• 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.

Typing people through pictures

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I think there's something to it, but the correlations are subtle and likely cannot be quantified in a way for scientific study and proof. It's kind of like trying to describe how something smells to someone else: in the end, the only way for them to understand and identify the smell is to offer a sample to smell.

I believe that's what Rasofy is doing here, with sight instead of smell, trying to help identify a "vibe" or general impression of the type based on what one senses. INTP is also correct, here, in that a lot of the "vibe" to be sensed from a type is dynamic, not static, and a photograph is thus rather limited in this regard. Where I've seen this make the most sense to me is in terms of identifying particular moves or fidgets in an NLP way as being indicative of underlying Jungian functions, that these movements are subtle enough to not be learned or inculcated by culture.

Folk typology? Yeah, sure, that's a fair assessment, but that doesn't mean that there isn't something to be gleaned. It just means that it probably won't get very far, mostly because it takes too much real effort and resources to do it correctly in a systematically rigorous way.

Rasofy, I totally get what you mean in terms of that vibe one gets. I sometimes see it in pictures, but I usually don't trust what I see in pictures, because it leaves out too much. In particular, I often see photos of FJ types often looking like FP types, in particular when it's a studied, purposeful expression. It's the unguarded moments that are more revealing ... or in the case of FJs, seeing the controlled expressiveness in action, which the FPs lack. (FPs go silent and still to hide their feelings, but find it difficult to express it in the controlled way that FJs typically use.)

The real "danger" here is that on a personal, anecdotal level, it's possible to identify (vibe) to traits that only occasionally reflect the functions. For instance, a type 9 INFP is rather different from a type 4 INFP, but if you end up classifying the type 9 vibe as being part of the INFP vibe, you'll miss the type 4 INFPs. It's just as important to classify and understand the the part of the vibe you get from someone as NOT being part of their MBTI type, but are really other personality traits or cultural influences. Overall, I don't think this is a useful way to definitively type someone, but as a practiced skill, it can with other observations allow one to more quickly identify another's type (e.g., I get an Fi vibe from this person, is that backed up by my other knowledge of her? No? OK, does it match with a quiet INFJ? Yeah, that fits better, and know I have a more refined sense of the "Fi vibe" in that I will be less likely to confuse it with the quiet INFJ vibe in the future.)
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think there's something to it, but the correlations are subtle and likely cannot be quantified in a way for scientific study and proof. It's kind of like trying to describe how something smells to someone else: in the end, the only way for them to understand and identify the smell is to offer a sample to smell.

I believe that's what Rasofy is doing here, with sight instead of smell, trying to help identify a "vibe" or general impression of the type based on what one senses. INTP is also correct, here, in that a lot of the "vibe" to be sensed from a type is dynamic, not static, and a photograph is thus rather limited in this regard. Where I've seen this make the most sense to me is in terms of identifying particular moves or fidgets in an NLP way as being indicative of underlying Jungian functions, that these movements are subtle enough to not be learned or inculcated by culture.

Folk typology? Yeah, sure, that's a fair assessment, but that doesn't mean that there isn't something to be gleaned. It just means that it probably won't get very far, mostly because it takes too much real effort and resources to do it correctly in a systematically rigorous way.

Rasofy, I totally get what you mean in terms of that vibe one gets. I sometimes see it in pictures, but I usually don't trust what I see in pictures, because it leaves out too much. In particular, I often see photos of FJ types often looking like FP types, in particular when it's a studied, purposeful expression. It's the unguarded moments that are more revealing ... or in the case of FJs, seeing the controlled expressiveness in action, which the FPs lack. (FPs go silent and still to hide their feelings, but find it difficult to express it in the controlled way that FJs typically use.)

