Rod Novichkov's visual typing method

[Beautiful sky]

You made the claim here : maritsa27.newsvine.com - Maritsa Darmandzhyan that you studied Socionics psychology from Rod Novichkov. I am just asking you to verify this claim. Did you or did you not study Socionics psychology (and I am not talking about looking at or just reading the book) from Rod?
It's an easy question.

Both him, Antonina, and two other people in the Socionics community.

[Hays]

Both him, Antonina, and two other people in the Socionics community.

Thank you for answering. Would you care to elaborate on what the training involved.

[Beautiful sky]

Thank you for answering. Would you care to elaborate on what the training involved.

Not to you.

[Brilliand]

I agree but let me just give it a go by trying out these methods on myself because for all we know there could be some truth somewhere in all of this. Although the claim in the book of 'We think it is the only thing you need to know' scares me straight away and I see no signs that they have conducted studies except for looking at famous peoples photographs.

Ok when I look at the conceiving versus perceiving diagram on pg 53 it is clear that I have a conceiving type head setting.
How to Find Yourself and Your Best ... - Google Books

So I will lock in XXXj. That was easy!

Next intellectual versus emotional. The book claims that intellectuals have a flat, relatively large and expressive forehead when compared to the lower part of the face.Whilst emotional people's foreheads are small and less expressive when compared to the lower part of the face which shows expressions.

This seems to not support what I have previously learnt in the past which is that it is extroverted types which have more expressive foreheads and introverts who have less expressive foreheads.
This is one site that I have looked at in the past to see if visual identification could be applied very well in Socionics. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be working properly at present as all of the sketches are not being displayed.
Google Translate
Just double checked that link and it's not working as it only takes you to the home page. Unfortunately it looks like you have to become a member before you can see the visual information now.

Also how does one type all of the more unusual foreheads like ones that slope back a lot etc by Rod's method?

So what forehead type do I have? Well clearly it's the small less expressive emotional one according to Rod's book.
So I now lock in XFXj.

Now apparently the eyes can give away if you are using or or or .
Extraverted intuition eyes Do I have those? They are according to the book piercing eyes. I do not feel that I have piercing eyes but yes I do stare at one spot. But it says stares with eyes and mouth (am not sure if my mouth stares, lol). Yes I can see peoples 'cores' and yes I always have problems memorizing word for word.

Introverted intuition eyes Are those my eyes? These are wide absent eyes, not pausing on any material objects. They give the impression of not seeing at all. Are my eyes like that? Well maybe they look that way, I often find myself just staring unfocusedly. If those are my eyes then I should be able to easily tell you what a certain character trait will evolve into after 30 or so years ( that's a mighty long time, I could tell you what it would evolve into in say 5).

Extroverted sensing eyes Am I using this type? Apparently these eyes move a bit. In fact they are called running eyes! They examine people head to toe not missing a single detail and they can recall these details even on the deathbed-scary! They also remember long passages of verbatim. Oh this one is so not me .

Introverted sensing Are my eyes using this? These are slow moving floating eyes.They look like they are scanning the background and are good at perceiving the relationship between objects rather than objects themselves. You could say that my eyes are slow moving but I fail miserably at percieving the relationship between objects as I often bump, bang and trip into things. So no.

I will lock in and eyes which overall gives me intuition eyes to lock in.
So now I have XNFj.

Now am I introverted looking or extroverted looking? According to the book introverts are preoccupied with the internal processes which is reflected on their faces. They are often caught looking inside themselves or having an absent look. Yes I agree that I look like that.

Extroverts are dissociated from their inner world to a greater degree than introverts and display tenser faces. Their face reflects what is occurring around them which includes nothing if nothing is occurring. When they look at something their faces often seem passionate and engaged.
Well I don't think that is me at all but it doesn't mean that I don't ever have passionate and engaging moments.

So I am now locking in INFj.

Yes that's what I think I am...

Interesting that you got the right answer from the main stuff.

