Typing by Face (or appearance)

[Mal12345]

Both MBTI and Enneagram types are fair game here:

Vs.

 

[Hive]

ISFP 9w1 sp/so and ISTP 6w5 sp/sx.

 

[Mal12345]

ISFP 9w1 sp/so and ISTP 6w5 sp/sx.

Is this based purely on appearance?

 

[Hive]

Is this based purely on appearance?

I don't have much else, do I?

 

[Mal12345]

I don't have much else, do I?

That's what I wanted.

I agree with ISFP for the first. The second picture is classic SJ in appearance. What do you think?

 

[Hive]

That's what I wanted.

I agree with ISFP for the first. The second picture is classic SJ in appearance. What do you think?

ISTJ would be my second guess.

EDIT: Changed my mind. ISTP > ESTJ > ISTJ.

 

[Mal12345]

ISTJ would be my second guess.

EDIT: Changed my mind. ISTP > ESTJ > ISTJ.

Here's a known ISTP for comparison:

 

[Hive]

Here's a known ISTP for comparison:

Well, it's the vibe I get. It's a completely arbitrary impression. I'm not seriously attempting to determine his type by his appearance. It just means my mental image of an ISTP is something like the picture you posted.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

First person seems Fi-valuing with the telling "in-pain" face (called such because it looks like they are in pain, not because they are actually in pain).

If I were to take a guess, ISFj. (Let's isolate VI to its origination)

I have no idea for the second person. (EDIT: though my base instinct tells me ISTj, or at least Ni-valuing in some fashion)

 

[Mal12345]

Well, it's the vibe I get. It's a completely arbitrary impression. I'm not seriously attempting to determine his type by his appearance. It just means my mental image of an ISTP is something like the picture you posted.

If you have a mental image for comparison then at least it's not completely arbitrary. It's an archetypal impression drawn from several real examples.

It's like being shown a breed of dog or cat that you've never seen before, your mind automatically compels you to deem it a dog or cat because you've seen so many examples of both of them from different species.

 

[Hive]

If you have a mental image for comparison then at least it's not completely arbitrary. It's an archetypal impression drawn from several real examples.

It's like being shown a breed of dog or cat that you've never seen before, your mind automatically compels you to deem it a dog or cat because you've seen so many examples of both of them from different species.

Perhaps. But I don't think my mental image is based on real examples. The archetypical ISTP is usually described as a mechanic or something similar, and that's the association I made looking at the picture.

 

[Mal12345]

First person seems Fi-valuing with the telling "in-pain" face (called such because it looks like they are in pain, not because they are actually in pain).

If I were to take a guess, ISFj. (Let's isolate VI to its origination)

I have no idea for the second person. (EDIT: though my base instinct tells me ISTj, or at least Ni-valuing in some fashion)

If you mean ISFP (which is kind of identical with ISFj in that "other" typology), then I agree. However, I don't know where VI originated. I know there were practitioners of Enneagram VI over 20 years ago.

But you only explained Fi. How do you explain SP (or Se)?

 

[Mal12345]

Perhaps. But I don't think my mental image is based on real examples. The archetypical ISTP is usually described as a mechanic or something similar, and that's the association I made looking at the picture.

Then it's based on real examples of mechanics, not all of whom are ISTPs.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

If you mean ISFP (which is kind of identical with ISFj in that "other" typology), then I agree. However, I don't know where VI originated. I know there were practitioners of Enneagram VI over 20 years ago.

But you only explained Fi. How do you explain SP (or Se)?

The Fi was easy to recognize but I can't point to any exact quantitative data that suggests S over N, so I went with what I felt was appropriate (a hunch, if you will).

 

[Hive]

Then it's based on real examples of mechanics, not all of whom are ISTPs.

Lol. Yes, you're right.

 

[Mal12345]

The Fi was easy to recognize but I can't point to any exact quantitative data that suggests S over N, so I went with what I felt was appropriate (a hunch, if you will).

Would you agree that Intuitives see themselves as deep, and that Sensors see themselves as practical?

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Would you agree that Intuitives see themselves as deep, and that Sensors see themselves as practical?

I'd actually put forth that deep vs practical would be more along the lines of Fi vs Te and Ni vs Se rather than the entire function attitude of N or S.

How individuals might view themselves based on certain functions:

Practical: Te and Se
Deep: Fi and Ni
Structured (or Rational): Ti and Si
Open-minded: Ne and Fe (it's a stretch for the last one, though emotionally they would be rather open-minded)

This of course assumes that there would be perfect symmetry in these categories.

 

[Mal12345]

I'd actually put forth that deep vs practical would be more along the lines of Fi vs Te and Ni vs Se rather than the entire function attitude of N or S.

I can see your point there, especially Ni vs. Se.

If the sad-faced gentleman is Fi-dom, then is he Se or Ne aux?

 

[Mal12345]

Lol. Yes, you're right.

To me, he appears "tough but fair," mechanically-inclined, practical...

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

I can see your point there, especially Ni vs. Se.

If the sad-faced gentleman is Fi-dom, then is he Se or Ne aux?

Well, staying strictly with VI, it would be safe to analyze the individual's eyes (from some source I don't remember, perception functions show themselves in the way the eyes act, who would have guessed?).

Penetrating, glazed eyes -> Ni
Child-like, twinkling eyes -> Ne
Intense eyes, wider open -> Se
Soft, calm eyes -> Si

I guess the individual would be more Se due to the way his eyes seem to be more intense than child-like (which is really based on the fact that his eyes don't look like the "naive" eyes of the Ne types at all, I really don't see any intensity).

I'm not a VI expert, let alone good at it, so it is merely an amateur analysis.