JocktheMotie
Habitual Fi LineStepper
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 8,491
An interesting house of cards while it lasted, I suppose.
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.
[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*
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.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.
[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.
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.@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.
...this is a sentiment I definitely agree with; I talk about it in my video.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 not looking too promising.
But I wonder, what is your objection to the possession of Ne+Fi as cognitive functions?
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.