VI this girl

[consentingadult]

This girl asked to be VI'd. Please don't quote the pic:

[golden]

I see

[Vespertine]

I do see too.

[Skepsis]

Introverted intuitive, hiding behind a white screen to avoid being seen.

[Bertrand]

there is a metaphor for projection here

CrAckalaka sees Te

[Sol]

video

[consentingadult]

The picture is still there. Is it really that difficult to type her?

[ooo]

icy

[Anglas]

she has SEE eyes but then again she has EII neck, socionics is hard

[WVBRY]

I don't see the picture either, sorry.

[Train Wreck]

I don't see the picture either, sorry.

You didn't look hard enough. Try again, squirt.

[The Reality Denialist]

Snow White?

[Chthonic Daydream]

The White Lodge.

[golden]

The picture is still there. Is it really that difficult to type her?

[consentingadult]

very odd, I posted the pic again, I hope it is visible now.

[ooo]

such a cutie, LSE

[Sol]

Fe

[Hope]

extroverted ethical, my first thought was ESE.

[golden]

Alpha extrovert first wild stab

[Number 9 large]

ESFx

[para]

I get a very friendly vibe. Looks like XSE.

[Cosmic Teapot]

I would guess ESE or LSE, too

[Xaiviay]

Ohh she's so cute! I had a different thought for some kind of Fi-base type at first.

[Aster]

Immediately reminded me of Olimpia for some reason...

[Sol]

Immediately reminded me of Olimpia for some reason...

also Fe ego. but other type - EIE or SEI

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

idk, her face looks feminine and emotionally manipulative, but her eyes have this logical bent to them. ILE/LII maybe.

[The Reality Denialist]

LSE
S
E

[Adam Strange]

My first impression is Delta, then IEE, then less likely EIE.

I don’t think she’s a Logical. She has flexible Ethics written all over her face.

[GreenCoyote]

First impression was ENFj based of filatova photographs comparison, but i can see how it might be Ti too.

[AndyW]

EIE/ESE, in my opinion.

[consentingadult]

Well, let me give you some extra pointers. This girl's foremost hobbies are: baking cookies, salsa dancing and making her own clothes. Loves watching movies. She's extremely in the here-and-now, like there is no tomorrow.

[Hope]

ESE.

[Desert Financial]

She reminds me of someone I dated who was probably ESE.

[FarDraft]

How can we VI someone based on one out-of-context picture? I'm sure many people could have that exact expression in a given circumstance where that expression would be appropriate. There doesn't seem to be enough evidence to type her accurately.

[Sol]

How can we VI someone based on one out-of-context picture?

Types specific nonverbal exists on photos. You may get types related impressions and suppose the type from a single photo. It's better to have many random photos alike you may find in social networks and best is to have a video. Such the impressions have the higher chance to be correct and that more visual and other info will not chance the assumption about the type.

> I'm sure many people could have that exact expression in a given circumstance where that expression would be appropriate.

Circumstances there were "friendly people make my photo" or "I communicate with friendly people". When people feel safe, like in those casual situtuations - they behave naturally and express common for them types related nonverbal. Different types will smile - but will do this differently and nonverbal will give different types related impressions.
The problem are situations of higher selfcontrol. It's harder to type there, as you may get more controversive impressions - from natural and unnaturall nonverbal behavior, when a human besides bein himself also tries to play something and supresses own common behavior and reactions, also shows the behavior not common for him.
This needs a practice to understand.

> There doesn't seem to be enough evidence to type her accurately.

You may suppose the type from a single photo and do this correctly with higher than accidental chance. The more info you have and better skills to type by that info - the higher accuracy will be. I highly prefer to type by video, but I may assume the type by photos. When there are many photos - I may do this with assurance or at least to reject some types with assurance. The typing princliple with videos and photos is the same, the difference is in the quantity of the data.

When you did IR test you got enough of types specific related nonverbal to get the needed impressions and sort the types by the way which fited to my opinion about your type. All those bloggers behaved in nonverbal by common for them way. The same happens IRL. With better skills to type by nonverbal the lesser info you'd need to get the similar result.

[FarDraft]

Types specific nonverbal exists on photos. You may get types related impressions and suppose the type from a single photo. It's better to have many random photos alike you may find in social networks and best is to have a video. Such the impressions have the higher chance to be correct and that more visual and other info will not chance the assumption about the type.

I agree that it is possible to determine traits from visual impressions. For example, we can say that someone has "kind eyes" or "a nice smile", but these impressions are rarely accurate even to highly experienced people given that most people don't care to reveal their true selves in front of strangers. Until there is a strong, empirical source of data connecting traits and sociotype, we can't make the jump between a person's facial features and their sociotype solely based on one picture.

