User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 120

  1. #61
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    An interesting house of cards while it lasted, I suppose.



  2. #62
    FRACTALICIOUS phobik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Auburn View Post
    Ah. At last. I was wondering when I'd get some opposition..

    The template of signatures was first made from people who are not actors or trained in any form of facial control. Mostly they were extracted from people I/we had firsthand exposure to; people who we know personally and psychically - people whose type we're sure of. These closest to us were observed, then we noted when and why their face manifested certain expressions - depending on what mental process they were engaging at that exact time. When doing memory recall, certain things were noticed, and when articulating, others. When explaining an ethical decision, others still. And the template expanded.

    And as we/I have applied that template outside of them to those who have had education in acting/etc I have seen that off-stage even actors default to their natural facial manifestations. There is one function that is most prone to facial control, however: that being Fe. Fe has the ability to manipulate the face to put on a charming or hostile presentation to others. But ironically, in its ability to control the face it also gives itself away. There are also more than just one cue we check for each function, and generally even if one is blurred by culture/environment the others will still come through.

    But for the slight possibility of a habit obstructing the read, this danger is dramatically reduced when the interviewee is asked challenging questions. When engaged in a conversation that forces a person to dig deep into their thoughts/memories and articulate all at once, it is near impossible to also keep control over your face. It is like trying to speak two languages at the same time, it doesn't work.

    For instance, if you are an Ne+Si user (and those of you who are can try this out) and you try to not deflect/divert your eyes as you do intense memory recall or brainstorming, you'll find that your ability to think will dramatically lower, if not be entirely unable to think. For Ne/Si, the eyes need to be left loose/free to roam about for the mind to properly cross-contextualize imaginations with information.

    For Se+Ni users, the opposite is true. Their eyes need to be steady/focused in order to process. If they're asked a very challenging question, like describing a place in exact detail, while their eyes spastically look everywhere they will have a hard time coming up with an answer. This would be no problem for Ne+Si users.

    Maybe interesting as a premise, but that's about as far as I'll go. If you manage to automate the assessment process into a neutral and consistent version, e.g. trained neural-network algorithm evaluating facial expressions, and can come up with relevant statistics, you'll have my attention again.
    To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
    ~ Elbert Hubbard

    Music provides one of the clearest examples of a much deeper relation between mathematics and human experience.

  3. #63
    Member Auburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    TiNe
    Posts
    38

    Default

    Not an algorithm, but we do hope to approach neuroscience in the future and see whether these findings can be empirically verified. That is actually our aim: to create an empirical link to psychological types. We're definitely not shy of science, nor afraid to put the methods to the test, but it'll just take some time before we have the resources to run those tests.

    But in theory, let's say that one hundred volunteers are called to have EEG/fMRI scans be done. Before the scan, each person from our reading team independently watches 10 minutes of footage of them and predicts what their psychological type is. Those hundred can then be scanned to confirmed whether they have the same neuro activity/patterns. We believe this methodology would drastically accelerate the work of researchers like Nardi, and we also hope to get in touch with him and get his input when we have a decent enough presentation compiled.

  4. #64
    Let me count the ways Betty Blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7W6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    4,797

    Default

    To be honest i was really into this idea until i saw how you actually typed the examples given. I can't really describe it, it's just off. I will say though that i did do a couple of jerky movements in that video but there was a reason behind it. I noticed whilst recording that there was a time delay ... if i moved suddenly the other me took a spilt second to catch up... i found it amusing, i don't think i mentioned it in the video though... but ah well.
    I did say befor that i think you would need several video's of the same person... i really don't think one video is enough is to type someone acurately. And i am now wondering if the method is fatally flawed... I would however like to see this second opinion.
    OOOhhh i would also like to see a vid of the op... what type have you self identified as? Through this method?
    Tanks you Kindly
    *curtsies*
    "We knew he was someone who had a tragic flaw, that's where his greatness came from"

  5. #65
    Honor Thy Inferior Such Irony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INtp
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    5,091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Auburn View Post
    @SuchIrony - Heya! Sorry for the delay.. thanks for sharing your video. I have to confess you're quite a tricky one for me to identify, but there are still things I can say with some certainty.

    You use the functions: Te-Fi, Ni-Se.

    Your use of Te/Fi appears to be aux+tert.
    Your use of Ni+Se appears to be dom+inf.
    As a very tentative estimate I think you may be Se(FiTe)Ni: ESFP.

