Physiognomy Project: Visually Reading Cognitive Configuration

[BlackCat]

Wow, this is so insane that I think I'm going to make a type me video just to see how wrong you are! Go ahead and get your preconceptions going, lol.

 

[Oaky]

What does Ti have to do with it?
I value the intuitive process much more than you may think...

The Ti implication was personalised towards you. I took to assume you were an INTP and so the way you displayed the process of typing was assumed to be Ti-based.

I respect the limitation of Ti. I think this thread, post #7 in particular, may help you explain just how I am approaching this matter. But really the whole thread has important information on the methodology.

be back in a bit~

Being myself a discernment-lead (and thus having a mathematical mind) I have a precise brain and the inclination is, quite like ElvenVeil, to create a crystalline methodology - one that can most perfectly grasp the reality of a thing. I reason best from a few, well understood premises, than from a mountain of subtle premises.

But I also realize we are, here in this project, endeavoring in what may be perhaps the most visceral/intuitive practice. And thus, the intuitive mind is of greatest value here more than any place. People-reading involves keeping track of so many variables that it is impossible to annotate them all and quantify them.

Yes, this is as I was mentioning beforehand. I'm glad this was thought through. And the method to create:

And so likewise, I think that in this endeavor, we need, more than a good methodology, keen eyesights. We need subjectivity that can be depended on to be accurate and well-formed in its paradigm. That, however, doesn't mean an attempt at a methodology cannot be made.

I think that the approach that would be most ideal is for the forefront of this project to be done in the visceral, and while the visceral mind crusades into these patterns -- those of us with more precise brains can systematize those things that slowly reveal themselves to be most consistent. Solidify the patterns that are most well established. But allow for the intuitive process to flow -- although not completely unchecked of course. There needs to be a dialogue between both, which is why we need both types of brains on this project.

Ah, you understand what complexity the methodology you wish to make gives you. You wish to make the winning probable factor based on many intuitive processes of many different minds the labelling of the type. Even then, you have to consider the probability of the other functions also. If what you believed to be Ne was Fe and what you believed to be Ni was Ti, etc. you have a massive issue simplifying the patterns to one or the other. To make the methodology on an accurate level of concrete based labelings, you would have to discern a mass number of those of a probability of a very high level of certainty of their type. Have multiple examiners examine every one of the individuals. The examiners would have to be able to give strong intuitive based assumptions. So even examination of the examiners would have to be brought about. Best with the accuracy level of typing those with over 95% certainty of their type.

A large database of actions with many visual representations of the actions itself would have to be made. Then the probability factors of the functions each of those actions convey, where one would say it would have a 50% possibility of Ne, 30% probability of Fe, 20% probability of Se, etc.
Discerning the accuracy of the probability numbers will take a great amount of time and analysis including the 'why's, 'how's and 'what's. The mood of the individual at their certain times and the changes in the probability of the function used at those times of mood in themselves. You have subconscious habits of individuals which must also be taken to thought, many of which are brought about by mirroring rather than the psychological process of the individual themselves. Putting it all in an accurate concrete fashion will take a large amount of time and effort with lots of probability factoring.

When looking at the method you used to type cascadeco I had observed the actions otherwise to the functions you portrayed. You had not considered the probability of the other functions and why they cause the certain expressions like the confusion for what one could see as Ne instead of Fe, the subconscious habits learnt, the way in which someone would say something, the holding of the breath with the voice coming out louder than usual, whether an action indicates a different set of portrayal and of course, the true psychological standpoint behind the actions used. It was simply labelled to your personal thought of what it conveyed based on unclear patterns. There are far more variables to take in and considering you had not given a single function out of line of ENFP means the accuracy needs to be greatly revised.

 

[Auburn]

@thread -

Thank you so much for all for your feedback on everything and for taking the time with your videos. I really do appreciate it. I apologize for coming across so certain/firm at first; I feel terribly embarrassed now about some of the things I said. I hope you might pardon any premature assumptions I may have made. It was bad of me to be so confident from only a single video.

This was only intended to be an experimental, beta, presentation with the hopes of getting some feedback and see how these concepts measure among other people - and I do see areas for improvement now. I/we will continue to research, try to patch the holes, and attempt to improve the methodology.

