antecedent's Phototyping Extravaganza!

[Randomnity]

Wow you're fast, thanks.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

<b>Edahn</b>: Thank you, sorry for posting erroneously. Out of curiousity, how does one go about moving someone else's thread into another section? Do you report the thread?

Send me or some other mod a PM. Don't worry about fucking up. It's not a big deal.

P.S. I merged the other thread with this one too, and then merged your first post with the one where you got the pics embedded. Yeah, I'm surgical with this biyatch!

*plays this song*

 

[the_antecedent]

It's about time for the debriefing, sorry guys!

This experiment more or less confirms that appearance alone is insufficient to judge a person's MBTI type and attempts to do so are misguided. But it was fun, nonetheless

I found it particularly amusing how Nocapszy would repeatedly insist that none of the individuals people were Ns, as if the content in each photo lent to incontrovertible fact-despite being pre-informed that the photos do not depict the individuals in their default state.

Here are the results, some with supplementary photos:


1. ISTJ hardware engineer, quite pronounced on all four variables (ie, strongly I, S, T and J)

2. ISTJ psychology PhD. student. CaptainChick's intuition was spot-on in noticing that she seems very cold. Strongly I, T, and J, moderately S.

3. Classic ENTJ-analytic, argumentative over-achiever.

4. INTP pharmacy student, very strongly I and N, moderately T and P.

5. INTP, very pronounced on all four variables.

Thoughts?

 

[GZA]

That turned out to be kind of interesting. Looks like no one got any of them right.

First of all... the second one is a psychology student? I thought she was 14

I'm not sure if this proves phototyping doesn't work. I mean, yah, it doesn't work, but not because this thread proved so. You used misleading pictures, so really all it proves is that people do guess type based on appearance to some degree.

 

[the_antecedent]

GZA: You're right, this "experiment" doesn't "prove" anything (and didn't specifically set out to), but it does show how unreliable appearance-and initial impressions in general, for that matter-as a gauge for personality traits.

Mostly this was done for amusement.

 

[Athenian200]

Let's see how I did:

1. IxTJ -- 3 letters right.
2. ISxx -- 2 letters right.
3. xNTx -- 2 letters right.
4. xNxP -- 2 letters right.
5. xxTP -- 2 letters right.

So on average, I got two letters right... was I any better than chance?

 

[Totenkindly]

I can't really tell from either set of pics.

It is rather striking, though, that the first two women who claim to be ISTJs actually do such a wonderful job with their appearance. I have always wondered how generation differences impact type expression. Because the few ISTJ women I know who are my age would NOT take such care in looking so beautiful and "soft" -- they usually kept an austere, rather functional appearance and would have thought these girls looking like this to be a little silly/pointless.

I do know ISFJ women my age who would take more time and might look this way.. but usually they are still more "functional" -- for example, the long hair might have to go, because long hair is not really convenient when you're trying to do work. It depends on the woman, though, to a degree.

(In this case, woman #1 better matches the way an ISxJ presentation, if I had to choose between them. )

In any case, I feel like the western culture has "loosened up" quite a bit in the last 15-20 years and this must have had an impact on type expression. Even perhaps the "starker" types are loosening up nowadays and they might present differently than their ancestors of the same type might have done.

(Which stinks. You have to shift with the times apparently.)

I still don't get any real vibes off these people.

 

[Kiddo]

INTP-ISTJ 2 letters
ENFP-ISTJ 0 letters
INTP-ENTJ 2 letters
INFJ-INTP 2 letters
INTP-INTP 4 letters

I average out 2 letters. I suppose that is fair.

 

[GZA]

The ENTJ even looks like an ENTP in that new picture -even though phototyping is meaningless, he still gives me that vibe

 

[ygolo]

INTP-ISTJ 2 letters
ENFP-ISTJ 0 letters
INTP-ENTJ 2 letters
INFJ-INTP 2 letters
INTP-INTP 4 letters

I average out 2 letters. I suppose that is fair.

Seems like even odds.

All else being equal, you have a 50-50 chance of getting a dichotomy right.

People should be averaging about 2 letters right base on pure luck.