[Hays]

Interesting that you got the right answer from the main stuff.

Yes it is. I think it could be worth looking at further. Perhaps a few other people would like to post whether or not they think this visual typing method correctly determines their type. Just maybe leave out the 'other important features part'.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

WOW
This feels like you're stalking me.

I would NEVER pull anything from the net about you to justify anything about you. I would ask. This is outright WRONG. And, not to mention, something that INFj's do NOT do at people.

You did this to Rick you fucking moron.

[Suz]

Why do you care about this? He and I are friends.

You know what I think??

I think Rod may be giving Maritsa some kind of financial incentive from sales of this book. Hence her glowing reviews of it (that's marketing) and her pushing the theory on us here. He is using her to promote his book to the socionics community.

I hope at least that he's giving you a fair share Maritsa for all your efforts.

[Beautiful sky]

You did this to Rick you fucking moron.

I did not look at his facebook account; I looked at his blog. You obviously don't read people's responses before you jump at their neck, so to say.

[Brilliand]

Yes it is. I think it could be worth looking at further. Perhaps a few other people would like to post whether or not they think this visual typing method correctly determines their type. Just maybe leave out the 'other important features part'.

Looking at this, I have no idea how Maritsa decided that I was Perceiving. My neck points directly at the center of my head in the picture that I sent her - although I have rather bad posture in that picture (my neck is at about a 45 degree angle, and my head facing straight forward), so maybe that picture shouldn't count at all.

I'd like to see this on a Perceiving type... I'm having trouble seeing how a Perceiving neck would work out.

EDIT: Actually, based on Maritsa's talk about skeletal structure, I suspect that the important point is not the direction in which the next points, but the curve in the back of the neck... however the back of my neck is almost invisible in the picture that I sent her (I could get an angle, but couldn't tell whether there was a curve).

[Beautiful sky]

Looking at this, I have no idea how Maritsa decided that I was Perceiving. My neck points directly at the center of my head in the picture that I sent her - although I have rather bad posture in that picture (my neck is at about a 45 degree angle, and my head facing straight forward), so maybe that picture shouldn't count at all.

I'd like to see this on a Perceiving type... I'm having trouble seeing how a Perceiving neck would work out.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...mandzhyan.html

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...mandzhyan.html

[Brilliand]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...mandzhyan.html

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...mandzhyan.html

Besides your ridiculous posture (head pointing up into the sky), I don't see the difference. I drew the conclusion that my picture indicated XXXj by extending the lines of the front and back of my neck.

How's this? Is the neck enough to draw conclusions, or do you need the ear? Either way, how would you go about deciding where to draw the line through this picture?

[Beautiful sky]

I will attach a word document to trace where your spinal vertebral column is at.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...mandzhyan.html

my friend, who is LSE/ESTj; his picture is below yours. He and I have to tilt our forehead back when standing up or put our head forward in order to breath because our spine is right behind our trachea and it cuts off our airway if we don't do this.

[Brilliand]

I will attach a word document to trace where your spinal vertebral column is at.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...mandzhyan.html

my friend, who is LSE/ESTj; his picture is below yours. He and I have to tilt our forehead back when standing up or put our head forward in order to breath because our spine is right behind our trachea and it cuts off our airway if we don't do this.

Here's where your line ended up on the larger picture that I copied my neck out of:


Looks like the line is pointing at the base of my ear... doesn't that count as the middle of the head?

Here's the picture I originally sent you, with red lines added to indicate back, center and front of my neck:


How do you find the trachea? I noticed that your line follows the artery in the side of my neck... is that what you use to find the trachea?

I find it easier to breathe with my head back too, though I can get enough air either way...

(Oh, and about the low quality in the image I originally sent you... I realized that I've been using my webcam through the clear plastic cover, and I removed that just today, so pictures I take will be sharper now.)