The real "danger" here is that on a personal, anecdotal level, it's possible to identify (vibe) to traits that only occasionally reflect the functions. For instance, a type 9 INFP is rather different from a type 4 INFP, but if you end up classifying the type 9 vibe as being part of the INFP vibe, you'll miss the type 4 INFPs. It's just as important to classify and understand the the part of the vibe you get from someone as NOT being part of their MBTI type, but are really other personality traits or cultural influences. Overall, I don't think this is a useful way to definitively type someone, but as a practiced skill, it can with other observations allow one to more quickly identify another's type (e.g., I get an Fi vibe from this person, is that backed up by my other knowledge of her? No? OK, does it match with a quiet INFJ? Yeah, that fits better, and know I have a more refined sense of the "Fi vibe" in that I will be less likely to confuse it with the quiet INFJ vibe in the future.)

Yeah, I pretty much agree with all of this.

I think a lot of 'vibe' typing gone wrong is taking certain traits and attaching those to a certain type or function in error, when in reality those traits or aspects point to something different. Or, as SolitaryWalker mentions, SO much of our mannerisms are a result of nurture. I mean, ALL of the stuff that happens to us in our infancy and that we pick up? I don't understand why people don't focus on that sort of thing more. uumlau's enneagram/mbti example is also a good one.

I also Luurve every time this topic comes up, because I [MENTION=13260]Rasofy[/MENTION], you may recall my being adamantly stamped with enfp after one poster viewed my video, and any logical discussion I tried to have about it, questioning the methods, was washed away because the person had already determined that 'right eye fluttering to the left' meant Ne, and so on.
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
(doing so just makes you seem like ignorant TJ).

How the heck could SolitaryWalker (except for the critical nature) even begin in your eyes to look like a Te user!? :shrug:

I mean come on, this guy may be the most logic-obsessed person on the entire forum. That would make INTP the obvious choice, and SW could be their "face", just to make this post at least somewhat relevant to Rasofy's thread, even if the face I am mentioning lacks observable physical features we can see (but then again, just as uumlau said, pictures aren't always the best face).
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
you see, i have some support for it possibly being true with good enough typing skills, your only support for it not being true is, well you have none..

It does not appear that you have support. Merely saying that a certain person is an ENFP just because they told you that this is their type does not make for "good typing skills". Observing superficial similarities in facial expressions between the people who say they belong to the same type does not count either.

In general, most people who say they have "good typing skills" define a type based on certain superficial and highly subjective behavioral qualities. For instance, they'll define an INFP as someone who is hyper-sensitive, absent-minded and disorganized. So anyone who "kinda, sorta" fits that description will be assumed to have that type. Similarly, an ENFP is often assumed to be someone who is scattered, manic, histrionic and so on, hence, when someone they meet resembles all of these qualities on a superficial level, they are generally assumed to be "members" of this type. Also commonly enough, the "good typist" will start with the premise such as "my uncle is an ISFP" and he is great. So, anyone who seems to be "kinda sorta great" in a way that their uncle is, will be deemed to be ISFP. On the other hand, if you happen to assume that an ESTJ is someone who is power-hungry and anal retentive, you'll frequently ascribe these pejorative characteristics to a lot of people whom you dislike who may actually resemble that "ESTJ person" only on a very superficial level.

i have also successfully types one INFP male(previously tested and self confirmed) and INFJ female(didnt know about MBTI, but totally agreed with INFJ after i taught her more about typology) from just them saying like one sentence that didnt even point out towards their type and looking at their expressions.

Are you listening to yourself? Are you even trying to consider possible objections to your position? Look at the facts of the scenario you've just described here. So you work with someone whom you believe to be an INFJ, this person has no idea what their type is and know little about typology. On the other hand, it seems to them that you know their type and know a great deal about typology and most of all, you suspect that they are an INFJ. If they respect you as a person and value your opinion, it is extremely likely they'll assume that their type is whatever you tell them it is. When I was a folk typologist, I've had plenty of such experiences with newcomers to this system.

if you are not going to give things a serious contemplation, then its pretty obvious that you shouldnt be commenting on them or forming any opinions about them(doing so just makes you seem like ignorant TJ).