What are the principles behind photo-typing?

 

[arcticangel02]

1. ESFJ actually ISTJ (2 letters)
2. INFP actually ISTJ (1 letter)
3. ISTJ actually ENTJ (2 letters)
4. ISFP actually INTP (2 letters)
5. INTJ actually INTP (3 letters)

And I, too, average out to 2 letters correct. Which is just statistics, methinks.

Although, Jennifer, I'm not so sure it's simply a generational thing. I'm good friends with an ISTJ female who must be roughly the same age as these people and she is quite a bit like you described - functional, not really aesthetic at all. She chooses her clothes and wears her hair because they're comfortable and don't get in the way - her overall style is sort of sporty-casual. Doesn't really ever wear 'soft' colours like blues, greens, pinks, and most of her stuff would be suited fine if she ever goes camping or surfing, etc.

It could be just her on an individual level, but I don't know.

And I know ISFJs who are quite concerned with appearance, not practical at all, so who knows?

As far as the INTP female, I don't think I've ever seen my INTP friend grin that much... you must have caught her at the perfect time... either that or she's just a smiley INTP.


Also, that second photo of your ENTJ is quite great.

 

[nothappy]

The 5th picture looks like me in my childhood...so I'm not sure, really.

 

[the_antecedent]

It is rather striking, though, that the first two women who claim to be ISTJs actually do such a wonderful job with their appearance. I have always wondered how generation differences impact type expression. Because the few ISTJ women I know who are my age would NOT take such care in looking so beautiful and "soft" -- they usually kept an austere, rather functional appearance and would have thought these girls looking like this to be a little silly/pointless.

I disagree with your assessment completely-personal hygiene aside (which ISTJs are known to be particular about) both women seem to put significantly less effort into their appearance than most other women of their age. In almost every photo that I've seen of them they are dressed functionally in plain, neutral coloured clothing, with hair either loose or in a ponytail and wearing minimal make-up and accessories. This is also evident in their second photos: the first lady is wearing a plain, neutral coloured top, minimal make-up, zero-maintenance hair-style and a plain necklace; the second lady is wearing only a plain, generic bikini top and her hair out.

As previously mentioned the first set of photos are meant to be misleading and therefore depict the women far more dressed-up than they usually are. Taking this into account I am uncertain as to where you see evidence that they "take such care in looking so beautiful and "soft"", or what aspect of their appearance you believe ISTJ women your age would consider "silly/pointless".

Both girls are uncommonly attractive morphologically, so my guess would be that you are operating under the assumption that women of their phenotype must spend a significant amount of effort on their appearance to look that way-despite evidence to the contrary.

NB: By "effort into their appearance" I am mean effort in maintaining the more frivolous aspects of their appearance-what Jennifer was referring to when she hinted that they appear to "take such care in looking so beautiful and "soft"" (which they don't). This does not include aspects of well being maintenance such as diet and exercise, which ISTJs are usually scrupulous about and which most likely has a greater long-term impact on physical appearance.

 

[Totenkindly]

Although, Jennifer, I'm not so sure it's simply a generational thing. I'm good friends with an ISTJ female who must be roughly the same age as these people and she is quite a bit like you described - functional, not really aesthetic at all. She chooses her clothes and wears her hair because they're comfortable and don't get in the way - her overall style is sort of sporty-casual. Doesn't really ever wear 'soft' colours like blues, greens, pinks, and most of her stuff would be suited fine if she ever goes camping or surfing, etc. It could be just her on an individual level, but I don't know.

It's that sort of thing that makes me wonder. As I mention later, I question the ISTJ read on these two women. But I have no way to validate it. So...? Whatever.

And I know ISFJs who are quite concerned with appearance, not practical at all, so who knows?

ISFJs, I have seen over the gamut. When I was young, the huge majority were into pinks and teddy bears and other fluffy things, the conventional clothes (it was bad enough that it was cliche), but as they get older and "find themselves," I've seen some become very fashionable. Not enough to comprise the bulk, but definitely expanding the "visual" of the type category.

