# Typing others from "vibe" vs. typing from physical mannerism vs. typing from function



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

*Typing others from "vibe" vs. typing from physical mannerism vs. typing from function*

In my time on PerC I've learned to take time in typing people. 

At first it seemed like if I identified with someone in a personal way then they had N and F. Often they only had F. I have learned to take a lot more time actually looking at function and not using "vibe" or stereotypes that you feel you've seen. For instance, if you knew 3 very introverted INTPs, would you be able to recognize a more ambiverted INTP? If you are used to very mellow INFPs what happens if you meet a very mellow INTJ? ENFP? or ISFP? 

I have also seen people get really stuck on physical mannerisms or even facial features when the cognitive functions the person was using were screaming a very different type. "My 2 ISTJ friend have really heavy eye-brows and so I know this guy is a ISTJ too" has nothing to do with cognitive function-- it has nothing to do with how they are using their brains and has to do with eye-brow genes instead, which are very different things. I've seen people get stuck on voices and right now I see no pattern with voices. Many mannerisms are things we grow up with and are taught or innate that don't have to do with cognitive function. For instance, my very loud INTJ friend whose family is heavily involved in local theater always talks like he's announcing all his thoughts to a crowd at a circus. 

I tend to want to take a deeper look into eye movement and type, mainly because I know when I am thinking of multiple possibilities then my eyes look up and "sweep" through the possibilities I'm thinking of. I have heard the idea that our eyes goes different directions due to what we are thinking before and it seemed like it came out of a neuroscience camp (although it could be just word on the street). I have seen some videos that use examples that actually seem mis-labeled based on what the youtuber just said (i.e. the example seems clearly Se to me from everything they just said but they are saying the person is Ne and I don't buy it). Also, besides having dubious origins and or no studies that I know of, this method also is a bit more biased towards IxxJs and ExxPs due to perceiving functions/organizing functions being dominant. At any rate, I haven't studied this enough, but I'm not sure anybody has studied this enough, really, at this point. I can't help but think that training yourself to see what function a person is using is going to be the best most consistent way to type people (if we have to.. but I seem to have to....lol). 

Something that has been frustrating me lately is that I'm not sure that many people who care a lot about MBTI actually define or see the functions in the same way. It's probably true that we all probably use all of the functions depending on the task at hand, but it's what functions a person uses the most frequently and also what is the most stressful that can (and in my opinion should) consistently type people. A problem that I see is when people simplify the functions too much. For instance, I've seen the functions simplified so much that anyone with emotional intelligence or tact and caring, for instance, was immediately labeled as an Fe dom. This is usually the kind of simplifying that also makes it so that people can't type themselves very well when provided simplified versions or stereotypical versions of each type or cognitive function. Likely, if you've typed 3 ENTPs all because they were hyper (if that's what you think ENTPs are all about) then you probably are not going to recognize a lot of ENTPs out there and you are in danger of mis-typing anyone else you think is hyper. What's more, some of the brightest ENTPs are going to get your message and instead of embracing the polymathy of Di Vinci and Ben Franklin, they might decide they are likely ENTJ afterall. 

Okay, I'm about off of my soapbox but I think it takes time and also asking people a lot of questions and listening closely to answers and experiences to type people. Without a great amount of studying and without consistent (substantiated) practice, do not trust yourself to type someone after 1-2 paragraphs on PerC. I think if it's done too quickly you can be way off and people need to be given lots of examples of what functions act like in different situations and maybe even exposure to many many people who are a certain type and how they respond to certain questions in order to really get good at helping type people. I know only enough to know that I've only just begun on typing and figuring out the questions I use to suggest and help share with people what I see when they answer certain questions certain ways or when they explain their experiences, but I guess my big point is to really double-check and take time in what you are doing and teach yourself to be able to look for the consistent signs of each cognitive function without stereotypes. I'm still learning and also sometimes jump the gun and realize it after, which is why I can write this post. I've really learned to slow down and not type off of how much you can personally relate to the person or vibe and most of all let the person tell me what their experience is. After all, MBTI doesn't matter except as a language to explore our experiences, in my opinion.

What do you guys see ? 
Do you have examples where you or someone else stereotyped or clearly did not see a cognitive function?
How closely do you think we can agree (as MBTI enthusiasts) about what we see and matching it to what we've read of Jung's Cognitive Functions? 
Comments? Complaints? Kombucha?


----------



## someonesomeonehey (Apr 6, 2020)

I agree that this is a problem. A lot of confusion is created because there is no universal "definition" of each cognitive function. 

Most articles online don't explain cognitive functions very well, and guess where most people learn about MBTI...


----------



## Whippit (Jun 15, 2012)

For me typing other people is an art, and necessarily so. If anybody is typing by immediate "vibe" or physical attributes is doing it wrong and probably won't get a very useful typing. And if you think about it typing by "function" is the same, you still need to key off of outward expressions, and it can be done badly. I type by empathy and observation. How do certain people act/react/express themselves over a period of time. And most importantly, the context in which it all occurs.

