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.