One thing I will say about J women (especially ISFJ) and maybe even J men is that they are the sort who usually look like everything's in place, even when they're being casual. P's, on the other hand, tend to look relaxed and a little disheveled even when they're trying to look "neat." (Before anyone feels compelled to argue every case in which I might be wrong, note these are tendencies, not laws.)

Which leads to: I don't think it's possible to consistently to type someone by a snapshot, although it contributes to an overall read.

I disagree with your assessment completely...

Gee, thanks for inviting me to participate via PM. I had wondered whether to bother.

As previously mentioned the first set of photos are meant to be misleading and therefore depict the women far more dressed-up than they usually are.

Yes. Which made the pictures useless.

Taking this into account I am uncertain as to where you see evidence that they "take such care in looking so beautiful and "soft"", or what aspect of their appearance you believe ISTJ women your age would consider "silly/pointless".

The ISTJ women I know either look functional (and use their makeup that way) or they dress starkly. I have never ever met ISTJ women who look like your friends. Even the one or two we have here seemed to shun this sort of look... although religious influence was involved as well, and thus might have also detracted from their desire to use makeup more extensively.

This is why I had been curious if there had been a shift in the mentality/appearance of the types by generation -- Do they manifest the same way over time? Just an idea to consider. That's all.

Both girls are uncommonly attractive morphologically, so my guess would be that you are operating under the assumption that women of their phenotype must spend a significant amount of effort on their appearance to look that way-despite evidence to the contrary.

No, I'm not assuming that at all. Make is makeup. I don't care morphologically what they look like. They still used makeup a certain way that I don't see ISTJ women bother with in my past experience.

Obviously past experience can be flawed. But I also only have your word to go on that these women are, in fact, ISTJ. I'm not sure I believe that yet. But honestly, I don't really care to find out, this argument isn't that important.

That being said, there's nothing else to discuss.

NB: By "effort into their appearance" I am mean effort in maintaining the more frivolous aspects of their appearance-what Jennifer was referring to when she hinted that they appear to "take such care in looking so beautiful and "soft"" (which they don't). This does not include aspects of well being maintenance such as diet and exercise, which ISTJs are usually scrupulous about and which most likely has a greater long-term impact on physical appearance.

*eye roll*

You can stop referring to what I said and thus putting words in my mouth. The things you've just described had no bearing on my original statements.

Did you ever check your type, btw? Maybe start with ENTP/ENTx? (Just a stab; I'd be curious about that, let us know.)

Enjoy your thread.

 

[the_antecedent]

Jennifer: I wasn't going to respond to your post originally as you seem defensive and to be taking the fact that I'm questioning your observations personally, however, there are some things I felt needed clarifying. For the record, I usually try to disassociate people from their ideas and opinions; this applies here as well as anywhere else, that I disagree with you means nothing but that, and shouldn't. Incidentally, you haven't answered any of my simple questions and instead simply reasserted that they don't look like ISTJs without clearly expressing why.


Gee, thanks for inviting me to participate via PM. I had wondered whether to bother.

Are you honestly taking offense to the fact that I disagree with you? I mean, come on.


The ISTJ women I know either look functional (and use their makeup that way) or they dress starkly. I have never ever met ISTJ women who look like your friends. Even the one or two we have here seemed to shun this sort of look... although religious influence was involved as well, and thus might have also detracted from their desire to use makeup more extensively.

Yes, that ISTJ women look functional and/or dress starkly is true in my experience also, however I don't see how two ISTJ women featured in this thread serve as counter-examples. Disregarding the first photos which were intentionally misleading and focusing on the second photos only, what aspect of their appearance do you find doesn't fit this description?

You mention makeup, but in your profile picture you are wearing more makeup than they are (the second ISTJ isn't wearing any makeup).


You can stop referring to what I said and thus putting words in my mouth. The things you've just described had no bearing on my original statements.

Do you realise how this sentence is self-contradictory? How can I possibly be 'putting words in [your] mouth' if I am simply quoting what you wrote, without adding my interpretation but instead asking you to clarify?


Did you ever check your type, btw? Maybe start with ENTP/ENTx? (Just a stab; I'd be curious about that, let us know.)

