• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Physiognomy Project: Visually Reading Cognitive Configuration

1487610420

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
6,431
Ah. At last. I was wondering when I'd get some opposition..

The template of signatures was first made from people who are not actors or trained in any form of facial control. Mostly they were extracted from people I/we had firsthand exposure to; people who we know personally and psychically - people whose type we're sure of. These closest to us were observed, then we noted when and why their face manifested certain expressions - depending on what mental process they were engaging at that exact time. When doing memory recall, certain things were noticed, and when articulating, others. When explaining an ethical decision, others still. And the template expanded.

And as we/I have applied that template outside of them to those who have had education in acting/etc I have seen that off-stage even actors default to their natural facial manifestations. There is one function that is most prone to facial control, however: that being Fe. Fe has the ability to manipulate the face to put on a charming or hostile presentation to others. But ironically, in its ability to control the face it also gives itself away. There are also more than just one cue we check for each function, and generally even if one is blurred by culture/environment the others will still come through.

But for the slight possibility of a habit obstructing the read, this danger is dramatically reduced when the interviewee is asked challenging questions. When engaged in a conversation that forces a person to dig deep into their thoughts/memories and articulate all at once, it is near impossible to also keep control over your face. It is like trying to speak two languages at the same time, it doesn't work.

For instance, if you are an Ne+Si user (and those of you who are can try this out) and you try to not deflect/divert your eyes as you do intense memory recall or brainstorming, you'll find that your ability to think will dramatically lower, if not be entirely unable to think. For Ne/Si, the eyes need to be left loose/free to roam about for the mind to properly cross-contextualize imaginations with information.

For Se+Ni users, the opposite is true. Their eyes need to be steady/focused in order to process. If they're asked a very challenging question, like describing a place in exact detail, while their eyes spastically look everywhere they will have a hard time coming up with an answer. This would be no problem for Ne+Si users.


Maybe interesting as a premise, but that's about as far as I'll go. If you manage to automate the assessment process into a neutral and consistent version, e.g. trained neural-network algorithm evaluating facial expressions, and can come up with relevant statistics, you'll have my attention again.
 

Auburn

New member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
38
MBTI Type
TiNe
Not an algorithm, but we do hope to approach neuroscience in the future and see whether these findings can be empirically verified. That is actually our aim: to create an empirical link to psychological types. We're definitely not shy of science, nor afraid to put the methods to the test, but it'll just take some time before we have the resources to run those tests.

But in theory, let's say that one hundred volunteers are called to have EEG/fMRI scans be done. Before the scan, each person from our reading team independently watches 10 minutes of footage of them and predicts what their psychological type is. Those hundred can then be scanned to confirmed whether they have the same neuro activity/patterns. We believe this methodology would drastically accelerate the work of researchers like Nardi, and we also hope to get in touch with him and get his input when we have a decent enough presentation compiled.
 

Betty Blue

Let me count the ways
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
5,063
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7W6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
To be honest i was really into this idea until i saw how you actually typed the examples given. I can't really describe it, it's just off. I will say though that i did do a couple of jerky movements in that video but there was a reason behind it. I noticed whilst recording that there was a time delay ... if i moved suddenly the other me took a spilt second to catch up... i found it amusing, i don't think i mentioned it in the video though... but ah well.
I did say befor that i think you would need several video's of the same person... i really don't think one video is enough is to type someone acurately. And i am now wondering if the method is fatally flawed... I would however like to see this second opinion.
OOOhhh i would also like to see a vid of the op... what type have you self identified as? Through this method?
Tanks you Kindly
*curtsies*
 

Such Irony

Honor Thy Inferior
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
5,059
MBTI Type
INtp
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
[MENTION=10653]SuchIrony[/MENTION] - Heya! Sorry for the delay.. thanks for sharing your video. I have to confess you're quite a tricky one for me to identify, but there are still things I can say with some certainty.

