Originally Posted by
Sol
Nonverbal is _one of_ useful info for typing. The lazy would be to ignore this info and such to reduce the chance for the correct typing.
Also by the gotten typing matches it's not significantly lesser effective way to type when used alone than questionnaire or interview. The same 15-20% matches like in SRT-99 when people typed by IRL interview, not lesser matches than by special long questionnaire in socioforum's experiment.
How it's correct will be - depends on typer's skills and the info he has. I'm satisfied by the results. Additionally I take into account common behavior analysis too. But it's far more limited data for people you know a little or which do not want to do a normal and needing efforts typing interview, to do tests, questionnaires. In many cases an asured opinion about the type appears without special interviews. I watch people, check what I feel from them (through nonverbal) and how they interact with me and other ones, may ask some questions. And this is often enough - if I become sure then with high probability I'll not doubt in the type goten such after will know more about the human as his behavior fits good. Only when this approach does not give an assured opinion - then I'd need to use more direct and specialized methods to try to understand the type, or just to watch that human longer and to think more about him.
In my experience nonverbal is effective typing way. It's often fast, does not need much to know, no direct typing, more trusty data than what people say about themselves. It may be called as "lazy" only with bad efficiency, what would need the skills improvement.
> and not as accurate if you don't listen to what the person says too
It's accurate enough when you get assured opinion by it. This needs skills in this method and in other methods used by you - so the results matched.
What a human says is under significant conscious control, filters, mistakes in selfperception, may to have intentional misleading. People may to play roles, to have distorted selfperception by emotional reasons, to have nontypes reasons for a behavior. This noise is much lesser in nonverbal part and so it's harder to be misleaded by nonverbal. The ways to interpret the said and the behavior are different, - it's significantly subjective method too. In other case questionnaire typing experiment would give high matches, while they were <20% in average. To analyse a random behavior is harder, but the better is - people are more natural and honest.
The other problem. If some human knows typing theory (all on the forums and almost all which come for typing) - his questionnaires and interviews have reduced value in alike twice. You'll listen how he wants be typed or was assured about his type before in strong degree, but not about him real. You'll need to value more the nuances about which noobs do not know good without the experience, and lesser what those say and do in situations to which they were ready to be seen and where they have good selfcontrol.
Take the example of Maritsa. You thought her as EII, much because she says so, wants to think herself so and she plays EII often. But also makes "mistakes" - which are more important for her typing. Not anything is desribed in books, not always she follows to those descriptions. Also by VI she differs from EII, what you'd noticed in case you'd could to use it better. She looks as calm to remind an introvert - but it's not nonverbal of base Fi, she smiles differently. This needs skills to understand. And to interpret correctly how to assign weights to different facts of her behavior needs skills too. Even without nonverbal by the seen on the forum she is doubtful to be EII, but in case you'd added nonverbal to take into account - the situation would become totally clear for you.
> I agree with some of what you said since I don't know if her portraits were typed correctly to begin with. I just woke so it may take me a couple times of reading your post to make out everything.
Even if 30-40% there are people of the said types - her examples are useful to study VI. In its nonverbal part and by general impression. As the other % of people have random types and the whole generalized impression from the examples with the significant correct core will be correct also (just softer).
The problem is when people use the examples for physiognomy similarity. Or when they'd noticed the similar nonverbal of some example, while that example could be wrong. To understand the degree to trust to concrete examples needs studing of general impressions and experience of watching people of different types.
Filatova did a good job with her books. Easily described theory. Relatively useful examples, when they are used appropriately.