As I've demonstrated here, I've given plenty of serious contemplation to your contention. Unfortunately, your definition of a TJ is just a person who is overly dismissive of good ideas, antagonistic, bossy and sometimes rigid in their thinking. Based on that definition, you'll have an easy time assuming that anyone who challenges you is a TJ. It's quite convenient too because many of the online MBTI profiles you've read about probably led you to believe that TPs are more open-minded, creative and altogether smarter than TPs (that isn't true, any experienced reader of Carl Jung knows that having a certain type does not by default make them intellectually superior to members of another type. Whether you are smarter than someone else has more to do with how committed you are to intellectual endeavors than with your type. Even the genetic elements that could account for intelligence tend to be non-typological).

How the heck could SolitaryWalker (except for the critical nature) even begin in your eyes to look like a Te user!? :shrug:

I mean come on, this guy may be the most logic-obsessed person on the entire forum. That would make INTP the obvious choice, and SW could be their "face", just to make this post at least somewhat relevant to Rasofy's thread, even if the face I am mentioning lacks observable physical features we can see (but then again, just as uumlau said, pictures aren't always the best face).

As I said, he is working with the definition of a "TJ" as anyone who is "wrong and disagrees with him". It's convenient and much of it comes from online folk typology profiles that describe TJs as bossy, narrow-minded and so on.... Conveniently, his self-serving bias leads him to assume that anyone who disagrees with him is bossy and narrow-minded, that's just a basic element of the psychology of folk typology.

I think there's something to it, but the correlations are subtle and likely cannot be quantified in a way for scientific study and proof. It's kind of like trying to describe how something smells to someone else: in the end, the only way for them to understand and identify the smell is to offer a sample to smell.


The problem with that is you'll naturally associate "good vibes" with people whom you like and "negative vibes" with people whom you dislike. If you assume that the person you like is an INFJ or some other type, you'll quickly be tempted to jump to the conclusion that another person you like is also an INFJ. Conversely, when you get the "INFJ vibe" about a person whom you dislike, you'll be inclined to suppress it because it would seem that deeming that person to be of the same type is just besmirching their honor.


Folk typology? Yeah, sure, that's a fair assessment, but that doesn't mean that there isn't something to be gleaned.
It just means that it probably won't get very far, mostly because it takes too much real effort and resources to do it correctly in a systematically rigorous way..

In some cases, you may be able to use Rasofy's method to "type people properly", but this method is notoriously unreliable because it does not stop you from having your biases contaminate your assessment.

It just means that it probably won't get very far, mostly because it takes too much real effort and resources to do it correctly in a systematically rigorous way..

I think we're in agreement there.


The real "danger" here is that on a personal, anecdotal level, it's possible to identify (vibe) to traits that only occasionally reflect the functions. For instance, a type 9 INFP is rather different from a type 4 INFP, but if you end up classifying the type 9 vibe as being part of the INFP vibe, you'll miss the type 4 INFPs.

That's an apt observation, it shows that we can get similar vibes about who are very different. On a similar note, I've asked you to consider that we tend to subconsciously filter out vibes that we deem to be unpleasant or subversive to the beliefs that we wish to nourish.

It's just as important to classify and understand the the part of the vibe you get from someone as NOT being part of their MBTI type, but are really other personality traits or cultural influences.

My question is, how will you go about classifying and analyzing vibes in a comprehensive and a precise manner. That would be very difficult to do when most of us even have a hard time defining that vibe because it is radically subjective.

Overall, I don't think this is a useful way to definitively type someone, but as a practiced skill, it can with other observations allow one to more quickly identify another's type (e.g., I get an Fi vibe from this person, is that backed up by my other knowledge of her? No? OK, does it match with a quiet INFJ? Yeah, that fits better, and know I have a more refined sense of the "Fi vibe" in that I will be less likely to confuse it with the quiet INFJ vibe in the future.)

Again, very good observation. It is possible for a person of one type to display behaviors that often resemble the behaviors that people of another type often engage in it. As a result, the two people of a different type will display the "same vibe".
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
The problem with that is you'll naturally associate "good vibes" with people whom you like and "negative vibes" with people whom you dislike. If you assume that the person you like is an INFJ or some other type, you'll quickly be tempted to jump to the conclusion that another person you like is also an INFJ. Conversely, when you get the "INFJ vibe" about a person whom you dislike, you'll be inclined to suppress it because it would seem that deeming that person to be of the same type is just besmirching their honor.