You use the functions: Te-Fi, Ni-Se.

Your use of Te/Fi appears to be aux+tert.
Your use of Ni+Se appears to be dom+inf.
As a very tentative estimate I think you may be Se(FiTe)Ni: ESFP.

*dodges tomatoes, cups and shoes*


Throws tomatoes, cups, shoes and knives.

Well not literally. Just surprised because I looked at the samples for each function and Se is the last function I would see as being dominant. I would have guessed myself to be a user of Ti/Fe more than than Fi/Te.
 
G

garbage

Guest
Ah. At last. I was wondering when I'd get some opposition..

The template of signatures was first made from people who are not actors or trained in any form of facial control. Mostly they were extracted from people I/we had firsthand exposure to; people who we know personally and psychically - people whose type we're sure of. These closest to us were observed, then we noted when and why their face manifested certain expressions - depending on what mental process they were engaging at that exact time. When doing memory recall, certain things were noticed, and when articulating, others. When explaining an ethical decision, others still. And the template expanded.

And as we/I have applied that template outside of them to those who have had education in acting/etc I have seen that off-stage even actors default to their natural facial manifestations. There is one function that is most prone to facial control, however: that being Fe. Fe has the ability to manipulate the face to put on a charming or hostile presentation to others. But ironically, in its ability to control the face it also gives itself away. There are also more than just one cue we check for each function, and generally even if one is blurred by culture/environment the others will still come through.

But for the slight possibility of a habit obstructing the read, this danger is dramatically reduced when the interviewee is asked challenging questions. When engaged in a conversation that forces a person to dig deep into their thoughts/memories and articulate all at once, it is near impossible to also keep control over your face. It is like trying to speak two languages at the same time, it doesn't work.
This. This is how I know that this method has promise to find something, regardless of whether it illuminates JCF/type or not. However, the fact that it tends to point at JCF types that differ from our own may mean that the way this system views the functions is different than the way the functions are typically viewed. Which is quite alright--after all, Socionics and MBTI greatly differ in how they view functions and types, and both are held to be decently legitimate systems.

Why couldn't we view type from, say, the Socionics perspective, the MBTI perspective, the introspective JCF perspective, and the physiognomy perspective separately for now? We can resolve them when the neuroscientific evidence actually rolls in.

The method is very well thought-out, as are the categories (Articulator, Compass, etc.). I'd love to see where the evidence and neuroscience winds up pointing.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
[MENTION=8031]Ginkgo[/MENTION] - Your psychological type is Se(Ti), roughly correlating to ESTP.

You are most definitely a perception-lead. That much was clear from the first frame.
Although in this video it seems you were a bit low on energy, your body still gave off the 'uneasy' signs that accompany Se momentum. Your eyes often zone-out into Ni, and your face remains deadpan for the majority of the video. There are some moments of Fe expressiveness but it is easily neutralized by Ti and your face cools back down.

A celebrity that resembles you would be:
Sam Worthington: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXujTKIrUR0

As a note for those I've typed up to this point, I assure you this is real. Although in these typings I am mostly focusing on the physiognomy, it is not just what your physiognomy shows - and it is not separate from your psychology, the two are one in the same. Only your psychology could produce the manifestations that it does.

Something told me you would say ISTP, but ESTP? Lol. This is a new one for the books. I'm not nearly as immediate-context oriented as the guy in that video appears to be. Even still, I deliberately let myself go to be in the moment for the purposes of denying myself the self-consciousness that leads to second guessing, figuring my fullest honesty would glean through. My Ji was more more lax than it is natively.

