Problems with VI? Here is the solution

[JohnDo]

Why is Visual Identification so difficult?
In my opinion the reasons are:

1.) People try V.I. without having enough experience.
2.) People try V.I. without using subtypes.
3.) People try V.I. with only two subtypes in mind.

The first problem is obvious: you can only use V.I. successfully if you have already typed a lot of people so that you can compare them to the person you want to type.

The second problem occurs because people of the same type can look very different. On the one hand the appearence of a person not only depends on type but also on the appearence of his parents and his race. On the other hand it depends on subtypes. Distinguishing between different main types is not like distinguishing between cats and dogs! It is rather like distinguishing between different cars!
A Toyota, a Honda and a Hyundai may look very similar - like an LII, an ILI and an ILE. There are some Toyotas that look like Hondas. There are some Hondas that look like Hyundais. There are some LIIs that look like ILIs. We have to use subtypes, there is no other choice...

There is the system of accepting and producing subtypes which is used by many people on this forum. The problem is that people of one and the same subtype still may look very different so V.I. is difficult. Another problem is that Gulenko and Meged/Ovcharov seem to describe different persons! The descriptions are self-contradictory in a way...

Some people on this forum had the idea that the descriptions could be used to get an idea how DCNH subtypes look like. Here is the thread. This makes sense, indeed.


Now where is the solution of the V.I. problem?


During the last months I thought a lot about DCNH subtypes and how to distinguish between them by V.I.. I found a really interesting fact that should solve many or most problems - under the condition that people are familiar with the DCNH system.


1.) All subtypes with a strengthened base function have round faces.
2.) All subtypes with a strengthened creative function have square faces.
3.) All subtypes with a strengthened ignoring function have rectangular faces.
4.) All subtypes with a strengthened demonstrative function have oval faces.


Examples:
I am Ni-LII. Ni is LII's demonstrative function so I have a rather oval face (compared to other LIIs).
Victor Gulenko is Ne-LII. Ne is LII's creative function so he has a rather square face (compared to other LIIs).
Dick Cheney is Te-LSE. Te is LSE's base function so he has a rather round face (compared to other LSEs).
George W. Bush is Se-LSE. Se is LSE's demonstrative function so he has a rather oval face (compared to other LSEs).
Michael Schumacher is Ti-SLI. Ti is SLI's demonstrative function so he has a rather oval face (compared to other SLIs).
Barack Obama is Fe-IEI. Fe is IEI's creative function so he has a rather square face (compared to other IEIs).

I really hope there are some people on this forum who can confirm my observations.

And no, I don't want to talk about the types of the above mentionend celebrities.

[strrrng]

1.) All subtypes with a strengthened base function have round faces.
2.) All subtypes with a strengthened creative function have square faces.
3.) All subtypes with a strengthened ignoring function have rectangular faces.
4.) All subtypes with a strengthened demonstrative function have oval faces.

Dumb. I'm an Ni-IEI H subtype, and my facial structure is not round at all.

Examples:
I am Ni-LII. Ni is LII's demonstrative function so I have a rather oval face (compared to other LIIs).
Victor Gulenko is Ne-LII. Ne is LII's creative function so he has a rather square face (compared to other LIIs).
Dick Cheney is Te-LSE. Te is LSE's base function so he has a rather round face (compared to other LSEs).
George W. Bush is Se-LSE. Se is LSE's demonstrative function so he has a rather oval face (compared to other LSEs).
Michael Schumacher is Ti-SLI. Ti is SLI's demonstrative function so he has a rather oval face (compared to other SLIs).
Barack Obama is Fi-IEE. Fi is IEE's creative function so he has a rather square face (compared to other IEEs.

You realize that DCNH applies to valued functions, not strong functions. H-LII = Si-LII, C-LSE = Ne-LSE and so on.


I agree with your previous points about VI and such, though.

[JohnDo]

Dumb. I'm an Ni-IEI H subtype, and my facial structure is not round at all.