I think the difficult part of personality typing is that very often, very differing types, end up outwardly being very shaped by their situations. No matter what your inclinations are, it's often going to be that you're not going to get what you want out of life until you learn how to speak the same "magic words". That might mean that a Ne-er has to learn how to make a planner to get things done, or a Si-er needs to update their wardrobe to be taken seriously.There's a tendency for the final stage of expression from different types to be convergent.

So, one must watch what people do when they have free choice. Their patterns over long periods of time. Action as always speaks louder than words along with understanding the context. Sure, listening the people's subjective experience is very important, but even that is pretty muffled signal. When people communicate they are almost never honestly self-reporting, they can be reacting to situation only they're aware of, they're answering to their own past and their own environment, and they're telling you what they want you to think of them. If you can begin to ascertain motivation, then things really start falling into place.

When I type, I leave the question open for a good long time, until all this input settles in on something. And I continue to question it as time goes on, if my typing continues to hold steady, I feel more confident about it.

(Extroverts are always easier to type, there's more data.)


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

I don't type by vibe, but I do believe personality type is visible on the face structures, because it's all genes expressed towards certain drives. The caveat here is that MBTI is not the right system to match with reality, or at least doesn't give the full picture in many cases.


----------



## ai.tran.75 (Feb 26, 2014)

Llyralen said:


> What do you guys see ?
> Do you have examples where you or someone else stereotyped or clearly did not see a cognitive function?
> How closely do you think we can agree (as MBTI enthusiasts) about what we see and matching it to what we've read of Jung's Cognitive Functions?
> Comments? Complaints? Kombucha?


* I guess I’m most annoyed with visual typing - I heard people saying there’s no way someone so is a certain type bc look at this picture of them- or the weirdest one I got was “ are you sure you’re an enfp? You’re way too thin, our type tends to be curvier and looks more alert ” ( this was from another enfp ) hahaha 
Or Oscar Wilde must be an esfp bc he was put in jail and is still optimistic. 
Often time when typing a person you need to look through the underlying of why they choose to do what they do - observe the thought process and look into it’s approach - and even then it could be misinterpreted. 

* I’ve seen a lot of misunderstanding of intuition(I’m speaking of Ne here bc I’m an Ne dom ) and the meaning of abstract thinking- 
Abstract thinking is the ability to understand concepts that are real, such as freedom or vulnerability, but which are not directly tied to concrete physical objects and experiences.
Abstract thinking is also the ability to absorb information from our senses/intuition and make connections with it to the outer world. And there are many times when members mistakenly think that abstract thinking means idealism or engaging in imaginations that’s not pertaining to reality or to a certain extent being unrealistic - I believe you have experience this as well during your time here ( sorry if I’m rambling - I should just call you and have this discussion) 

The bottom line is - if you enjoy typing and have fun discussing functions then that’s all should matter but often time people can get really emotional or stressed over a disagreement and that bc a danger zone . 

But back onto the topic - I believe that one must have thorough understanding of functions and observations and experience with how it plays out before typing - certain questions could gain better insight - and if you never converse with a person directly then it’s very likely that even the answer that they tell you doesn’t reflect their type . I’ve mistakenly mistyped an esfp for an esfj before base on what he answered - it was only through chatting with him for hours that I figured out his type  

Great post btw 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

Vultology 2.0 (visual typing) method just got released a couple of months ago and looks the good. I‘Ve had a 100% hit rate on people I’d typed by traditional means. They are up to 120 different characteristics https://cognitivetype.com/ I’m in the process of getting my profile done. I just need to get enough sleep to do a non sleep deprived video for typing. ($29 for typing) I did my first video sleep deprived and my processes are so exaggerated (and rather hilarious I might add) 
You tube vids are good too.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfOJrijStilOBEJf3bd5-3w


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Shrodingers drink said:


> Vultology 2.0 (visual typing) method just got released a couple of months ago and looks the good. I‘Ve had a 100% hit rate on people I’d typed by traditional means. They are up to 120 different characteristics https://cognitivetype.com/ I’m in the process of getting my profile done. I just need to get enough sleep to do a non sleep deprived video for typing. ($29 for typing) I did my first video sleep deprived and my processes are so exaggerated (and rather hilarious I might add)
> You tube vids are good too.
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfOJrijStilOBEJf3bd5-3w


I think I remember seeing your pic in the entp topic? Looked quite ENP, perhaps a bit more on the F side but it could be that particular picture, I can look like any NP in pictures.

Yea I went back to see it again, unmistakeable NE, ambiguous F/T. I just saved u some money :fall:


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> I think I remember seeing your pic in the entp topic? Looked quite ENP, perhaps a bit more on the F side but it could be that particular picture, I can look like any NP in pictures.
> 
> Yea I went back to see it again, unmistakeable NE, ambiguous F/T. I just saved u some money :fall:


Lol! Using their code it couldn't be more obvious I'm an ENTP. However they actually type according to function usage and no ENTP has been positive for Si so far. So obviously thats a challenge I have to take! 
Also Einstein appears to be a ENFP and Hitler a ENTJ.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

i don't know what you mean, can you use more paragraphs to explain your position


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

Looking further into Vultology results Im actually formulating a possible new system that explains people behaviors much better. My impression is that many of the narratives are only partially true and don't hold across all funtion groups. Ie the paterns of antagonism, support and development vary.