Something also tells me you don't have very extensive experience typing people who have rich understandings of the theories you're working with here. Otherwise, you would have met enough opposition from people to gather more reasons to reconsider your first impressions. Don't worry, I believe your testing methods are real. Really, really misguided. :harhar:

Why not boil it down to appearances and impressions, rather than holding up in your beta physiognomy->psychology system with utmost confidence? The truth is that psychology->physiognomy, as you implied in your last statement there; the manifestations of each particular cognitive preference arise in potentially infinite expressions depending on what is being processed, a boat load of other psyche content, and the processes themselves. Physical discomfort, stress, eustress, anxiety, depression, euphoria, etc all play into even the most subtle cues.

Most bodily movements are dictated by the unconscious. Yes, there is a cause->effect relationship between the conscious and the unconscious, and the conscious and motor control, but mostly between the unconscious and motor control. You already know this, in one sense or another, judging by your acknowledgement that one can really only possess so much deliberate articulation of motor control due to the limits of the conscious mind. For instance, when I know I'm lying, or when I'm asserting something I'm unsure of, I almost always experience an itch on my face. I don't control that itch, and most of the time, scratching it is a simple auto-response. So, while "reading" consciousness through a picture so shaped by other factors would be a challenge, "reading" cognition is a statistical crap shoot with the dice loaded against your favor. To the point where, if I were you, I would be more comfortable riding on my intuition or offering a shitty online test. At least the tests rest on mostly conscious variables, most importantly the decision for one to be honest with oneself.
 

Auburn

New member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
38
MBTI Type
TiNe
@Thread

I firstly want to say I fully understand the skepticism being presented. I would react the same way too if some random person walked in and started telling me who I was. I don't mean to say you don't know who you are. But who we see ourselves as, and how it parallels to a model, may not be properly fit. This may be due to err in self-evaluation or simply due to error in the model itself. In this case, the model has a lot of the fault.

The MBTI spends so much time emphasizing the dichotomy of introversion and extroversion in particular. The profiles often start out making that differentiation; using vague phrases such as whether one likes to be around people, or by oneself. The reality is that such descriptions are only marginally (negligibly) related to the orientation of your dominant function.

And naturally, the type of individuals who have an interest in self-evaluation and psychoanalysis are more likely to identify themselves with the Introverted description. It's not like introverts are the only ones who self-reflect, but the mbti gives that impression.

The phenomenon of typological internet forums is an interesting one. There are a lot of psychological factors at work in how and why they come about and are sustained. Primarily, people who find an interest in typology do so out of a desire to understand their own identity.

Now, in the quest for self-identity, there are many elements of human frailty and many susceptibilities at work. For example, some may approach the mbti out of a feeling of being misunderstood by others and the craving that accompanies that emptiness. Part of the appeal of mbti is the affirmation that comes from being able to give an explanation to one's peculiarities; peculiarities that the world did not understand about them. Now, all types can be and are misunderstood, but certain profiles (such as INFJ and INFP) milk that part out to the point where most who fall under this complex will identify with it. What they're identifying with isn't incorrect, but the error is on the mbti ascribing that to INFx types when it is not at all related to their functions.

Another factor that may be at work is an Individuality Complex. This is an immature response but it is real. Many people find comfort in associating with a certain type because it places them in a group that is allegedly more "deep" or "introspective" - things that the psyche is convinced validate one's place in relation to the "not-deep" and "non-introspective" people out there. Certain profile are written more elegantly, mystically and magically than others - and everyone wants to be special, after all, right? It feels good to be part of the %1.

There is another dynamic often at work involving Projection. Where the tendency is to type those in our circle of acquaintances who we don't like, as the types we don't associate with. "Oh, she's such a blonde, she must be an ESFP". This type of prejudice is something most won't admit to, but which does, at least unconsciously, penetrate the minds of all who are a part of this psychology. This happens naturally; by definition, in order for us to identify with something, we have to not identify with something else. But the result is often prejudice which is not much better than racism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqT1LvM6uO8

It is in the nature of humanity to want to include and exclude; to be included and to not have those who one dislikes in the same circle. All these and so many other human dynamics saturate every part of human life, including typology forums. Given all these subjectivities and susceptibilities we carry, it would be bad logic to assume that most people are capable of properly typing themselves. We are often the ones who are most biased about our own self perception.

