Female EII faces

[ebrarthelady]

I am very surprised that no one talked about EII faces in there. People generally say that my face looks like a SEI. But my character is not similar to SEI. I've never followed comfort like a SEI. Maybe this is because my ethnic roots are different from Europeans, idk. Socionics was mostly analyzed on European/Slavic people's faces. Anyways, could you give examples of female EII faces please? And if you can, please add people from black people&other countries. Thanks <3

[Braingel]

I do not rely on typing by face, there are merely patterns, but you have a vibe of necrose who is an eii..

[nifl]

types can be seen in ppl's expressions, but facial features have no relation to types
to evaluate whether you may be EII, SEI etc. by your mannerisms and facial expressions a decent quality video is needed. you can make a typing thread with a vid if opinions about your type interest you


woman is EII

[qaz00]

woman is EII

SEI

[Echo]

woman is EII

Definitely not. either SEI or IEI. not sure which since I couldn’t get through more than 2 1/2 minutes of the video without having to turn it off because it was so boring.

[Park]

[rose bud]

prob D sub if interested in that



H or N maybe

[Mademoiselle]

I agree with EII.

[Mademoiselle]

Likely IEE



EII, yes.

[Echo]

I agree with EII.

No I don't think so. I've come round to SEI. FiNe makes very little sense for her.

[Mademoiselle]

I agree with EII.

[Braingel]

Too expressive to be Fi, even by a Jung standard, too focused outside of herself

[Braingel]

No I don't think so. I've come round to SEI. FiNe makes very little sense for her.

I get IEE man and SEI, if not an Si ish iei woman but I honestly don’t really get intuition from her. They could be semi duals..

I watched more in and her being aware of Spaces is more of an Si ego thing, as spaces plural is more subjective, it isn’t what is in concrete reality, but the space that is adjusted to the sensitive measure of comfort (comfort isn’t universalized and varies by individual, making it introversive relative to one’s own inner body distance/relation).

Creating spaces is sort of a New Age thing as well, but that still fundamentally is more Si>Ni, unless it has do with creating a space through time realms that aren’t about being present and this is present or intended to invite a being present.

[Echo]

I get IEE man and SEI, if not an Si ish iei woman but I honestly don’t really get intuition from her. They could be semi duals..

I watched more in and her being aware of Spaces is more of an Si ego thing, as spaces plural is more subjective, it isn’t what is in concrete reality, but the space that is adjusted to the sensitive measure of comfort (comfort isn’t universalized and varies by individual, making it introversive relative to one’s own inner body distance/relation).

Creating spaces is sort of a New Age thing as well, but that still fundamentally is more Si>Ni, unless it has do with creating a space through time realms that aren’t about being present and this is present or intended to invite a being present.

Might be the role Ni... a lot of SEIs are kind of new age-y

[nifl]

Might be the role Ni

Ni is the weakest non-valued aspect for SEI. it's the least expressed functional aspect, in general.

a lot of SEIs are kind of new age-y

IEIs are often, ESIs may be. SEI are more rarely

[Distance]

Another vote that woman is Fe /introverted. The little dance, SEI trademark look, TM, and her are about contact with the outside in expressiveness in sharing, along with the detail ramble. Here is my energy baby!

12 minutes of watch.

Guy, Fi pull, aligns with himself in lighting his emotional fire.

[Echo]

Ni is the weakest non-valued aspect for SEI. it's the least expressed functional aspect, in general

IEIs are often, ESIs may be. SEI are more rarely

incorrect. ni is 2d in SEIs. you’re just spewing all sorts of inaccuracies today

[nifl]

incorrect. ni is 2d in SEIs. you’re just spewing all sorts of inaccuracies today

Jung's idea that the inferior, being the psychic opposite to the leading, is the weakest of the 4 functions is more reasonable

[Braingel]

Socionics isn’t just Carl Jung; it’s infused with information metabolism theories and Freudian ego blocks, it can hardly be called Jung alone, so if you’re here trying to type from Jung, you should abandon socionics.

That being said, I haven’t studied a lot of Jung, but there are some fundamental things that should be apart of socionics that aren’t, but that isn’t one of them.