This is a fair comment, but I think I might be using a more precise understanding of "vibes" than might be apparent. There is a reason I used the analogy of "smell". It isn't a matter of "good smell" or "bad smell", but of "apple smell" vs "strawberry smell" vs "dog smell" vs "onion smell" vs "mold smell". And a matter of "dog smell" vs "wet dog smell" for that matter. There's really a lot of refinement to be achieved here. Its one weakness is that it cannot be well defined or quantified, because it's "smell."

That's an apt observation, it shows that we can get similar vibes about who are very different. On a similar note, I've asked you to consider that we tend to subconsciously filter out vibes that we deem to be unpleasant or subversive to the beliefs that we wish to nourish.
Yeah, but that's more like "real strawberry smell" vs "fake strawberry smell". Yeah, the smell is "the same", and the fake strawberry smell is comprised of the same esters as the real one, but if you pay attention, there is a distinct difference. As for liking or disliking, there are things in which "fake strawberry" is appropriate, and others in which "real strawberry" is appropriate. Or both. Or neither.

What I usually find is the case when dealing with similar vibes is that it's more like having a real strawberry and a realistic but fake plastic strawberry, where you can look and instantly think "strawberry", but you don't get to touch. If you don't get to smell, you cannot tell the difference, but the moment you CAN smell, you instantly know which is real without touching either.

There's also the case in which people of the same type actually vibe very differently. They're both dog, and they both have "dog smell", but one is "wet dog", and thus often more offensive to a lot of people than "dry dog." But it's all "dog." So you try to refine what "dog" is by observing closely and understanding both. Thus you can avoid some degree of the bias you suggest by having "vibes" for the "nice INTJ" and the "mean INTJ", the "nice INFP" and the "crazy INFP", and so on. Understanding includes understanding in terms of how each type has more mature and less mature examples. It also helps to have an awareness of other typing systems like Enneagram, so you can filter out the type 8 and type 5 haze, and find the INTJ-ness (for example) underneath both.

My question is, how will you go about classifying and analyzing vibes in a comprehensive and a precise manner. That would be very difficult to do when most of us even have a hard time defining that vibe because it is radically subjective.
It would have to be a personal skill, and emphasize listening and observing without imposing values (for the moment). Indeed, it is difficult to remove the subjectivity. I suspect we'd need something along the lines of Nardi's EEG research to create quantitative observations of the types, but even his methods necessarily contain subjectivity (cuz you have to assign types first!). But given any sort of truly objective typing methodology (wishful thinking), we'd be able to objectively define the "smells," at least insofar as having official examples of each type's "smell."

Again, very good observation. It is possible for a person of one type to display behaviors that often resemble the behaviors that people of another type often engage in it. As a result, the two people of a different type will display the "same vibe".
The trick being, it isn't really the same vibe, and you need to listen for the overtones and harmonics. Also you might only be hearing one note, and think it's a C major vibe, but no, when you hear the other notes a bit later, you realize it's a C minor chord, and a bit later you hear that it's a C minor 7th chord with passing tones of a chromatic blues melody heading towards a F minor 7th chord. You have to keep listening for it to be accurate.

Otherwise, it's a game a "Name That Tune," and only rarely accurate.

I'd say that typing people through pictures is kind of like saying you can name that tune in 3 notes. Maybe if there are a lot of pictures, there can be some reliability. If there is a short clip, or even better an extended interview of a few minutes, then you start getting to a reasonable level of precision (a reasonable educated guess, of course).
 

chickpea

perfect person
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
5,729
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I can fake a smile fine :) cheese
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
Want some pictures? Ive got plenty of mug shots.

Narcissism yknow?
 

