There have been instances when I have seen and heard the way that people talk (excluding what they actually say), on videos online or in real person and have been able to type them instantly. I've gotten really good at typing IEIs for some reason.
I think overall, it's a good idea to check typings on multiple levels - VI, behaviors, relationships, etc. - because mistyping someone in the beginning can prove confusing and disastrous later on.

[lemon]

.

what the fuck are they doing?

[1981slater]

.

what the fuck are they doing?

They are checking the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the meteo channel at the same time.

[Korpsy Knievel]

what the fuck are they doing?

Hiding their duckmouths.

[blackburry]

"Alas, even Leonardo fell for some bogus theories. He was fascinated by the study of physiognomy, the "science" of evaluating a person's character by his or her facial features. Although utter codswallop, physiognomy was all the rage until the beginning of this century, when scientists finally chucked it once and for all."

[Beautiful sky]

I type sometimes solely on VI and I'm proud of it. I've typed a whole dating site and picked out the LSEs at one glance (and sadly never read some of their profiles ) but seriously LOL why waste my time when I can do the job efficiently?

[blackburry]

I type sometimes solely on VI and I'm proud of it. I've typed a whole dating site and picked out the LSEs at one glance (and sadly never read some of their profiles ) but seriously LOL why waste my time when I can do the job efficiently?

Maritsa...if someone ever told me this, It would be over. it's a teensy bit creepy. and you didn't even read their profiles?

[Beautiful sky]

Maritsa...if someone ever told me this, It would be over. it's a teensy bit creepy. and you didn't even read their profiles?

You can't get to know someone by their profile.

[squark]

I type sometimes solely on VI and I'm proud of it. I've typed a whole dating site and picked out the LSEs at one glance (and sadly never read some of their profiles ) but seriously LOL why waste my time when I can do the job efficiently?

As I (and many others) have told you before - you're looking for the wrong thing. It's not efficient at all, because all you're getting is guys who you think are some particular type (LSE in this case.) You're missing EVERYTHING important, and focusing on something that doesn't even matter. As long as you continue that approach, the best you can hope for is a stroke of good luck.

[Beautiful sky]

As I (and many others) have told you before - you're looking for the wrong thing. It's not efficient at all, because all you're getting is guys who you think are some particular type (LSE in this case.) You're missing EVERYTHING important, and focusing on something that doesn't even matter. As long as you continue that approach, the best you can hope for is a stroke of good luck.

Yeah just because I gave one lose who turned out to be not such a great person doesn't mean they are all bad.

[squark]

Yeah just because I gave one lose who turned out to be not such a great person doesn't mean they are all bad.

That's not what I was saying at all. My point was that picking guys based on type or perceived type really brings the whole thing down to luck, because you're discounting everything that might actually matter in a relationship. In other words - you randomly grab 50 LSEs, using only their type and nothing else to choose them - the chance that you'll actually find a guy who's good for you and a good match with you is just that - purely chance. There are so many many different variables in any person - so many things beyond type, and most things not at all connected to type that matter. Type doesn't matter so much, and doesn't matter at all if you're not looking at anything else. Might as well roll some dice to decide.

Think of it this way: the chance that you find any one quality in a person is always greater than the chance that you'll find that quality AND another quality also. As in, the chance that a person has brown eyes is ALWAYS greater than the chance that a person has brown eyes AND blonde hair (given that there is no trait linkage which hey let's not complicate things.)

So, the chance that a guy will for instance be a nice person is always greater than the chance that he'll be a nice person AND an LSE. Or going the other way around - the chance that he'll be an LSE AND a nice person is always less than that he'll be one OR the other. Your focus is on - LSE. You're not focused on any kind of character trait whatsoever. You're not looking at any kinds of actual qualities of the dude - so the chance that you'll get an LSE with qualities that you want through that approach is less than the chance you'd get a guy with qualities that you want period. You're looking at the wrong thing. You're making the wrong thing important, and so lessening your chance that you'll get the right thing.