Socionics and physical characteristics

[mlittrell]

But, our physical characteristics are genetical. Which means if you're born in a family with long noses, you'll probably have a long nose. But if you're born in a family of SJ, you don't have to be a SJ. There are exceptions, but I think there will be more exceptions in inheriting type (for starters, I doubt you can 'inherit' type) than inheriting physical characteristics.

we dont know enough about genetics to make this assumption. genetics are much more complicated than this.

 

[Kristiana]

So I was reading the socionics descriptions and it was really cracking me up how they were describing how each type looks physically (i.e. ENFP's are tall, ISFJ's have thick lips, INTP's have large noses etc.). How can they do this? Are they true for the most part?

Those are funny and not at all true as generalizations

I do believe VI is somewhat accurate though - you just have to do it by the facial expression, rather than the physical characteristics. I.E. S types tend to look very focused on one thing, very linear... whereas N types tend to have a more encompassing look in their eyes. Extroverts tend to radiate energy outward in their eyes, smiles, and presence, whereas introverts appear to contain it, to hold the energy in.

All that said, some people just simply don't look like the types they are. It's not a science.

 

[garbage]

you just have to do it by the facial expression, rather than the physical characteristics.

Yeah, this is the only way I could ever make sense of VI. From that standpoint, it makes more sense because what you observe could actually be somewhat tied to whatever cognitive function is most prominently displayed.

 

[MissMurder]

Phototyping is real, although it depends on something a lot more amorphous than plain physical characteristics that you can isolate. Which basically means that it's unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. There are some generalizations and some people who /do/ fit the archetype. And there are many who don't.

Of course, the position of some Socionists is that most people don't really know typology well enough to actually type others in a consistent manner, instead relying on superficial external characteristics and traits rather than looking at real internal dynamics. Read Jung some time. He really gets into it .

If you want to learn, it helps to pay attention to the extreme minutiae of a person's eyes and what kind of "aura" they give off, for lack of a better word.

Needless to say, I've probably gotten a lot of weird looks from people in real life for this practice. You can get very close to a person by looking at their eyes, and some people don't want you to get that close, lol.

Sounds bogus, like a pseudo-science. Tea leaves in a pot would probably be more reliable. Heck, how about weed in a bong? That will help you pick up on all that psychedelic minutiae within the aura of their eyes.

 

[The Ü™]

Let it be known that V.I. is a more intuitive way of typing people.

It continues to amuse me that people will see body language, mannerisms, and writing style as a valid way of typing people, but when we get into V.I. territory, that's a big no-no.

Not everything the Russians create is useless.

 

[Haphazard]

Because Americans hate the idea that they must be like their parents.

We rebel against Mother Russia because our teenage hormones tell us so. It may be right, it may be wrong, but we will never know.

 

[MissMurder]

Let it be known that V.I. is a more intuitive way of typing people.

It continues to amuse me that people will see body language, mannerisms, and writing style as a valid way of typing people, but when we get into V.I. territory, that's a big no-no.

Not everything the Russians create is useless.

Ah, so anyone who doubts the veracity of V.I. is automatically dissing Russia? Give me a break.

 

[mlittrell]

Those are funny and not at all true as generalizations

I do believe VI is somewhat accurate though - you just have to do it by the facial expression, rather than the physical characteristics. I.E. S types tend to look very focused on one thing, very linear... whereas N types tend to have a more encompassing look in their eyes. Extroverts tend to radiate energy outward in their eyes, smiles, and presence, whereas introverts appear to contain it, to hold the energy in.

All that said, some people just simply don't look like the types they are. It's not a science.

this is how i type people without talking to them and im 80-90% correct usually. introverts almost seem to be squinting and not literally squinting but... gah its hard to explain.

 

[miss fortune]

ENTps normally have a long, slim figure. Other parts of the body are also stretched, especially the legs and fingers. They often have rounded shoulders. Sometimes ENTps have a characteristic inwardly sloping chin. Because of their particular physical structure their clothes always seem to fit pretty badly, often slipping down and hanging off them in an unflattering manner. Their buttons also seem to have a habit of falling off.