[Echo]

Jung's idea that the inferior, being the psychic opposite to the leading, is the weakest of the 4 functions is more reasonable

That’s MBTI, not socionics. if I had any interest in typing with MBTI, I’d be on an MBTI forum.

if you’re just gonna type with MBTI then don’t use labels like EII and SEI, just call them an INFP so people don’t get the mistaken impression that you know what you’re talking about when it comes to socionics.

[nifl]

That’s MBTI, not socionics

it's Jung, which is the basis for mbti and socionics. Augusta probably made a mistake when calling PoLR weaker than Role. with no proof either way, Jung's idea is more logically sound (weakest and strongest functions in the mind should be opposites) and fits better with other parts of his original hypothesis (that functional attitudes work together, with one (non-valued) as a background and one as a front)

it's not scripture, but speculative psychology. you need to be more critical about the ideas you use

[Echo]

it's Jung, which is the basis for mbti and socionics. Augusta probably made a mistake when calling PoLR weaker than Role. with no proof either way, Jung's idea is more logically sound and fits better with the rest of his original hypothesis

it's not scripture, but speculative psychology. you need to be more critical about the ideas you use

Either way when you type you’re not using socionics, so it’s pretty irrelevant to the conversation

[nifl]

Either way when you type you’re not using socionics, so it’s pretty irrelevant to the conversation

like how when einstein talked about relativity theory, he was not operating within the confines of newtonian gravity, so it was pretty irrelevant to the conversation

naive and somewhat dogmatic. not unusual for EIEs

[Distance]

like how when einstein talked about relativity theory, he was not operating within the confines of newtonian gravity, so it was pretty irrelevant to the conversation

naive and somewhat dogmatic. not unusual for EIEs

You declaring your opinion as fact, right?

[Distance]

You declaring your opinion as fact, right?

No, these are the facts.

[Echo]

like how when einstein talked about relativity theory, he was not operating within the confines of newtonian gravity, so it was pretty irrelevant to the conversation

naive and somewhat dogmatic. not unusual for EIEs

I know that when Einstein talked about his theory of relativity, he didn’t label it as Newtonian gravity, that’s for sure. Also are you really comparing yourself to Einstein right now? The level of conceit here is actually laughable

(also Einstein came up with his own ideas. You’re just citing older theory than the one you’re criticizing. So you’re actually much closer to Einstein‘s critics, who criticiqued his theory of relativity by saying it contradicted Newtonian gravity)

[nifl]

Also are you really comparing yourself to Einstein right now? The level of conceit here is actually laughable

anyone who do something to some degree of similarity can be compared depending on the context. usually famous people are used for comparison to strangers, to maximize the chance that the comparison will be understood. einstein being a famous example of someone who thought something as more reasonable (based on newtonian gravity not fitting at larger scales) about a theory (for gravitation), despite it not being inside the model accepted by the majority in the context. that he was original - and seemingly correct in his original thoughts - is irrelevant to the specific comparison.

The level of conceit here is actually laughable

that's your assumption about my motivations for the comparison. i'm no physicist or genius, just more reasonable in this situation than you are being T, it often happens when interacting with F types. with the topic of this forum (what are psychological types), T types have an advantage in understanding it compared to F types. in a hospital, actor's set, networking situations, anywhere where people have a significant degree of emotional influence and connection to each other, you can notice the inferiority of T types compared to F's.

You’re just citing older theory than the one you’re criticizing.

i argued for why it's more likely to be correct. other places i've said why i think some of aushra's revisions are better than jung's original ideas. you, on the other hand, just said that it was irrelevant as it's not socionics (which is wrong, unless you think socionics is just what aushra wrote, and then it's brainless dogmatism to say to only stick to socionics)

[Aster]

I feel sorry for OP because this thread had veered off into typing some random chic lol. But stereotypically she does seem SEI. (the girl in the video, not OP)

OP, if you are interested in VI, you are best off to just Google your heart out and find different sources and find the commonality between them. Here’s one place to start https://pin.it/6HBAbXgzX

of course people are going to disagree with the typings of people. I don’t even agree with all the typings of the people in those galleries. It’s just….something. An idea.

Also, look at the faces of these people and find the similarities between them, in their countenance, their smiles, general bearing, etc. https://socioniks.net/en/famouspeople/

if you don’t relate to Si, you don’t relate to Si you probably aren’t Si, then.

