View Poll Results: Validity of VI

Voters
48. You may not vote on this poll
  • VI can be used to determine type from facial/physical appearance.

    12 25.00%
  • VI can be used to determine type from facial expressions, not physical appearance.

    26 54.17%
  • VI is BS, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

    10 20.83%
Results 1 to 38 of 38

Thread: Visual identification validity poll

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,339
    Mentioned
    1005 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Shiver, I can't give you a perfect definition of a table, or a "game", but I know them when I see them.
    Here you go...

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/table?s=t

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/game?s=t

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung
     
    YWIMW

  2. #2
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,845
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Aylen, you're aware that a game is exactly what Wittgenstein used to define the concept of a family resemblance, right? And dictionaries don't actually tell you the meaning of a word, but the usage, and not very well at that.

  3. #3
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,339
    Mentioned
    1005 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schildmaid View Post
    Aylen, you're aware that a game is exactly what Wittgenstein used to define the concept of a family resemblance, right? And dictionaries don't actually tell you the meaning of a word, but the usage, and not very well at that.
    I think you missed the point of my response. I enjoy poking at Adam sometimes and he probably has come to expect it. He has never told me to stop. His example seemed silly to me. A 3 year old can give a perfect description of a game or a table.

    Wittgenstein does not dictate my view of the world and neither does any other philosopher or guru. I may find things useful but if I have a different perception I will make my own associations of what connects human beings or all of consciousness. Some people believe in soul families. Others believe in socionics. I am able to cross concepts and make correlations on my own.

    Each person is unique regardless of similarity/resemblance. I look like my mom (LSI) but I don't process information like her. Some have said I look like my EII sister in many ways and we have been asked if we are twins even though there is a three year difference. I don't process like her either, although we share some similar beliefs. If they took each of us in as a whole instead of focusing on parts they might think we looked nothing alike.

    When I am sitting next to my ESE sister people have stared at us and commented how alike we look. We actually do when you look at us as a whole but when you get down to the individual features they don't match up but if you look at a pic of us side by side and take in the big picture, we look remarkably similar. Way more than my EII sister and I.

    I think if there is something to VI no one has truly been able to articulate it in a way that everyone can understand it objectively. It should be that simple but instead I have seen various VI methods that contradict each even if they seem plausible at first. Some are just downright ridiculous. I have been compared to people, visually, in various threads but when I look at them I see perhaps a feature or two that is similar yet when I look at them as a whole, they look nothing like me. VI, at this point, is just as subjective as vibes and probably less accurate. I trust my "vibes" more but doesn't mean I don't look deeper into the way others type by VI.

    We are all snowflakes on some level.
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/health/unique-body-parts/

    But on the unseen level of existence/nonexistence we are probably more connected than any human mind can truly fathom.

    This is just my opinion. I know others opinions will contradict mine. I am prepared for it. That's how it goes...

    Just out of
    curiosity if 99 out of 100 betas typed you gamma or delta, based on your VI, but you felt like a beta on every level of your being, who would you trust, yourself or them? I know how I would answer that. No one here knows how I process information except myself. If switched cognition with some people, they would feel like an alien. I am sure of that just from feedback I have received over the years.

    Anyway I like to use a dictionary when someone tells me that they cannot give the definition of a "table". He was not being metaphorical in his wording so I feel like I did him a service if he was being serious. If he was just being woo woo then that's fine. Cigar, table, cigar whatever...

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung
     
    YWIMW

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •