VI the guy in the burgundy shirt

[Neritim]

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

EIE

[Neritim]

EIE

Any reasoning, key observations to that other than supposedly similarity?

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

Any reasoning, key observations to that other than supposedly similarity?

hes fidgety and anxious means more likely NF type
glasses mean more likely N
presence seems weak more likely N
he tried to huff and sigh whihc may be an indication of Se agenda or role (cuz maybe IEE idk)
he seems rather expressive
cant find his place of comfort Si PoLR

[Neritim]

hes fidgety and anxious means more likely NF type
glasses mean more likely N
presence seems weak more likely N
he tried to huff and sigh whihc may be an indication of Se agenda or role (cuz maybe IEE idk)
he seems rather expressive
cant find his place of comfort Si PoLR

He does seem like he needs to relief himself though so that could account for the anxious fidgety restlessness. Like is anyone that restless by default? Maybe ADHD. Idk any EIEs who would be that anxiously restless. But interesting observations, thanks.

[EUDAEMONIUM]

He is wearing glasses so N type. He is chubby so Ip. I see no girlish giggling, that eliminates IEI. So ILI is my final conclusion.

[RBRS]

hes fidgety and anxious means more likely NF type
glasses mean more likely N
presence seems weak more likely N
he tried to huff and sigh whihc may be an indication of Se agenda or role (cuz maybe IEE idk)
he seems rather expressive
cant find his place of comfort Si PoLR

>He has glasses therefore N
>Correlate vision problems with dichotomies or functions for no reason, at most because of stereotypes from TV

Weak logics showing.

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

>He has glasses therefore N
>Correlate vision problems with dichotomies or functions for no reason, at most because of stereotypes from TV

Weak logics showing.

ur just assuming its no reason. the correlation is real. ur just picking and choosing what fits ur logic. i also gave what i did as a suggestion, in the sense glasses means its more likely to be N than S, not that glasses automatically mean 100% N. weak logics ethics and intuition showing.
there is also reason that also shows up on dario nardi scans. intuitives are less connected to their bodies and senses in general.

[Alive]

>He has glasses therefore N
>Correlate vision problems with dichotomies or functions for no reason, at most because of stereotypes from TV

Weak logics showing.

I would argue that sensing types are more likely to wear glasses, but it is just a tendecy. They pay attention to the signals that their body gives them and immediatly act on it. I noticed that my eye-sight has been getting weaker but I haven't bothered to go to an optician because it's a pragmatic, concrete activity and that bores me. I always say to myself "I will do it in a few months", and have been doing that for years now.

[mr provocateur]

I would argue that sensing types are more likely to wear glasses, but it is just a tendecy. They pay attention to the signals that their body gives them and immediatly act on it. I noticed that my eye-sight has been getting weaker but I haven't bothered to go to an optician because it's a pragmatic, concrete activity and that bores me. I always say to myself "I will do it in a few months", and have been doing that for years now.

Yes, Intuitive people drive cars, read books and decide where to go just by using their gut feelings.
[actually I was like that far too many years before checked it out due to having huge fatigue... so be afraid, very afraid]

[Adam Strange]

I would argue that sensing types are more likely to wear glasses, but it is just a tendecy. They pay attention to the signals that their body gives them and immediatly act on it. I noticed that my eye-sight has been getting weaker but I haven't bothered to go to an optician because it's a pragmatic, concrete activity and that bores me. I always say to myself "I will do it in a few months", and have been doing that for years now.

It was once thought that eyeballs elongate (and hence, become more near-sighted) when children spend a lot of time using their eyes for detail work, as in "reading". Later studies seem to indicate that this is not so, and instead, eyeballs elongate as a reaction to spending a lot of time in darkness, when growing up. (We were once mice, and mice don't need far-vision.) Darkness means "not sunlight", not just sitting in front of an illuminated screen. The sun is bright, folks. Really bright.

So if you want to reduce the likelihood that your kids will need glasses, push them outside for most of the day.

[Alive]

It was once thought that eyeballs elongate (and hence, become more near-sighted) when children spend a lot of time using their eyes for detail work, as in "reading". Later studies seem to indicate that this is not so, and instead, eyeballs elongate as a reaction to spending a lot of time in darkness, when growing up. (We were once mice, and mice don't need far-vision.) Darkness means "not sunlight", not just sitting in front of an illuminated screen. The sun is bright, folks. Really bright.

So if you want to reduce the likelihood that your kids will need glasses, push them outside for most of the day.

All of my family members wear glasses, so it was always clear to me that I would need them too eventually. Personallyy I don't want children so that's thankfully not a concern to me.

[crazymaisy]

I have Myopia, but worst is my Astigmatism at distance, if I didn't have that last one, I'd get along much better with uncorrected Myopia.