If you are Ni-IEI you should have a round face in comparison to other IEIs. So what does your face look like if it is not round at all? :redface:

The intuitive subtype appears as a quiet, tactful, languid and diffident individual. They seem torn off from reality, inert and poorly adapted to life. However, such impressions are erroneous, for they possess a fine intuition, which aids them in establishing useful connections and obtaining support from influential people. Seem externally serene but sentimentally are disposed to experience moodiness and bouts of melancholy. While their voice at times seems monotonous they often induce a light surprise, even full interest, from the interlocutor. Outwardly are pensive, slightly strained/intense.. Prone to emanate sadness masked in sardonic irony. Speech is measured, smooth and intimately heart-felt. On their face they almost constantly exude a polite half-smile that easily wins people’s trust. Gestures are modest, shy. Gait is ponderous, elegant.

Facial expression is typically interrogative, and they seem calm, dreamy, and contemplative. Their line of behaviour is frequently passive. Romantic spirits. They live in the world of illusions, and they attempt to avoid negative emotions. They can be optimistic. They shrink away from conflict situations and support compromises. They are restrained in their clothing, elegant and refined. They can fulfill the functions of an abstract thinker, work in psychology and psychotherapy.

Which description fits better? Guleko's or Meged/Ovcharov's?

You realize that DCNH applies to valued functions, not strong functions. H-LII = Si-LII, C-LSE = Ne-LSE and so on.

Harmonizing subtype means that and are stronger than usual. Nevertheless, an LII with strengthened Si in comparison to other LIIs has still weak Si. So the name Si-LII doesn't really fit and I prefer the name Ni-LII. But let's say H-LII do avoid misunderstandings.

[strrrng]

If you are Ni-IEI you should have a round face in comparison to other IEIs. So what does your face look like if it is not round at all? :redface:

I don't fully know how my facial structure compares to the rest of Ni-IEIs, but I just don't think it can be categorized as "round."

Which description fits better? Guleko's or Meged/Ovcharov's?

I find both accurate, but Meged/Ovcharov's is more astute overall.

Harmonizing subtype means that and are stronger than usual. Nevertheless, an LII with strengthened Si in comparison to other LIIs has still weak Si. So the name Si-LII doesn't really fit and I prefer the name Ni-LII. But let's they H-LII do avoid misunderstandings.

True enough. But ultimately, valued functions are more significant than unvalued functions, when it comes to determining psychological dispositions and behavior.

[Krig the Viking]

*Sigh*

As someone who has extensively studied both DCNH as well as JohnDo's physiognomic theory, I just want to categorically state that I do not believe that subtype has any significant effect on physical features. Furthermore, while the correlation of the Meged/Ovcharov and Gulenko standard-model subtype descriptions to DCNH descriptions is interesting, I do not believe they should be relied upon as accurate descriptions of the DCNH subtypes.

You realize that DCNH applies to valued functions, not strong functions. H-LII = Si-LII, C-LSE = Ne-LSE and so on.

Is this your own theory, or did you read it somewhere (if you read it somewhere, I'd like to read it myself)? I theorized the same thing myself when I was first studying the DCNH system, but I have come to realize that it is probably not the case -- whether an element is valued or not plays a role in how it manifests behaviourally, but there does seem to be a difference between, for example, Fe-Dominant LSIs (Paul Teutul Sr.) and Te-Dominant LSIs (Jack Bauer).

[strrrng]

Is this your own theory, or did you read it somewhere (if you read it somewhere, I'd like to read it myself)? I theorized the same thing myself when I was first studying the DCNH system, but I have come to realize that it is probably not the case -- whether an element is valued or not plays a role in how it manifests behaviourally, but there does seem to be a difference between, for example, Fe-Dominant LSIs (Paul Teutul Sr.) and Te-Dominant LSIs (Jack Bauer).

It's my own idea based on study and observation. An LSI will always be stronger in Te than Fe, yes; but, when it comes to attitudes and behaviors – especially in group settings, where types will instinctively employ quadra values – I think a D-LSI will exhibit a more pronounced inclination towards Fe than Te. I do think Te could work as a sort of back drop for Fe though, by securing the objective processes so that the internal ones could be affected; but it still won't be as prominent IMO.

[Krig the Viking]

It's my own idea based on study and observation.

Ah, cool.