    *dodges tomatoes, cups and shoes*

    Throws tomatoes, cups, shoes and knives.

    Well not literally. Just surprised because I looked at the samples for each function and Se is the last function I would see as being dominant. I would have guessed myself to be a user of Ti/Fe more than than Fi/Te.
    INtp
    5w6 or 9w1 sp/so/sx, I think
    Ravenclaw/Hufflepuff
    Neutral Good
    LII-Ne




  6. #66
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Auburn View Post
    Ah. At last. I was wondering when I'd get some opposition..

    The template of signatures was first made from people who are not actors or trained in any form of facial control. Mostly they were extracted from people I/we had firsthand exposure to; people who we know personally and psychically - people whose type we're sure of. These closest to us were observed, then we noted when and why their face manifested certain expressions - depending on what mental process they were engaging at that exact time. When doing memory recall, certain things were noticed, and when articulating, others. When explaining an ethical decision, others still. And the template expanded.

    And as we/I have applied that template outside of them to those who have had education in acting/etc I have seen that off-stage even actors default to their natural facial manifestations. There is one function that is most prone to facial control, however: that being Fe. Fe has the ability to manipulate the face to put on a charming or hostile presentation to others. But ironically, in its ability to control the face it also gives itself away. There are also more than just one cue we check for each function, and generally even if one is blurred by culture/environment the others will still come through.

    But for the slight possibility of a habit obstructing the read, this danger is dramatically reduced when the interviewee is asked challenging questions. When engaged in a conversation that forces a person to dig deep into their thoughts/memories and articulate all at once, it is near impossible to also keep control over your face. It is like trying to speak two languages at the same time, it doesn't work.
    This. This is how I know that this method has promise to find something, regardless of whether it illuminates JCF/type or not. However, the fact that it tends to point at JCF types that differ from our own may mean that the way this system views the functions is different than the way the functions are typically viewed. Which is quite alright--after all, Socionics and MBTI greatly differ in how they view functions and types, and both are held to be decently legitimate systems.

    Why couldn't we view type from, say, the Socionics perspective, the MBTI perspective, the introspective JCF perspective, and the physiognomy perspective separately for now? We can resolve them when the neuroscientific evidence actually rolls in.

    The method is very well thought-out, as are the categories (Articulator, Compass, etc.). I'd love to see where the evidence and neuroscience winds up pointing.

  7. #67
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Auburn View Post
    @Ginkgo - Your psychological type is Se(Ti), roughly correlating to ESTP.

    You are most definitely a perception-lead. That much was clear from the first frame.
    Although in this video it seems you were a bit low on energy, your body still gave off the 'uneasy' signs that accompany Se momentum. Your eyes often zone-out into Ni, and your face remains deadpan for the majority of the video. There are some moments of Fe expressiveness but it is easily neutralized by Ti and your face cools back down.

    A celebrity that resembles you would be:
    Sam Worthington: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXujTKIrUR0

    As a note for those I've typed up to this point, I assure you this is real. Although in these typings I am mostly focusing on the physiognomy, it is not just what your physiognomy shows - and it is not separate from your psychology, the two are one in the same. Only your psychology could produce the manifestations that it does.
    Something told me you would say ISTP, but ESTP? Lol. This is a new one for the books. I'm not nearly as immediate-context oriented as the guy in that video appears to be. Even still, I deliberately let myself go to be in the moment for the purposes of denying myself the self-consciousness that leads to second guessing, figuring my fullest honesty would glean through. My Ji was more more lax than it is natively.

    Something also tells me you don't have very extensive experience typing people who have rich understandings of the theories you're working with here. Otherwise, you would have met enough opposition from people to gather more reasons to reconsider your first impressions. Don't worry, I believe your testing methods are real. Really, really misguided.

    Why not boil it down to appearances and impressions, rather than holding up in your beta physiognomy->psychology system with utmost confidence? The truth is that psychology->physiognomy, as you implied in your last statement there; the manifestations of each particular cognitive preference arise in potentially infinite expressions depending on what is being processed, a boat load of other psyche content, and the processes themselves. Physical discomfort, stress, eustress, anxiety, depression, euphoria, etc all play into even the most subtle cues.