[Echo]

anyone who do something to some degree of similarity can be compared depending on the context. usually famous people are used for comparison to strangers, to maximize the chance that the comparison will be understood. einstein being a famous example of someone who thought something as more reasonable (based on newtonian gravity not fitting at larger scales) about a theory (for gravitation), despite it not being inside the model accepted by the majority in the context. that he was original - and seemingly correct in his original thoughts - is irrelevant to the specific comparison.


that's your assumption about my motivations for the comparison. i'm no physicist or genius, just more reasonable in this situation than you are being T, it often happens when interacting with F types. with the topic of this forum (what are psychological types), T types have an advantage in understanding it compared to F types. in a hospital, actor's set, networking situations, anywhere where people have a significant degree of emotional influence and connection to each other, you can notice the inferiority of T types compared to F's.


i argued for why it's more likely to be correct. other places i've said why i think some of aushra's revisions are better than jung's original ideas. you, on the other hand, just said that it was irrelevant as it's not socionics (which is wrong, unless you think socionics is just what aushra wrote, and then it's brainless dogmatism to say to only stick to socionics)

This is just such an SEI response. You’re such an F type. But then F types just can’t stay on topic can they? Good thing I’m a T type and I can see through your fallacious F type reasoning

[ebrarthelady]

Thank you so much. Of course we cannot know by just looking at faces. Mimics, walking styles are also important. I know that but you know, sometimes when you look at someone's face you can say he/she has some kind of character traits.
For example I generally identify Se ego users by just looking into their eyes. I cannot describe how I do this, in my opinion this is because I am Se polr or Se glances are very specific? I don't know. When I see Se users' eyes, I feel a combination of feelings that contain a horror, withdrawal, disgust. My brain automatically say "Get away from me". I think our characteristic traits have a great impact on our eyes, glances.

[ebrarthelady]

And again, I think the woman in the video should be SEI. Her face features are rounder than an EII. Generally EIIs under of eyes are inward. This is my observation. And as I have read on Gulenko's page, EIIs noses are generally out of the face. Nose doesn't fit into the face. Her nose is very well fits into her face. This is my personal comment, so it might not be correct but when I look at SEIs faces, I can see the harmony of the face. Even if the SEI person's face is not very beautiful, I would find it attractive because of well-disposed parts of the face. I see a perfect unity in SEIs faces. The woman in the video looks like SEI because of these kind of reasons for me.

[ebrarthelady]

Those women exactly looks like me. Especially the last one. Thanks @rose bud

[Echo]

And again, I think the woman in the video should be SEI. Her face features are rounder than an EII. Generally EIIs under of eyes are inward. This is my observation. And as I have read on Gulenko's page, EIIs noses are generally out of the face. Nose doesn't fit into the face. Her nose is very well fits into her face. This is my personal comment, so it might not be correct but when I look at SEIs faces, I can see the harmony of the face. Even if the SEI person's face is not very beautiful, I would find it attractive because of well-disposed parts of the face. I see a perfect unity in SEIs faces. The woman in the video looks like SEI because of these kind of reasons for me.

yes, I agree, SEIs usually have round face shapes. most of their features are soft and rounded. You rarely see any harsh lines or sharp edges.

I’ve also noticed that EIIs and LIIs seem to be predisposed to having dark circles under their eyes. Maybe it’s because our Si isn’t great so we don’t always get enough sleep.

[rose bud]

Although a potentially interesting exercise, kind of the way I approach astrology… I would be wary of taking ‘face typing’ seriously

… but that’s just me. And yeah I read the nose thing somewhere something about looking like saints? Haha
fwiw my ‘face shape’ is probably squarish-roundish and I don’t think that’s canonical or typical. The only thing I remember is Ne sub can be a bit chubby and Fi sub more ascetic (self controlled or disciplined) I guess even physically so and the to that I tend to be squishy even at low weights so

I dont have an opinion on the woman in video I can see where people are getting both types from but I don’t usually form solid opinions on type unless something stands out to me or I have more time to observe them (I clicked like on Nifls post before he added the last sentence about XYZ preventing people from typing…)