Thanks once again for all your thoughts and contributions. <3
And again, my sincerest apologies.

I'll be heading out of this thread now.
Mods please feel free to close this thread if you'd like.
Take care guys

 

[Cellmold]

I know you said you were holding off on typing videos for a while but I'd very much appreciate it if you took a gander at this one. You can see it here.

Is someone mowing the carpet in your room with a lawn mower?

No offence intended to any carpets.

 

[Cellmold]

with GempopGem, I think you put too much focus on her Te.

In regards to this [MENTION=5746]Auburn[/MENTION] have you thought about the idea that extroverted judging functions are far easier to spot being as how they are more expressive?

This is a vast oversimplification of what I want to get across but I dont want to write 3 pages worth of explanation.

Of course I assume you already know this stuff and im just throwing this out on some baseless assumption that I could add something to this discussion.

In the case of [MENTION=9160]HelenOfTroy[/MENTION] if she does have the functional lineup of an ENFP, then Te will be present as a tertiary function.

Of course I know your stance on MBTI and I personally see a few flaws with it myself. Also to add to this my understanding was that this theory has a focus on the cognitive functions as observed through facial patterns, but the thing is that this stems from jung's work so I dont know whether you factor in the dominant/aux/ter/inferior theory or not.

Of course this lack of information stems from my laziness as I ought to read more on your website.

But to me this is an example where the 4 function theory makes some sense.

ps: No idea how I double posted. Could have sworn I was editing that post above.

 

[Istbkleta]

[MENTION=9160]HelenOfTroy[/MENTION]

Thanks. Perhaps lock (?)


It's a fun project

 

[Betty Blue]

@thread -

Thank you so much for all for your feedback on everything and for taking the time with your videos. I really do appreciate it. I apologize for coming across so certain/firm at first; I feel terribly embarrassed now about some of the things I said. I hope you might pardon any premature assumptions I may have made. It was bad of me to be so confident from only a single video.

This was only intended to be an experimental, beta, presentation with the hopes of getting some feedback and see how these concepts measure among other people - and I do see areas for improvement now. I/we will continue to research, try to patch the holes, and attempt to improve the methodology.

Thanks once again for all your thoughts and contributions. <3
And again, my sincerest apologies.

I'll be heading out of this thread now.
Mods please feel free to close this thread if you'd like.
Take care guys

Another one bites the dust.

 

[INTP]

there were this mojo dojo cult guys at perc at time and they claimed to be able to read type based on the mojo of people, which was basically about reading the body language, expressions and wording of sentences. the more advanced people of the cult claimed that they had like 99% success rate of typing accurately solely on this mojo thing. personally i think the success rate was quite exaggerated, but i do think that you can at times read people correctly solely on body language and usage of words, however, i dont think its all that reliable way. (would be cool to be proven wrong tho). i have learned to notice NFPs for example immediately, when they get excited and laugh(its like their eyes light up and smile wider than any mouth has ever smiled in human history). this is stronger in ENFPs and ENFPs do this easier than INFPs, and are less restrained in the expression. how ever a shy ENFP in company of strangers vs INFP in company of trusted friends might make the ENFP more restrained in the expression, so it kinda depends and determining ENFP vs INFP based on this requires further analysis..

 

[pv255]

I'd like to help you guys. If you need it.

 

[Lady_X]

man why so harsh on the op. i thought it was interesting. :/

 

[Auburn]

peeking back in! ^^
just to tie up a loose end.

The Ti implication was personalised towards you. I took to assume you were an INTP and so the way you displayed the process of typing was assumed to be Ti-based.

Yes, this is as I was mentioning beforehand. I'm glad this was thought through. And the method to create: Ah, you understand what complexity the methodology you wish to make gives you.

I'm glad you see the logic behind that approach also. :3

A large database of actions with many visual representations of the actions itself would have to be made. Then the probability factors of the functions each of those actions convey, where one would say it would have a 50% possibility of Ne, 30% probability of Fe, 20% probability of Se, etc.

Well, it seems you're reverting back to a more black and white "Ti" approach. Its difficult, if not impossible, to quantify all cues. It would be an infinite/endless undertaking. Even if we did create a massive archive of motions there would be dispute over when a motion starts or ends, which motions are related/connected.

