DCNH visual identification

[JohnDo]

I got the impression that problems with typing have something to do with facial structure. Similiar discussions occur on this forum. There is certainly a correlation between consensus and facial structure.

1.) People with round faces have a strengthened base function. So the base function can easily be determined whereas the creative function is frequently hard to tell.
Example: Colin Powell is clearly Ti-dominant, IxTj. Hard to say if LII or LSI.

2.) People with square faces have a strengthened creative function. This frequently leads to problems with typing the temperament.
Example: Barack Obama is clearly xNFx. Temperament is hard to say.

3.) People with rectangular faces have a strengthened ignoring function. This leads to problems with the E-I-dichotomy.

4.) People with oval faces have a strengthened demonstrative function. So the 4-dimensional functions are obvious but it is hard to determine which is which. The j-p-dichotmomy is the problem here.
Examples: Jennifer Lopez (SEE or ESE), George W. Bush (LSE or SLE).

[jewels]

I don't think we can tell anything from facial structure beyond physical facial structure.

The facial expressions that a face makes can tell us a person's type by giving us hints about what their brain is doing. Expressions show on a face. But the size of someone's forehead tells us nothing.

You can VI only using facial expressions, not the size or shape of features.

For example, an ISTp usually looks calm, eyes more unfocused than an ISTj, blank expression or a slight closed smile or a bit of a smirk. The size of their nose? Doesn't tell us anything. I've seen ISTps with all kinds of looks, shapes and sizes, guys and girls. But the expression remains the same.

[Absurd]

The facial expressions that a face makes can tell us a person's type by giving us hints about what their brain is doing.

[jewels]

lol

[Absurd]

lol

Keep it coming

[JohnDo]

You can VI only using facial expressions, not the size or shape of features.

That is definitely wrong. V.I. not only works with facial expressions but also with facial features. People who have typed enough people are able to see characteristic facial structure...

I've seen ISTps with all kinds of looks, shapes and sizes

I 'm of the opinion that there are 4 facial structures for each type. Are you familiar with the DCNH system?

[jewels]

That is definitely wrong. V.I. not only works with facial expressions but also with facial features. People who have typed enough people are able to see characteristic facial structure...

I 'm of the opinion that there are 4 facial structures for each type. Are you familiar with the DCNH system?

That's total crap. I know that exists, but it's wrong. It was once "common wisdom" that black people were stupid because of their facial features...haven't we learned we can't tell anything from facial features size/shape etc?

[exILEd]

That's total crap. I know that exists, but it's wrong. It was once "common wisdom" that black people were stupid because of their facial features...haven't we learned we can't tell anything from facial features size/shape etc?

According to this study we can (well, physical appearance):

Dec-11-2009 "Personalities Accurately Judged by Physical Appearance Alone"
Personalities accurately judged by physical appearance alone

I get your point though jewels - it smacks of some antiquated turn of the 20th century stuff that was used to condemn anyone who wasn't a cracker-white English dude.

Hope we've learned by now that's stupid. For what I do (programming), I see bright people from all over the planet.

If someone off the street can accurately type based on photographs (which may tell a different story - things the person was doing, what they were wearing, who they were engaged in a conversation with), it seems there's something there.


...exILEd

PS: another study that was kind of freaky and related - "People identify the sexual orientation of strangers as fast as 50 milliseconds"

People identify the sexual orientation of strangers as fast as 50 milliseconds : Cognitive Daily

[xerx]

What's his type?

[jewels]

According to this study we can (well, physical appearance):

Dec-11-2009 "Personalities Accurately Judged by Physical Appearance Alone"
Personalities accurately judged by physical appearance alone

I get your point though jewels - it smacks of some antiquated turn of the 20th century stuff that was used to condemn anyone who wasn't a cracker-white English dude.

Hope we've learned by now that's stupid. For what I do (programming), I see bright people from all over the planet.

If someone off the street can accurately type based on photographs (which may tell a different story - things the person was doing, what they were wearing, who they were engaged in a conversation with), it seems there's something there.