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

The other good thing about Vultology is that self typing is relatively strait forward! (The downside is a ton of the typology crowd have typed themselves wrong) 
@Llyralen
I went a looked up your video with respect. 
https://www.personalitycafe.com/enf...ing-enfp-female-llyralen-ne-fi-cp-b-s-fm.html
Despite the lack of hands visible there is still enough info to confirm your type IMO. Its an interesting exercise!


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Shrodingers drink said:


> Lol! Using their code it couldn't be more obvious I'm an ENTP. However they actually type according to function usage and no ENTP has been positive for Si so far. So obviously thats a challenge I have to take!
> Also Einstein appears to be a ENFP and Hitler a ENTJ.


Thats because no ENP uses SI. To be NE is to suppress SI the most. I dont believe Einstein was a feeler.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

OK here's a collection of faces

NTP N doms

* *





Ido Portal









Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal










Samus Paulicelli (66samus on YT, can't find a more recent pic without a grimace lol)










Hannes Grossman










Dr. David Sinclair












contrast with NTJ N dom, clear NJ drives

* *





Florian Magnus Meier









can't post pic, but my INTJ ex looks a lot like an ENTP but not quite, there's still an evident preference for introverted attitude. He's like 66samus but with slightly more narrow features (eyes, cheeks)




NTP T doms

* *





Christian Münzner









Aric Improta









Hila Klein from h3h3 











NFP, N dom 


* *





Bradley Hall (youtuber - can't find a pic like the others)









Ethan Klein from h3h3 












NFP F dom

* *





Sweet Anita (streamer with heavy Tourette's)









Dr. Rhonda Patrick 











NFJ


* *





Teal Swan, not sure if higher on N or F









Steve Vai, high N, looks a bit ambiguous on F/T but def more F (compare to NTJ)









Jordan Peterson looks highest F












OK and some contrast with S

very stronk S dom ESFP Hasan Piker

* *
















SFP F dom shoe0nhead (definite S prference but not dom)

* *















Steven Bonnell (known as Destiny) T dom P with ambiguous S/N

* *
















Alex Honnold, clear STP traits (probs T dom)

* *
















Ben Shapiro, clear STJ traits (def T dom)

* *















these last two make a really funny contrast between Jungian Extraversion (open to the environment, wanna take in a lot of influence Alex - P) and Introversion (closed off to the environment, wanna impose own rules/control Ben - J)


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

What if we all posted pictures of our feet.... would we be able to find characteristics consistent with each type? Can I explain that your toe genetics are different from your face genetics and in my opinion different than your brain genetics? like my eye color is not related to my big toe so why would I think my brain is related to my eyebrows? I mean I can’t discount physical characteristics completely, but pretty close. You’d have to show me some very consistent data and it would have to be on just one part of the face for every type. If we looked at noses we will be looking at noses for every type and I’d better see hundreds of consistent patterns and consistent when anybody new showed up thinking they were that type. Of course I am open to well done research if anyone has it. 

There was that crazy theory about personality and head shape from long ago. 

I will tell you what I think. You could mix up the photos you’ve collected of people with different MBTIs and put them into categories like all eye shapes that are the most alike and then rearrange them into everyone whose nose shapes are most alike and then rearrange them again into whose china look most alike and they would all be different groups. It would not be consistent— please try it to confirm my statement. I’d like that. 

Although I think personality must have a hereditary component, I think it doesn’t play out in the real world or else you’d see it running in families like hair color. I have my dad’s eyes nose and chin but he is a ISTP. I don’t look like my ENFP mom, although I have some genes of hers too. 

Anyway this just doesn’t seem like how you conduct science. 

Also, folks, don’t you think visual typing should not be needed if we are actually good at understanding and explaining functions? 

DaveSuperPowers and Shan have put together all those photos of people who they think are the same type and that’s interesting and even more interesting is their Objective Typing system, but I think they sometimes type people incorrectly, so what’s the point? Just take the official MBTI test I guess— but— people want tests free? But this is a lot of speculation and theory for something that has an official method. 

I’m an Ne dom would I even trust myself to physically type someone even if it was proven that there was a reliable system? 

What about looking for actual cognitive functions in the way people think? I think it’s possible the more you hang out on each forum and the more questions you ask. Whenever a whole group on here shocks you with how different they are than you that’s an area to explore.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

It's not about isolated shapes but ratios. It's the patterns of the whole. I guess your thinking works if you believe your mind and your body are separate but I don't believe that, it's all one system. 
The face carries a lot of nuance because it's very important in our communication, it conveys a lot of info to others even when we don't directly express something.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> It's not about isolated shapes but ratios. It's the patterns of the whole. I guess your thinking works if you believe your mind and your body are separate but I don't believe that, it's all one system.


 Of course it is a system, but whether one reflects the other consistently and in a way that's consistent with MB is another story. 

The physical typing thing would never work widely even if it is legit because so many people in the world live in a mono-ethnic region. When you aren't used to paying attention to—not simply glancing at or seeing on TV—facial features associated with a certain ethnic group, you are poor at recognizing and classifying them. That's where the "all x people look alike" thing comes from (at least partially). And mannerisms are strongly affected by culture anyhow. 