We cannot get too specific or we lose sight of the whole. When you zoom too far into a screen all you see is spots, but when you zoom out you see the entire image.

Mm, that said, this project is not a sterile mapping of body movements disconnected from psychology. The visual pattern is not the center or what defines a type. That is to say, we are not typing patterns of visual motions which are types; we are typing people's minds -- using their visual manifestations as a roadmap into it.

As such, we start with the psyche, then look for correlations between two same-type individuals in bodily expressions. If similarities are found, they are noted. If they are later found not to be exclusive to that type (or their functions) then they are discarded -- until only those similarities which are specific to that type/function remain.

Through this process we work in reverse from the potentially infinite task of trying to map out all possible specific human motions and deduce types from that, and instead start with types and deduce a rhythm of flow to them by drawing parallels.

Regarding percent-based quantification: we cannot know if a person definitely doesn't show a certain cue unless we had indefinite footage of them. Just because they don't show it in a 10 minute video doesn't mean it's absent from their arsenal of expression. So rather than dictating things in terms of absence, we ought to rely on presence. What movements can we see.

This approach makes it not possible, or at least not accurate, to come up with percents like "40% of Ne users show this signal" because we don't know if they would show it given more time. But nonetheless, given a similar situation -- such as answering a difficult question -- every person emits something, and that is a common base we can use for finding parallels to others who have also shown that same something.

I wouldn't want to get into the position of saying "well, there's a 65% chance he's [thistype] and 50% that he's [thistype]". Because a person is either of a type or they aren't, and when it is understood what type they are it is wholistic and psychic. The whole mind makes sense in how it ticks and why it is producing the manifestations it is. It isn't a mechanical process. (As such this loses the respect of many mechanical minds who disregard such an approach altogether, while others appreciate and know the merits of such an approach)

This is why most of the time I either know a person's type or I don't. When I do know, it is because I've previously come across someone that had the same rhythm who I've gotten to know cognitively. If someone comes forward who I have no relevant/associated understanding of, I can't discern the path of their body movements; the "why" of their movements. And simply reading the "what" of their movements can lead to erroneous deductions. If a type can't be known in whole, then it is best to simply postpone judgment altogether and admit that one cannot see their rhythm.

This is what happened to me with SuchIrony and Gempop. They're two riffs of their types I've not come across in real life before or spend enough time around to learn their psyche, and by extension the signature of their movements. Which is why I apologized later. Though there are others who I did see an instantaneous and wholistic parallel in, such as cascadeco who is quite identical to a cousin of mine.

When looking at the method you used to type cascadeco I had observed the actions otherwise to the functions you portrayed. You had not considered the probability of the other functions and why they cause the certain expressions like the confusion for what one could see as Ne instead of Fe, the subconscious habits learnt, the way in which someone would say something, the holding of the breath with the voice coming out louder than usual, whether an action indicates a different set of portrayal and of course, the true psychological standpoint behind the actions used. It was simply labelled to your personal thought of what it conveyed based on unclear patterns. There are far more variables to take in and considering you had not given a single function out of line of ENFP means the accuracy needs to be greatly revised.

You misunderstood me. ^^;
I read cascadeco in various dimensions. From a psychoanalysis, from intuitive/holistic impression (as explained above), vocally, and from cue-based deconstruction. But the only one I could possibly translate and communicate to you guys is the cue-based deconstruction, so I showed you that.

I still hold that she is Ne(Fi). She has Te overpowering her Fi, and the momentum of her Ne is halted. This is almost certainly due to an environmental suppressor such as a strict parent or guardian that hindered the free-roaming exploration of Ne. But I doubt she is introverted for entirely natural reasons..

