VI picture phrases in Filatova and Ashton

[Socionics Is A Cult]

In your "methodology" you seem to place VI above all else...not only is it first in your bullet points, but you say "Images and/or videos", rather than Videos and/or images".

Are you seriously nitpicking over the order of the words as if that actually means anything? Because it doesn't.

Who says they're considered optional? I'll certainly resort to videos when they exist (though I usually type historical figures and philosophers, and videos typically aren't available for them. For that matter, neither are many pictures).

your "methodology" doesn't seem very methodological then. Your wording suggests a preference for images, fairly clearly....why not say "Videos and images"? It is obvious that videos will not always exist for famous people...but it is also true in the case of images. Here it really sounds like you consider videos as secondary to images. In the case of historical figures where videos do not exist...or even where they do...relevant textual resources are still more important than images. I don't often see Model X people using such resources compared to images, and they tend to focus more on the appearance of the individual's eyes than on relevant textual resources.

Disingenuous smears again. More often than not, case study threads on Socionix appear to be accompanied with videos. For instance, this latest one has 3 (I don't know the woman's type, I've only tentative observations).

it does seem that in the case of musicians...if videos are included, they are videos of their music rather than the musician describing themselves. Also, even the limited "analysis" I've seen is generally not descriptive of the way the individual being typed processes IMs, even if textual sources are included.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

No. I frequently post walls of text by authors, intellectuals, public figures, etc. when available.

and when you do, it is generally with no analysis beyond an IM symbol or a bizarre reductio with the aid of a dictionary.

Wrong again.

statistics?

[717495]

Those pictures suck, lol.

Filatova isn't even recognized as a decent Socionics expert from what I know.

[Trevor]

Those pictures suck, lol.

I disagree. Actually, i think they're pretty good.

[Creepy-bg]

the fat INTp should be a model for schizoid medication.

[EyeSeeCold]

Uh, those people are the examples that you asked for (aside from Siuntal). Gulanzon's said the same thing a few times too, and I'm sure Ephemeros has as well. Calm down, buddy.

Bolt is suspected ENTp, but Jonathan is unavailable for data, and Gulanzon is controversial. You need more reliable sources, otherwise your claim is null and void.

[Galen]

Uh, those people are the examples that you asked for (aside from Siuntal). Gulanzon's said the same thing a few times too, and I'm sure Ephemeros has as well. Calm down, buddy.

Bolt is suspected ENTp, but Jonathan is unavailable for data, and Gulanzon is controversial. You need more reliable sources, otherwise your claim is null and void.

The examples I've cited work for me, if you don't see them as good enough then that's your own issue.


ANYWAYS
I've never taken much stock in the Filatova pictures. I'd rather see how she actually types the people she does.