[Beautiful sky]

Here's where your line ended up on the larger picture that I copied my neck out of:

Your spinal cord attaches behind your ear here... and you are purposely putting your chin up, put your chin down and then take a picture and draw a line and you can see the P, but look at my friend's trachae and how far forward it is from yours. There's a one or two inch space between the tip of your chin to your trachea; but for my LSE friend there is not even 1/4 inch space

[Beautiful sky]

Here's the picture I originally sent you, with red lines added to indicate back, center and front of my neck:

In the first red line from that tip to the tip of your chin, there is a 2 inch room, not so with J types. And, excuse me for saying this, it is not to make fun of you but flat head, J's have a huge protruding cranial cavity.

[Brilliand]

Your spinal cord attaches behind your ear here... and you are purposely putting your chin up, put your chin down and then take a picture and draw a line and you can see the P, but look at my friend's trachae and how far forward it is from yours. There's a one or two inch space between the tip of your chin to your trachea; but for my LSE friend there is not even 1/4 inch space

You have the same gap between your chin and your trachea that I do...

[Brilliand]

In the first red line from that tip to the tip of your chin, there is a 2 inch room, not so with J types. And, excuse me for saying this, it is not to make fun of you but flat head, J's have a huge protruding cranial cavity.

Flat head? How so?

[sarinana]

Ok. I will try doing this myself.

I agree but let me just give it a go by trying out these methods on myself because for all we know there could be some truth somewhere in all of this. Although the claim in the book of 'We think it is the only thing you need to know' scares me straight away and I see no signs that they have conducted studies except for looking at famous peoples photographs.

Ok when I look at the conceiving versus perceiving diagram on pg 53 it is clear that I have a conceiving type head setting.
How to Find Yourself and Your Best ... - Google Books

So I will lock in XXXj. That was easy!

This part I am not sure. In some pictures it looks like I have p head in others j. I guess I need a good teacher.

So XXXx

Next intellectual versus emotional. The book claims that intellectuals have a flat, relatively large and expressive forehead when compared to the lower part of the face.Whilst emotional people's foreheads are small and less expressive when compared to the lower part of the face which shows expressions.

This seems to not support what I have previously learnt in the past which is that it is extroverted types which have more expressive foreheads and introverts who have less expressive foreheads.
This is one site that I have looked at in the past to see if visual identification could be applied very well in Socionics. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be working properly at present as all of the sketches are not being displayed.
Google Translate
Just double checked that link and it's not working as it only takes you to the home page. Unfortunately it looks like you have to become a member before you can see the visual information now.

Also how does one type all of the more unusual foreheads like ones that slope back a lot etc by Rod's method?

So what forehead type do I have? Well clearly it's the small less expressive emotional one according to Rod's book.
So I now lock in XFXj.

For this part my forehead takes 1/3 of my face. Yes it does look relatively large. Example here:


So I have XXTx

Now apparently the eyes can give away if you are using or or or .
Extraverted intuition eyes Do I have those? They are according to the book piercing eyes. I do not feel that I have piercing eyes but yes I do stare at one spot. But it says stares with eyes and mouth (am not sure if my mouth stares, lol). Yes I can see peoples 'cores' and yes I always have problems memorizing word for word.

Introverted intuition eyes Are those my eyes? These are wide absent eyes, not pausing on any material objects. They give the impression of not seeing at all. Are my eyes like that? Well maybe they look that way, I often find myself just staring unfocusedly. If those are my eyes then I should be able to easily tell you what a certain character trait will evolve into after 30 or so years ( that's a mighty long time, I could tell you what it would evolve into in say 5).

Extroverted sensing eyes Am I using this type? Apparently these eyes move a bit. In fact they are called running eyes! They examine people head to toe not missing a single detail and they can recall these details even on the deathbed-scary! They also remember long passages of verbatim. Oh this one is so not me .

Introverted sensing Are my eyes using this? These are slow moving floating eyes.They look like they are scanning the background and are good at perceiving the relationship between objects rather than objects themselves. You could say that my eyes are slow moving but I fail miserably at percieving the relationship between objects as I often bump, bang and trip into things. So no.