An LSI will always be stronger in Te than Fe, yes; but, when it comes to attitudes and behaviors – especially in group settings, where types will instinctively employ quadra values – I think a D-LSI will exhibit a more pronounced inclination towards Fe than Te. I do think Te could work as a sort of back drop for Fe though, by securing the objective processes so that the internal ones could be affected; but it still won't be as prominent IMO.

I don't think this is necessarily the case. People certainly prefer to use their valued functions, but this is not always possible or even desirable. Jack Bauer, for example, frequently uses his Te to figure out the most efficient way to stop terrorists from blowing up America. As much as he may want to display Fe, his job requires Te more than Fe. His sense of duty causes him to suppress his desire to indulge in his valued Fe, in favour of his more needed unvalued Te. Over the years, this results in the Te-Dominant subtype.

(And before anyone complains that Jack Bauer is only fictional, I'm using him as a theoretical example, not practical evidence. )

Paul Teutul Sr., on the other hand, has no such demands in his environment. He has found that he can get his way by displays of emotion (Fe), and does so, ignoring Te. Over the years, this has resulted in an Fe-Dominant subtype.

[JohnDo]

As someone who has extensively studied both DCNH as well as JohnDo's physiognomic theory, I just want to categorically state that I do not believe that subtype has any significant effect on physical features.

It has. Believe it or not. Be open-minded and I accept your self-typing. Be ignorant and I question your self-typing...

Furthermore, while the correlation of the Meged/Ovcharov and Gulenko standard-model subtype descriptions to DCNH descriptions is interesting, I do not believe they should be relied upon as accurate descriptions of the DCNH subtypes.

Maybe they are not accurate but they are definitely a good approximation. It was your idea by the way. So why don't you accept the fact that it might have been a good idea?

Jack Bauer, for example, frequently uses his Te to figure out the most efficient way to stop terrorists from blowing up America.

Fictional characters are absolutely useless for this topic. This thread is about V.I. and you will certainly agree that the actors are more often than not other types than the fictional characters...

Over the years, this has resulted in an Fe-Dominant subtype.

Subtypes are only useful if they are not a result of years. Types are inborn so subtypes have to be inborn, too. Otherwise the subtype system would be useless...

We already discussed about that months ago. Would you please consider the possibility that subtypes cannot change over time and are not a result of the environment?

btw I disagree with all your VI examples outside of Gulenko, who typed himself, the other four are probably Betas (maybe Gamma for Cheney) IMO...

It is not important if you agree or disagree. Just check the persons you know personally. Then you will be able to confirm my observations - if your know enough about DCNH and all the stuff...

[Krig the Viking]

It has. Believe it or not. Be open-minded and I accept your self-typing. Be ignorant and I question your self-typing...

I am open-minded in the sense that I am always willing to be convinced by solid evidence and sound reasoning. You have so far been incapable of producing either. I post on this forum to further my understanding of socionics, not have circular debates with crackpots.

Or maybe, just maybe, VI doesn't work at all.

Indeed. The only aspects of V.I. that I believe has any significant validity are facial expression and body language, and even then it's subjective and difficult to quantify.

[Jarno]

I've noticed that indeed the different subtypes have similar faces.

There are more then 2 subtypes, yes.

For the rest... it's too difficult to get to know a really huge sample of one type, so you could make any confirmations. so...

[JohnDo]

You have so far been incapable of producing either. I post on this forum to further my understanding of socionics, not have circular debates with crackpots

Are you mentally retarded or something?

1.) I started this thread 2 days ago so how can it be a circular debate? We already discussed about changing subtypes but not about the above mentioned facial structures...

2.) How should I be able to improve your knowledge?! I'm just talking about my observations and conclusions. Type enough people and you will see...

3.) You always talk about fictional characters which is obviously a useless approach. The types of the actors are different so V.I. will never work there...

it's too difficult to get to know a really huge sample of one type, so you could make any confirmations

Why is it difficult? If you type 100 people and the pattern fits everywhere this should be confirmation enough.

I am (relatively) sure about the types of approximately

- 20 relatives
- 30 former classmates
- 10 former teachers
- 10 former comrades in the army
- 20 fellow students
- 10 professors
- 10 pals
- 10 acquaintances
- 20 celebrities

The above mentioned pattern fits everywhere.
There are certainly some mistypings in my sample. Nobody is perfect. But the tendency is clear.

