# Physiology of the Types



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> It = VI
> 
> Griping? Sure. Trolling/attacking? No.


Alright.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> No, I was genuinely looking for explanations to it. Thank you for that. You done griping about my supposed griping?


As Kanerou referred to not precisely explicitly, my post earlier is a defense of socionics, saying not "yes, you are right, this is stupid, socionics is stupid" but rather "I am a socionist and I think these other socionists that believe this are totally stupid, don't judge me based on them."


That said, you've also indicated that you have read Rick's page on VI (the socionics.us link), and are not convinced. Do you have anything to say about it, other than that you are not convinced? Now there is some stuff on that page I don't agree with either -- specifically, the section on physiognomy which in my essay I explicitly single out and say "this is bad."

But most of what Rick's page is describing is *not* physiognomy, and from your vapid comments I can only infer that you read it only halfassedly, or perhaps did not understand it. It remains possible that perhaps you did understand it and merely disagree that socionics is a broadly-reaching subject that can influence e.g. nonverbal behavior -- in which case, fine, but that is a sophisticated and counterintuitive viewpoint which is not heavily suggested by the way in which you barged in somewhat blindly demanding information (which is what kanerou is referring to by "trolling;" regardless it is what it is)


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

aestrivex said:


> As Kanerou referred to not precisely explicitly, my post earlier is a defense of socionics, saying not "yes, you are right, this is stupid, socionics is stupid" but rather "I am a socionist and I think these other socionists that believe this are totally stupid, don't judge me based on them."
> 
> 
> That said, you've also indicated that you have read Rick's page on VI (the socionics.us link), and are not convinced. Do you have anything to say about it, other than that you are not convinced? Now there is some stuff on that page I don't agree with either -- specifically, the section on physiognomy which in my essay I explicitly single out and say "this is bad."
> ...


I don't have a beef with socionics. I think it's great, I was just talking about VI and physiognomy. I could give out numerous particular examples of why I'm still not convinced, but it's really because there is no concrete evidence and I haven't noticed it in other people. I don't think most of VI is completely ridiculous, I just still don't think it can accurately interpret cognitive functions. This may change; I don't know. Sorry if my cringing and gouging of eyes with carrots offended you.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Sorry if my cringing and gouging of eyes with carrots offended you.


Hardly. And your off-the-cuff comments here don't offend me either, I just think they are not well thought out.

In any case most of what is discussed on the link that it appears to me you largely ignored is not physiognomy. If you are reacting specifically to the portion of it that describes physiognomy and that only that part is stupid, okay (though if that is what I were saying, which it is, I would take great care to make that very clear).


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Are there any good scientific studies on it?


Not socionics, but there are plenty of studies that mention connections between various aspects of personality and appearance. One only needs to use google to find them. It's not all that bizarre that who you are is reflected in how you look. 

Here's one study from British Journal of Psycology: Using composite images to assess accuracy in personality attribution to faces and there's like a million other results brought up by Google Scholar personality appearance - Google Scholar


in other words, DO YOUR RESEARCH PEOPLE BEFORE YOU START GOUGING YOUR EYES OUT WITH CARROTS -- do you have any idea how much it sucks to be blind?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

now I'm going to start procrastinating, reading google scholar articles, all thanks to this thread ... found a cool one on the topic:

Personality Judgments Based on Physical Appearance


> Lens model analyses demonstrated that both static cues (e.g., clothing style) and dynamic cues (e.g., facial expression, posture) offered valuable personality-relevant information. These results suggest that personality is manifested through both static and expressive channels of appearance, and observers use this information to form accurate judgments for a variety of traits.


