How accurate is VI?
I'm curious how you VI?
How accurate do you think VI is from stilll shot photos, and/or how would you rate yourself at it?
For myself, I think it's difficult to get a lock on most people, I can get an impression, and sometimes I think two people look similar, then when I talk to them, over time they seem to be rather different.
For an average socionist it's slightly better than random guessing.Originally Posted by Words
It's mostly a matter of experience. Just as a highly experienced psychologist may treat so many patients for depression that he eventually learns to see the signs of depression in a patient who just walked into the room in his expression and body language, an experienced socionist may diagnose the type of so many people that he starts to be able to see the signs of type in people's body language and expressions.
However, V.I. is no substitute for a more thorough type diagnosis. It can give you a good starting point, something to work with, but it should never be relied upon for a final conclusion.
Quaero Veritas.
Before I was skeptical and had little proof that it would work, but I've really learned that people of the same type do actually have some rather similar underlying expressions characteristic of the type. It's not just what their physical characteristics are or what kind of stereotype they physically resemble, or various silly things you might read in physical descriptions, but definitely their underlying expression, the kind of thing you can only see for yourself and that happens here and there you have to catch, and I think I'm getting a lot better at finding these too. I might one day be automatic with it, and look into my impressions as a good starting place. It's not someone's neck shape, forehead size, square head, jaw shape, being big-boned, bad eyesight-wears glasses, none of that fake stuff, but the deliverance of personality in expressions, all the various kinds of expressions. Stop trying to compute brain function and personality with external features, it's horribly inaccurate, and to think that people would try it, its demeaning. But expressions, how a person chooses to move his/her face/body, these instinctive practices and reactions line up with really "what a person does" that makes a correlation to who a person is on the inside, where it counts.
Yeah, I think I can see VI as in terms of a video being much more affective, especially if there's other people around they are interacting with. I'll try to pay more attention to how their faces are in motion.
VI via photos is dumb. VI via observation of movement and behavior is accurate.
VI off static photos is hard. I can do it sometimes, though, since at the very least you can sometimes spot J/P based on the angles in various joints (consequence of the scaffolding/rubber bands look between rigid Js and flexible Ps, imo).
Then, some types just have really, really distinctive looks, like SLEs (who notoriously peer under their brow or over their nose at cameras).
I rely heavily on V.I. in real-life to get good guesses at people's types within a few minutes. Certain traits will manifest very observably (either as combinations of J/P rigidity and I/E energy levels, or temperament-specific mannerisms (ENps tend to remind me of cats, lol)), such as temperament, or Fe ego, or even Fi dominance. After that I narrow it down either by stealth-interview (a friendly conversation can do wonders, esp. w/ Identicals) or if that's not possible just waiting for a ping when they say something very distinctive to a certain type (again, some people will just never cause these pings, and resist me typing them on more than a 6/10 on confidence).
Of course there are always people that are resistant to being typed like this and will have me really stymied until I get my lightbulb and it all clicks into place.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