I have actually, multiple times. I am hesitant to reveal it here however, as it would reveal to much information about myself (not directly, obviously). I may choose to display it when/if I delete this thread; hazard a guess?

 

[Tallulah]

The ISTJ women I know either look functional (and use their makeup that way) or they dress starkly. I have never ever met ISTJ women who look like your friends. Even the one or two we have here seemed to shun this sort of look... although religious influence was involved as well, and thus might have also detracted from their desire to use makeup more extensively.

I don't know, my sister's ISTJ, and she's always been into hair and makeup, and she dresses very well, not utilitarian at all. (Of course, the same could be said of me, and that's not typical of an INTP.) She also doesn't give off a "cold" vibe, but that gets her into trouble sometimes with acquaintances who perceive her one way and expect her to behave like the fun-loving party girl. She's really not good with being flexible without advance warning, and she doesn't like her systems upset.

I do have another ISTJ friend, a doctor, who is very, very functional in the way she dresses, and she doesn't wear makeup or do anything to her hair.

 

[Totenkindly]

Jennifer: I wasn't going to respond to your post originally as you seem defensive and to be taking the fact that I'm questioning your observations personally, however, there are some things I felt needed clarifying.

Actually, I was taking it pretty personally because your approach irritates me emotionally AND intellectually.

Photo-typing people is dubious to begin with, so trying to have people photo-type when the people aren't even presenting as themselves is a pointless waste of time. So your "test" seems far more disruptive than useful to me.

It's also annoying that you keep sending me PMs to inform me when you have your new answer posted. Frankly, if I want to play, I'll come on my own. (Not to mention it's annoying to show up and then get what I consider to be an abrasive answer. Like inviting someone to dinner, then picking an argument about politics.)

So please don't send me any more invites, okay? Thanks, I appreciate it.

Incidentally, you haven't answered any of my simple questions and instead simply reasserted that they don't look like ISTJs without clearly expressing why.

I have nothing to respond to, because your test subjects have not been validated on this forum as the types you claim.

My point was that they don't match with the ISTJs I've known/met/run across. That's all I can say. I can't tell you whether your friends are truly ISTJ. Unfortunately, you don't offer any proof that they are.

So you argue with me about why my templates are wrong, without showing me why they're wrong except you don't believe it's true? That's nice. The reason I stopped was because, at THAT point, I would simply be doing the same to you. What's the point?

But you seem intent on proving why you're right, without presenting hard data.

Do you understand yet why I'm annoyed?

Are you honestly taking offense to the fact that I disagree with you?

Of course not. Usually I just get pissed by HOW someone disagrees, or if they've being easier on their own opinions while demanding more of other people's. Or if I perceive they actually enjoy the sparring more than the search.

I mean, come on.

Exactly. That would be stupid, wouldn't it?

Basically, I'm done with the conversation until we actually get some hard data so we can accurately determine (to either person's satisfaction) whether your friends are ISTJs and whether the people I knew were ISTJs, and so on.

Otherwise it's just a battle of useless opinions -- yours vs mine.

Does this make sense to you yet? That I'm irked over your process and/or approach to things, and NOT because you just "happened to disagree"?

Do you realise how this sentence is self-contradictory? How can I possibly be 'putting words in [your] mouth' if I am simply quoting what you wrote, without adding my interpretation but instead asking you to clarify?

Without looking back and reanalyzing the argument, when you quote someone, you add your own context to their words. Whatever the context was you placed me in, I probably thought it was unrepresentative of my original intent.

Does THAT make sense?

I may choose to display [my type] when/if I delete this thread; hazard a guess?

I think I already did, didn't I?

But I could easily be wrong. *shrug*

I don't know, my sister's ISTJ, and she's always been into hair and makeup, and she dresses very well, not utilitarian at all. (Of course, the same could be said of me, and that's not typical of an INTP.) She also doesn't give off a "cold" vibe, but that gets her into trouble sometimes with acquaintances who perceive her one way and expect her to behave like the fun-loving party girl. She's really not good with being flexible without advance warning, and she doesn't like her systems upset.

