Visual Identification in Typing

[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 -