This isnít empirical, thereís no evidence for it. If there is then you should be recording it because industries would be glad to finally used a verifiable repeatable personality typing system and you would become a famous psychologist.There is no uniformity to this system everyone has a different interpretation.
Visual typing is pseudoscience and based on purely anecdotal evidence ie my cousin looks a lot like you, you cross your arms like my mom etc. If you think that people have traits they are born with that influence personality then why not just take a picture of them and measure the length of their nose or the angle of their eyes and youíd learn everything about them? If you think personality affects personal ticks and eye movement and all that then how much is that really saying? What if type someone who acts nothing like the visual type they have been given? Should they just shrug their shoulders and try to be more the type they look like? What are you measuring if they donít act the part but they look the part?
The typical argument defense is to say it doesnít have to be empirical itís about thought processes blah blah blah. If it canít be verified then itís just conjecture, and speculating on nonsense like what your ďpath of least resistanceĒ is is mental masterbation. What is it? What does it look like? If it canít be clearly identified then how much does it matter? how clear is this system where no direct answer can be given? Why do you have so much invested in a system where even itís most basic premisses evade any valid scientific analysis?
Again if you claim all this is very clear and easy to identify then whereís your data? Submit it and become famous for your ground breaking research. But you have none because itís not.
Stop being taken in by this chicanery, busy yourself with something productive Iím sure youíre all smart capable people. Make the world better.