[nifl]

facial structure has nothing noticably to do with jungian types
types are psychic phenomena, any physical relation to this is for all purposes derived from behaviour. SEI may have more rounded faces, but only because they eat more than average (due to the psychic accentuation on subjective interpretation of sensory data). not because SEI have more rounded bone structure or anything else like that
it's just nonsense peddled by gulenko et al. and following this prevents you from typing correctly, like seeing that the woman is not S type

[Echo]

facial structure has nothing noticably to do with jungian types
types are psychic phenomena, any physical relation to this is for all purposes derived from behaviour. SEI may have more rounded faces, but only because they eat more than average (due to the psychic accentuation on subjective interpretation of sensory data). not because SEI have more rounded bone structure or anything else like that
it's just nonsense peddled by gulenko et al. and following this prevents you from typing correctly, like seeing that the woman is not S type

Where do things like bone structure come from? Genetics. And what determines our neurological traits? Also genetics. So where do our ‘psychological traits’ likely come from? Bingo: genetics. So is it really that far-fetched that certain genes that determine things like bone structure could be chromosomally linked to genes that determine personality? Not at all. Does that mean it’s impossible to have an elongated face and be an SEI? Of course not. But is it possible that a statistically significant number of SEIs will have round faces? Yes, it is.



And the woman in the video is absolutely a sensing type. It’s been well established by this point that you are terrible at typing.

[Echo]

Where do things like bone structure come from? Genetics. And what determines our neurological traits? Also genetics. So where do our ‘psychological traits’ likely come from? Bingo: genetics. So is it really that far-fetched that certain genes that determine things like bone structure could be chromosomally linked to genes that determine personality? Not at all. Does that mean it’s impossible to have an elongated face and be an SEI? Of course not. But is it possible that a statistically significant number of SEIs will have round faces? Yes, it is.



And the woman in the video is absolutely a sensing type. It’s been well established by this point that you are terrible at typing.

by the way, I personally never type by things like face structure, but it doesn’t mean that I can’t still make observations about similarities between people who I have already typed using other methods.

[Echo]

I would have said it in much fewer words even tho my gestalt is formed exactly off of the kinds of things evidence ChatGPT presents but ChatGPT is more precisely articulate in that sense. (I think the same thing I would have prob just encapsulated it in a very general concise way - complex systems (the idea of, including epigenetic or gene environment interactions), what seems potentially reified to me tho ofc on an elemental level these claims are not wrong per se.

This statement mixes some accurate concepts with speculative claims. I’ll fact-check the key ideas based on scientific understanding of genetics, neurological traits, and personality traits, and address the face shape-personality correlation hypothesis:


CLAIM 1: “Where do things like bone structure come from? Genetics.”


✅ True.
Bone structure is primarily determined by genetics. Genes influence traits such as skull shape, height, and facial features. Environmental factors (like nutrition and injuries) can modify these traits to some extent, but bone structure has a strong genetic basis.


CLAIM 2: “What determines our neurological traits? Also genetics.”


✅ Partially True.
Neurological traits are influenced by both genetics and environment. While genes play a critical role in brain development, environmental factors (e.g., upbringing, trauma, learning experiences) can shape brain function over time.


For example:
•Heritability estimates for traits like intelligence range between 40-80%, depending on the study.
•Genetic mutations and variations (e.g., in the COMT or MAOA genes) can affect neurotransmitter function, influencing mood and behavior.


However, genes alone do not fully determine neurological traits. Brain plasticity means that the brain can change in response to experiences.


CLAIM 3: “So where do our psychological traits likely come from? Bingo: genetics.”


✅ Partially True, but Simplistic.
Psychological traits, including personality, are influenced by both genetics and environment.


Personality heritability studies suggest that around 40-60% of personality traits are heritable. However, this means that 40-60% is shaped by environmental factors, such as culture, upbringing, and life experiences.


Genetic studies have found correlations between specific genes and traits like:
•Neuroticism (SLC6A4, associated with serotonin transport)
•Extraversion (DRD4, related to dopamine regulation)


However, the polygenic nature of personality means that no single gene or small group of genes determines personality.


CLAIM 4: “Is it possible that genes determining bone structure could be chromosomally linked to genes determining personality?”


✅ Possible, but Unproven.
There is no strong scientific evidence to suggest that genes determining bone structure (e.g., facial shape) are directly linked to genes influencing personality traits.