The best anyone could hope for is to use it to type all the neurotypical people of the cultural and ethnic group they belong to.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

@Red Panda you are now talking about expressions, not hereditary features like nose width and length or whether your ear lobe is attached or not. I think how people use their expressions is as varied as language and actually has a cultural component as well so it’s a good comparison to language. I’m not arguing that facial expressions don’t give a lot of data, they are a prime means of communication but are they consistent enough data to type people consistently? 

Expressions might be very idiosyncratic to the person and actually even to the relationship of who you are conveying the facial expression TO. For instance, do I arch an eyebrow at everyone or just my husband to show when I’m amused? Do Danes blink hard sometimes to show an emphatic yes and Americans would never think to do that? Yes! 

Im not arguing that you can’t get a lot of data from facial expressions but why would I try to type someone from that (especially you’re not going to capture it from 1 photo) when you can instead listen to what they say on subjects that show a wide chasm between types? Its their brain going on... inside of one language we are all using the same words but when and how we use them and with whom and what subjects is going to show the workings of those brains and the same is true with expressions to a degree. We all have the same emotions, but when we feel them and intensity and how we use facial expressions is just one more thing that can help you type— maybe—especially if you ask people what they feel. Again... 1 picture? No. And the main way to type them? No. It would be a mistake to not take the whole person in, especially their thoughts and responses.


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> Thats because no ENP uses SI. To be NE is to suppress SI the most. I dont believe Einstein was a feeler.


Actually I use Si quite a lot, just not nearly as well as my other function or with the same fine detail as Si types. Of course Einstein was known for silly haircuts, poor memory (like names and phone numbers) humanitarian cause (essential believed in Gaia) and a little bit of maths/physics. 
Using the method that being said, its not clear cut on NeFi, or FiNe. Of course the whole methodology is still in the calibration phase, so there is still potential for operator error ect.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Saiyed Handsome **** said:


> Of course it is a system, but whether one reflects the other consistently and in a way that's consistent with MB is another story.
> 
> The physical typing thing would never work widely even if it is legit because so many people in the world live in a mono-ethnic region. When you aren't used to paying attention to—not simply glancing at or seeing on TV—facial features associated with a certain ethnic group, you are poor at recognizing and classifying them. That's where the "all x people look alike" thing comes from (at least partially). And mannerisms are strongly affected by culture anyhow.
> 
> The best anyone could hope for is to use it to type all the neurotypical people of the cultural and ethnic group they belong to.


I don't use MB exactly, I'm more in agreement with Jung but I have to try and transfer that to MB language for this topic.

I do agree with you, it's hard for me to type faces that are furthest away from caucasian, though sometimes if some drive is very prominent I can see it too. 

I think mannerisms are largely a taught thing, some can even be picked up by a few minutes of interaction with another person, others can be habits relating to things like anxiety/nervousness and whatnot. It's a behavioral trait that I doubt can be extrapolated to the motivations level that personality type works with. 

@Llyralen I specifically said not expressions and you're arguing with a strawman, and when you say "as the main way to type them", something I never argued about. I do think it's possible to at least estimate someone by picture if that picture is good enough (i..e not a close up that creates lens distortion), and the person has some prominent drives. It would take practice but it's possible.
Your stance in this is very dismissive and I wonder why, why even start from the conclusion that face and personality are two separate things?


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

Llyralen said:


> @Red Panda you are now talking about expressions, not hereditary features like nose width and length or whether your ear lobe is attached or not. I think how people use their expressions is as varied as language and actually has a cultural component as well so it’s a good comparison to language. I’m not arguing that facial expressions don’t give a lot of data, they are a prime means of communication but are they consistent enough data to type people consistently?
> 
> Expressions might be very idiosyncratic to the person and actually even to the relationship of who you are conveying the facial expression TO. For instance, do I arch an eyebrow at everyone or just my husband to show when I’m amused? Do Danes blink hard sometimes to show an emphatic yes and Americans would never think to do that? Yes!
> 
> Im not arguing that you can’t get a lot of data from facial expressions but why would I try to type someone from that (especially you’re not going to capture it from 1 photo) when you can instead listen to what they say on subjects that show a wide chasm between types? Its their brain going on... inside of one language we are all using the same words but when and how we use them and with whom and what subjects is going to show the workings of those brains and the same is true with expressions to a degree. We all have the same emotions, but when we feel them and intensity and how we use facial expressions is just one more thing that can help you type— maybe—especially if you ask people what they feel. Again... 1 picture? No. And the main way to type them? No. It would be a mistake to not take the whole person in, especially their thoughts and responses.


Well at the moment CT/Vultology isn’t Claiming to be a psychological typing tool but instead a, objective cognitive function typing methodology that sorts people into 1024 groups off primarily visual data (there is a handful of audible too) From the 110 objective data points (not 120 thats my inf Si fine detail sucking) vs say the 4 dichotomies and 8 functions in MBTI/typology, that are highly subjective and not even well agreed upon. The hope is it can overcome the bias problems inherent in current typing methodologies so that people can agree. Obvious if it works it would allow us better understand the related psychology. Fingers crossed. OMG that was an overly long sentence!


