Hello from an SLI

[Muddy]

https://web.archive.org/web/20141121...om/composites/

I happened to be looking at the facial composites over at socionix and I noticed you look very similar to the female Si-ISTp and Si-ISFp pics there.

female+Si-ISTp.jpg female+Si-ISFp.jpg


Si-ISTps are more like ISFps because of the strengthened F functions and Si-ISFps are more like ISTps because of strengthened T functions so these subtypes can be a bit similar. As of now I would say SLI is most likely because your demeanor seems more logical. As for SLI vs LSI I can't say for sure but I still think SLI. My opinion might change with a typing thread though, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[Olimpia]

https://web.archive.org/web/20141121...om/composites/

I happened to be looking at the facial composites over at socionix and I noticed you look very similar to the female Si-ISTp and Si-ISFp pics there.

female+Si-ISTp.jpg female+Si-ISFp.jpg

I would never base my typing on some "facial composites" found online. First, we tend to look similar to our parents, who often don't share the same Socionics type. People tell me I look similar to my Dad (kind of, we are both dark-haired and have dark eyes, that's it IMO, but oh well), and he's LSE. Total opposites. So, this leads me to my second point: genetics influence facial features, but not necessarily Socionics type. Typing someone on how their face looks – and I do not mean facial expression (those facial composites all have about the same facial expression, btw), but things like eye or nose shape etc. – is greatly misleading. (Besides, I have got a very similar face shape to my SEE sister. Again, types are not the same at all.) Socionics is about how a person functions, the type is mainly something that is based on the processes in the brain, though those processes will show themselves in someone's actions, ideals, goals, and the like. All of those aspects are not detectable in a motionless face.

At last, I believe those facial composites are inherently flawed due to the fact there must be many mistypes in them. (Socionics still does not have a good typing system; and based on my experience, many Socionists still mistype several people on a regular basis, especially celebrities or famous figures.)

All in all, just because someone looks a bit like a facial composite of a type (or not), does not mean they are that type (or not).

Though I'd like to add that even if you had the ability to type someone based on their face only, you'd have to recognize that Quasi-Identicals will have a very similar look, simply because their functional strengths are equal. So, in regards to differentiating LSI vs SLI, you'd most likely have a problem.

[Muddy]

I would never base my typing on some "facial composites" found online. First, we tend to look similar to our parents, who often don't share the same Socionics type. People tell me I look similar to my Dad (kind of, we are both dark-haired and have dark eyes, that's it IMO, but oh well), and he's LSE. Total opposites. So, this leads me to my second point: genetics influence facial features, but not necessarily Socionics type. Typing someone on how their face looks – and I do not mean facial expression (those facial composites all have about the same facial expression, btw), but things like eye or nose shape etc. – is greatly misleading. (Besides, I have got a very similar face shape to my SEE sister. Again, types are not the same at all.) Socionics is about how a person functions, the type is mainly something that is based on the processes in the brain, though those processes will show themselves in someone's actions, ideals, goals, and the like. All of those aspects are not detectable in a motionless face.

At last, I believe those facial composites are inherently flawed due to the fact there must be many mistypes in them. (Socionics still does not have a good typing system; and based on my experience, many Socionists still mistype several people on a regular basis, especially celebrities or famous figures.)

All in all, just because someone looks a bit like a facial composite of a type (or not), does not mean they are that type (or not).

Though I'd like to add that even if you had the ability to type someone based on their face only, you'd have to recognize that Quasi-Identicals will have a very similar look, simply because their functional strengths are equal. So, in regards to differentiating LSI vs SLI, you'd most likely have a problem.

My typings are never intended to be set in stone, I only list standalone evidence and findings. I'm well aware of the potential flaws of those facial composites and the mistypes within them BUT in my opinion most of them seem rather accurate. The may be some individuals way off from those but the law of large numbers dictates the more people in a sample the closer you get to a singular result. Its a matter of probability instead of this is right or wrong.

[Myst]

My typings are never intended to be set in stone, I only list standalone evidence and findings. I'm well aware of the potential flaws of those facial composites and the mistypes within them BUT in my opinion most of them seem rather accurate. The may be some individuals way off from those but the law of large numbers dictates the more people in a sample the closer you get to a singular result. Its a matter of probability instead of this is right or wrong.

How big were these samples? What is the guarantee that they will converge?

[Muddy]

How big were these samples? What is the guarantee that they will converge?

Heh, I always give Ti mixed with Ne and then you always want pure Ti. Never fails.


The samples used there were around 10-15, not very big I know. I always compare stuff with my own experience to form an intuitive judgment of whether something is correct and I'm pretty confident in my ability to do this. Of course, the drawback of that method is that it is not always easy to convince others of it's validity as I'm sure you know. I've taken statistics class and I'm very familiar with how results homogenize when the sample size increases. I am rather certain the genes and lifestyle of the types effect their appearance, and given large enough samples, you would start to see distinct kinds of looks for each of the types. The might be exceptions, but again, its an undeniable correlation. Obviously more research still needs to be done on VI for it to become more reliable. Until then, I'll keep using my intuition.

[Myst]

Heh, I always give Ti mixed with Ne and then you always want pure Ti. Never fails.

Hahaha right.. Or Ti with Se also works

The samples used there were around 10-15, not very big I know. I always compare stuff with my own experience to form an intuitive judgment of whether something is correct and I'm pretty confident in my ability to do this. Of course, the drawback of that method is that it is not always easy to convince others of it's validity as I'm sure you know. I've taken statistics class and I'm very familiar with how results homogenize when the sample size increases. I am rather certain the genes and lifestyle of the types effect their appearance, and given large enough samples, you would start to see distinct kinds of looks for each of the types. The might be exceptions, but again, its an undeniable correlation. Obviously more research still needs to be done on VI for it to become more reliable. Until then, I'll keep using my intuition.

OK my problem is that the convergence relies on strength of those correlations between type and physical appearance... it may not be a very strong correlation.

And 10-15 is nothing.