Just type a lot of people. Patterns will emerge. It's not necessarily about static features; expressions are more important. That is, use more so than .
Don't use websites. You can't rely on the accuracy of the typings, and you don't know whether the picture is of a characteristic expression for that person.Which photos from which websites do you find more useful for serving as VI reference points? Less useful?
I don't think you can get good at it. There are some stereotypical similarities within the types, but they shouldn't be used as a solid basis for typing, there's too much subjectivity involved in doing so (i.e. "that's an ILI smile, those are EIE eyes" etc)
In fact I'd go as far as saying that anyone who claims to have mastered VI is a charlatan
EII INFj
Forum status: retired
I think that's a bit of a misunderstanding about what V.I. is. What you're describing--settling resolutely on a typing based on visual features--is bogus. The sort of V.I. practiced on socionics.com is like this. That said, there's more to the picture than just that brand of visual identification.
Some visual traits are very good for narrowing someone's type down. You eventually begin to pick up on these as you start typing more and more people. I believe Rick used to use a visual component to his typings before he moved on from Socionics (lol), in addition to a questionnaire.
But yes, I would be wary about anyone claiming to be able to pinpoint a type based on visual features.
Yeah, I had the same experience. I mean, if I consciously inspect closely enough, I can differentiate contrasting qualities in the male faces. But the differences in the female faces definitely 'jump out' more to me even at a casual glance. Maybe something about liking girls makes one's brain more perceptually sensitive to nuances in female faces, who knows.
Which really isn't any more subjective than most typing "methodologies" on here and elsewhere. Considering that most people type based on wholly subjective personal opinions like, "this person seems scattered to me and lacks logical consistency, therefore they can't possibly be " or "this person seems to talk about morality a lot, so I think they must be ego." So on, so forth. Rightly or wrongly, whether such opinions are actually type-valid or not, it's unfair to pretend there isn't a huge subjective component at work whenever one draws a conclusion like that. It's really not much better than making assertions like "that's an ILI smile" or "those are EIE eyes."
Claiming that someone is X type because the shape of their nose or whether their earlobes are connected or not… yeah I'd be a bit skeptical. Which seems to be the kind of approach socionics.com takes. I tend to monitor facial movements when I VI, though I'm not sure I'd call that 'expressions' per say. Even a person's face statically at rest, sans any expression whatsoever, can reveal certain type-related qualities.
If an objective basis for VI does exist—and according to research, there do appear to be objectively recurring patterns in this sort of thing—then being able to accurately VI should be a trainable skill.
The only arguments in this thread against VI are all basically saying, "I don't personally understand it, therefore it can't be true." Which is fine, but a bit overly presumptuous.
VI is just practice. I'm not ace at it but the more types I see the more I notice stuff.
This guy, Rob Jenkins, does interesting stuff, at least in regards to facial recognition in general http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/7884223.stm
Oh I think he look ENFp.
I think developing cut-and-dry rules is actually self-deceptive and probably the worst way at approaching VI, and really the intuitive sense of what type looks which way is probably the best way one can think about it. I sort of think about it this way: if Socionic types are already ridiculously ambiguous, what sense is there in attempting to concretely define how they look? lol it seems absurd to me. That being said, there are definite "looks" that assist in typing, and you really need to just get a feel as to what type looks a certain way. VI is a guide, not an answer imo.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
i don't think it's really a question of how supposedly valid or accurate VI is - what it is is another source of information you can use to determine someone's type. when VI'ing someone, just take note of what information they are showing - consciously or not - about themselves through their appearance. there isn't an absolute system to it, neither is there for general typing.
Captain Obvious here...you shouldn't only use VI, but pretty much everyone uses it to some extent. I know that in most cases, given enough pictures, I can definitely make a good read based on VI (although other info definitely helps). Noobs that say "IEI-Fe ftw" or something based on a couple pictures on the forum give VI a bad name.
Different types have different typical looks to them, and you do eventually get used to those looks, but it isn't at all perfect. Just like some people look smart but are really dumb, or look stupid but are really smart, so do some people look like a type they aren't. Also, the looks aren't really that specific. Like someone will look kind of introverted-but-Fe-ish, and you'll think, mabye SEI or IEI, so it'll get you into a ball park but you really need more information to see which or if that's even the case. Maybe they're really EIE or IEE. Or maybe someone said something to them just before the photo was taken that gave them an expression that completely threw you off, and they're something else entirely. A still photo shows one tiny little moment and that expression or look might not be typical of a person. Another thing is that entertainers sometimes take on personas for their work, so that can confuse things. One other place where VI can help though is in how people choose to present themselves. There can be very good clues there you can take into consideration when typing.
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.
yeah guyth this is really stupid we shud nevar V.I. again gosh jesus.
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
IN MY HUMBLE AND PERSONAL OPINION:
I believe that Visual Identification, is the most awesome tool ever. But ONLY with years and years of practice+failure+success!