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

Saiyed Handsome **** said:


> Of course it is a system, but whether one reflects the other consistently and in a way that's consistent with MB is another story.
> 
> The physical typing thing would never work widely even if it is legit because so many people in the world live in a mono-ethnic region. When you aren't used to paying attention to—not simply glancing at or seeing on TV—facial features associated with a certain ethnic group, you are poor at recognizing and classifying them. That's where the "all x people look alike" thing comes from (at least partially). And mannerisms are strongly affected by culture anyhow.
> 
> The best anyone could hope for is to use it to type all the neurotypical people of the cultural and ethnic group they belong to.



I should have a look into that. Theoretically all humans should be equally applicable as long as you focus on underlying muscle movements. It would be interesting to look a Indian culture where the signals for things like head nods and shakes are different. Asian eyes could also be a touch tricky. Small steps.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Shrodingers drink said:


> Actually I use Si quite a lot, just not nearly as well as my other function or with the same fine detail as Si types. Of course Einstein was known for silly haircuts, poor memory (like names and phone numbers) humanitarian cause (essential believed in Gaia) and a little bit of maths/physics.
> Using the method that being said, its not clear cut on NeFi, or FiNe. Of course the whole methodology is still in the calibration phase, so there is still potential for operator error ect.


How do you use Si?

Einstein had a very low drive for conclusions, which is why he was so late compared to others of his caliber in releasing his theories, so definitely not a T or F dom. His E+N+P traits aided in his success and I think slightly preferring T helped as it gave him a direction towards impersonally analyzing and deconstructing all the stuff he was observing.All important personality traits that made him discover the things he did. I don't see how what you describe would make him a Feeler, they're perfectly congruent with being low T ENTP as well. 
Some people argue he was an INTJ because he had a poor relationship with his wife as they were towards separation, but I think his behavior is totally congruent with an NTP who has no feels anymore but is stuck with that person on the daily. Obviously him being a J is laughable.


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> I don't use MB exactly, I'm more in agreement with Jung but I have to try and transfer that to MB language for this topic.
> 
> I do agree with you, it's hard for me to type faces that are furthest away from caucasian, though sometimes if some drive is very prominent I can see it too.
> 
> ...


Thats the challenge, to tease out signals that have a high correlation as being caused by a particular function, ideally subconscious. Once you have a big enough pool of characteristics you can produce statistically significant results. There is still going to be overlap but if you have 8/10 Fi characteristics and 2/10 Fe characteristics (at this point they are not using frequency of use) then it should be clear what function preference you have. (No one thing differentiates a type, its multiplicative)


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Shrodingers drink said:


> Thats the challenge, to tease out signals that have a high correlation as being caused by a particular function, ideally subconscious. Once you have a big enough pool of characteristics you can produce statistically significant results. There is still going to be overlap but if you have 8/10 Fi characteristics and 2/10 Fe characteristics (at this point they are not using frequency of use) then it should be clear what function preference you have. (No one thing differentiates a type, its multiplicative)


Yea but in your case you are using a system that's inconsistent in definitions, since Fi and Fe are defined under a different system than Ne/Se etc. Jung was clear that the attitude is a trait that encompasses all of the other personality preferences and MBTI+ systems don't respect this observation, but redefine the judging functions in an inconsistent manner to perception functions.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Shrodingers drink said:


> Well at the moment CT/Vultology isn’t Claiming to be a psychological typing tool but instead a, objective cognitive function typing methodology that sorts people into 1024 groups off primarily visual data (there is a handful of audible too) From the 110 objective data points (not 120 thats my inf Si fine detail sucking) vs say the 4 dichotomies and 8 functions in MBTI/typology, that are highly subjective and not even well agreed upon. The hope is it can overcome the bias problems inherent in current typing methodologies so that people can agree. Obvious if it works it would allow us better understand the related psychology. Fingers crossed. OMG that was an overly long sentence!


I will look into the methodology. It would have to be able to be objectively and consistently measured. We are talking about brains here, though, and brains are adaptive to injury, for example, or to activities practiced over and over. I much prefer the info come from the neuroscience camp which gives more insight into the types than just typing alone and that also MBTI useful by explaining perk learning conditions for each perceiving function.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> I don't use MB exactly, I'm more in agreement with Jung but I have to try and transfer that to MB language for this topic.
> 
> I do agree with you, it's hard for me to type faces that are furthest away from caucasian, though sometimes if some drive is very prominent I can see it too.
> 
> ...


Why not just assume that my big toe shape has nothing to do with my eye color? Even a little understanding of genetics makes a connection between these two a hard sell. Same with any part of my body and any other part of me. We have thousands of genes. 

Furthermore, I don’t SEE facial features and MBTI being consistently connected. I think any pattern you find with just a few faces would be completely arbitrary and would likely not apply to a huge mass of one type of MBTI. You can often find many patterns between a few faces— but building any consistency at this point would be really messed up in my opinion. And why not just really see if someone is using a function that Jung described? Or ask them to take the official MBTI test? I took a few seconds when we first talked about it to review my understanding of genes and to review everyone in my knowledge’s faces and I concluded they were not connected. Ne should be just as good (when informed) at seeing when there is no pattern as when there is a pattern. I also thoroughly disagreed with your typing of someone due to her cheekbones. Her personality is a consummate Se dom and you were saying due to her cheekbones she is an ENTJ. What good is MBTI if we are ignoring the actual personality of a person?

