Typing by vocal analysis

[Cellmold]

I suppose people will make up their own things based on projections regardless.

People are free to choose the form of their liberation. Even if it involves constriction.

 

[Mind Maverick]

People are free to choose the form of their liberation. Even if it involves constriction.

Although it's true that constriction can be a form of liberation if it's perceived as such, when it involves delusion it should raise some alarms.

 

[Earl Grey]

Although it's true that constriction can be a form of liberation if it's perceived as such, when it involves delusion it should raise some alarms.

Seconded. Truth should be placed on the highest order.

 

[Cellmold]

Although it's true that constriction can be a form of liberation if it's perceived as such, when it involves delusion it should raise some alarms.

Oh I never said it was a beneficial thing.

But abandoning the typology community might not be a bad idea.

 

[Coriolis]

I'M 900% AUTHENTIC INTROVERT

That's not the part I disbelieve.

 

[Earl Grey]

That's not the part I disbelieve.

*curls on the floor dying*

 

[Mind Maverick]

That's not the part I disbelieve.

I wonder how you define F/T and P/J, exactly.

 

[Coriolis]

I wonder how you define F/T and P/J, exactly.

How I personally define it, or how it is generally defined here, or in the typology literature?

 

[Mind Maverick]

How I personally define it, or how it is generally defined here, or in the typology literature?

You personally, if it is not according to literature; and which literature if it is.

 

[FemMecha]

Do it. evil: To the topic at hand, seems a bit like witchcraft. Clearly you need to be offering some service type people based on their voices....it's never been done before.

Do you mean the OP? How is it like witchcraft? That doesn't make sense to me.

Everyone gets impressions about personality based on vocal inflections, but like me, most don't have an organized way of defining it. I think speech patterns are a microcosm of mental processes. Of course they reveal something about how an individual thinks and perceives the world.

I find it regreshing when a person shows an attempt to construct an original idea instead of constant regurgitation of the ideas of others as most good sheeple do. The first draft of a theory will likely not be completely accurate, but it is a place to start. People who can't see a connection between speech patterns, vocal inflections, and personality and mental processing are impressively short-sighted.

- - - Updated - - -

 

[Cellmold]

Do you mean the OP? How is it like witchcraft? That doesn't make sense to me.

Everyone gets impressions about personality based on vocal inflections, but like me, most don't have an organized way of defining it. I think speech patterns are a microcosm of mental processes. Of course they reveal something about how an individual thinks and perceives the world.

I find it regreshing when a person shows an attempt to construct an original idea instead of constant regurgitation of the ideas of others as most good sheeple do. The first draft of a theory will likely not be completely accurate, but it is a place to start. People who can't see a connection between speech patterns, vocal inflections, and personality and mental processing are impressively short-sighted.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you mean the OP? How is it like witchcraft? That doesn't make sense to me.

Everyone gets impressions about personality based on vocal inflections, but like me, most don't have an organized way of defining it. I think speech patterns are a microcosm of mental processes. Of course they reveal something about how an individual thinks and perceives the world.

I find it refreshing when a person shows an attempt to construct an original idea instead of constant regurgitation of the ideas of others as most good sheeple do. The first draft of a theory will likely not be completely accurate, but it is a place to start. People who can't see a connection between speech patterns, vocal inflections, and personality and mental processing are impressively short-sighted.

I think it's shortsighted not to simply create a better system on which to base those vocal inflections and link them to.

 

[FemMecha]

I think it's shortsighted not to simply create a better system on which to base those vocal inflections and link them to.

Go for it.

 

[Cellmold]

Go for it.

There's a myriad of existing personality theories, although I would most likely peg the Big 5 as the best starting point.

For example, the variance and frequency of pitch and tone could (I think) be correlated quite effectively with levels of anxiety and therefore neuroticism. In fact I believe it has already been done and by those more experienced than myself (and likely most others here) : (PDF) Neuroticism, extraversion, and paralinguistic expression

PS: I suppose it would be fair to reference a few other voice-based typing threads as well. It's not really original.

Here, here & here.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

There are theories that along each axis, one function will be fluid/softer/more receptive, and the other will be more assured/firm/immovable. This affects the way people present themselves and can even make it look like other functions (example: a "soft" Fi user might look Fe, and it can also look less sure of oneself).

I'm still researching this and it'd be waaay too lengthy to attempt to explain fully here, but I've been able to make sense of it across all functions for myself so I find it interesting and potentially fundamental to accurate progressive typing, so long as it can be consistently reproduced.

Under this system, I suspect that I use the softer version of Fi and Si, which unfortunately for me gives me fuzzy recollections and a fluid/unsure sense of identity. I'm pretty sure this is where most of my insecurity and anxiety come from. Conversely, my Ne and Te can be rather stubborn, immovable, and shovey. If I have a theory about why someone is the way they are, I'm pretty sure of myself and I also tend to get really blunt with my Te.

 

[Pionart]

There are theories that along each axis, one function will be fluid/softer/more receptive, and the other will be more assured/firm/immovable. This affects the way people present themselves and can even make it look like other functions (example: a "soft" Fi user might look Fe, and it can also look less sure of oneself).

I'm still researching this and it'd be waaay too lengthy to attempt to explain fully here, but I've been able to make sense of it across all functions for myself so I find it interesting and potentially fundamental to accurate progressive typing, so long as it can be consistently reproduced.