[Marie84]

While I do think there's a link between type and physical features it's really not a good idea to make solid typings on.
What you end-up doing is having a bunch of people arguing how so and so totally looks like a ___ and no real way to dispute it, followed by people claiming superiority on "vi skills", which than turns into a big straw man argument party.
I think it's all fun when we make guesses on peoples types on the VI threads, but it's just that, guesses.

btw I disagree with all your VI examples outside of Gulenko, who typed himself, the other four are probably Betas (maybe Gamma for Cheney) IMO...

[xyz]

Or maybe, just maybe, VI doesn't work at all.

[buckland]

Why is Visual Identification so difficult?
In my opinion the reasons are:

1.) People try V.I. without having enough experience.
2.) People try V.I. without using subtypes.
3.) People try V.I. with only two subtypes in mind.

The first problem is obvious: you can only use V.I. successfully if you have already typed a lot of people so that you can compare them to the person you want to type.

The second problem occurs because people of the same type can look very different. On the one hand the appearence of a person not only depends on type but also on the appearence of his parents and his race. On the other hand it depends on subtypes. Distinguishing between different main types is not like distinguishing between cats and dogs! It is rather like distinguishing between different cars!
A Toyota, a Honda and a Hyundai may look very similar - like an LII, an ILI and an ILE. There are some Toyotas that look like Hondas. There are some Hondas that look like Hyundais. There are some LIIs that look like ILIs. We have to use subtypes, there is no other choice...

There is the system of accepting and producing subtypes which is used by many people on this forum. The problem is that people of one and the same subtype still may look very different so V.I. is difficult. Another problem is that Gulenko and Meged/Ovcharov seem to describe different persons! The descriptions are self-contradictory in a way...

Some people on this forum had the idea that the descriptions could be used to get an idea how DCNH subtypes look like. Here is the thread. This makes sense, indeed.


Now where is the solution of the V.I. problem?


During the last months I thought a lot about DCNH subtypes and how to distinguish between them by V.I.. I found a really interesting fact that should solve many or most problems - under the condition that people are familiar with the DCNH system.


1.) All subtypes with a strengthened base function have round faces.
2.) All subtypes with a strengthened creative function have square faces.
3.) All subtypes with a strengthened ignoring function have rectangular faces.
4.) All subtypes with a strengthened demonstrative function have oval faces.

I really hope there are some people on this forum who can confirm my observations.

And no, I don't want to talk about the types of the above mentionend celebrities.

This is all coming from a point of relative ignorance, but do subtypes truly exist? I know that there are differences within all the types which I ascribe to functions being a continuum (MBTI-esque, with each function carrying a weight) and therefore compatibility or lack of it with other people would be dependent on your resultant distribution. If that is the case, then fair enough. However, this goes against the idea that e.g. an Ni-LII can exist because that implies a strength in an ignored function and therefore brings upbringing in as an influence (which is to be expected). If the subtypes are a result of nurture rather than nature, then this VI method could not possibly stand.

ps: I don't believe VI is possible in any case other than judging facial expression, and even then, a single/few photographs do not contain nearly enough information.

pps: I have also not put too effort into reading up on subtyping, I am only just reading that right now, so this may all be misguided.

[Trevor]

Why is Visual Identification so difficult?
In my opinion the reasons are:

1.) People try V.I. without having enough experience.
2.) People try V.I. without using subtypes.
3.) People try V.I. with only two subtypes in mind.

The first problem is obvious: you can only use V.I. successfully if you have already typed a lot of people so that you can compare them to the person you want to type.

The second problem occurs because people of the same type can look very different. On the one hand the appearence of a person not only depends on type but also on the appearence of his parents and his race. On the other hand it depends on subtypes. Distinguishing between different main types is not like distinguishing between cats and dogs! It is rather like distinguishing between different cars!
A Toyota, a Honda and a Hyundai may look very similar - like an LII, an ILI and an ILE. There are some Toyotas that look like Hondas. There are some Hondas that look like Hyundais. There are some LIIs that look like ILIs. We have to use subtypes, there is no other choice...

