Hi. I've been working with no advertising, watched through all the iffy videos of Bullshits, chatted out with the People Reading Project and on my own been gathering a visual library of the sixteen types. Two of these projects are down today. And Bullshit is close to being a cult. Alot of people still find their works interesting, and rightfully so, but if they have knowledge that is reliable and could help us understand more about the MBTI - this knowledge should not purely be in the hands of a cult, but for the general MBTI-community to put their hands on.
All three groups shared the hyphotesis was that personality - the eight jungian functions, to be exact, leak out and are actual visible signals you can spot in a persons body language.
My previous Phy-methodology of proving this was to bit a character into hundreds of gif images. We bitted 1000 animated .gif's of celebrities talking about stuff, and sorted them into hundreds of categories depending on what individual motion was being done. This basically took months, and was so exhausting the entire project died, despite reaching more and more consensus on type and clearly being on a workable path.
What we found our data pointing towards
- The eight jungian functions are real and there were clear nuances between Ti and Fi, Ne and Se, Ni and Si, and Te and Fe. An INTJ will only show cues that we saw as Ni, Te, Fi and Se.
- There were general energy feels that anybody could pick up on - showing X is an INTJ, because he has an Y kind of voice, shows a Z general feel and gameplay style.
- We can spot how well a person has developed, and we can see when an INFP is accessing Fi, Te, Ne, and Si - and from this - pinpoint and get a general feel about what these functions actually do.
- We can learn more about type interactions and how you can develop.
- It was exiting as hell.
What I want, is basically a way for establishing type visually and proving this to be evidence, or for refuting these claims entirely.
My current methodology is basically to let the visual samples in themselves be the evidence. Establish a big enough library and correlate it with other libraries out there to show that, even tough there will be alot of differences, my way of measuring is consistent. So we can agree that Florence Welch is an INFP, why not that Ellen DeGeneres, Kristen Stewart, Zach Braff and Robert Downey JR are INFP's, too?
They all show clearly similar energy in interviews, they show similar body lagnuage patterns, too. They can all be considered a Visual Type Signature, and can also be refuted as such, if somebody shows them to be different and can establish what and that they match better with another person or group.
Simply showing 100's of celebrities and correlating with type is more a concept of proof, than a proof of concept, however. It does not prove anything. It just proves I have a library of hundreds of celebrities. There's already plenty of those pages out there. Bullshit has the same problem. They believe their method to be solid, as it works and as they see it so clearly, but they are basically a group of NF's lacking in methodology and lacking in communicating their terms in clear, precise terms.
Phy had an idea of getting mri scanners to use at the same time as a person was being recorded, to see if a particular check was correlated with a particular part of the brain, similar to Nardi's research. But right now, I have no resources for this.
My two core problems
I believe visual types are real, but I need a way of proving them to be real.
I am only one person and can only do a certain amount of work. I'd like to find more people around that can help working on this.
Does the Typology community have any way of proving - or refuting - these claims?
Oh. Upload videos of yourselves, and send them to me, and I can tell you which visual signature/development you have, so you can see I'm the real deal. I'll also try to tell you what I'm seeing.
Here's also my blog, which is under development, which you can have a look at for seeing previous reads I've done, and I've also submitted three parts of guides on how you can learn to read yourself and others.
http://unlockingpersonalities.wordpress.com
All three groups shared the hyphotesis was that personality - the eight jungian functions, to be exact, leak out and are actual visible signals you can spot in a persons body language.
My previous Phy-methodology of proving this was to bit a character into hundreds of gif images. We bitted 1000 animated .gif's of celebrities talking about stuff, and sorted them into hundreds of categories depending on what individual motion was being done. This basically took months, and was so exhausting the entire project died, despite reaching more and more consensus on type and clearly being on a workable path.
What we found our data pointing towards
- The eight jungian functions are real and there were clear nuances between Ti and Fi, Ne and Se, Ni and Si, and Te and Fe. An INTJ will only show cues that we saw as Ni, Te, Fi and Se.
- There were general energy feels that anybody could pick up on - showing X is an INTJ, because he has an Y kind of voice, shows a Z general feel and gameplay style.
- We can spot how well a person has developed, and we can see when an INFP is accessing Fi, Te, Ne, and Si - and from this - pinpoint and get a general feel about what these functions actually do.
- We can learn more about type interactions and how you can develop.
- It was exiting as hell.
What I want, is basically a way for establishing type visually and proving this to be evidence, or for refuting these claims entirely.
My current methodology is basically to let the visual samples in themselves be the evidence. Establish a big enough library and correlate it with other libraries out there to show that, even tough there will be alot of differences, my way of measuring is consistent. So we can agree that Florence Welch is an INFP, why not that Ellen DeGeneres, Kristen Stewart, Zach Braff and Robert Downey JR are INFP's, too?
They all show clearly similar energy in interviews, they show similar body lagnuage patterns, too. They can all be considered a Visual Type Signature, and can also be refuted as such, if somebody shows them to be different and can establish what and that they match better with another person or group.
Simply showing 100's of celebrities and correlating with type is more a concept of proof, than a proof of concept, however. It does not prove anything. It just proves I have a library of hundreds of celebrities. There's already plenty of those pages out there. Bullshit has the same problem. They believe their method to be solid, as it works and as they see it so clearly, but they are basically a group of NF's lacking in methodology and lacking in communicating their terms in clear, precise terms.
Phy had an idea of getting mri scanners to use at the same time as a person was being recorded, to see if a particular check was correlated with a particular part of the brain, similar to Nardi's research. But right now, I have no resources for this.
My two core problems
I believe visual types are real, but I need a way of proving them to be real.
I am only one person and can only do a certain amount of work. I'd like to find more people around that can help working on this.
Does the Typology community have any way of proving - or refuting - these claims?
Oh. Upload videos of yourselves, and send them to me, and I can tell you which visual signature/development you have, so you can see I'm the real deal. I'll also try to tell you what I'm seeing.
Here's also my blog, which is under development, which you can have a look at for seeing previous reads I've done, and I've also submitted three parts of guides on how you can learn to read yourself and others.
http://unlockingpersonalities.wordpress.com
). His personality confirms he has a stronger Te and a weaker Fi--IxTJ, I think.