And I say this because I'm familiar with it happen within myself and to many other people around me. Unless a person is consciously making an effort to deconstruct the prejudices that form in the mind, they will remain there. In endeavoring on this project, I had to break down a lot of my own prejudices and realize just how competent (more competent than I) some types of people are at things like logic.

I am Ti(Ne) - which is considered to be among the most "brilliant thinkers" or whathaveyou. But I've been floored by the logic of some other types, both in person and in celebrities. It demonstrates just how false the profile stereotypes are, and who you can be as a person is incredibly vast, given the same cognitive configuration.

But the configuration is simply a rhythm of brain activity; the way in which you process information and make decisions.
 
Last edited:
G

garbage

Guest
@Thread

I firstly want to say I fully understand the skepticism being presented. I would react the same way too if some random person walked in and started telling me who I was. I don't mean to say you don't know who you are. But who we see ourselves as, and how it parallels to a model, may not be properly fit. This may be due to err in self-evaluation or simply due to error in the model itself. In this case, the model has a lot of the fault.

The MBTI spends so much time emphasizing the dichotomy of introversion and extroversion in particular. The profiles often start out making that differentiation; using vague phrases such as whether one likes to be around people, or by oneself. The reality is that such descriptions are only marginally (negligibly) related to the orientation of your dominant function.

And naturally, the type of individuals who have an interest in self-evaluation and psychoanalysis are more likely to identify themselves with the Introverted description. It's not like introverts are the only ones who self-reflect, but the mbti gives that impression.

The phenomenon of typological internet forums is an interesting one. There are a lot of psychological factors at work in how and why they come about and are sustained. Primarily, people who find an interest in typology do so out of a desire to understand their own identity.

Now, in the quest for self-identity, there are many elements of human frailty and many susceptibilities at work. For example, some may approach the mbti out of a feeling of being misunderstood by others and the craving that accompanies that emptiness. Part of the appeal of mbti is the affirmation that comes from being able to give an explanation to one's peculiarities; peculiarities that the world did not understand about them. Now, all types can be and are misunderstood, but certain profiles (such as INFJ and INFP) milk that part out to the point where most who fall under this complex will identify with it. What they're identifying with isn't incorrect, but the error is on the mbti ascribing that to INFx types when it is not at all related to their functions.

Another factor that may be at work is an Individuality Complex. This is an immature response but it is real. Many people find comfort in associating with a certain type because it places them in a group that is allegedly more "deep" or "introspective" - things that the psyche is convinced validate one's place in relation to the "not-deep" and "non-introspective" people out there. Certain profile are written more elegantly, mystically and magically than others - and everyone wants to be special, after all, right? It feels good to be part of the %1.
[...]
Given all these subjectivities and susceptibilities we carry, it would be bad logic to assume that most people are capable of properly typing themselves. We are often the ones who are most biased about our own self perception.
We have "What's my type?" threads and other solicitation methods to counteract this sort of bias. We already seek external feedback to come up with a best fit. Many of us have been looking at and discussing these systems for a number of years and are well aware of biases such as the 'need to feel special' or 'intuitives must be pretty flippin' smart' or 'extroversion is about how social you are'--and we seek to eliminate them and come to a true understanding of ourselves and one another.