There is the system of accepting and producing subtypes which is used by many people on this forum. The problem is that people of one and the same subtype still may look very different so V.I. is difficult. Another problem is that Gulenko and Meged/Ovcharov seem to describe different persons! The descriptions are self-contradictory in a way...

Some people on this forum had the idea that the descriptions could be used to get an idea how DCNH subtypes look like. Here is the thread. This makes sense, indeed.


Now where is the solution of the V.I. problem?


During the last months I thought a lot about DCNH subtypes and how to distinguish between them by V.I.. I found a really interesting fact that should solve many or most problems - under the condition that people are familiar with the DCNH system.


1.) All subtypes with a strengthened base function have round faces.
2.) All subtypes with a strengthened creative function have square faces.
3.) All subtypes with a strengthened ignoring function have rectangular faces.
4.) All subtypes with a strengthened demonstrative function have oval faces.


Examples:
I am Ni-LII. Ni is LII's demonstrative function so I have a rather oval face (compared to other LIIs).
Victor Gulenko is Ne-LII. Ne is LII's creative function so he has a rather square face (compared to other LIIs).
Dick Cheney is Te-LSE. Te is LSE's base function so he has a rather round face (compared to other LSEs).
George W. Bush is Se-LSE. Se is LSE's demonstrative function so he has a rather oval face (compared to other LSEs).
Michael Schumacher is Ti-SLI. Ti is SLI's demonstrative function so he has a rather oval face (compared to other SLIs).
Barack Obama is Fi-IEE. Fi is IEE's creative function so he has a rather square face (compared to other IEEs.

I really hope there are some people on this forum who can confirm my observations.

And no, I don't want to talk about the types of the above mentionend celebrities.

No man. It isn't that simple. Why are people always mistaking low-quality correlations for a high-quality ones? Is it due to laziness? It's what gave birth to astrology and similar crap. A lot of the problem can be attributed to generalizing when there's not the time, nor the place i.e. generalizing where the sample size simply forbids one to do so..sometimes sample being N=1.(I guess it's just the way how brain works) It's what gave birth to astrology, hateful nationalism and to similar crap.

[JohnDo]

No man. It isn't that simple.

You can easily prove that! Just tell me the DCNH type of 10 celebrities where it doesn't fit...

Why are people always mistaking low-quality correlations for a high-quality ones? Is it due to laziness?

It is due to confirmation bias. But in this case I'm sure of the correlation I described...

It's what gave birth to astrology and similar crap. A lot of the problem can be attributed to generalizing when there's not the time, nor the place i.e. generalizing where the sample size simply forbids one to do so..sometimes sample being N=1.(I guess it's just the way how brain works) It's what gave birth to astrology, hateful nationalism and to similar crap.

True.

[Trevor]

You can easily prove that! Just tell me the DCNH type of 10 celebrities where it doesn't fit...

I cannot do that because, in my opinion, in most of people, DCNH subtype is changeable. Therefore making absolute DCNH categorization of all people quite futile. Of course, you can categorize them once and for all in an absolute way, by spliting DCNH continuum into two, perhaps 50-50, categories. However, given that people are (so it seems) normaly distributed on DCNH dichotomy continuums it often makes the task futile(EDIT: 02/06/2010 - or not). DCNH relativity level is just repulsing. Only place where it's proper is the place where all relativity is proper => regarding relations between objects.

[JohnDo]

I cannot do that because, in my opinion, in most of people, DCNH subtype is changeable.

Why can't you tell us the DCNH types of 10 celebrities then? You could even prove that DCNH type can change by giving an example of a change.

My opinion:
1.) You can't give an example where the pattern doesn't fit because such examples do not exist.
2.) You can't give an example of a type change because type changes do not occur.

[Trevor]

My opinion:
1.) You can't give an example where the pattern doesn't fit because such examples do not exist.
2.) You can't give an example of a type change because type changes do not occur.

Whatever man. My opinions are still the same. Of course I'll be watching what's going on in these threads. Never say never. In the meantime, I rest my case.

...btw, according to you, what's my DCNH VI subtype? (I have an opinion but I wanna hear what you have to say) ...