i hate fake smiles. the majority of my work revolves around making people stop that shit haha
I think happy thoughts…
Something eventually will make me grin…
If I try to force it, though, I look like a frankfurter.
I only said frankfurter becuase it's such a funny word…
…always makes me chuckle for some reason…
i hate fake smiles. the majority of my work revolves around making people stop that shit haha
I used to be terrible at smiling in photographs.
Then, I discovered a trick.
The trick is to think of something that makes you really happy. You can decide what that is for yourself.
I'm Fe.
I always feel like my smiles in photos look fake. They are fake, but that doesn't bother me- I want them to look good. I smile a lot, especially in response to others, but it's little smiles; I have trouble smiling big unless it's genuine, and I'm laughing or really happy because of some guy. I'm not very expressive, but I'm not serious either. I laugh a lot, but it's usually little giggles. I don't know what my eyes look like. No one has particularly commented on them. People say they like my laugh though; last night my guy friend said my laugh seems really genuine, like I can't control myself.
My INFP cousin does the big, genuine eye smiling thing.
once they know i like them that assumption is more or less set in stone so i can be my usual self, which is to say not bursting with emotional energy but rather giving my subtle hints of affection, and that doesn't affect their energy towards me to the same degree as a Fi primary or secondary person.
I think these discussions are ridiculous, frankly.
1. There is too much individuation to really label these things as function-oriented.
2. People can't even agree on what function should be attached to a particular picture. Lots of confirmation bias here.
3. Functions are not emotions.
I think the most that can really be said is that, in general, maybe in theory Fe is more liable to use facial expressions as signifiers of commitment/social standing, while Fi is more liable to use expressions as signifiers of underlying emotional state... but that is just theory and assumes the extreme "idealized" function manifestation... a cliche instead of a human being.
The reality is that no one is 100% one or the other, and so our facial expressions are not used in a uniform way on a practical, in-the-moment basis. If you're trying to use them to decode, it's like a cypher where the same letter can mean different overlapping things and an expression can stand for different letters.... from individual to individual. There is no uniform code.
Any human being is capable of expressing an authentic feeling on their face regardless of MBTI type; it's what human beings do. And all human beings are capable of smiling at others (or passing along some other facial cue) as part of a socialization strategy, regardless of MBTI type. It's all part of the human lexicon of human emotion and human community.
Trying to use a single photo / captured moment in time to decipher type from facial expression is about as useful as just flipping a coin.
I completely agree. I find those tests where you are supposed to type people by their photos as beyond ridiculous.
VI is ridiculous.
Although... and I'm not entirely convinced that this is function related myself, but I find some people to be very sensitive to facial expressions, and find them to be a good source of "reliable" data about someone's feelings towards something. All the individuals that I can think of have typed as FPs. They're more likely to read my my lack of a smile as displeasure, for instance, or immediately act to "do something" about a particular expression that momentarily showed on my face.
Rightly or wrongly, I associate Fe with a mentality that states "there is no right or wrong feeling, it's your response to the situation that matters." (which is more sensible to me) Fi seems to believe in a certain "pure" response.
I can't figure out how Fe is different than Fi, really, other than the fact that one makes "sense" to me, and the other one just seems inscrutable. The above is just what I've been able to figure out through my own observations.
VI is ridiculous.
Again, I don't know if this is function related, but I find some people to be very sensitive to facial expressions, and find them to be a good source of "reliable" data about someone's feelings towards something. All the individuals that I can think of have typed as FPs. They're more likely to read my my lack of a smile as displeasure, for instance, or immediately act to "do something" about a particular expression that momentarily showed on my face.
Rightly or wrongly, I associate Fe with a mentality that states "there is no right or wrong feeling, it's your response to the situation that matters." (which is more sensible to me) Fi seems to believe in a certain "pure" response.
I can't figure out how Fe is different than Fi, really, other than the fact that one makes "sense" to me, and the other one just seems inscrutable. The above is just what I've been able to figure out through my own observations.
Well, I am very sensitive to facial expressions, but I am not sure someone would type me as an INFP based on my photo.
Interesting about the Fi versus Fe observances. For me... I want my facial expression and body language to genuinely reflect what I am feeling. When I am forced to stifle these emotions it feels.... wrong. Whereas I notice my ENFJ friend is the queen of making comments like "and there I was having the worst day of my life but it was no excuse to not smile and look jolly." I am semi-envious of that but at the same time... I want to rebel against it.
I do know that the older I get, the more I have been able to adapt to curtaining my emotional state from others. I no longer wear my ever changing moods on my sleeve, my face, and dare I say it, my shoes.