However, pleiotropy (where one gene influences multiple traits) could explain some correlations. For example:
•The MAOA gene is linked to aggression and also influences facial structure during development.


But current evidence suggests any link between facial structure and personality is likely weak and influenced by other factors, like social perception.


CLAIM 5: “Is it possible that a statistically significant number of SEIs will have round faces?”


❓ Speculative and Unproven.
The idea that Socionics types (SEI, LSI, etc.) correlate with facial features is not scientifically validated. Socionics is a theoretical framework, and while it’s popular in some circles, there’s no empirical research to support a link between facial shape and personality type.


In psychology, there’s a concept called physiognomy (the idea that facial features reflect personality). While it was historically popular, it is now considered a pseudoscience. Modern research has debunked many of the claims linking facial features to character traits.


That said, certain facial traits can correlate with biological factors that might indirectly relate to behavior:
•Facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) has been associated with aggression and dominance.


However, these findings are controversial and do not support the idea that round-faced people are more likely to belong to a specific Socionics type.


CLAIM 6: “Does that mean it’s impossible to have an elongated face and be an SEI? Of course not.”


✅ True.
There’s no scientific basis to assume that specific facial features are exclusive to a personality type, so it’s correct to say that people with elongated faces can be SEIs (or any type).


SUMMARY FACT-CHECK:


ClaimVerdictExplanation
Bone structure is determined by genetics✅ TrueBone structure is heavily influenced by genes.
Neurological traits are determined by genetics✅ Partially TrueGenetics play a role, but environment is also critical.
Psychological traits come from genetics✅ Partially TruePersonality is influenced by both genetics (40-60%) and environment.
Genes for bone structure could be linked to personality genes✅ Possible but UnprovenSome genes may influence both, but there’s no strong evidence for a direct link.
SEIs are more likely to have round faces❓ SpeculativeNo scientific evidence supports a correlation between facial shape and Socionics types.
People with elongated faces can be SEIs✅ TruePersonality types cannot be determined by facial shape.


Conclusion:


The genetic basis of personality is well-documented, but the idea that facial features correlate with personality types remains speculative and unsupported by scientific evidence. Current research does not support a direct genetic link between bone structure and personality traits.

It’s not that I’m claiming that there is proof these things are linked, I am just saying that I think that it is very possible that they could be linked. Unfortunately, there is a lot of research that still hasn’t been done in these areas. It would require sequencing vast amounts of DNA from sample populations so at the moment there’s no way to verify this sort of thing. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not possible that we might be able to verify it one day. So I object to nifl making an absolute denial that physical and psychological traits could be linked because just like it’s impossible to know if they are, it’s also impossible to know that they aren’t. I guess the thing that really bothers me about him is that he speaks from a place of authority but when you actually dissect his statements, it’s clear he knows very little about what he’s saying.

[Adam Strange]

by the way, I personally never type by things like face structure, but it doesn’t mean that I can’t still make observations about similarities between people who I have already typed using other methods.

I type by facial expressions all the time, because......Te. Fast, expedient, but not always 100% accurate.

There are two sub-types of SEI, and they are very different from each other. The SEI-Si tends to have a rounded face, but the SEI-Fe has a thinner face.

Here's an example of a woman who, in my opinion, is an SEI-Fe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CCNswShJRc

And to try to return this thread from its derail, my secretary is EII. I can't show you her picture for ethical reasons, but she looks almost exactly like the drummer in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZUWHfI6EuE. They have different hairstyles, but otherwise the two women could be clones.

Bonus VI: In the Honeycombs video, from VI, I'd type the lead singer SEE, the drummer EII, the guitar player with round glasses ILE, the heavy-set guitar player gay ESE, but the slender guitar player without glasses is a mystery to me. He's an introvert, probably logical, but which type? LII, maybe?


Edit: The drummer could be an ESI-Fi, actually, but she still resembles my EII secretary, whom I'm certain is EII.

[rose bud]

Ah ok

i guess I read his statements as more tentative than you did. Tho I don’t necessarily blame anyone for perceiving them that way I guess.

Sometimes logical types can present what might seem most logically coherent in a confident way but that doesn’t necessarily make them inimical to entertaining possibilities, granted this is something I projected onto him instinctively and may or may not necessarily manifest in cognition/behavior idk