I did not include any other cues because they didn't show up in her -- as one would expect, since we don't have conscious access to the other four functions. Now, I concede that certain of those cues could have been identified more tentatively as Class-specific {{for instance in certain frames the Ne Alert Eyes could have instead just been labeled "Alert Explorer Eyes" which is a cue share by both Ne and Se. or "Compass (Fi) Check" could just be identified as "Compass Check" which is a cue shared by both Ti and Fi.}} but for her the whole pattern was entirely clear to me and I already knew it was Ne and Fi from other cues and information. Now this did not force me to omit cues of any sort, because a "Ti Compass Check" looks a specific way, and so do "Se Alert Eyes" -- which is not what showed up. Rather when I say simply "Alert Eyes" or "Compass Check" it is a reference to the broader, Class cues found here: http://physiognomy.me/v4.html

I admit there actually are times when I see something like what I think are Te and Fe cues in the same person. And when that happens I'm forced to discard the cue, or take a step back and redefine my understanding, rather than say a person has both. Because, again, the psyche is the core. And I've yet to come across a person who, when I get to know intimately, shows up contradicting functions. It only appears so if I do not know them well enough, but in time it becomes clear which four they're using and how.

TL;DR

In conclusion, visual reading is only useful insomuch as its able to properly identify what the core is. If the visual read doesn't align with the psyche, then it's useless. It's on this principle that I've formed my observations, and only identified patterns that hold true psychically as well as physically.

 

[cascadeco]

You misunderstood me. ^^;
I read cascadeco in various dimensions. From a psychoanalysis, from intuitive/holistic impression (as explained above), vocally, and from cue-based deconstruction. But the only one I could possibly translate and communicate to you guys is the cue-based deconstruction, so I showed you that.

I still hold that she is Ne(Fi). She has Te overpowering her Fi, and the momentum of her Ne is halted. This is almost certainly due to an environmental suppressor such as a strict parent or guardian that hindered the free-roaming exploration of Ne. But I doubt she is introverted for entirely natural reasons..

I did not include any other cues because they didn't show up in her -- as one would expect, since we don't have conscious access to the other four functions. Now, I concede that certain of those cues could have been identified more tentatively as Class-specific {{for instance in certain frames the Ne Alert Eyes could have instead just been labeled "Alert Explorer Eyes" which is a cue share by both Ne and Se. or "Compass (Fi) Check" could just be identified as "Compass Check" which is a cue shared by both Ti and Fi.}} but for her the whole pattern was entirely clear to me and I already knew it was Ne and Fi from other cues and information. Now this did not force me to omit cues of any sort, because a "Ti Compass Check" looks a specific way, and so do "Se Alert Eyes" -- which is not what showed up. Rather when I say simply "Alert Eyes" or "Compass Check" it is a reference to the broader, Class cues found here: http://physiognomy.me/v4.html

I want to first say that I don't have any personal issue with you, and in fact find your theory interesting in some ways, and it's obvious you're very dedicated to it and desirous of expanding upon it. I just think it has flaws.

In terms of my video / self-expression, I'm a very socially anxious person, and most especially in front of a camera, I was highly uncomfortable in that setting and in creating the video. I however was attempting to cover that up a bit, and still go forward with it, and was consciously trying to make eye contact with the camera, and other such things... which is why in my first post I stated that especially in the beginning (and it could be argued throughout), I was in 'performance mode' in a sense, in that it was incredibly anxiety-provoking and self-consciousness-provoking throughout its entirety.

I was also holding a small point-and-shoot camera at arms-length away from me the entire time, which I think you would agree would restrict my natural movement right from the get-go, and was very awkward.

Anywho... just wanted to add further context around my mood/emotional state while being in the video. However, I'm not wanting to get into any further debate in this thread re. my type as assessed through your theory - like I said, you're free to think I am an ENFP.

 

[Betty Blue]

peeking back in! ^^
just to tie up a loose end.

Oh, Grand!
So... just trying to understand how ENFP Ne(Fi) works visually... you mentioned a fluidity of movement (i think).
I was wondering how this would differ for an ENTP Ne(Ti)?
Also just want to reiterate something i said befor about needing several videos to accurately type someone. Frequently people behave, move, talk, engage in different ways... this can be due to a number of things i imagine mood being up there fairly high ranking ...under- reason.
I do agree the vid i posted my Te came across pretty strong... i had amde several vids befor that and had issues with sound, speech to visual delay, vid cutting off etc etc. My point is i was pretty fed up when i made that one and also a bit.. well i think i mentioned on the vid... i'm much more animated when i am talking "with" someone.
Yesss... and plus i think you mentioned somewhere along the lines about the ideal situation would be with the person (to be typed) sitting talking with an interviewer (can remember exact words you used)... i agree that would be far more convincing way of typing someone but maintain you would need to do it several times.
You could contact Dario, maybe work together.