    Most bodily movements are dictated by the unconscious. Yes, there is a cause->effect relationship between the conscious and the unconscious, and the conscious and motor control, but mostly between the unconscious and motor control. You already know this, in one sense or another, judging by your acknowledgement that one can really only possess so much deliberate articulation of motor control due to the limits of the conscious mind. For instance, when I know I'm lying, or when I'm asserting something I'm unsure of, I almost always experience an itch on my face. I don't control that itch, and most of the time, scratching it is a simple auto-response. So, while "reading" consciousness through a picture so shaped by other factors would be a challenge, "reading" cognition is a statistical crap shoot with the dice loaded against your favor. To the point where, if I were you, I would be more comfortable riding on my intuition or offering a shitty online test. At least the tests rest on mostly conscious variables, most importantly the decision for one to be honest with oneself.

  8. #68
    Member Auburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    TiNe
    Posts
    38

    Default

    @Thread

    I firstly want to say I fully understand the skepticism being presented. I would react the same way too if some random person walked in and started telling me who I was. I don't mean to say you don't know who you are. But who we see ourselves as, and how it parallels to a model, may not be properly fit. This may be due to err in self-evaluation or simply due to error in the model itself. In this case, the model has a lot of the fault.

    The MBTI spends so much time emphasizing the dichotomy of introversion and extroversion in particular. The profiles often start out making that differentiation; using vague phrases such as whether one likes to be around people, or by oneself. The reality is that such descriptions are only marginally (negligibly) related to the orientation of your dominant function.

    And naturally, the type of individuals who have an interest in self-evaluation and psychoanalysis are more likely to identify themselves with the Introverted description. It's not like introverts are the only ones who self-reflect, but the mbti gives that impression.

    The phenomenon of typological internet forums is an interesting one. There are a lot of psychological factors at work in how and why they come about and are sustained. Primarily, people who find an interest in typology do so out of a desire to understand their own identity.

    Now, in the quest for self-identity, there are many elements of human frailty and many susceptibilities at work. For example, some may approach the mbti out of a feeling of being misunderstood by others and the craving that accompanies that emptiness. Part of the appeal of mbti is the affirmation that comes from being able to give an explanation to one's peculiarities; peculiarities that the world did not understand about them. Now, all types can be and are misunderstood, but certain profiles (such as INFJ and INFP) milk that part out to the point where most who fall under this complex will identify with it. What they're identifying with isn't incorrect, but the error is on the mbti ascribing that to INFx types when it is not at all related to their functions.

    Another factor that may be at work is an Individuality Complex. This is an immature response but it is real. Many people find comfort in associating with a certain type because it places them in a group that is allegedly more "deep" or "introspective" - things that the psyche is convinced validate one's place in relation to the "not-deep" and "non-introspective" people out there. Certain profile are written more elegantly, mystically and magically than others - and everyone wants to be special, after all, right? It feels good to be part of the %1.

    There is another dynamic often at work involving Projection. Where the tendency is to type those in our circle of acquaintances who we don't like, as the types we don't associate with. "Oh, she's such a blonde, she must be an ESFP". This type of prejudice is something most won't admit to, but which does, at least unconsciously, penetrate the minds of all who are a part of this psychology. This happens naturally; by definition, in order for us to identify with something, we have to not identify with something else. But the result is often prejudice which is not much better than racism:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqT1LvM6uO8

    It is in the nature of humanity to want to include and exclude; to be included and to not have those who one dislikes in the same circle. All these and so many other human dynamics saturate every part of human life, including typology forums. Given all these subjectivities and susceptibilities we carry, it would be bad logic to assume that most people are capable of properly typing themselves. We are often the ones who are most biased about our own self perception.

    And I say this because I'm familiar with it happen within myself and to many other people around me. Unless a person is consciously making an effort to deconstruct the prejudices that form in the mind, they will remain there. In endeavoring on this project, I had to break down a lot of my own prejudices and realize just how competent (more competent than I) some types of people are at things like logic.

    I am Ti(Ne) - which is considered to be among the most "brilliant thinkers" or whathaveyou. But I've been floored by the logic of some other types, both in person and in celebrities. It demonstrates just how false the profile stereotypes are, and who you can be as a person is incredibly vast, given the same cognitive configuration.

    But the configuration is simply a rhythm of brain activity; the way in which you process information and make decisions.
    Last edited by Auburn; 04-14-2012 at 03:21 AM.

  9. #69
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Auburn View Post
    @Thread

    I firstly want to say I fully understand the skepticism being presented. I would react the same way too if some random person walked in and started telling me who I was. I don't mean to say you don't know who you are. But who we see ourselves as, and how it parallels to a model, may not be properly fit. This may be due to err in self-evaluation or simply due to error in the model itself. In this case, the model has a lot of the fault.