I've used people's appearance to predict someone's type or at least narrow down the options with success rate of around 50-60%, which is way better than randomly guessing. So yes, with enough practice and acumen, one can become like Sherlock Holmes or Dr. House in noticing various physical details about a person to recreate some information about their personality and personal history.

i've seen claims that enneagram and instincts have their visual components also, not just the jungian dichotomies:
Enneagram.net (enneagram) on Pinterest
Instinct Stacking Face Composites


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> Lens model analyses demonstrated that both static cues (e.g., clothing style) and dynamic cues (e.g., facial expression, posture) offered valuable personality-relevant information


Okay but these are not the same kind of cues as the facial features that physiognomy theories use that OP criticized with sentences like _"Apparently intuitive types have triangular faces with a wider forehead compared to the jaw"

_Clothing, facial expression, posture can all be influenced by the person unlike facial and body features that you are born with and I truly don't think that there is any significant enough connection between those and personality. (I'm of course not saying that personality doesn't have an inborn aspect, it does IMO.)


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Okay but these are not the same kind of cues as the facial features that physiognomy theories use that OP criticized with sentences like _"Apparently intuitive types have triangular faces with a wider forehead compared to the jaw"
> 
> _Clothing, facial expression, posture can all be influenced by the person unlike facial and body features that you are born with and I truly don't think that there is any significant enough connection between those and personality. (I'm of course not saying that personality doesn't have an inborn aspect, it does IMO.)


Most of the profile descriptions do not specify details like finding one type by the width of the face. I've browsed through the profiles written by socionists like Stratievskaia and Gulenko and they don't mention anything of the sort. 

There are a few crappy descriptions of types floating around, mainly on Socionics.com website, but it's surprising that people choose to focus their attention on these poorly written profiles, and furthermore, go to to deduce from them that socionics must be typing by physiognomy without bothering to do any further research into the subject. By now, I've seen many posts and threads claiming exactly this. This is exaggeration and misrepresentation.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> Instinct Stacking Face Composites


This link is very interesting. I'd like to know how many people who know their instinct stacking would identify with those face composites.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> Most of the profile descriptions do not specify details like finding one type by the width of the face. I've browsed through the profiles written by socionists like Stratievskaia and Gulenko and they don't mention anything of the sort.


Thank god then 




> There are a few crappy descriptions of types floating around, mainly on Socionics.com website, but it's surprising that people choose to focus their attention on these poorly written profiles, and furthermore, go to to deduce from them that socionics must be typing by physiognomy without bothering to do any further research into the subject. By now, I've seen many posts and threads claiming exactly this. This is exaggeration and misrepresentation.


Well I saw similar crap on wikisocion too... here: Visual Identification of Subtypes - Wikisocion




Yedra said:


> This link is very interesting. I'd like to know how many people who know their instinct stacking would identify with those face composites.


I would gladly tell you - if I knew my full instinct stacking for sure :/ (I only have the first one nailed so far... sort of)


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Well I saw similar crap on wikisocion too... here: Visual Identification of Subtypes - Wikisocion


As a disclaimer it says: "This page is about a theory constructed by a single western socionist. There might only be a handful of socionists who believe in it." So this is not any kind of official socionics reference. The history shows that it was created by CheGuevara who sporadically posted on 16T until he disappeared, likely discontinued with socionics. It's basically a wacky theory of someone who briefly dabbled in socionics and needs a disclaimer saying as much.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

cyamitide said:


> As a disclaimer it says: "This page is about a theory constructed by a single western socionist. There might only be a handful of socionists who believe in it." So this is not any kind of official socionics reference. The history shows that it was created by CheGuevara who sporadically posted on 16T until he disappeared, likely discontinued with socionics. It's basically a wacky theory of someone who briefly dabbled in socionics and needs a disclaimer saying as much.


Such is what you get when you recommend wikisocion to newcomers, which while in its heyday arguably had checks and balances from those of many viewpoints, is now unmoderated and abandoned (and which really has been ever since rick and i disagreed over its course in 2008).


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

aestrivex said:


> Such is what you get when you recommend wikisocion to newcomers, which while in its heyday arguably had checks and balances from those of many viewpoints, is now unmoderated and abandoned (and which really has been ever since rick and i disagreed over its course in 2008).


Majority of information on Wikisocion still pertains to "classical" socionics, rather than being written by a splinter group or single individual's reinterpretation of the theory. There are a few wacky pages here and there but one needs to exercise only a bit of discernment to avoid those (and watch the disclaimers).


----------