...exILEd

PS: another study that was kind of freaky and related - "People identify the sexual orientation of strangers as fast as 50 milliseconds"

People identify the sexual orientation of strangers as fast as 50 milliseconds : Cognitive Daily

All of those studies are about how hormone levels influence facial appearance (so you know, big jaws on guys with lots of testosterone). And yes, you can determine things like the level of testosterone in a guy or estrogen in a girl based on this -- which tells you limited things, like how aggressive a guy may act. Same thing with looking at finger length which tells you about hormone exposure in the womb and testosterone levels, etc.

BUT, I see no link between hormones and personality type (I believe type is inborn). A girl with a manly face may have more testosterone, but she can still be an IEE. Her twin could be SLI with the same face.

And I've known some very manly big jawed faced IEE guys, so I don't see at all how it would be related to personality type.

[FDG]

Hi, CheGuevara. This stuff is pure bullshit.

[Marie84]

oh so it *is* Che? That explains a lot

[Aiss]

That is definitely wrong. V.I. not only works with facial expressions but also with facial features. People who have typed enough people are able to see characteristic facial structure...

You keep repeating "typed enough people". Sorry to break it to you, but practice alone doesn't make perfect. If you're typing them wrongly you're just making the same errors again and again, and confirmation bias will keep you happy about your abilities.

[Linas]

What's his type?

jpg

like, ESI?

[Jarno]

You keep repeating "typed enough people". Sorry to break it to you, but practice alone doesn't make perfect. If you're typing them wrongly you're just making the same errors again and again, and confirmation bias will keep you happy about your abilities.

yeah that's theory. In practice you'll eventually type enough people right, and you'll start seeing some striking similarities in their faces. Nonetheless VI is still a bit overrated. We had a couple of experiments on this forum with typing friends of forum members, who knew their friends type. Nobody scored better guessing their type than a monkey would do... So for practical use, VI is limited. Though once in a while you'll spot someone in real life who's an exact copy of a known type. That's nice.

[Aiss]

yeah that's theory. In practice you'll eventually type enough people right, and you'll start seeing some striking similarities in their faces. Nonetheless VI is still a bit overrated. We had a couple of experiments on this forum with typing friends of forum members, who knew their friends type. Nobody scored better guessing their type than a monkey would do... So for practical use, VI is limited. Though once in a while you'll spot someone in real life who's an exact copy of a known type. That's nice.

Yes, but that's coming up with VI as a side-effect of typing. And then it may be not necessarily structure but expressions, which I see some people here advocate. The way JohnDo describes it in another thread, he assigns subtype according to his theory, then sees if it works. Purely deductive approach without verification (like finding out people's subtypes, then checking if it fits with his VI theory).

Not that it matters to me personally since I have no idea what shape my face qualifies as, nor what is my subtype.

[Jarno]

The way JohnDo describes it in another thread, he assigns subtype according to his theory, then sees if it works. Purely deductive approach without verification (like finding out people's subtypes, then checking if it fits with his VI theory).

Yep, that's what I think too.


At this moment we simply can't draw certain conclusions about subtypes and VI, since we haven't figured the subtypes out.

Yet most of us have seen enough 'copies' of certain types which tells us we cannot call VI a coincidence anymore either.

[JohnDo]

The way JohnDo describes it in another thread, he assigns subtype according to his theory, then sees if it works.

No, that's not what I do. I just typed a lot of people and had the idea that there might be a pattern. And there is a pattern, indeed...

[Jarno]

No, that's not what I do. I just typed a lot of people and had the idea that there might be a pattern. And there is a pattern, indeed...

ah oke.

but, I know a lot of SEE's. I once put them in an excel sheet with all their distinctive behaviour traits and VI traits. (yeah I'm a geek sometime!)

And there is indeed a pattern, and it correlates with VI nicely too! But, I couldn't find the perfect grouping. I got 8 groups as the most logical division, with only copies of types in each one of them. But for every number of groups there is something to say. I can see 2 groups, yet also 4 and 8... So for me personally, those subtypes aren't clear enough yet to use them effectively. And even so, when there are 8 groups, them there will be many different VI faces...

[Absurd]

Show them who's boss, John.

