Physiognomy Project: Visually Reading Cognitive Configuration

[Ginkgo]

some of us have used plenty of outside sources as well... people who actually get to observe our behavior in every day life and actually know us as PEOPLE as opposed to having just watched a brief video of us on the internet

Yeah, I wonder how much you can get paid to sit idly by and pretend like you know everything about a person's psyche. I need some ea$y ca$h.

In other news...

Ti: Shaving off alternative theories, or twisting alternative theories to suite subjective systems of thought, resulting in possible oversimplification of how objects are categorized. Introverted processes depend on universals, covering all objects of particular definition, resulting in generalization.

 

[miss fortune]

Yeah, I wonder how much you can get paid to sit idly by and pretend like you know everything about a person's psyche. I need some ea$y ca$h.

you TOTALLY need to put an add on craigslist... I'm sure that SOMEONE might hire you!

 

[Oaky]

Compartmentalising a person into a type and fully relating every action seen towards the four functions of that type is a terrible method, and considering you have inclined every action towards the only possibility of the function you assigned it to, the perception is influenced by delusion.

 

[Auburn]

[MENTION=1180]whatever[/MENTION] - Why is it not also possible that said 'adjustments' are also telling signs about you, and elicit cues?

 

[miss fortune]

[MENTION=1180]whatever[/MENTION] - Why is it not also possible that said 'adjustments' are also telling signs about you, and elicit cues?

because those could go any direction... you never know what way someone's going to compensate for something... it'd be a shot in the dark trying to figure out what's the front and what's behind and why what is being used

 

[Rasofy]

Rasofy - Thanks for taking a look. That's primarily what I was focusing on.

I think you got whatever, Vasilisa and Marmie Dearest right.
With Ginkgo, I think you mistook Inferior Ne for Dominant Se; with GempopGem, I think you put too much focus on her Te.
Couldn't see cascadesco's video, but she just can't be a Ne-dom. (Perhaps she had drank too much coffee that day? lol)
I think you are on the right way, but ya need some tuning. Good luck.

 

[Anew Leaf]

Compartmentalising a person into a type and fully relating every action seen towards the four functions of that type is a terrible method, and considering you have inclined every action towards the only possibility of the function you assigned it to, the perception is influenced by delusion.

+100000

 

[Elfboy]

Hello,

I am part of a team that is currently developing a physiognomy methodology tied to cognition. Our project is presently in a researching - Beta - phase, where we are seeking to identify patterns among people and their facial, body and vocal expressions, but we would like to share with you our present finds and obtain your feedback & ideas.

This an introductory guide to identifying the eight cognitive functions visually as well as a person's psychological Type. Though we are still in a developmental phase, we are quite confident that this methodology is already far more accurate at type-identification than any existing testing methods, and we are more than happy to assist others in the discovery of their type, as well as the learning of our methodology up to this point. We hope you enjoy this introduction guide.

• Introduction
• Two Families
• Four Classes

The Eight Functions


Ti Visual Signals | Fi Visual Signals

Te Visual Signals | Fe Visual Signals

Ni Visual Signals | Si Visual Signals

Ne Visual Signals | Se Visual Signals
​

​

Extroverted Intuition

 

[Auburn]

Compartmentalising a person into a type and fully relating every action seen towards the four functions of that type is a terrible method, and considering you have inclined every action towards the only possibility of the function you assigned it to, the perception is influenced by delusion.

How so? Please be more specific.

If you are not really arguing the validity of the specific cues presented, but the concept itself of being able to identify cognition through visual manifestation; then that is itself making the assumption that people of the same types will not share significant visual manifestations. How would you justify this stance?

So long as we're disputing the theoretical merit of such an approach, then I think we can't know that there is or isn't a correlation without doing actual investigation both ways. It could be true that people of the same types manifest entirely differently, entirely similar, a mix of both, or types may not exist altogether.

Also, note that not all actions are cues. The guide is built upon only those patterns that showed themselves to be consistent across all the types that share certain processes. Some cues are specific to functions, others are specific to classes (Ji, Je, Pi, Pe), others are family specific (T/F, S/N), and some are not related to any process.

 

[miss fortune]

How so? Please be more specific.

If you are not really arguing the validity of the specific cues presented, but the concept itself of being able to identify cognition through visual manifestation; then that is itself making the assumption that people of the same types will not share significant visual manifestations. How would you justify this stance?

So long as we're disputing the theoretical merit of such an approach, then I think we can't know that there is or isn't a correlation without doing actual investigation both ways. It could be true that people of the same types manifest entirely differently, entirely similar, a mix of both, or types may not exist altogether.