I will lock in and eyes which overall gives me intuition eyes to lock in.
So now I have XNFj.

This sounds completely right. When I would chat on webcam with my ESFp friend I would see his eyes running a lot. Myself I relate to both Se and Si. more Se.

XSTx

Now am I introverted looking or extroverted looking? According to the book introverts are preoccupied with the internal processes which is reflected on their faces. They are often caught looking inside themselves or having an absent look. Yes I agree that I look like that.

Extroverts are dissociated from their inner world to a greater degree than introverts and display tenser faces. Their face reflects what is occurring around them which includes nothing if nothing is occurring. When they look at something their faces often seem passionate and engaged.
Well I don't think that is me at all but it doesn't mean that I don't ever have passionate and engaging moments.

So I am now locking in INFj.

Extroverted. ESTx

mhm something new.

[Hays]

Flat head? How so?

These images I think show good examples of the perceiving type head that Rod talks about. Note that it looks like it is attached very solidly and the back of the head is quite flat.







This image shows a conceiving type head which looks not so well attached, kind of a bit wobbly and neck stretched forward a bit. Also note that the back of the skull has a more rounded shape to it.

[sarinana]

These images I think show good examples of the perceiving type head that Rod talks about. Note that it looks like it is attached very solidly and the back of the head is quite flat.







This image shows a conceiving type head which looks not so well attached, kind of a bit wobbly and neck stretched forward a bit. Also note that the back of the skull has a more rounded shape to it.

Well that means from now I am your dual.

[Hays]

Well that means from now I am your dual.

Cool . Thanks for giving the method a try Sarinana. Though I don't think your forehead looked overly large or flat. Hard to say from just one photo. Maybe the deciding factor there would be whether or not you use your forehead much to display your emotions.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I did not look at his facebook account; I looked at his blog. You obviously don't read people's responses before you jump at their neck, so to say.

I read what you said, here's the post I responded to. I don't know if you looked at Ricks facebook, but you might have done (no reason to believe anything you say here), however, where in the post I responded to does it mention facebook? It mentions pulling things from internet:

WOW
This feels like you're stalking me.

I would NEVER pull anything from the net about you to justify anything about you. I would ask. This is outright WRONG. And, not to mention, something that INFj's do NOT do at people.

Read what you said, and try admitting you are wrong when you are, when you can do that, maybe i'll help you.

[717495]

[IMG]http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/alternative-socionics-theories/alternative-socionics-theories/alternative-socionics-theories/alternative-socionics-theories/alternative-socionics-theories/....[IMG]

I think you look like an Se dominant. You have that style about you. But this simple judgment doesn't mean much, because it's VI. Compared to actually getting to know you? Screw VI for the most part, its just a picture. It's not going to help me be certain about anything. I'm not going to be certain about a picture, I will be certain about a person and their personality. I understand there is an association made, that personality changes but Socionics types don't, that's why VI is so catchy, because a face never changes either. How moronic.

[tcaudilllg]

Really? And how can you "know" a person?

[Hays]

So who are Rod Novichkov and Julia Varabyova and why is there so little information out there about them. How did they learn this theory and what research have they done to prove it?
I am beginning to wonder if their number one fan has driven them into hiding. Did they actually type and comprehensively train this fan and can the fan successfully use their methods - I think not.
Why is this fan so fixated on their methods even though she misuses them? Is she just a plant here and actually belongs to their 'group' somehow.
Why is she not making the most of this thread by coming forward with more information and if Rod is actually her friend why has she not asked him to be involved?

So far we have let this fan use this method as some little secret that she has and because nobody else has learnt it she has run riot saying you are this type and you are that even though her skills in this method are way off.

This visual typing is just another piece of the puzzle. Do we want to know if there is any truth in this typing method, if it does indeed hold another puzzle peice. If so then give it a try and say what you think.

[Absurd]

Well that means from now I am your dual.

