Visual Identification in Typing

[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.

[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.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

How one describes their personality should come first.

Personality is just another mask though. Your real self is how you act when nobody watches you. Well that's supposed to be your character. No, I believe that's more your real self. So I guess since diff people wear diff masks in different social situations, the 'Real You' can be discerned from those masks since that's all we have to work with. Uhh... I swear I had a point here lol.

I'd like to be videotaped when I didn't know I was being videotaped (not in a pervy way) just so I can see how I would act. If I knew it was happening, it would take the fun out of it. Just like how you can take the best pictures when people are the most off-guard...

I'm just saying, I disagree that you can rely on how people describe themselves. You are again, just telling people what you want them to see in some way. There's a filtration process that bugs me. I just try to get to know people slowly over time, if I can- but it's hard because usually we have to find some sort of common ground if we want to keep speaking to each other. (At least in a deeper way)

Now I feel sheepish because I'm giving people more credit for being deeper/interesting than they really are haha.

[jason_m]

Personality is just another mask though. Your real self is how you act when nobody watches you. Well that's supposed to be your character. No, I believe that's more your real self. So I guess since diff people wear diff masks in different social situations, the 'Real You' can be discerned from those masks since that's all we have to work with. Uhh... I swear I had a point here lol.

I'd like to be videotaped when I didn't know I was being videotaped (not in a pervy way) just so I can see how I would act. If I knew it was happening, it would take the fun out of it. Just like how you can take the best pictures when people are the most off-guard...

I'm just saying, I disagree that you can rely on how people describe themselves. You are again, just telling people what you want them to see in some way. There's a filtration process that bugs me. I just try to get to know people slowly over time, if I can- but it's hard because usually we have to find some sort of common ground if we want to keep speaking to each other. (At least in a deeper way)

Now I feel sheepish because I'm giving people more credit for being deeper/interesting than they really are haha.

Those are good points, but what I was trying to say is that personality should be placed ahead of appearance.

Jason

[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.