First time I had glasses I was 13, looked at a tree down the street and said "I didn't know I could see leaves on trees from this distance." I naturally saw distance as Monet-ish-like paintings (which I loved so much) and with lines all out of line.

It's not good because glasses correct yes, but I can't see close up then. I do not ever want bi-focal glasses. I go shopping with my glasses on for most of the trip, but to look at a thing on a shelf, I have to hone into where I want something, and take my glasses off (push them up into my hair usually) to look at it close. If there are many things all over the place I have to have my astigmatism corrected or I feel insane, crazed.

I used to use soft contacts, but got sick of them because reading was too difficult. I didn't want to use reading glasses. I'd rather just have glasses to wear when I want to wear them for distance.

I'm a typical ILI, I read a lot when younger, in the dark. I still read in low light, all these years later. I prefer the shade.

I can see everything when driving with uncorrected vision, except for street name, signs, it's troublesome if I don't know the area well. Also night driving needs correction. Oncoming headlights are huge and multiplied. Fine and dandy with my handy dandy glasses.

I have light sensitivity when I have a migraine too, so low light is my friend, too much light at the wrong time is a trigger as well.

My Dad had glasses for distance (SEI). One of my sisters has horrible vision, she's very introverted, different personality type than me or Dad.

[Emily]

His face really reminds me of someone I know but I'm not sure about his sociotype ( most likely Delta NF )

I don't know if this helps

[RBRS]

It was once thought that eyeballs elongate (and hence, become more near-sighted) when children spend a lot of time using their eyes for detail work, as in "reading". Later studies seem to indicate that this is not so, and instead, eyeballs elongate as a reaction to spending a lot of time in darkness, when growing up. (We were once mice, and mice don't need far-vision.) Darkness means "not sunlight", not just sitting in front of an illuminated screen. The sun is bright, folks. Really bright.

So if you want to reduce the likelihood that your kids will need glasses, push them outside for most of the day.

Kick them out then close the door, they'll thank you later in life

[AWellArmedCat]

the correlation is real

Real or not, I'm very skeptical of using this as evidence in typing someone. Even if real, the correlation is likely so insignificant as to be functionally meaningless in practice. The style of glasses someone wears is likely to tell you more about them than whether or not they're wearing glasses in the first place

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

Real or not, I'm very skeptical of using this as evidence in typing someone. Even if real, the correlation is likely so insignificant as to be functionally meaningless in practice.

because you said so.
edit: guess it doesnt matter much

[RileyPichuCake]

Yes, Intuitive people drive cars, read books and decide where to go just by using their gut feelings.
[actually I was like that far too many years before checked it out due to having huge fatigue... so be afraid, very afraid]

You go by wisdom of the departed speaking and rattling with the call of home deep in a mind sector.

But what about the invisible, or the above, the higher? I think that imagining and spacing out in a warped portal of journeying and swinging the drapes over the rainbow can also shape the will of meta-existence, seeing that impossibilities rage to a new zenith of climbing.

[Neritim]

Real or not, I'm very skeptical of using this as evidence in typing someone. Even if real, the correlation is likely so insignificant as to be functionally meaningless in practice. The style of glasses someone wears is likely to tell you more about them than whether or not they're wearing glasses in the first place

correlate fact; [genetics] no sun -> more likely to need glasses (for farsightedness)
to fact: [theoretical axiom], intuitives are less physically oriented
abduction: intuitives are inclined to spend more time indoors
deduction: intuitives are more likely to wear glasses

The style of available glasses and trends and what a person likes changes over time, hence way less likely to correlate with an informational type that is considered to be static. But wearing glasses is considered static and biological, by possibly both nature and nurture, of which both probably have to do with type, hence correlation is WAYYYYY more likely to exist.

[AWellArmedCat]

correlate fact; [genetics] no sun -> more likely to need glasses (for farsightedness)
to fact: [theoretical axiom], intuitives are less physically oriented
abduction: intuitives are inclined to spend more time indoors
deduction: intuitives are more likely to wear glasses

The style of available glasses and trends and what a person likes changes over time, hence way less likely to correlate with an informational type that is considered to be static. But wearing glasses is considered static and biological, by possibly both nature and nurture, of which both probably have to do with type, hence correlation is WAYYYYY more likely to exist.

My point was not that I don't see that a correlation is possible. My point is that the relative strength of this correlation is likely far too weak to be worth considering in typing someone. Honestly I would assume the same for style of glasses really, but it seemed less far-fetched to me at the time

[Neritim]

My point was not that I don't see that a correlation is possible. My point is that the relative strength of this correlation is likely far too weak to be worth considering in typing someone. Honestly I would assume the same for style of glasses really, but it seemed less far-fetched to me at the time

Understood. You might be right, I would consider it a correlative marker of relatively low importance though. Or at least try to find if there is a relevant correlation in a larger dataset.