Even if we find connecting genes between facial features and personality traits, right now facial features and MBTI type would likely be as inconsistent and arbitrary as astrology. I’ve met people born my same day. Were we alike? Did we have the same personality traits? No! I didn’t think so.. not any more than anyone else standing around me. But if someone figured out a consistent methodology and had big numbers to show a pattern they had found with every person born on my birthday with a high R number, I’d definitely look at their study to see if it had design flaws and to see if I then could see a possible and reasonable connection. 

I can look again if you show me a consistent methodology that involves ratios (just as you say) that are objectively (hopefully double-blind) measured in millimeters or smaller with a good R-ratio and P-value and is consistent across types. I will see what @Shrodingers drink ‘s group has by way of any science. I’ll look at it and I’ll see if I find it to be good sound research and if I stand corrected that would be fine. But this makes no sense to me right now. Do we have any geneticists in the house?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Llyralen said:


> I don’t SEE it being consistently connected. I took a few seconds when we first talked about it to review my understanding of genes and to review everyone in my knowledge’s faces and I concluded they were not connected. Ne should be just as good (when informed) at seeing no patterns as when there is a pattern. I also thoroughly disagreed with your typing of someone due to her cheekbones. Her personality is a consummate Se dom and you were saying due to her cheekbones she is an ENTJ. What good is MBTI if we are ignoring the actual personality of a person? Right now facial features and MBTI type seems as inconsistent and arbitrary as astrology. I’ve met people born my same day. Were we alike? Did we have the same personality traits? No! I didn’t think so.. not any more than anyone else standing around me. But if someone figured out a consistent methodology and had big numbers to show a pattern they had found with every person born on my birthday with a high R number, I’d definitely look at their study to see if it had design flaws and to see if I then could see a possible and reasonable connection.
> 
> Why just assume that my big toe shape has nothing to do with my eye color? Just a little understanding of genetics makes this a hard sell. I can look again if you show me a very measurable and consistent methodology that involved ratios just as you say that were objectively (hopefully double-blind) measured in millimeters or smaller, and was consistent across types. I will see what @Shrodingers drink ‘s group has by way of a consistent measured methodology.
> I’ll look at it and I’ll see if I find it to be good research. Something I do is spot faulty logic in experiment design in my own field, so I have some training.


So you thought it for _a few seconds_ based on what you already know to conclude what you already believed? I've been investigating this for about two years now, trying to revise my understanding with every face I see. 
What about the idea that mind and body are the same thing? Do you believe that? Does stress, anxiety, the emotions we feel, desires, anger, etc not affect our system? do they not show in how we age, our physical health state or how others perceive us? do you believe all mental states happen by chance, is there no genetic or epigenetic factor to them? is everyone born with the same genetic chance to get stressed, anxious, depressed, happy? Do you create everything you are by will or do you discover who you are and what you can do? Did you just decide to be ENFP, or can you become ISTJ, ESTP, ENTJ at will? 

Asking others to do the work especially when you are the one to set the parameters for convincing you is like saying you're not really up for it...
I don't assume our extremities have nothing to do with anything else either. It's all one system, there may be patterns there to discover as well. Which genes get expressed or not is probably related to the whole anyways. 

I'm not sure I remember who we're talking about, was it Madonna? I have looked into her younger pictures and her face is different, definitely no J cheekbones, maybe I didn't look into that back then.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

@Red Panda. I explained the current problems that seemed immediate to me with facial typing. I think they are big enough problems for me to dismiss it until there is a good counter-argument to what I’ve brought up. Just like I dismissed astrology no matter how many people are into it. It’s my prerogative to study what I want to, don’t you think? The only reason I’d look at it again is as a courtesy to you. When I ask someone to take a look at something I usually do provide web links and will explain my counter-argument to theirs in an attempt to convince or persuade. If I’m asking someone to take information seriously I do see myself feeling the burden of proof. Anyway, Im not against looking at it again, but so far my arguement seems sound to me and no new info on genes is coming in that would make me re-think it, unless you have some? If you want me to look at it again, I’d address the points of my contention directly. But at some point if I don’t meet eye to eye on something with someone then I move on with no hard feelings. The best you could do at this point to make me take facial typing (whatever you want to call it) seriously would be to find studies on genes that show some evidence that facial features and personality are on the same genes. 

I think the list of things you are bringing up that for you might be all connected are maybe not all connected in my mind. How I feel about each one would need to be addressed separately. So you can’t assume how I’d feel/think about any of your list just due to me not thinking that facial typing is legit. 