Rasofy

royal member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
5,881
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think there's something to it, but the correlations are subtle and likely cannot be quantified in a way for scientific study and proof. It's kind of like trying to describe how something smells to someone else: in the end, the only way for them to understand and identify the smell is to offer a sample to smell.
You're probably right.

Folk typology? Yeah, sure, that's a fair assessment, but that doesn't mean that there isn't something to be gleaned. It just means that it probably won't get very far, mostly because it takes too much real effort and resources to do it correctly in a systematically rigorous way.
Yeah, that's the tricky part. What I believe is: there would be a certain vibe that's eventually gonna show up providing we have enough pictures to work with. But it wouldn't be a simple task, that's for sure.

Rasofy, I totally get what you mean in terms of that vibe one gets. I sometimes see it in pictures, but I usually don't trust what I see in pictures, because it leaves out too much. In particular, I often see photos of FJ types often looking like FP types, in particular when it's a studied, purposeful expression. It's the unguarded moments that are more revealing ... or in the case of FJs, seeing the controlled expressiveness in action, which the FPs lack. (FPs go silent and still to hide their feelings, but find it difficult to express it in the controlled way that FJs typically use.)
Yes. @bolded is probably why I found it easier to do that with INFPs.

The real "danger" here is that on a personal, anecdotal level, it's possible to identify (vibe) to traits that only occasionally reflect the functions. For instance, a type 9 INFP is rather different from a type 4 INFP, but if you end up classifying the type 9 vibe as being part of the INFP vibe, you'll miss the type 4 INFPs.
Yes, there would be variations. But with some effort, we might be able to come up with a ''how to detect a lawful good so/sp 1w9 ESTJ'' model or something. :p

It's just as important to classify and understand the the part of the vibe you get from someone as NOT being part of their MBTI type, but are really other personality traits or cultural influences. Overall, I don't think this is a useful way to definitively type someone, but as a practiced skill, it can with other observations allow one to more quickly identify another's type (e.g., I get an Fi vibe from this person, is that backed up by my other knowledge of her? No? OK, does it match with a quiet INFJ? Yeah, that fits better, and know I have a more refined sense of the "Fi vibe" in that I will be less likely to confuse it with the quiet INFJ vibe in the future.)
Well summed.
Yeah, I pretty much agree with all of this.

I think a lot of 'vibe' typing gone wrong is taking certain traits and attaching those to a certain type or function in error, when in reality those traits or aspects point to something different. Or, as SolitaryWalker mentions, SO much of our mannerisms are a result of nurture. I mean, ALL of the stuff that happens to us in our infancy and that we pick up? I don't understand why people don't focus on that sort of thing more. uumlau's enneagram/mbti example is also a good one.

I also Luurve every time this topic comes up, because I Rasofy, you may recall my being adamantly stamped with enfp after one poster viewed my video, and any logical discussion I tried to have about it, questioning the methods, was washed away because the person had already determined that 'right eye fluttering to the left' meant Ne, and so on.
Haha, I recall that. Good points.

I can fake a smile fine :) cheese
I concur. I think you're an ENFP though.

--------

Anyways, the project is shelved for now. Thank you all for the feedback.
 

lunalum

Super Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
2,706
MBTI Type
ZNTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
As I've demonstrated here, I've given plenty of serious contemplation to your contention. Unfortunately, your definition of a TJ is just a person who is overly dismissive of good ideas, antagonistic, bossy and sometimes rigid in their thinking. Based on that definition, you'll have an easy time assuming that anyone who challenges you is a TJ. It's quite convenient too because many of the online MBTI profiles you've read about probably led you to believe that TPs are more open-minded, creative and altogether smarter than TPs (that isn't true, any experienced reader of Carl Jung knows that having a certain type does not by default make them intellectually superior to members of another type. Whether you are smarter than someone else has more to do with how committed you are to intellectual endeavors than with your type. Even the genetic elements that could account for intelligence tend to be non-typological).