Ain't wise posting me pics all over here.

Really? And how can you "know" a person?

He shares the bed with her.

[Beautiful sky]

No, your mom is ONE person.

What you have to understand is that you have fallen for a theory and embraced it fully without ANY scientific basis. That's kind of scary.

I know plenty of N's who can gain weight.

not weight but protein, muscle.

[marooned]

Wow, I would be a J according to this. At first I was blinded by my bad posture. But now I see.

I think I'd probably be an ISFj.

[Aiss]

So who are Rod Novichkov and Julia Varabyova and why is there so little information out there about them. How did they learn this theory and what research have they done to prove it?

(...)

This visual typing is just another piece of the puzzle. Do we want to know if there is any truth in this typing method, if it does indeed hold another puzzle peice. If so then give it a try and say what you think.

I have no evidence for it but I think some of it might be based on old ideas such as high forehead signifying intelligence, etc. My grandmother used to mention it sometimes. I think I remember her mentioning the neck thing as well, but it was more the normal/default angle - "like a charging bool" or "kept back". And of course skinny hands being "artistic".

[Beautiful sky]

Wow, I would be a J according to this. At first I was blinded by my bad posture. But now I see.

I think I'd probably be an ISFj.

what did you type yourself as?

[Beautiful sky]

I have no evidence for it but I think some of it might be based on old ideas such as high forehead signifying intelligence, etc. My grandmother used to mention it sometimes. I think I remember her mentioning the neck thing as well, but it was more the normal/default angle - "like a charging bool" or "kept back". And of course skinny hands being "artistic".

No intelligence and type are not related...

My friend is a PhD phycisist for NASA and an ESFp type.

[Aiss]

No intelligence and type are not related...

My friend is a PhD phycisist for NASA and an ESFp type.

No, but it's easy to turn one prejudice (which it is for me) into another. F/T is just what they chose. And many people might feel they agree with that, especially in Eastern & Central Europe where they've probably heard about it in childhood. I don't believe in VI, beyond temperaments (which are related to behaviour and postures, not something like bone structure).

[twitch]

Perhaps i have a slightly more perceiving head shape, but am not positive.

So I will lock in XXXp.

I have an a small forehead and expressive lower face

So I now lock in XXFp .

Extraverted intuition eyes Do I have those? They are according to the book piercing eyes. I do not feel that I have piercing eyes but yes I do stare at one spot. But it says stares with eyes and mouth (am not sure if my mouth stares, lol). Yes I can see peoples 'cores' and yes I always have problems memorizing word for word.

Introverted intuition eyes Are those my eyes? These are wide absent eyes, not pausing on any material objects. They give the impression of not seeing at all. Are my eyes like that? Well maybe they look that way, I often find myself just staring unfocusedly. If those are my eyes then I should be able to easily tell you what a certain character trait will evolve into after 30 or so years ( that's a mighty long time, I could tell you what it would evolve into in say 5).

I also cannot choose between these two.
So now I have an XNFp locked in .

I feel that I am more so introverted by the descriptions.

So I am now locking in INFp.

The ones i was least sure was introverted/extroverted and perceiving/judging.... (my head shape is half way in between, so you cannot tell)

[felafel]

I sent pictures to Maritsa of people with similar foreheads and heads, or just similar foreheads to me, as well as a pic of me without saying it was me, and asked her how she'd type each person according to their foreheads. She typed those whose heads looked most like mine, and also my head as Tj. (Thomas Jefferson and Ezra Pound were the other Tjs as typed by Maritsa, btw, in case anyone was curious as to what other pictures I sent.)

it seems to me a bigger problem with this method is N vs. S. there are no operational definitions of what N or S exactly constitute. "running eyes" or "absent look" aren't good defining levels at all.
edit: and this lack of operational definitions, so to speak, is pretty pervasive (where exactly is the J neck different from a double chin?). Maritsa, i thought you'd be posting some evidence on this..?