Interestingly enough, in relation to what you just said and our talk about Madonna, from what Datio Nardi studied with development, around mid-life we spend more time developing our tertiary function, so according to his research ESFPs would start acting more like ENTJs... but he doesn’t say we completely change our type. And recently I heard him say in an interview that he had assumed he was done developing his own Ni (he types INTJ) but that he is finding deeper levels to Ni now that he knows how to access Se better... so he personally is studying that axis as one. By the way, you’ve never brought your belief that we can change types up before. Or maybe you don’t think that and you were only asking me if I didn’t believe it? I don’t think we change type... but I think we develop as MBTIs postulates and as Dario Nardi said, so developing more Te and exploring the whole Ne-Si axis would be the normal growth curve of an ENFP. That’s how I see it. I also seem to experience it this way as well.


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

I basically have two modes, an NeFe comedian mode and an almost INTP like knowledge hyper accumulation mode. If I use one mode extensively then the other suffers. So My Si memory accuracy suppresses my extraverted functions and takes a couple of weeks to get back to normal. My initial instinct is usually sceptical and I don’t accept anything that I cant figure out myself. I also use a lot of Si for forming routines in my life (Enneagram 5 energy conservation) but its by far the weakest of my functions, and is the first that suffers if I get tired or have a few beers. Back at uni I would memorise in two passes, but god help me after a beer at a trivia night! (Unlike an ESTJ quizmaster I knew!) Of course I don’t like nostalgia and suck at unstructured detail like names or phone numbers. I would call it semi conscious, its there, serves a purpose and has an impact on me, but it doesn’t compel me like Ne curiosity, Ti knowledge perfection and Fe desire to help others.


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

Llyralen said:


> Why not just assume that my big toe shape has nothing to do with my eye color? Even a little understanding of genetics makes a connection between these two a hard sell. Same with any part of my body and any other part of me. We have thousands of genes.
> 
> Furthermore, I don’t SEE facial features and MBTI being consistently connected. I think any pattern you find with just a few faces would be completely arbitrary and would likely not apply to a huge mass of one type of MBTI. You can often find many patterns between a few faces— but building any consistency at this point would be really messed up in my opinion. And why not just really see if someone is using a function that Jung described? Or ask them to take the official MBTI test? I took a few seconds when we first talked about it to review my understanding of genes and to review everyone in my knowledge’s faces and I concluded they were not connected. Ne should be just as good (when informed) at seeing when there is no pattern as when there is a pattern. I also thoroughly disagreed with your typing of someone due to her cheekbones. Her personality is a consummate Se dom and you were saying due to her cheekbones she is an ENTJ. What good is MBTI if we are ignoring the actual personality of a person?
> 
> ...


Molecular microbiologist here, what would you like to know?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Llyralen said:


> @Red Panda. I explained the current problems that seemed immediate to me with facial typing. I think they are big enough problems for me to dismiss it until there is a good counter-argument to what I’ve brought up. Just like I dismissed astrology no matter how many people are into it. It’s my prerogative to study what I want to, don’t you think? The only reason I’d look at it again is as a courtesy to you. When I ask someone to take a look at something I usually do provide web links and will explain my counter-argument to theirs in an attempt to convince or persuade. If I’m asking someone to take information seriously I do see myself feeling the burden of proof. Anyway, Im not against looking at it again, but so far my arguement seems sound to me and no new info on genes is coming in that would make me re-think it, unless you have some? If you want me to look at it again, I’d address the points of my contention directly. But at some point if I don’t meet eye to eye on something with someone then I move on with no hard feelings. The best you could do at this point to make me take facial typing (whatever you want to call it) seriously would be to find studies on genes that show some evidence that facial features and personality are on the same genes.
> 
> I think the list of things you are bringing up that for you might be all connected are maybe not all connected in my mind. How I feel about each one would need to be addressed separately. So you can’t assume how I’d feel/think about any of your list just due to me not thinking that facial typing is legit.
> 
> Interestingly enough, in relation to what you just said and our talk about Madonna, from what Datio Nardi studied with development, around mid-life we spend more time developing our tertiary function, so according to his research ESFPs would start acting more like ENTJs... but he doesn’t say we completely change our type. And recently I heard him say in an interview that he had assumed he was done developing his own Ni (he types INTJ) but that he is finding deeper levels to Ni now that he knows how to access Se better... so he personally is studying that axis as one. By the way, you’ve never brought your belief that we can change types up before. Or maybe you don’t think that and you were only asking me if I didn’t believe it? I don’t think we change type... but I think we develop as MBTIs postulates and as Dario Nardi said, so developing more Te and exploring the whole Ne-Si axis would be the normal growth curve of an ENFP. That’s how I see it. I also seem to experience it this way as well.


I think you know that no one is really doing research on Jungian personality types and face structures... there are however other studies that try to find patterns, i.e. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/head-games/201703/3-things-your-face-tells-the-world

the 1st one is talking about facial width-to-height ratio and those with high ratios are deemed more aggressive/dominant, and those are the ones I type J (or Jungian introvert), at least partially (I think there may be more patterns to be found). The wider the face the stronger the introversion (J-ness). I was simply following my intuition, didn't know it was a thing or had completely forgotten. All the examples I gave you in the post above were from my own research, in collaboration with a friend.