Or maybe you just seemed to be demanding more objectivity of thinking than would usually be necessary for a Ti dom? I know you aren't but it was almost like it was going in the "this theory has to be quantified to the max or it is useless" direction
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Or maybe you just seemed to be demanding more objectivity of thinking than would usually be necessary for a Ti dom? I know you aren't but it was almost like it was going in the "this theory has to be quantified to the max or it is useless" direction

There is nothing about the Ti or the Te-dom that has anything to do with the kind of methodology you prefer. The kind of methodology you prefer depends mostly on your academic experiences. Furthermore, to quantify something means to articulate it in numerical terms, I wasn't even asking for that. So if you associate quantification with Te, I wasn't engaging in Te behavior. If you associate Ti with rather arbitrary, highly subjective, non-systematic thinking, you're deeply confused about what Ti means in the Jungian sense of the word.
 

lunalum

Super Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
2,706
MBTI Type
ZNTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
There is nothing about the Ti or the Te-dom that has anything to do with the kind of methodology you prefer. The kind of methodology you prefer depends mostly on your academic experiences. Furthermore, to quantify something means to articulate it in numerical terms, I wasn't even asking for that. So if you associate quantification with Te, I wasn't engaging in Te behavior. If you associate Ti with rather arbitrary, highly subjective, non-systematic thinking, you're deeply confused about what Ti means in the Jungian sense of the word.

Ti is subjective/personalized/whatever kind of thinking by definition of being introverted. It is turned inwards, i.e. not of the objective outward world like Te is. If you got something vastly different from this out of Psychological Types, let me know, but I don't think I'm quite as deeply confused as you suspect.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Ti is subjective/personalized/whatever kind of thinking by definition of being introverted. It is turned inwards, i.e. not of the objective outward world like Te is. If you got something vastly different from this out of Psychological Types, let me know, but I don't think I'm quite as deeply confused as you suspect.

Jung didn't define Ti as an absolutely rigid tendency towards subjectivity that makes the personal incapable of reasoning in a manner that goes contrary to the Ti instincts, it was only a cognitive tendency of temperament. You have to be very careful about what Jung meant by Ti's subjectivity and it is different from what he meant by the subjectivity of Feeling. The subjectivity of Ti stems from introversion or the fact that Ti activity is most easily prompted by the interior content of the mind as opposed to phenomena that are externally observable. Naturally, that renders the Ti type in greater affinity with qualitative reasoning we see in philosophy than with the strictly empirical and fact-oriented of laboratory experiments.

My insistence that "face-typing" is too subjective is not something you'd strictly expect from a Te mind-set. Even by the "subjective, qualitative" standards of Ti, this line of inquiry is unacceptable because it borders on occultism. As someone who holds a degree in philosophy and spent a considerable amount of time cultivating expertise in that discipline, I can tell you with certainty, "face-typing" will not pass by standards of most philosophical communities, both contemporary and of antiquity. I don't think there even is any other serious qualitative scholarly enterprise that would take this seriously, not even the alleged "soft-sciences" such as psychology or criminology.
 

Little_Sticks

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,358
The subjectivity of Ti stems from introversion or the fact that Ti activity is most easily prompted by the interior content of the mind as opposed to phenomena that are externally observable. Naturally, that renders the Ti type in greater affinity with qualitative reasoning we see in philosophy than with the strictly empirical and fact-oriented of laboratory experiments.

I suppose "qualitative reasoning" is a good analogy for Ti, but to be clear (or for my own clarity of what you think), qualitative reasoning still implies axioms are taken for granted as true in order to reason. The only way another person can understand another's Ti is if they know these personalized axioms. Do you agree there?

My insistence that "face-typing" is too subjective is not something you'd strictly expect from a Te mind-set. Even by the "subjective, qualitative" standards of Ti, this line of inquiry is unacceptable because it borders on occultism. As someone who holds a degree in philosophy and spent a considerable amount of time cultivating expertise in that discipline, I can tell you with certainty, "face-typing" will not pass by standards of most philosophical communities, both contemporary and of antiquity. I don't think there even is any other serious qualitative scholarly enterprise that would take this seriously, not even the alleged "soft-sciences" such as psychology or criminology.