[JohnDo]

but, I know a lot of SEE's. I once put them in an excel sheet with all their distinctive behaviour traits and VI traits. (yeah I'm a geek sometime!)
And there is indeed a pattern, and it correlates with VI nicely too! But, I couldn't find the perfect grouping.

Maybe you should try it with DCNH and facial structure. If your typings are accurate you should be able to confirm the following pattern:

D-SEE: oval face like Jennifer Lopez


C-SEE: round face like Bill Clinton


N-SEE: square face like Ronald Reagan


H-SEE: rectangular face like Fidel Castro


I don't know many SEEs personally but I'm confident that this pattern appears everywhere...
And to be honest, I'm not quite sure about the above mentioned celebrities, either...

[Jarno]

Maybe you should try it with DCNH and facial structure. If your typings are accurate you should be able to confirm the following pattern:

thanks for the post.

I'll compare it.

[JohnDo]

Let's improve our V.I. skills, type by type. If my hypothesis concerning facial structure is correct it will help with typing tremendously...

D-LII (rectangular face): Christian Rach, German cook (I couldn't find a better example)


C-LII (square face): Al Gore


N-LII (round face): Frank-Walter Steinmeier


H-LII (oval face): Thomas Jefferson

[717495]

All of those faces are oval.

[JohnDo]

D-LSE (round face): Dick Cheney


C-LSE (oval face): George W. Bush


N-LSE (rectangular face): a person from socioniko.net cause I don't know any celebrities of this type. But the father of my cousin's husband looks the same...


H-LSE (square face): Helmut Kohl

[JohnDo]

All of those faces are oval.

But some are more oval than others

Reminds me of animal farm:
All animals are equal - but some are more equal than others.

Look:
Steinmeier's face looks rather ( )-like.
Gore's face looks rather [ ]-like
Jefferson's face looks rather ()-like.
Rach's face looks rather []-like.

You have to compare people of one type (like LII in this case). It's pointless to compare them to people of other types and say "they are all oval".

[Gilly]

This is fucking psychotic.

[Crispy]

But what if it's true?!?

[xerx]

This is fucking psychotic.

But so epic!

[Galen]

That's not how VI works. Facial expressions are far more telling than anything else.

[Cyrano]

If this guy is LSE,

D-LSE (round face): Dick Cheney

Then so is this guy...

[717495]

That's not how VI works. Facial expressions are far more telling than anything else.

You're just not psychotic enough to understand.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

If this guy is LSE,

D-LSE (round face): Dick Cheney

Then so is this guy...

Thoughts??

[Cyrano]

Thoughts??

Simple. Bergess Merideth was going for the FDR look, Cheney is channeling The Penguin.

[Galen]

You're just not psychotic enough to understand.

I suppose not then

[JohnDo]

That's not how VI works. Facial expressions are far more telling than anything else.

Yes, I agree. Analyzing facial structure is not a reliable method to determine the main type. But if my observations are accurate it is an excellent method to determine the subtype. Just try it and you will see...

If this article is correct then DCNH is the first subtype system to be empirically validated! So there must be visual differences between the subytpes and I think I found them...

Just analyze the DCNH types of people you know personally and you will see I'm right...

[Gilly]

You are pathetic.

[JohnDo]

You are pathetic.

Me? Why?

[Gilly]

You're trying to standardize visual identification. It's hilarious.

[Trevor]

I got the impression that problems with typing have something to do with facial structure. Similiar discussions occur on this forum. There is certainly a correlation between consensus and facial structure.

1.) People with round faces have a strengthened base function. So the base function can easily be determined whereas the creative function is frequently hard to tell.
Example: Colin Powell is clearly Ti-dominant, IxTj. Hard to say if LII or LSI.

2.) People with square faces have a strengthened creative function. This frequently leads to problems with typing the temperament.
Example: Barack Obama is clearly xNFx. Temperament is hard to say.

3.) People with rectangular faces have a strengthened ignoring function. This leads to problems with the E-I-dichotomy.

4.) People with oval faces have a strengthened demonstrative function. So the 4-dimensional functions are obvious but it is hard to determine which is which. The j-p-dichotomy is the problem here.
Examples: Jennifer Lopez (SEE or ESE), George W. Bush (LSE or SLE).

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.