Under this system, I suspect that I use the softer version of Fi and Si, which unfortunately for me gives me fuzzy recollections and a fluid/unsure sense of identity. I'm pretty sure this is where most of my insecurity and anxiety come from. Conversely, my Ne and Te can be rather stubborn, immovable, and shovey. If I have a theory about why someone is the way they are, I'm pretty sure of myself and I also tend to get really blunt with my Te.

Is this the masculine versus feminine division of functions that Objective Personality describes? If so, I was thinking about that yesterday. I believe I have masculine N and T, and feminine F and S. e.g. I'm rather immovable when it comes to my vision/how I see things, but socially receptive.

I haven't worked this into my models yet, but it can definitely be incorporated.

 

[Pionart]

I think it's shortsighted not to simply create a better system on which to base those vocal inflections and link them to.

So far I'm finding that the 8 cognitive functions model is a really good way to look at it. The cues I described cover most of the voice, and really seem to show in the way that I would have predicted from the theory.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Is this the masculine versus feminine division of functions that Objective Personality describes? If so, I was thinking about that yesterday. I believe I have masculine N and T, and feminine F and S. e.g. I'm rather immovable when it comes to my vision/how I see things, but socially receptive.

I haven't worked this into my models yet, but it can definitely be incorporated.

Yes, and that's what I was referring to when I said I saw some similarities between your observations and theirs. I'm actually quite impressed you picked up on similar patterns and developed your own theory.

A lot of people scoff at Objective Personality, but after taking it all in myself (and with neutral hopes at the start), I am pleasantly surprised by how thorough they are and how objective they attempt to be and I think that system has more potential than MBTI because there's less ambiguity with the terminology.

 

[Pionart]

Yes, and that's what I was referring to when I said I saw some similarities between your observations and theirs. I'm actually quite impressed you picked up on similar patterns and developed your own theory.

Well, the approach so far, i.e. as described in the OP, doesn't take into consideration a masculine and feminine version of each function. However, this is the general "yang/yin" divide. The yang/yin is like a meta-dichotomy that applies to every dichotomy from typology and beyond. So feminine is yin and masculine is yang, but intuition is yin, and sensing is yang, and so on. That doesn't mean females are more likely to be intuitive or anything, but that the qualities of femininity and intuitiveness share something in common, a certain yin-ness.

A lot of people scoff at Objective Personality, but after taking it all in myself (and with neutral hopes at the start), I am pleasantly surprised by how thorough they are and how objective they attempt to be and I think that system has more potential than MBTI because there's less ambiguity with the terminology.

As I see it, any good approach to typology will be mindful of there being a truth to typology that all the individual approaches are trying to get at. So different people will discover different aspects of what is going on, which can be incorporated together into a science of typology (once it passes the speculative phase and the consensus is that it's "proven").

That's not to say that any one group couldn't promote such a thorough model of typology that they end up with a monopoly practically speaking in the field, but I think looking at this as an emerging scientific discipline where no one holds rights to any particular piece of knowledge is key.

 

[Coriolis]

You personally, if it is not according to literature; and which literature if it is.

I am less concerned with definitions than descriptions, in the sense that I can more easily describe what about someone causes me to think they are F/T or J/P than to provide theoretical definitions. I agree with most definitions in mainstream MBTI books. As for personal interpretation, I see F as more concerned with subjective valuation, especially with respect to people; while T is more concerned with objective criteria, even when on behalf of others. When T types express concern about, say, how others view or will react to something, they often portray it as necessary for achieving some goal rather than as a good in and of itself. As for J/P, P seems more present in the moment, even if an N type. Their mental landscape seems more changeable, always responding to new stimulus or thoughts. Js, by contrast, seem mentally more fixated on a few ideas. Their thoughts often roam far afield of these, but always seem to come back to this handful of touchpoints. I find especially revealing on both counts the answer to the question: "what do you see yourself doing in 5 years".

 

[Mind Maverick]

I am less concerned with definitions than descriptions, in the sense that I can more easily describe what about someone causes me to think they are F/T or J/P than to provide theoretical definitions. I agree with most definitions in mainstream MBTI books. As for personal interpretation, I see F as more concerned with subjective valuation, especially with respect to people; while T is more concerned with objective criteria, even when on behalf of others. When T types express concern about, say, how others view or will react to something, they often portray it as necessary for achieving some goal rather than as a good in and of itself. As for J/P, P seems more present in the moment, even if an N type. Their mental landscape seems more changeable, always responding to new stimulus or thoughts. Js, by contrast, seem mentally more fixated on a few ideas. Their thoughts often roam far afield of these, but always seem to come back to this handful of touchpoints. I find especially revealing on both counts the answer to the question: "what do you see yourself doing in 5 years".

Ahh, I see. Which MBTI books have you read that you agree with? Yeah, I suppose I can agree with some of this, particularly the part about F subjective and T objective, but the part about the reactions seems rather strange. Isn't that basically suggesting that a T might not for instance, do something nice just to see their kid smile, or have I misunderstood you? Admittedly, my brain is fried right now. Interesting point about the 5 years thing though, I suppse if you want to come from the angle of functions then there is overlap with Ni in that. I won't be annoying and argue things, thanks for indulging my curiosity and sharing.