Well, most of us do. Hence...
There is another dynamic often at work involving Projection. Where the tendency is to type those in our circle of acquaintances who we don't like, as the types we don't associate with. "Oh, she's such a blonde, she must be an ESFP". This type of prejudice is something most won't admit to, but which does, at least unconsciously, penetrate the minds of all who are a part of this psychology. This happens naturally; by definition, in order for us to identify with something, we have to not identify with something else. But the result is often prejudice which is not much better than racism:
...this is a sentiment I definitely agree with; I talk about it in my video. :)


The external feedback for my own type has varied drastically, from ENTJ to ISTJ(!) to ENTP to ENFP to INFJ to ENFJ and so on. If we really want a true understanding, we ought not base our true typing on one external data point (one physiognomy reading from one individual).
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
[MENTION=5746]Auburn[/MENTION], I'm really not tied to the type I list under my profile, so there's not a whole lot of self-identification going on, and you could find a lot of posts on this forum where I question mbti as a whole. I am in general a much stronger proponent in tying in other aspects of psychology and systems to complement mbti; because frankly I find mbti severely lacking and improperly utilized/applied in many respects.

However, it still remains ludicrous that I would be an extrovert or an ENFP, based on pretty much any universally accepted definition of extroversion, or any ENFP type profile / cognitive function description on the internet or in literature by the 'experts'. And, if I'm truly ENFP as you say, then the ENFP profiles would have to be tipped upside down and pretty much every ENFP on this site would have to be a different type.
 

Auburn

New member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
38
MBTI Type
TiNe
[MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION] - Introversion and Extroversion, as commonly understood, are actually more like states of being; such as depressed or happy. The same is true for J and P. They are symptom-based dichotomies, not the root cause. Having an outer-focused function as your lead function doesn't necessarily mean you'll have confidence in the real world. Such things are determined by many other factors.

I don't necessarily think you are an extrovert by the known definition of the word. But I wonder, what is your objection to the possession of Ne+Fi as cognitive functions?

This... Is not looking too promising.

It was worth a shot..
But I knew I probably wouldn't get a good reception from this.

Ah well. I shall hence be labeled a crazy left-field theorist..
I was totally prepared for it. :p
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
But I wonder, what is your objection to the possession of Ne+Fi as cognitive functions?

My 'objection' is simply that I am not Ne-dom, and it makes no sense to me based on literature I've read, Ne-doms I know, and Ne-ers on this forum. We're like apples to oranges. This isn't out of some sense of my wanting to hold on tight to my current typing, it's about my objectively not seeing Ne-dom as a remote possibility. And, I think if I actually were an ENFP, the entire forum should shut down immediately and mbti should henceforth be considered utterly useless! (as opposed to only partially useless ;)) :laugh: I really don't know what else to say.
 

miss fortune

not to be trusted
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
20,589
Enneagram
827
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
@Thread

I firstly want to say I fully understand the skepticism being presented. I would react the same way too if some random person walked in and started telling me who I was. I don't mean to say you don't know who you are. But who we see ourselves as, and how it parallels to a model, may not be properly fit. This may be due to err in self-evaluation or simply due to error in the model itself. In this case, the model has a lot of the fault.

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 :holy: A lot of the people that you are arguing with have been here for quite a while and are rather familiar with personality theory... I wouldn't be surprised if they had taken tabs on those who know them in real life as well in most cases and are therefore getting more varied and external views... :yes:

The MBTI spends so much time emphasizing the dichotomy of introversion and extroversion in particular. The profiles often start out making that differentiation; using vague phrases such as whether one likes to be around people, or by oneself. The reality is that such descriptions are only marginally (negligibly) related to the orientation of your dominant function.

And naturally, the type of individuals who have an interest in self-evaluation and psychoanalysis are more likely to identify themselves with the Introverted description. It's not like introverts are the only ones who self-reflect, but the mbti gives that impression.