I have been studying socionics/mbti/enneagram theory in field (the real world) and in theory (the internet world) for close to 7 years straight (non-stop) now.
That said: I am 100% confident in my VI skills now.
*Note: It helps, that I am an SEE (esfp / enneagram 7 wing 8)
(I have Extraverted Sensing as my first main function, and I use it at this point, with great accuracy, to help me Visually Identify people's types every where I go. It's AWEsomely fun!!! I'm Never bored anymore!)
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Does anyone remember my attempt to disprove VI? When I took a picture of myself acting like the stereotype of each type? Heh....I should attempt this again.
But anyhow...I just wanted to express that I really do not see how momentary facial expressions and positioning can indicate a persons personality....anyone can fake or pretend anything.
SEE Unknown Subtype
6w7 sx/so
[21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
[21:29] hitta: and not dying
.
"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."
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?
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Labelling yourself efficient because you can type 'quickly' but having a high probability of getting those types wrong is immoral efficiency. This is akin to a plumber who never fixes any leaks but 'services' twice or thrice as many leaks as any other plumber.
Similar to the plumber who will turn up and put more silicon over the problem VI advocates appear to apply the same incorigible practices to making excuses for their wildly inappropriate typing either by a mixture of simply ignoring critique and new information.
The original Gulenko VI 'catalogue' has a large disclaimer by Gulenko that physiognamy is correlation not causation and therefore that someone interested in accurate typing would aim to find a cognitive reasoning for the VI which is in their view not possible.
4 or 5 years ago there was a drive to expand VI to include physical and behavioural cues with a cognitive basis. The only people who appear to have taken this seriously enough to continue and go on to rigorously catalogue this are the nutters at Pod'lair who appear incapable of answering any critiques of their hypotheses and tend to have a heavy bias towards 'spotting' the behavioural cues of their cults founder in others.
Last edited by InvisibleJim; 03-25-2013 at 04:14 PM.
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.
Well Maritsa, I hope this latest squeeze works out because you seem to place a lot of your own personal value on an idealised interbedded plinth of romance and socionics. I cannot comprehend your over-investment.
I did something similar on dating sites, though it was more about ruling people out than finding my dual. Any guy with a picture of himself with no shirt, fishing, or participating in any other outdoor sporting or recreational activity was automatically ruled out. I find the idea of being involved with manly men quite gross. Masculinity is also extremely unattractive to me in females. I found very quickly that guys who seemed like my "type" in their pictures and profiles were often different in person. It wasn't that their profiles were misleading, it was that people have a certain energy or vibe about them that you can only observe in person.
If there is anything to VI, I would imagine that it's much the same and is far more accurate when done in person.
I use VI a lot, but it's maybe accurate to 25-50% of a individuals type.
Sometimes I get a club or temperament but then again these are characteristic I tend to focus on(or at least get a decent impression on). But getting a club or a temperament right is often a dangerous and very bad thing for romantic engagement. Because your conflictor/super-ego shares the same club. Illusion and semi-duals are often attractive due to temperament compatibility but getting that right can also lead you down the rabbit hole. As a whole socionics is pretty pessimistic about the odds of you being able to have a successful relationship with another individual(if you don't already have one). But it does hypothesize that such an individual does exist and is already in a relationship with another dual which leaves you holding a torch like the little match girl until death finally comes and your soul is taken to heaven from this cruel cruel world.
Hope endures..
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
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.
I understand what you're saying, but to me this is what I choose. I've talked this over extensively with my dual cousin, who is instrumental in my decision making process. She and I both agree that what I'm going to do is best for me.
I focus on character, traits, attitude a lot; just because I haven't talked about how I felt with the last LSE I was with and you didn't read me talk about it doesn't mean I haven't given that a lot of thought.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I wasn't in any way referring to any LSE or supposed LSE that you may have dated at any time. The only thing I was talking about was the approach you mentioned taking on a dating site.
I want to be with an LSE; that's final with me. I've dated all kinds of really NICE guys who are of any random type and I don't fit well with anyone of any other type than an LSE. I can't so much as enjoy one decent date or date...take an introvert I had pizza with the other day...WE DID NOT TALK, NO ONE TALKED, WE JUST MADE ONE LINE REMARKS SO BORING I WANTED TO SHOOT MYSELF IN THE HEAD. I'm tired of it. The only decent men that I've gone out with that are tolerable is the LSI that I sent you a pic of, he's turning out to be a really nice guy after 20 dates...and the new LSE is amazing on the first date. I'm good. I'm sticking with my duals. I have considered IEE, but I can't find them.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
LSE men are a dime a dozen, that expression means there are many many of them to one of me, so it's a matter of time and patience before I get a great one. I hope after my last date, I won't need to look for another one since he was a great guy, but we'll see.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Its okay, LSE men are a 'dime a dozen'. Just gotta keep rerolling the dice until one is mad enough to want to hold onto Maritsa. No need to reform a sloppy typing process that likely fails to classify LSEs properly or to consider that Socionics is not a love potion.