 

[Auburn]

there were this mojo dojo cult guys at perc at time and they claimed to be able to read type based on the mojo of people, which was basically about reading the body language, expressions and wording of sentences. the more advanced people of the cult claimed that they had like 99% success rate of typing accurately solely on this mojo thing. personally i think the success rate was quite exaggerated, but i do think that you can at times read people correctly solely on body language and usage of words, however, i dont think its all that reliable way. (would be cool to be proven wrong tho).

I agree with you. I think my accuracy would probably rate between 65%-70% given only ten minutes of footage. It may not be possible to reach 100% but I'd consider it foolish not to try -- as any correlation is better than none, and even an 80% correlation between facial cues and psychological type is massive and worth learning.

i have learned to notice NFPs for example immediately, when they get excited and laugh(its like their eyes light up and smile wider than any mouth has ever smiled in human history). this is stronger in ENFPs and ENFPs do this easier than INFPs, and are less restrained in the expression. how ever a shy ENFP in company of strangers vs INFP in company of trusted friends might make the ENFP more restrained in the expression, so it kinda depends and determining ENFP vs INFP based on this requires further analysis..

I've noticed tidbits like this as well. I have a theory that I want to run across you [MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION]. More or less:

I believe that there are indeed sixteen main psychologies (omitting neurosis/disease) to humanity. Then, those sixteen express themselves in multiple shades. However, there are also "typical" shades of these types which fit a pattern and are also of a finite number.*

Now, if an individual got to intimately known a person of each of the main shades of all of the 16 types personally in life, they would be able to identify most anyone else's type --- because their personal experience accounts for all the major possible variations each type can have and it is able to identify those variations when it comes across them again.

I speculate that what limits a person's reading ability is simply lack of exposure to certain variations of certain types, but I postulate that with just around 100-150 cataloged shades one could read most of humanity.

Your thoughts?


*For instance, there are only so many ways an NeFi can express themselves. Or at least all the most common ways -- lets say 5 or so -- that their development can have which accounts for 90% of NeFi configurations. Per quick example:

1. They could be of a Momentum shade - having Ne as their favorite to use, spontaneous, with healthy Fi support.
2. They could be of an Introverted shade - lacking confidence in Ne, and turning instead to Fi and Si.
3. They could be a Sassy shade - being more confident in tertiary Te which gives them a more bossy and political feel.
4. They could be a TriviaQueen shade - wielding the NeSi wheel masterfully and having fluid data transfer.
5. They could be an Inverted shade - a stress locked variation which acts like a really pissed Si(Te).

 

[Auburn]

Oh, Grand!
So... just trying to understand how ENFP Ne(Fi) works visually... you mentioned a fluidity of movement (i think).
I was wondering how this would differ for an ENTP Ne(Ti)?

Heya.
Well the inner two functions of an NeTi are Ti-Fe. So the biggest difference would be in:
1. Processing
2. Articulation

The processing (that's when a person withdraws into their compass to assess, usually pausing the body) of Ti would be cooling/dispassionate. And the articulation of Fe would be passionate/warming. So practically speaking, there would be a flatness to NeTi when thinking, but an emotional zest inside their words.

I see you say you feel like you've become more of a thinker. Are you debating NeTi?

Also just want to reiterate something i said before about needing several videos to accurately type someone. Frequently people behave, move, talk, engage in different ways... this can be due to a number of things i imagine mood being up there fairly high ranking ...under- reason.
I do agree the vid i posted my Te came across pretty strong... i had made several vids befor that and had issues with sound, speech to visual delay, vid cutting off etc etc. My point is i was pretty fed up when i made that one and also a bit.. well i think i mentioned on the vid... i'm much more animated when i am talking "with" someone.

I see. Such things can skew the reads a bit, yes. Though I do want to emphasize that it's not all that much. Functions give off specific signs, and whether they're at a high energy level of low energy level - they're the same signals. Just more or less of them.

