I said it's unreliable. By which I mean, someone's internal processes will have an influence on how they look. Different facial expressions train different muscules and make your face look different. BUT still, not reliable, especially if only based on a picture as seeing people in person will give much more information.
I can put on a soft facial expression and people will think I'm an F. Lots of uncertainty.
^ I agree with this.
Not to mention, people who are related to one another can look very similar, have similar mannerisms, smile the same way, etc, because of genetics and because of kids looking up to their elders. But they can be completely different MBTI and Enneagram types. That's the main reason why I don't buy typing folks by photos.
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world -- 'No, YOU move.'"
- Captain America
ESTJ - LSE - ESTj (mbti/socionics)
1w2/7w6/3w4 so/sx (enneagram)
lawful good (D&D) / ravenclaw + wampus (HP) / boros legion (M:TG)
conscientious > sensitive > serious (oldham)
want to ask me something? go for it!
VI is unreliable.
Also If I recall the initial research is from Russia.
There's no strong reason why a correlation existing in russian populations should exist in others. Given all the environmental factors at play.
I would see VI as quite unreliable, seeing that you can change the face of your avatar quite easily. Did the French flag signify feeling?
Originally Posted by magpie
This quote would look really good in your signature.
MBTI: INFP (by cold percentages over used dom and tert)
Cognitive Functions: Ni Fe Ti Se (INFJ)
Astrology: Double Aries (Sun & Moon) Cancer Ascendant
Enneagram: 4wb/9wb/7wb sx/so/sp
Socionics: IEI - Ni β
It's in the middle, isn't it? Of course, there are different kinds of love. The Greeks had lots of different words for it. There's an excellent thread about that topic somewhere.
Yeah, it depends on how you class it, I think. Sex is towards the bottom, relationships were in the middle, and I figure, to be truly loving to another person or to anything, all an individual's needs must first be met, meaning self-actualization/nirvana.
I'll have to go check out the Hierarchy of Needs thread. That's a fun topic.