I am aware that there is a difference between being cognitively introverted and behaviorally introverted... I am rather highly cognitively introverted, being completely unable to relate to myself as a person without the benefit of knowing what my place is, what I'm good at and where I'm headed... I'm not a me, I'm a person. I am, however, not a social butterfly by any means- I LOVE to spend time alone and in the quiet and I HATE chaos and crowds... I know that I'm an extrovert though :)

The phenomenon of typological internet forums is an interesting one. There are a lot of psychological factors at work in how and why they come about and are sustained. Primarily, people who find an interest in typology do so out of a desire to understand their own identity.

not me... I prefer to understand how people work and where I fit into the bigger picture... much more interesting... I suck at introspection! :laugh:

Another factor that may be at work is an Individuality Complex. This is an immature response but it is real. Many people find comfort in associating with a certain type because it places them in a group that is allegedly more "deep" or "introspective" - things that the psyche is convinced validate one's place in relation to the "not-deep" and "non-introspective" people out there. Certain profile are written more elegantly, mystically and magically than others - and everyone wants to be special, after all, right? It feels good to be part of the %1.

well, yeah... that's a basic flaw in all descriptions... not everyone falls into that category though, so no need to apply the rule to everyone! :shrug:

There is another dynamic often at work involving Projection. Where the tendency is to type those in our circle of acquaintances who we don't like, as the types we don't associate with. "Oh, she's such a blonde, she must be an ESFP". This type of prejudice is something most won't admit to, but which does, at least unconsciously, penetrate the minds of all who are a part of this psychology. This happens naturally; by definition, in order for us to identify with something, we have to not identify with something else. But the result is often prejudice which is not much better than racism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqT1LvM6uO8

It is in the nature of humanity to want to include and exclude; to be included and to not have those who one dislikes in the same circle. All these and so many other human dynamics saturate every part of human life, including typology forums. Given all these subjectivities and susceptibilities we carry, it would be bad logic to assume that most people are capable of properly typing themselves. We are often the ones who are most biased about our own self perception.

yes, it's a fucktarded stereotype that people have, but that's not why I'm objecting to you calling me an ESFP... I know for certain, and could get you plenty of people to back me up on this, that I use so little Fi that it barely registers as existing at all... you need to know more of the bigger picture before passing judgement with such a sense of certainty :nono:

And I say this because I'm familiar with it happen within myself and to many other people around me. Unless a person is consciously making an effort to deconstruct the prejudices that form in the mind, they will remain there. In endeavoring on this project, I had to break down a lot of my own prejudices and realize just how competent (more competent than I) some types of people are at things like logic.

I am Ti(Ne) - which is considered to be among the most "brilliant thinkers" or whathaveyou. But I've been floored by the logic of some other types, both in person and in celebrities. It demonstrates just how false the profile stereotypes are, and who you can be as a person is incredibly vast, given the same cognitive configuration.

I KNOW how to find the strengths in others, I do that for a good part of my job and I'm rather good at my job- and the fact that every different person has their own brand of logic and intelligence is made perfectly clear by training people and watching them work... I have all types of people on my team who I have trained and developed and you have to look at each person as an entirely different case... a new puzzle to solve... and they all have their own strengths which are downright astounding if given an opportunity to do their own thing... it'd be stupid to write someone off over a few letters...

When I say to you guys that you are a certain type, it may seem that I am challenging your identity because you know who you are - and you know you're not what you know about the profile of the type I'm saying you are. But what I am identifying is your fundamental cognitive rhythm.

which I'm saying that you just don't know because you don't really KNOW us... you've never seen me being myself, you've only seen me making a video for an internet forum, which is kind of fake and staged in a way... you haven't seen me interact, or work, or solve a puzzle... you're seeing the tip of an iceberg and telling us the shape of it and being mad when you don't really get it... why are you mad that your logic failed? :huh:

If you choose to stay confined within the comfort of a profile that properly describes your habits and interests - but which misunderstands your psyche, it will be of no use to you, but actually a hindrance to your full potential. It will only ever seem accurate to you as long as you have those habits and interests, or are in that particular mental or emotional phase. It will not give you any consistent insight into you or how to utilize the mind you have effectively.