Circumstances there were "friendly people make my photo" or "I communicate with friendly people". When people feel safe, like in those casual situtuations - they behave naturally and express common for them types related nonverbal. Different types will smile - but will do this differently and nonverbal will give different types related impressions.

An environment where you feel safe is not enough to guarantee emotional freedom. Like I said above, most people are not willing to reveal their true selves in front of strangers, even if they feel safe. Most may act friendly, kind, or jovial to preserve social balance or tranquility, but the depths of a person can't be understood from their masked front. To truly understand someone, it takes time and effort in listening to what they think and feel and why they do so. Trained psychologists can't diagnose people based on a single photo. They must analyze each individual deeply and compare their thoughts and intuitions with the data available. Anecdotally speaking, I've seen a number of individuals' expressions completely change when they are being fully vulnerable, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worst. One out-of-context photo does not allow for the nuance required to categorize someone on the basis of a number of different categories regardless of how experienced you are.

The problem are situations of higher selfcontrol. It's harder to type there, as you may get more controversive impressions - from natural and unnaturall nonverbal behavior, when a human besides bein himself also tries to play something and supresses own common behavior and reactions, also shows the behavior not common for him. This needs a practice to understand.

I agree with all of this.

You may suppose the type from a single photo and do this correctly with higher than accidental chance. The more info you have and better skills to type by that info - the higher accuracy will be.

I agree with the last sentence. However, statistically speaking, a random guess would be about a 6% chance of guessing correctly. To narrow this percentage down, we must first narrow down which side of the dichotomies are correct (sensing vs intuition, logic vs ethics, etc.), which is not easy given that each of these are more easily seen by behaviour than they are in a single out-of-context photo. And who's to say that people don't act differently when they know that a photo is being taken - I'm sure many IJ types would become looser in a casual photo, so how would you decide then? Perhaps you could use other techniques like the quadra values or the quadra dichotomies (decisive vs judicious, etc.), but those still require you to know more about the person. Ultimately, there are too many uncontrolled variables to type accurately and consistently here, even if you are experienced.

I highly prefer to type by video, but I may assume the type by photos. When there are many photos - I may do this with assurance or at least to reject some types with assurance. The typing princliple with videos and photos is the same, the difference is in the quantity of the data.

This makes sense. I'm not fully against VI, but I think that more evidence is required to conjure something useful.

When you did IR test you got enough of types specific related nonverbal to get the needed impressions and sort the types by the way which fited to my opinion about your type. All those bloggers behaved in nonverbal by common for them way. The same happens IRL. With better skills to type by nonverbal the lesser info you'd need to get the similar result.

The IR is different. There were multiple dynamic videos put in circumstances where I understand how people normally act. Not a single out-of-context photo. The nonverbals were more staged in these videos, so I had to take that into consideration when determining what I liked. Acting in videos is present. That being said, I am aware that there is significant IR evidence pointing me to one type, and I have not ignored that evidence. I must simply evaluate properly prior to making a final judgment. Perhaps taking the test in a more controlled way after I have forgotten which videos are associated with which type.

[Sol]

I agree that it is possible to determine traits from visual impressions. For example, we can say that someone has "kind eyes" or "a nice smile"

It's possible to determine types by VI. What was proven by geting typing matches several times higher than accidental in the experiment and those matches were close to other methods. And what is subjectively proved by my IRL experience when people typed by VI impressions behave according to the theory.

In your case VI have given you LII and then you by VI usage have gotten IR sorting (with the usage of bloggers typed by VI!) which has fited LII relatively good.

You reject the objectve evidence that VI allows to type good. While how good this happens depends on your skills. Photos (even a single one) are used for VI typing by the same way as videos. They just have lesser VI info and what makes harder to type correctly, but there is nothing to think this as impossibly like you do.

It's the repeating of the said before as there is nothing to add new. Train in VI typing, improve your skills and you'll understand me.

[Breather]

I'm not good at V.I at all so i'll give this a shot with 3 guesses
First Guess: IEE
Second Guess: XSE
Third Guess: IXI(specifically IEI-Fe)

[Breather]

@consentingadult what do you think?

The description you linked could refer to enneagram more than socionics maybe so a guess would be core 9? or even core 7 from first glance but ofc its a very hard description to work out the motivation its just what she does I suppose not why she does it.

[consentingadult]

This girl is SEI, pretty sure about that. This wasn't so much a question of wanting to know her type (since I already knew), but I wanted to know if she could be types easily by other socionists. Some came pretty close with their ESE typing. In my textbox, this type of face point into the direction of an Alpha irrational, and add to that the emotional vibe, you end up with SEI.

Several generations ago the hint I provided in post #31 would have been enough for people to settle on SEI, but this is no longer the case. That doesn't mean though that the current members lack typing skills, it could also be that VI is an invalid method, or perhaps even Socionics at large is.