ENTps usually have a distant, far away look in their eyes and it often seems as though they are paying little attention to what is going on. During conversation ENTps like to play with objects, like a pen for example, often accidentally breaking it. They may gesticulate when passionately telling a story.

wow- how amazingly wrong! There's no way on earth, genetically speaking, that I could have looked like the description of my type!

I have a chin, I'm short and actually rather well built. Clothes fit me very well. I have rather square shoulders for a female and really small hands with stubby fingers. I'm accused of always having the look of "I'm up to no good, and we're all going to have a lot of fun!" in my eyes as well

However, I definitley look a lot more like my INTP dad than my ISFJ mom (my ENFJ sis looks a lot like my mom and her side of the family, which is almost ALL Js). No one in my family looks anything like the description of how they should look though

(I also fidget a lot while talking and use my hands quite a bit while telling stories though- behavior is on, appearance is way off)

 

[Eldanen]

Sounds bogus, like a pseudo-science. Tea leaves in a pot would probably be more reliable. Heck, how about weed in a bong? That will help you pick up on all that psychedelic minutiae within the aura of their eyes.

Please note that I explicitly said that it was NOT a science. So how could it be a pseudo-science, in my frame of reference? And actually, weed in a bong is quite good.

You can doubt the veracity of V.I. all you want though. I'm not exactly trying to prove it to you, since I don't believe that it can be proven.

 

[mlittrell]

Please note that I explicitly said that it was NOT a science. So how could it be a pseudo-science, in my frame of reference? And actually, weed in a bong is quite good.

You can doubt the veracity of V.I. all you want though. I'm not exactly trying to prove it to you, since I don't believe that it can be proven.

i believe it can be proven considering some of it is genetics but at this point in time you are correct

 

[Kristiana]

this is how i type people without talking to them and im 80-90% correct usually. introverts almost seem to be squinting and not literally squinting but... gah its hard to explain.

haha I think I know what you mean.

Is it easier for you to VI people in pictures or in person? For me, pictures are easier, as I can stare at one frame rather than try to decipher a moving target, haha. That, and people in pictures can't look at you like you're a creepy nutcase

 

[mlittrell]

im better at typing in person. and i dont need to stare. it takes me about 5 seconds to tell what someone is. nothing more than a glance

 

[01011010]

im better at typing in person. and i dont need to stare. it takes me about 5 seconds to tell what someone is. nothing more than a glance

Can you type from a picture?

 

[mlittrell]

Can you type from a picture?

sometimes. the problem with pictures are that there is a lack of movement. it is hard for me to type without movements. even if it is just a split second of movement, most of the time that is all i need. also, typing by faces, without movement is very hard for me to do. it really depends as far as pictures go. when it comes to real life though... there are days when im flawless.

 

[Kristiana]

sometimes. the problem with pictures are that there is a lack of movement. it is hard for me to type without movements. even if it is just a split second of movement, most of the time that is all i need. also, typing by faces, without movement is very hard for me to do. it really depends as far as pictures go. when it comes to real life though... there are days when im flawless.

i type by faces most easily. i'm still working on the whole Ni-system incorporating movement, mannerisms, etc into VI. i don't usually tend to think about VI-ing (yep, it's a verb now!) people when i'm interacting with them in person, though.

some people practically scream out their type with their face, gestures, etc... and others are trickier. it really depends.

 

[mlittrell]

i always have trouble typing INFJs visually... prolly cause they are so rare and there is nothing to compare them to. but they are the only ones i find difficult

 

[am_i_evil666]

phototyping is fun

 

[Kristiana]

i always have trouble typing INFJs visually... prolly cause they are so rare and there is nothing to compare them to. but they are the only ones i find difficult

hmm, to me INFJs tend to have a very distinct look. ENTJ and ENTP women are more difficult for me to type, probably b/c they are rare and b/c i can't use myself as a model of sorts.

 

[Wild horses]

I am interested in VI and the people who claim to be able to do this, however, I have not seen enough evidence of it working to persuade me that it is real..