and now you pose yourself as some sort of savior sent to break us out of our narrow minded, stereotype ridden, kiersey based visions of typology without even getting to know a thing about those that you are accusing of being narrow minded... which is actually pretty narrow minded of you... most of the people who you are arguing with have been those who have been more of proponents of a more open minded view of things and have actually spoken against a lot of the stereotyping that goes on as far as what behaviors are apparently attached to what type! why should these same people be the type who would immediately fall in line behind someone else who wants to stereotype in a different way? :huh:
 

Auburn

New member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
38
MBTI Type
TiNe
My 'objection' is simply that I am not Ne-dom, and it makes no sense to me based on literature I've read, Ne-doms I know, and Ne-ers on this forum. We're like apples to oranges. This isn't out of some sense of my wanting to hold on tight to my current typing, it's about my objectively not seeing Ne-dom as a remote possibility. And, I think if I actually were an ENFP, the entire forum should shut down immediately and mbti should henceforth be considered utterly useless! (as opposed to only partially useless ) I really don't know what else to say.

Well, saying you absolutely cannot be Ne because of other Ne users you may know is Projection. :p And mbti profiles are really bad at the way they describe the types. But I still suspect you're Ne(Fi). Here's a rough cue breakdown as to why...

link omitted..

0:00 - Explorer Alert Eyes
0:02 - Fi Unaware/Awkward Smile
0:06 - Deflection
0:10 - Ne Perk Up
0:13 - Unaware Smile
0:14 - Explorer Alert Eyes
0:15 - Deflection & Si-check
0:18 - Ne Reconnect
0:18 - Te Voice
0:20 - Compass (Fi) Check
0:21 - Te Voice
0:22 - Te Exacting Nod
0:23 - Deflection & Si-check
0:26 - Compass (Fi) Check
0:28 - Ne Perk Up
0:30 - Deflection & Si-check
0:33 - Te Head Tilt
0:34 - Si-check
0:36 - Ne Reconnect
0:36 - Te Voice
0:37 - Compass (Fi) Check
0:42 - Deflection, Ne Brainstorming
0:46 - Te Cooling Voice
0:51 - Alert Eyes
0:52 - Compass (Fi) Check
0:54 - Ne Reconnect
0:54 - Deflecting Si-check
0:55 - Ne Reconnect
1:01 - Ne Perk Up
1:05 - Compass (Fi) Check
1:06 - Inner Warming (smile)
1:08 - Ne Reconnect
1:11 - Deflection Si check
1:12 - Ne Reconnect
1:13 - Fi Unaware Smile
1:13 - Fi Compass Check
1:15 - Ne Alert Eyes
1:16 - Fi Unaware/Awkward Smile
1:16 - Fi Compass Check
1:20 - Ne Perk Up
1:21 - Si Searching Eyes
1:21 - Fi Unaware Mouth
1:25 - Ne Alert Eyes
1:25 - Ne Reconnect
1:26 - Deflection Si-check
1:27 - Ne Reconnect
1:27 - Te Voice
1:28 - Ne Perk Up
1:30 - Si Searching
1:31 - Te Voice
1:39 - Ne Reconnect
1:41 - Ne Perk Up
1:42 - Ne Deflection Si-check
1:45 - Fi Smile
1:51 - Si Searching
1:51 - Compass (Fi) Check
1:56 - Ne Reconnect
1:58 - Te Matter-of-Fact Voice "cruel"
1:59 - Si Searching
2:02 - Ne Reconnect
2:03 - Deflection
2:09 - Ne Perk Up
2:12 - Explorer Swaying
2:14 - Compass (Fi) Check
2:19 - Ne Reconnect
2:22 - Te Mild Head Shake
2:26 - Deflecting Si-check
2:29 - Ne Perk Up
2:42 - Si Searching
2:47 - Ne Perk Up
2:49 - Fi Unaware Smile
2:54 - Compass (Fi) Check
2:59 - Ne Perk Up
3:00 - Fi Unaware Smile
3:03 - Ne Reconnect
3:04 - Si Searching
3:06 - Ne Reconnect
3:07 - Fi Inner Warming
3:10 - Ne Perk Up
3:15 - Deflection Si check
3:18 - Fi Inner Warming
3:19 - Te Head Shake
3:19 - Ne Perk Up
3:22 - Te Head Shake
3:28 - Deflection / Si Searching
3:31 - Fi Unaware Smie
3:34 - Si Searching
3:37 - Ne Reconnect
3:41 - Compass (Fi) Check
3:42 - Ne Perk UP
3:52 - Ne Perk Up
3:55 - Te Voice "definitely prefer to fit in"
3:57 - Compass (Fi) Check
3:57 - Ne Perk Up
3:59 - Ne Perk Up
4:01 - Si Searching
4:11 - Ne Perk Up / Reconnect
4:19 - Fi Warming Smile
4:20 - Te Head Shake / Voice​
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
You know, I would appreciate you not re-linking my video thread in your post, because if you recall in my first post, I stated I would remove it within a day. So please have the courtesy to remove the link from the post above, as well as the post you quoted me in.