Neat, that gives some context. I wonder how secondary functions impact ISTJ presentation, and if they might be a factor? (And what type is your mom? Or other women your sister might have been influenced by?)

The info you give at the end helps reinforce an ISTJ read as well, her personality seems to demand closure even if her appearance seems to differ from that.

And I know your appearance as INTP doesn't fit the stereotype... and I doubt mine fits either. So... again, what about other functions' influence? I wonder how strong an influence those have. It might be interesting to see Ante's friends' full function reads, to see how the other functions measured up to their Si+Te.

 

[Tallulah]

I don't know, my sister's ISTJ, and she's always been into hair and makeup, and she dresses very well, not utilitarian at all. (Of course, the same could be said of me, and that's not typical of an INTP.) She also doesn't give off a "cold" vibe, but that gets her into trouble sometimes with acquaintances who perceive her one way and expect her to behave like the fun-loving party girl. She's really not good with being flexible without advance warning, and she doesn't like her systems upset.

Neat, that gives some context. I wonder how secondary functions impact ISTJ presentation, and if they might be a factor? (And what type is your mom? Or other women your sister might have been influenced by?)

The info you give at the end helps reinforce an ISTJ read as well, her personality seems to demand closure even if her appearance seems to differ from that.

And I know your appearance as INTP doesn't fit the stereotype... and I doubt mine fits either. So... again, what about other functions' influence? I wonder how strong an influence those have. It might be interesting to see Ante's friends' full function reads, to see how the other functions measured up to their Si+Te.

Yeah, I don't really know a whole lot about how the secondary functions work--even reading up on them, it's still a bit abstract. I wish I could get a full personality read from someone that would explain to me just how everything comes together.

My mother refuses to take the test; she has zero interest in MBTI. She tested Gold/Blue on the True Colors thing. If I had to guess, I'd say she's probably ISFJ. Maybe ISTJ, but more likely F that's had a bunch of Ts mock a lot of the sentimental F out of her. My mom is not into clothes at all. She likes looking appropriate for the situation, meaning she dresses nicely to go have lunch with a friend or to the dr's office, etc. But not trendily or in "personal style" way. She likes to look "nice," I guess, but knows very little about fashion.

Mom has always been naturally pretty; more so than either my sister or me; it takes very little in the way of makeup for her to look nice, but she's not concerned with her appearance at all. She's had the same hairstyle for 30 years, and if you try to get her to change it up a bit, she gets antsy.

I kind of think my sister might have gotten a lot of her fashion sense from me. I was always into fashion in a way. It just kind of interests me and comes easily, and I always liked to look as good as possible. I notice the details and I notice what looks good on a particular body type, etc. I have to say, though, I have since met people who are REALLY into fashion, and that is not me. Mine only goes so far. People who act like fashion is more than just a fun way to express yourself, and is in fact, a Serious Art Form, drive me bonkers. I hate the celebrity fashion culture, too.

My sister is always picking up cute clothes, and she's pretty concerned with her appearance, but some of that is insecurity, too. (She's also prone to body dysmorphia.) Sometimes I think it's like warpaint, you know? If you look good and you know you look good, it gives you an added layer of protection. Hmm, what else. She's also very good at observing a hairstylist cut her hair and figuring out how to do it herself at home. She's the only person I've ever let cut my hair that wasn't a professional. I can do this, too, but I think I'm only brave enough to do it because she opened my eyes to the possibility. This year, I gave my cousin highlights with foils, and cut two friends' hair.

So, yeah, I'm not really sure where all of it comes from. I'm also from the South, and it seems like especially when I was growing up, it wasn't as acceptable as it is now to just go around looking like you just rolled out of bed. I used to put on makeup to go to the freaking mailbox. Now, I'll go to the gym and run errands with my hair in a ponytail and just a little mascara on.

Did that help? It was a little rambly. Sorry.

Also, I think Antecedent has got to be ENTP.

Edited to add: I think you tend to do what I do, as well, from what I've seen and read. You don't see being a bit "girlie" as lessening your intellect--it's just fun.

 

[Nadir]

I'm guessing the_antecedent to be ISTP, myself.