    The MBTI spends so much time emphasizing the dichotomy of introversion and extroversion in particular. The profiles often start out making that differentiation; using vague phrases such as whether one likes to be around people, or by oneself. The reality is that such descriptions are only marginally (negligibly) related to the orientation of your dominant function.

    And naturally, the type of individuals who have an interest in self-evaluation and psychoanalysis are more likely to identify themselves with the Introverted description. It's not like introverts are the only ones who self-reflect, but the mbti gives that impression.

    The phenomenon of typological internet forums is an interesting one. There are a lot of psychological factors at work in how and why they come about and are sustained. Primarily, people who find an interest in typology do so out of a desire to understand their own identity.

    Now, in the quest for self-identity, there are many elements of human frailty and many susceptibilities at work. For example, some may approach the mbti out of a feeling of being misunderstood by others and the craving that accompanies that emptiness. Part of the appeal of mbti is the affirmation that comes from being able to give an explanation to one's peculiarities; peculiarities that the world did not understand about them. Now, all types can be and are misunderstood, but certain profiles (such as INFJ and INFP) milk that part out to the point where most who fall under this complex will identify with it. What they're identifying with isn't incorrect, but the error is on the mbti ascribing that to INFx types when it is not at all related to their functions.

    Another factor that may be at work is an Individuality Complex. This is an immature response but it is real. Many people find comfort in associating with a certain type because it places them in a group that is allegedly more "deep" or "introspective" - things that the psyche is convinced validate one's place in relation to the "not-deep" and "non-introspective" people out there. Certain profile are written more elegantly, mystically and magically than others - and everyone wants to be special, after all, right? It feels good to be part of the %1.
    [...]
    Given all these subjectivities and susceptibilities we carry, it would be bad logic to assume that most people are capable of properly typing themselves. We are often the ones who are most biased about our own self perception.
    We have "What's my type?" threads and other solicitation methods to counteract this sort of bias. We already seek external feedback to come up with a best fit. Many of us have been looking at and discussing these systems for a number of years and are well aware of biases such as the 'need to feel special' or 'intuitives must be pretty flippin' smart' or 'extroversion is about how social you are'--and we seek to eliminate them and come to a true understanding of ourselves and one another.

    Well, most of us do. Hence...
    There is another dynamic often at work involving Projection. Where the tendency is to type those in our circle of acquaintances who we don't like, as the types we don't associate with. "Oh, she's such a blonde, she must be an ESFP". This type of prejudice is something most won't admit to, but which does, at least unconsciously, penetrate the minds of all who are a part of this psychology. This happens naturally; by definition, in order for us to identify with something, we have to not identify with something else. But the result is often prejudice which is not much better than racism:
    ...this is a sentiment I definitely agree with; I talk about it in my video.


    The external feedback for my own type has varied drastically, from ENTJ to ISTJ(!) to ENTP to ENFP to INFJ to ENFJ and so on. If we really want a true understanding, we ought not base our true typing on one external data point (one physiognomy reading from one individual).

  10. #70
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    @Auburn, I'm really not tied to the type I list under my profile, so there's not a whole lot of self-identification going on, and you could find a lot of posts on this forum where I question mbti as a whole. I am in general a much stronger proponent in tying in other aspects of psychology and systems to complement mbti; because frankly I find mbti severely lacking and improperly utilized/applied in many respects.

    However, it still remains ludicrous that I would be an extrovert or an ENFP, based on pretty much any universally accepted definition of extroversion, or any ENFP type profile / cognitive function description on the internet or in literature by the 'experts'. And, if I'm truly ENFP as you say, then the ENFP profiles would have to be tipped upside down and pretty much every ENFP on this site would have to be a different type.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

Similar Threads

  1. SiTe - CognitiveType Visual Reading
    By highlander in forum Typology Videos and RSS Feeds
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-02-2014, 11:59 PM
  2. NiFe - CognitiveType Visual Reading
    By highlander in forum Typology Videos and RSS Feeds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-02-2014, 11:44 PM
  3. NeTi - CognitiveType Visual Reading
    By highlander in forum Typology Videos and RSS Feeds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-02-2014, 11:43 PM
  4. FiNe - CognitiveType Visual Reading
    By highlander in forum Typology Videos and RSS Feeds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-03-2014, 11:50 PM
  5. Visual Reading of Cognitive Types
    By brainheart in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 02-19-2014, 12:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO