I'm with @Oakysage on this one. Not because I'm bitter of the typing :p, but because it seems that thought doesn't necessarily correlate into action, because actions can lie, or can be reproduced and made fluid and believable.
@whatever - I've heard that same objection so many times I've lost count. :p I am not advocating the mbti and it's sixteen boxes. I am actually talking about Jung's work. If you understand where this theory originated from and how it has gotten to where it has, you'd know that it was never intended to be a set of boxes.
Jung, in his book, proposed a critical psychology of how he viewed the brain to function. The concept of the eight cognitive processes was meant to explain the various ways the mind thinks. He proposed that humans don't all think alike, and those different methods of thinking leads to varied behaviors for different reasons. But it was never his intent to create behavioral-profiles, nor mine. I fully believe millions of different humans exist, but I believe that the mind has a limited amount of cognitive rhythms, which generate that variability.
And the elements and attributes of those processes are not arbitrarily chosen, but are the necessary elements for the consciousness we possess to arise. As per the site:
I think you got whatever, Vasilisa and Marmie Dearest right.
With Ginkgo, I think you mistook Inferior Ne for Dominant Se; with GempopGem, I think you put too much focus on her Te.
Couldn't see cascadesco's video, but she just can't be a Ne-dom. (Perhaps she had drank too much coffee that day? lol)
I think you are on the right way, but ya need some tuning. Good luck.
I agree that Ginkgo's read may be a bit off, yes..
I did send him a pm about something similar.
Also still conversing with bologna over his read.
Gempop, hum, interesting. Not entirely impossible either...
The functions are there, but like SuchIrony, the ordering is challenging.
However, these following reads are the ones I think are probably most correct:
If you are not really arguing the validity of the specific cues presented, but the concept itself of being able to identify cognition through visual manifestation; then that is itself making the assumption that people of the same types will not share significant visual manifestations. How would you justify this stance?
So long as we're disputing the theoretical merit of such an approach, then I think we can't know that there is or isn't a correlation without doing actual investigation both ways. It could be true that people of the same types manifest entirely differently, entirely similar, a mix of both, or types may not exist altogether.
Also, note that not all actions are cues. The guide is built upon only those patterns that showed themselves to be consistent across all the types that share certain processes. Some cues are specific to functions, others are specific to classes (Ji, Je, Pi, Pe), others are family specific (T/F, S/N), and some are not related to any process.
The method is rather splendid and can often be done empathetically or intuitively at times. But of course, if it's Ti playing the flute of this particular method of compartmentalising actions into the set functions, it's bound to fall down terribly. Though things are slightly more complex than the simple 'see and type' method you have displayed. An action on the face could point to several different locations upon function thought with regards to the what, how and why of the action. To label a subconscious movement on the body to a psychological adherence is on par to putting the label of Se on a man walking down the street simply because you've stuck the action to a function. The method of creating the proper labelling criteria often falls to the thought that you believe you know the 'what's, 'how's and 'why's to the action and that it would be the same for most other individuals.
The method is rather splendid and can often be done empathetically or intuitively at times. But of course, if it's Ti playing the flute of this particular method of compartmentalising actions into the set functions, it's bound to fall down terribly.
What does Ti have to do with it? o.O
I value the intuitive process much more than you may think...
I respect the limitation of Ti. I think this thread, post #7 in particular, may help explain just how I am approaching this matter. But really the whole thread has important information on the methodology.