So, like, at most that may confused the function ordering, but its less likely that the functions themselves would be confused for others. That said, it is possible to train oneself to see the difference between, say, an introvert acting extrovertedly, and an extrovert acting introvertedly (or any other contrast). There *is* a visible difference, but that comes with more practice. I struggle with that myself sometimes too.

Yesss... and plus i think you mentioned somewhere along the lines about the ideal situation would be with the person (to be typed) sitting talking with an interviewer (can remember exact words you used)... i agree that would be far more convincing way of typing someone but maintain you would need to do it several times.

That depends on the skill of the reader, I think. It may take a novice reader hours of footage to see a person's type. Or they may not be able to tell unless they'd actually spend considerable time with them in person, for example. (this may even be true for a more advanced reader, if they haven't come across such an individual before)

But if the pattern has already been cataloged, then it is possible to detect it quite quickly. It may not always take multiple interviews. But generally, yes. The more information, the merrier. And the more controlled and free of irregularities a situation is, the better. ;P

 

[Betty Blue]

I see you say you feel like you've become more of a thinker. Are you debating NeTi?

Not seriously, but i am open to suggestions/ideas as ever. I wish i could find my original video though, i thought it was completely different vibe to the last one (posted int his thread) in terms of movement and facial expression...it had naff all sound but for this purpose that would not matter. Hmm... i may look for it in the vast unorganised chaos that is my pc. (sometimes wish i was an estj temporarily just to get that kind of thing cleaned up)

 

[INTP]

I agree with you. I think my accuracy would probably rate between 65%-70% given only ten minutes of footage. It may not be possible to reach 100% but I'd consider it foolish not to try -- as any correlation is better than none, and even an 80% correlation between facial cues and psychological type is massive and worth learning.

i think its good if you can use body language, wording etc.(this mojo thing, what ever it exactly means) besides other cues that doesent show so easily and requires more deeper understanding of the persons psyche. persona can be quite strong in some people and people can relate to their persona, which can be quite tricky to see past. basically with this mojo thing those guys were talking about is just about more apparent cues, which can on the other hand be misleading. but on the other hand, as you learn to notice how different types process information(how functions work in deeper level, how they work together, how consciously oriented the function is etc) and how this type of thinking manifests in actions, reactions etc, you start to read these "mojo" cues better and type people faster and based on less cues more accurately(or find some cues that are strong pointers of type or function usage). but imo no matter how good people think they are on typing people fast, there is always too little information to type people 100% accurate.

I've noticed tidbits like this as well. I have a theory that I want to run across you INTP. More or less:

I believe that there are indeed sixteen main psychologies (omitting neurosis/disease) to humanity. Then, those sixteen express themselves in multiple shades. However, there are also "typical" shades of these types which fit a pattern and are also of a finite number.*

Now, if an individual got to intimately known a person of each of the main shades of all of the 16 types personally in life, they would be able to identify most anyone else's type --- because their personal experience accounts for all the major possible variations each type can have and it is able to identify those variations when it comes across them again.

I speculate that what limits a person's reading ability is simply lack of exposure to certain variations of certain types, but I postulate that with just around 100-150 cataloged shades one could read most of humanity.

Your thoughts?


*For instance, there are only so many ways an NeFi can express themselves. Or at least all the most common ways -- lets say 5 or so -- that their development can have which accounts for 90% of NeFi configurations. Per quick example:

1. They could be of a Momentum shade - having Ne as their favorite to use, spontaneous, with healthy Fi support.
2. They could be of an Introverted shade - lacking confidence in Ne, and turning instead to Fi and Si.
3. They could be a Sassy shade - being more confident in tertiary Te which gives them a more bossy and political feel.
4. They could be a TriviaQueen shade - wielding the NeSi wheel masterfully and having fluid data transfer.
5. They could be an Inverted shade - a stress locked variation which acts like a really pissed Si(Te).

i think those shades are something that most certainly are something real. i also think that some people tend to stay that way, if they never develop on those sectors(those things in life that make the person have such a shade). however i think those shades also depend on the situation and if you make some subtypes based on them, you could get it work basically just on looking at averages on how that particular persons psyche functions. now because these are just averages(but naturally there are stronger shades in some people based on other factors in their psychological development). i think those shades are more like expressions of functions being differentiated and well trained for some particular situations, which some people tend to relate more. and putting the shades in subtypes(or life stages) are more like snapshots of how the whole person functions. so you can define a person in situation, but not the whole person over time(except maybe rarely with some unhealthy individuals who never develop further).