If you are trying to convince me that I am an ENFP, the above second-by-second playback isn't going to accomplish that. That would require me to fully accept your conclusions as to cognitive functions tied to specific facial movements, as well as accepting that the people you observed and typed to develop this theory were in fact the types you thought they were with the cognitive functions you thought they had, as well as agreeing that all facial movements are a manifestation of cognitive functions and only cognitive functions, and finally that cognitive functions are the end-all-be-all of psychology and resultant behavior. I do not accept any at this point.

However, you are 100% free to consider me an ENFP, as I know you will continue to do. I am just not sure how you expect to have your theory validated if you have already concluded these behaviors are definitively tied to certain functions.
 

prplchknz

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
34,397
MBTI Type
yupp
[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCPYSqGrKfs"]don't know if i did this ight[/YOUTUBE]
 

Rasofy

royal member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
5,881
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
[MENTION=5746]Auburn[/MENTION]
I believe the guide is solid, but the execution is failing a lot.
 

Auburn

New member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
38
MBTI Type
TiNe
[MENTION=1180]whatever[/MENTION] - Ah. :)
Not mad. And I apologize if what I posted was nothing new to some of you; still I felt the need to say it as it's important and related to this.

Yes.. I did note how something seemed a bit off with your Fi. If I'm honest yours is one I'm not entirely sure of. I do see you using Te, Se, Ni and peculiar Fi. But the ordering doesn't seem to be operating... er.. normally (if such a thing exists). I'll retract my assumption of your type for now.

I wasn't intending this thread to turn out as it has. Mostly I was hoping to get opinions on the cues themselves. Whether your observations resonate with them or not. I am definitely willing to accept that I am wrong, and if one wanted to really properly dispute whether the cues I presented were inaccurate they could do so by showing information to the contrary. Hence why the time was taken to give them a palpable form.

But of course, simply dismissing them doesn't help add more clarity in either direction.

[MENTION=13260]Rasofy[/MENTION] - Thanks for taking a look. That's primarily what I was focusing on.


I really do appreciate all who shared their videos,
But I think I'm going to head off for now. It was nice meeting you all.
 

miss fortune

not to be trusted
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
20,589
Enneagram
827
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
[MENTION=5746]Auburn[/MENTION]... the format of doing something based on a clip of someone is the flaw here... people are aware that they are being recorded in most of these cases and modify their behavior accordingly even if subconsciously... for instance, I'm pretty terrified of speaking in front of people and so I actually completely retreat mentally to the most base state of things and stare things down while speaking because it distracts me from thinking "oh dear god, everyone's looking at me... I'm fucking BLUSHING" :doh:... therefore a recording of me speaking would definitely be influenced by that sort of thought pattern instead of any natural form of behavior...

... it's like judging the flavors of fruits if the only fruits that you're sampling are canned... you're not going to get an accurate taste because videos are artificial, in a way :)
 
Top