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.
Originally Posted by Nørrsken impersonating EJCC
It's strange. I keep banning morons, but they keep signing up? What is this?
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!
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.