Are you basically suggesting that all types share the same expressions and mannerisms and that face-typing then wouldn't deduce anything? I would agree with that as reasonable in refuting any knowledge it could provide, if that is true; but then one wonders "What philosophical role do expressions and mannerisms have with personality in terms of meaning?" If they do have meaning, it would imply that not all personalities share the same expressions and mannerisms and you would be making an assumption. If they don't have meaning, I'm sure anyone who isn't autistic would disagree regardless. One then also wonders is type equivalent to personality as well? From what I understand about Jung's concepts, I would say "no", as he never referred them as personalities, but psychological types or psychological orientations, as I like to call them (if that isn't too vague to suggest).

Then face-typing might do better to present itself as its own theory of personality and leave type out of it. Perhaps it could be based on behavior and not a theory of mind as type is intended to be. Or actually, is MBTI a theory of mind or is it a theory of behavior? I suppose the answer will vary from person to person and the ones who are more familiar with Jung would understand MBTI is fundamentally different in regards to those two.
 

justadbag

New member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
69
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
7w8
I type people through pictures, videos, on the street-walking, etc. ALL THE TIME! with 99% accuracy!

it is so fun.

I strongly agree that this really does work!

I mean, obviously, you have to put in years and years of work, studying people, their mannerisms, expressions, ticks, tocks, quirks, and personalities.
until you finally "get it"


I have a file on my old computer (From years ago) that has every different type in it's own different folder...
all the letters, numbers..etc (MBTI / Enneagram)....
and in every folder there are thousands of pictures of different people of that particular type. Real/Famous/Anyone/etc


and I'm telling you...it is CREEPY how much everyone of any identical type looks alike.
It's SCARY...or at the very least off-putting how UN-unique we all are. physically...personality-wise...etc.

I mean...I'm generalizing...but yeah...none of us (human beings) are special. (well, very few are, at most)

that's the harsh reality of it. (but not harsh, once you grow a pair)
 

justadbag

New member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
69
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
7w8
also, btw, I strongly believe that any Extraverted Sensor, who has learned and studied how to Type people, for years...

has a distinct advantage over all other types, in typing people, quickly/rapidly/with ease.

because we are really good at sensing! duh

so basically, I type incredibly quickly, because I can sense minute facial expressions/tweaks/details really quickly.
almost...picture-like.

my eyes are like a high-end digital SLR camera.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
also, btw, I strongly believe that any Extraverted Sensor, who has learned and studied how to Type people, for years...

has a distinct advantage over all other types, in typing people, quickly/rapidly/with ease.

because we are really good at sensing! duh

so basically, I type incredibly quickly, because I can sense minute facial expressions/tweaks/details really quickly.
almost...picture-like.

my eyes are like a high-end digital SLR camera.

That's awesome!

I've got to have you over for dinner one day so you could see if I typed my INTJ dog correctly. I think it is 9w8, could be 8w9, it barks very loudly, is generally passive but can be very aggressive in asserting its interests when ignored. What main facial features distinguish an INTJ 8w9 dog from its 9w8 counterpart?

My cat is 5w6 because it is very contemplative and a brooding character, but he also strikes me as a little melancholy, so maybe 5w4 or 4w5. Is there some other relevant facial feature I should look at, what's the quintessential gaze or a 5w4 cat and how is it any different from that of a 4w5?
 

Chiharu

New member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
662
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
No one likes the idea of being able to judge people by their appearance, but subconsciously we do it all the time. It's natural.

Not everyone is good at it, in fact some people are extraordinarily bad at it, but in general you can tell a lot from body language and minute facial expressions.

I don't see why typology should be any different, and at least a small percentage of the population is probably able to do it. I only object when people include choices (fashion and such (I know ISTJs with piercings and colored hair)), body types (no correlation at all) and the shape of facial features (race plays a big factor here).

I agree that you need a video though. The expressions I use for pictures almost never occur naturally, I just know they make the best of my features.

However, I think you can tell instinctive variants from the eyes if it's not a posed/forced smile pic.
 
Top