i think the most important thing with this is to get to know as much of varying ways of how the dynamics of each psychological type works both inside the types mind(learn to understand the types) and not get too stuck on viewing the types in particular ways(or else its just working with stereotypes). however learning those stereotypical ways is also important, because they can help on identifying types, especially types you are not so familiar with in the larger and more deeper ways.

there are a lot of things besides persona that can alter how the whole person shows/uses his functions. naturally the other archetypes, other factors in genes and how they manifest in personality, also nature of complexes, which are personal and no one has the exact same(even tho there are similarities also), which are the products of multiple things(nature via nurture) and where the archetypes manifest through.

this system might be helpful for some people in some situations in learning typology, if you can develop it further, but personally i try to see people as individuals who just have some similarities in cognition(these similarities being type and functions ofc) and try not to put people in boxes too much.

like jung said, about the types being just ways of categorizing, you could make more categories/subtypes, but he saw this much of boxing people enough and further division into more subtypes wouldnt be beneficial. but thats just his opinion and he didnt even think aux as important as dom/inferior aspect of type, so he would most likely even see MBTI as too strict boxing of people.

personally i think i find it most useful to after looking the types as they are(without making further subtypes or disregarding aux) and then go look at the individual, nature of complexes, archetypes, level of individuation/how differentiated functions are etc. and how all these things interact with each other

 

[Auburn]

[MENTION=9160]HelenOfTroy[/MENTION] - I am curious; what do you think of Angelina Jolie?

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WRF2mIN5fE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WRF2mIN5fE[/YOUTUBE]

I know you mentioned the conditions of your video, but from your video you remind me of her. Of course this is just one video of her, and there are many others to get a fuller picture.

Do you see things in common between you and her, whether mentally or physically?

 

[Betty Blue]

[MENTION=9160]HelenOfTroy[/MENTION] - I am curious; what do you think of Angelina Jolie?

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WRF2mIN5fE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WRF2mIN5fE[/YOUTUBE]

I know you mentioned the conditions of your video, but from your video you remind me of her. Of course this is just one video of her, and there are many others to get a fuller picture.

Do you see things in common between you and her, whether mentally or physically?

Ummm, really not, though i find her fairly engaging, she also makes a lot more eye contact than i do. She is incredibly self contained and seems to restrict her movements, i'm not sure if she is just uncomfortable but when i am talking to someone else i move my body a lot more... i find it hard to stay still for long and i'm very touchy feely... plus i umm and err and stray off topic bigtime. I find it hard to answer direct questions as my mind tends to explore and that leads to all sorts of places which may not be relevant to the question. I don't identify with her mentally either she seems quite linear, clear and to the point, though she does have a nice warmth about her too (i'm guessing thats the Fe). Also (so i am told) i tend to have this almost crazy (in a kind of shocked way) look when i am concentrating hard. I'm noticing Fe Ti and Se in her, though i'm not sure i can explain in what order or why right now.

 

[Auburn]

A large database of actions with many visual representations of the actions itself would have to be made. Then the probability factors of the functions each of those actions convey, where one would say it would have a 50% possibility of Ne, 30% probability of Fe, 20% probability of Se, etc.
Discerning the accuracy of the probability numbers will take a great amount of time and analysis including the 'why's, 'how's and 'what's.

In the end, we decided to take this approach after all.

http://physiognomy.me/catalog/​

It is the only way to really develop a clear and objective visual system, one which allows for patterns to emerge naturally as they appear in nature. Free of bias from any system - Jungian other otherwise. And free of personal anecdote. Just hard data. Statistics.

This new approach is indeed a large undertaking, but by it we hope to see how human motions naturally cluster. Whether that is indeed into 16 patterns, or 43, 79, or 103 groupings. Then once we have understood how (if) the collective human body language clusters naturally into groups by repetition, pivot that data against neuroscience to see what, if any, parallels exist.