[Hays]

A good article by Rick:

The Socionist: Do Socionists Diagnose Type Using Photos Alone?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I agree but let me just give it a go by trying out these methods on myself because for all we know there could be some truth somewhere in all of this. Although the claim in the book of 'We think it is the only thing you need to know' scares me straight away and I see no signs that they have conducted studies except for looking at famous peoples photographs.

Okaydokay, I gave it a go myself from the link you posted.

P or J, it would appear P

XXXp.

I am unsure whether I VI as T or F.

I think the Si way of eyes is very me - it's something i've noticed and been noticed by others in photos of me for instance

So Si and P type.

Which is ISXp.

Dunno about the T and F.

I tend to frown more so to display emotion, or raise eyebrows, but then, if i'm happy or trying to be outgoing, I can smile and stuff.

The thing about the additional features - it would be better in my opinion if the words never or always were substituted with usually, an example would be that i've known some full figured ENFp's for instance (and even in the sub-type descriptions by Filatova, rather that just relying on me, it's mentioned that they can have fuller figures).

[Creepy-Cyclops]

In short: it's probably a fair thing to post this thread Suzzy. Given that Maritsa contorts and mis-interprets what people say on these forums, it's hardly difficult to imagine that she mis-interprets what Rod has to say in his book too, so I suppose the guy should be given a fair hearing.

Knowing some INTj's, some of them can be a bit powerless to act when something is going on that they don't like. For all I know Rod is pretty pissed off but doesn't know what to do (ie defend himself suitably) at the way his stuff is being presented.

In regards to Maritsa's VI skills and applying Rod's method, she types Mike Tyson as ISTp. I personally don't see how the description of Si in anyway matches Mike Tysons gaze, his way of looking at people is all Se from my interpretation (and Se dominant is as I understand it a universal typing among socionists, so by that alone perhaps i'm understanding what Rod means better than Maritsa), but then maybe even describing something such as VI is still left to being subjective in it's interpretation and application then, or maybe Maritsa is just the worst type of person to spread the info.

I don't have time to write out a full 'analysis', suffice to say I think he's on to something at least to an extent imo with the perceiving functions eye-look. As for the rest, dunno yet, but my spider sense tells me to be cautious (like for instance the J/P thing), but will see when have more time to look at it.

Anyway, ramble ramble probably never.

[Beautiful sky]

it seems to me a bigger problem with this method is N vs. S. there are no operational definitions of what N or S exactly constitute. "running eyes" or "absent look" aren't good defining levels at all.
edit: and this lack of operational definitions, so to speak, is pretty pervasive (where exactly is the J neck different from a double chin?). Maritsa, i thought you'd be posting some evidence on this..?

S and N is very difficult but easy to recognize, it takes much more practice, like fine tuning your skills at violin.

[The Exception]

Hmmm. According to Rod's method, I'm definitely j and definitely introverted. Probably more Ni than anything and not sure about the T or F. So I guess I don't match any type.

[Beautiful sky]

Hmmm. According to Rod's method, I'm definitely j and definitely introverted. Probably more Ni than anything and not sure about the T or F. So I guess I don't match any type.

How about INFj? I don't know how I could have missed you?

"I read to be entertained, plain and simple. What's so wrong about that? Not everything I read has to always be profound, not everything I read has to be lifechanging or result in some major paradigm shift. Why should I have to feel guilty for that? That's not to say I don't read things considered more 'literary'. I do, but I'm not going to pick something up just because it's 'literary' any more that I'm going to pick something up that's more 'popular'. I choose the books I read based on the premise or themes. If they sound interesting, I read it. If not, I don't. Popularity is irrelevant.

I love her series because I like mysteries in general, especially those with some humor mixed in and there is a lot of humor in these books. Well, to me anyway. Many of the characters are rather eccentric but still likeable. This is another reason why I enjoy the series. And I do think she does a good job of narrating in first person, it makes me identify with the main character more. Again this is a matter of personal taste. "