Also, note that not all actions are cues. The guide is built upon only those patterns that showed themselves to be consistent across all the types that share certain processes. Some cues are specific to functions, others are specific to classes (Ji, Je, Pi, Pe), others are family specific (T/F, S/N), and some are not related to any process.

the entire system has limited itself by having a set of 16 neat little types with hierarchies of functions in use by each one... the world isn't made up of neat little lines and convenient boxes into which things fit... the real world is messy, unpredictable and surprising, why should our minds be all orderly?

the MBTI is just an oversimplified view on things that can get people interested, but the more you look at it the more you realize its limitations... people don't fit into neat little boxes, they don't use the functions in the strengths and orders into which they are so painstakingly put by the people who come up with these apparent "types" functions that traditionally aren't paired because "they shouldn't be" can work perfectly harmoniously together, but people usually ignore that possibility

you can only explain so much with a flawed system... the need to have convenient labels for things and the inability of the average mind to grasp very large quantities of possibilities has gotten us stuck with a system of 16 types... that's really not enough in the least

 

[prplchknz]

*still waiting to be typed*

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I'm with [MENTION=6071]Oakysage[/MENTION] on this one. Not because I'm bitter of the typing , but because it seems that thought doesn't necessarily correlate into action, because actions can lie, or can be reproduced and made fluid and believable.

 

[Auburn]

[MENTION=1180]whatever[/MENTION] - I've heard that same objection so many times I've lost count. I am not advocating the mbti and it's sixteen boxes. I am actually talking about Jung's work. If you understand where this theory originated from and how it has gotten to where it has, you'd know that it was never intended to be a set of boxes.

Jung, in his book, proposed a critical psychology of how he viewed the brain to function. The concept of the eight cognitive processes was meant to explain the various ways the mind thinks. He proposed that humans don't all think alike, and those different methods of thinking leads to varied behaviors for different reasons. But it was never his intent to create behavioral-profiles, nor mine. I fully believe millions of different humans exist, but I believe that the mind has a limited amount of cognitive rhythms, which generate that variability.

And the elements and attributes of those processes are not arbitrarily chosen, but are the necessary elements for the consciousness we possess to arise. As per the site:

- http://physiognomy.me/introduction.html​

 

[miss fortune]

[MENTION=5746]Auburn[/MENTION]... yes, I have a minor in psych and therefore have somewhat of an idea as to how the brain works

and whether intended or not, people still oversimplify things into 16 different categories... and you did as well

 

[Auburn]

*still waiting to be typed*

Hi. Um.. I'm holding off on doing any more reading atm,
as I think discussing the (in)validity of the methodology is most important else the reads mean nothing.

But also because I honestly can't say much from the video.. it's too short. c.c

 

[prplchknz]

Hi. Um.. I'm holding off on doing any more reading atm,
as I think discussing the (in)validity methodology is most important else the reads mean nothing.

But also because I honestly can't say much from the video.. it's too short. c.c

tell me what you want and how long i'll do my best

 

[Auburn]

I think you got whatever, Vasilisa and Marmie Dearest right.
With Ginkgo, I think you mistook Inferior Ne for Dominant Se; with GempopGem, I think you put too much focus on her Te.
Couldn't see cascadesco's video, but she just can't be a Ne-dom. (Perhaps she had drank too much coffee that day? lol)
I think you are on the right way, but ya need some tuning. Good luck.

Thanks.

I agree that Ginkgo's read may be a bit off, yes..
I did send him a pm about something similar.
Also still conversing with bologna over his read.
Gempop, hum, interesting. Not entirely impossible either...
The functions are there, but like SuchIrony, the ordering is challenging.

However, these following reads are the ones I think are probably most correct:

• Fi(Ne) CuriousFeeling
• Fe(Si) Vasilisa
• Ne(Fi) Cascadesco
• Fi(Se) Marmie Dearest
• Si(Fe) ReflectcelfeR

 

[Oaky]

How so? Please be more specific.

If you are not really arguing the validity of the specific cues presented, but the concept itself of being able to identify cognition through visual manifestation; then that is itself making the assumption that people of the same types will not share significant visual manifestations. How would you justify this stance?

So long as we're disputing the theoretical merit of such an approach, then I think we can't know that there is or isn't a correlation without doing actual investigation both ways. It could be true that people of the same types manifest entirely differently, entirely similar, a mix of both, or types may not exist altogether.

Also, note that not all actions are cues. The guide is built upon only those patterns that showed themselves to be consistent across all the types that share certain processes. Some cues are specific to functions, others are specific to classes (Ji, Je, Pi, Pe), others are family specific (T/F, S/N), and some are not related to any process.

The method is rather splendid and can often be done empathetically or intuitively at times. But of course, if it's Ti playing the flute of this particular method of compartmentalising actions into the set functions, it's bound to fall down terribly. Though things are slightly more complex than the simple 'see and type' method you have displayed. An action on the face could point to several different locations upon function thought with regards to the what, how and why of the action. To label a subconscious movement on the body to a psychological adherence is on par to putting the label of Se on a man walking down the street simply because you've stuck the action to a function. The method of creating the proper labelling criteria often falls to the thought that you believe you know the 'what's, 'how's and 'why's to the action and that it would be the same for most other individuals.

 

[Auburn]

The method is rather splendid and can often be done empathetically or intuitively at times. But of course, if it's Ti playing the flute of this particular method of compartmentalising actions into the set functions, it's bound to fall down terribly.

What does Ti have to do with it?
I value the intuitive process much more than you may think...
I respect the limitation of Ti. I think this thread, post #7 in particular, may help explain just how I am approaching this matter. But really the whole thread has important information on the methodology.

be back in a bit~

 

[011235813]

I know you said you were holding off on typing videos for a while but I'd very much appreciate it if you took a gander at this one. You can see it here.