Well, most of the pictures I found of Jake G. actually didn't remind me of you, but this one captures the vibes I was looking for (a bit).
Then I wondered about this person... but there's a strange 'i am holier than thou' quality in pictures I found of this person, making him look less kind (perhaps it's his diva-ness).
Thanks.
This one's kinda interesting.Originally Posted by Loki
I see the similarity, like in I said, the quality VI gallery provided. The pictures in the gallery are good, the pictures of myself may not fit exactly because not all of mine are 'example' quality worthy, per say, and many are but don't have those closely identical pictures in the gallery yet. But definitely the best fit type-wise. I made a long comparison posts once that I deleted, but here are some examples. Like I said, focus on the eyes and mouth, the links to the psyche:
INFj-Ne pics:
Last edited by 717495; 09-02-2011 at 01:49 AM.
Okay, I said I wasn't going to respond to this, but perhaps I'll try to say why I don't understand this.
My picture posting in this thread is something I don't understand either, it was simply famous people you might remind me of on some vibey/appearance base only that I don't even know how to articulate. But I think I'm trying to get at something in common with them (with the image I get of them and that I get of you).
Your picture vs. the James Earl Jones picture... I see that there is a similar facial expression, but I don't get the same feeling from looking at each picture. I still don't know how to explain it though. Well I do think you have a goofy, borderline zany quality that JEJ lacks (he's frank which isn't really different from your picture, but in calm control or something like he's a calm master of his surroundings or something--the lion may look/be content, mild and at ease lazing in the sun, but we must not forget it is a lion with the power of a lion and can be spurred into action at any time by a threat that appears... is the kind of feeling I get looking at the JEJ pic).
Skipping ahead: you and the first brunette girl... You look slightly withdrawn, disinterested or very mildly defiant, or perhaps there's a cynicism there (a mild one), and you have that little half smile, and you seem somehow caught between your inner perceptions and whatever it is you're observing, and there's a dreamy quality which I think is in a lot of your pictures (it's really a very irrational look, imo, even though I feel I've failed to describe it and I'm afraid of offending you by what I did say because it's off). She has more of the feminine "startled" look as though we're getting a window into an inner anxiety or something (that although there's a subdued expression on her face, beneath is an anxiety, or being caught by someone looking into her soul--an exposed vulnerability).
I don't know. I give up. I really don't understand VI. I might even hate VI in a way because I don't like evaluating people like this.
I only like VI from an "Aha you remind me of so-and-so," as long as you don't think it means that much. Serious attempts at VI kind of make me laugh.
@ Loki - um I see. I can hear what you have to say fine, I just don't grasp why that is type-related or temperament related. Don't be afraid of offending me when you're actually explaining things. That's good, keep talking. I just don't like to hear from those noobs. I feel pretty in common with those EII people from a Socionics standpoint, whether they look or feel a certain way at a different time, if they believe something I definitely don't or visa versa, whether they are more mature or kiddish, there is still infantile, adventurous or calm, what their interests and humor is different from mine, perhaps even their facial features make them look contrary to some people based on the perceiver's experience, etc, they all seem to rely on Ne and Fi, constant in their attachment to delta, and internally it's the very same vibe, and VI it is a very similar vibe too. So, maybe we or people in general cannot always see this deep into perception, but if you read Jung, it's there to be scooped up. Like I said, I will hear what you have to say about it. If there is difference there to my methods of VI, don't give up on them. They become very apparent once you learn/type people the right way, and partly based on the fact that their functions manifest in their constant expressions, like their dominant way of thinking is becoming engrained more and more to their face.
edit: also, Loki, the girl you're talking about in the comparisons, Rashida Jones. I look like her all the time, you just need to see more.
@ Munenori - It's a little difficult to explain why, since it is in terms of Socionics we don't always put together obvious similarities, what I call a variety of personal preferences. It's also partly a bias, I don't think anyone relates well to me that much in terms of oddness or distance, but to say we're that different in our Socionics relations is a bit imprecise. Because you only have 16 types, you have to be very objective if it stands up to anything, so if you expect these types of differences while keeping with the common ground of the science (and you see things more in complex verbs than everyday nouns so there is less room for error in overgeneralization), you're looking at it realistically. You're also looking at it from a resonance p.o.v., where mainly because we have not spoken, I don't feel much resonance from your side either, though maybe more than you do... It doesn't manifest perfectly due to other factors which interest me to understand, but to say it's a bad relation at its very foundation, even compared with alphas - that's off IMO. Not to say we're going to become friends, I don't make friends that easily even though I'm a friendly person. I'm just reserved in my eccentricity, but maybe with time, people change and adapt to their situation regardless of their fears and obstacles.
Easily I can see why you don't think we're the same type, or maybe you may accept it while realizing our differences, because personality exists at many levels beyond Socionics. This is just a good tool to use nonetheless. None of this means anything without me saying that it is very beneficial to understand the Jungian roots, and I'm not sure you apply them or care to.
@ Both: There's way more to it than comparing a few pictures side by side. It exists every day in all types manor and expression, it's hard to pass up once you have it. Don't give up at it and use my/our gallery reference.
Last edited by 717495; 08-30-2011 at 11:38 PM.
At the first bit, I've got to say you've still lost me, up until the resonance part, which I think you're presuming what I mean by someone being relatable, or maybe it's what you mean by resonance. What I'm trying to get across is usually, I can listen to someone and understand their train of thought/how they came to feel the way they do. Mostly this takes place when people actually explain their thought process. This is where you and I diverge.
Where you start talking about how saying we have a difference in socionics relationships is imprecise...what does that even mean? I guess I get it to some extent. I'm not saying we wouldn't get along at all if we met, it's just I've got this honest need to ask for constant clarification when you're talking. In this respect, it doesn't matter how much we've talked or not, does it?
Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?"@ Both: There's way more to it than comparing a few pictures side by side. It exists every day in all types manor and expression, it's hard to pass up once you have it. Don't give up at it and use my/our gallery reference.
Seriously, man, this line of argumentation bugs me to death. You can't really make esoteric, inexplicable claims and then expect people to take it at face value. Explain how your system deserves more merit than anything else, but asking for people to take it on faith is just asinine.
I thought that's what people came here to do is classify the human race into 16 compartments, but ok. You can't reason one way or another, it's all circular and subjective, but it's what this forum is all about. Btw, that link is extremely obvious VI. You don't need to take on faith, just study it along with Jung and see for yourself how well it matches up.
I don't expect you should try to relate with me because I'm not the type who would open up easily, but I am the kind who tries to relate with all types of people, and you have this intellectual detachment about yourself like me that makes it difficult.
Posting Permissions