_Studies show that the behaviour of men with wider faces is linked to power-related tendencies, such as aggression or striving for achievement and dominance (e. g., Carré and McCormick 2008;Carré et al. 2009;Haselhuhn and Wong 2011;Lewis et al. 2012). From an evolutionary viewpoint, a wider face makes a target look more physically robust and imposing, which reduces the consequences of antisocial behaviour, thus incentivizing the self-interested, confrontational behavioural tendencies of men with wider faces


... Several studies have shown that greater fWHR is an individual difference among men that is associated with both self and other rated trait dominance (Mileva et al., 2014), as well as with behaving aggressively (Haselhuhn et al., 2015) or being perceived as aggressive (Carré et al., 2009). Studies suggest that men with higher fWHR may possess greater concentrations of testosterone (Verdonck, Gaethofs, Carels, & Zegher, 1999), a hormone that directly influences dominant tendencies and motivation to enhance one's status (Mazur & Booth, 1998). ..._

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ture_Is_a_Reliable_Cue_of_Aggressive_Behavior


I don't know if Madonna is indeed an ESFP, she just didn't have prominent J cheekbones when young, but fact is she's ruined her face with surgeries and fillers, and she uses a lot of make up to make her eyes wider, maybe she just wants to look like an ETJ.


I think it's possible to slightly change type and replace a low drive, like someone who's a weak N may become S by the end of their life and their face may even follow that habit and change accordingly. But those would be likely be small changes that were ambiguous to begin with. I was asking if you believe it, because if you believe our personality is genetic and has a deterministic nature, and so do our faces, then why believe they are not related? Especially when faces are so important in communication, so there's a strong evolutionary pressure to be able to express our personalities through them.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Shrodingers drink said:


> I basically have two modes, an NeFe comedian mode and an almost INTP like knowledge hyper accumulation mode. If I use one mode extensively then the other suffers. So My Si memory accuracy suppresses my extraverted functions and takes a couple of weeks to get back to normal. My initial instinct is usually sceptical and I don’t accept anything that I cant figure out myself. I also use a lot of Si for forming routines in my life (Enneagram 5 energy conservation) but its by far the weakest of my functions, and is the first that suffers if I get tired or have a few beers. Back at uni I would memorise in two passes, but god help me after a beer at a trivia night! (Unlike an ESTJ quizmaster I knew!) Of course I don’t like nostalgia and suck at unstructured detail like names or phone numbers. I would call it semi conscious, its there, serves a purpose and has an impact on me, but it doesn’t compel me like Ne curiosity, Ti knowledge perfection and Fe desire to help others.


SI is not memory though.. Jung observed SI as a preference for following one's subjective sensory impressions and not challenging them. My SI mother sure follows this behavior pattern. SI in me manifests as hypochondria exactly as Jung described (sadly). Hyperfocusing on small bodily sensations I didn't before, then I think intuition picks on that and spins it out of proportion. I think skepticism is the Rational attitude the most (what T and F doms have the most), as Jung describes, the Rational type needs for all new info to make sense according to their formulas, else the info can't be integrated so it's discarded. I think your skepticism is likely your T and not Si coming through. SI types learn by rote probably because the information becomes expected and makes an impression. Also, actual TI has nothing to do with knowledge perfection, it's essentially about confirming one's own systems and shutting down reality, NE and TI don't go together well. I haven't met a person of any type, who has no routines whatsoever..
I wonder if you have anxiety? Some of the things you describe kinda make me suspect this. In Jung's system FE and TE are normal function-attitudes for ENP, including the tertiary if there's conscious use of it.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

From the 3rd research in that link, that used the Big5

_Similarly, higher levels of Conscientiousness were correlated with “lifted eyes” and “laterally extended” eyebrows, as well as with eyes that were opened wider. These faces also had a “withdrawing” upper lip and tightened jaw muscles, with visible tension around the mouth. This is in contrast to the apparently relaxed face associated with low levels of Conscientiousness, with brows and eyes that naturally drooped due to gravity as well as relaxed muscles around mouth._

J vs P faces (check the pics I gave)

also it looks like Madonna's eyebrow bone is more like the high Conscientious group described here. It's possible she just doesn't have a strong preference for the attitude, hence a mix of those facial features. Or they just werent in her gene pool.


----------



## Cherry (May 28, 2017)

Hmmmm I think some of those faces are in reverse...like I can see some that look very much "J"
because the smile is across and wide, very symmetrical and less teethy rather than pushing upwards like a "P" usually does

And this is the thing with this kind of visual typing, there is room for a lot of error, because we see things differently. But I've got a pretty good eye for patterns, detail and consistency, and that's my observation.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Cherry said:


> Hmmmm I think some of those faces are in reverse...like I can see some that look very much "J"
> because the smile is across and wide, very symmetrical and less teethy rather than pushing upwards like a "P" usually does
> 
> And this is the thing with this kind of visual typing, there is room for a lot of error, because we see things differently. But I've got a pretty good eye for patterns, detail and consistency, and that's my observation.


Who are you talking about?


----------



## Cherry (May 28, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> Who are you talking about?


Dr. Rhonda Patrick


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Cherry said:


> Dr. Rhonda Patrick


Yea I don't see what you're seeing. Her smile looks like the other Ps, compare to Teal Swan for example.. Why does symmetry matter? Ido Portal has quite the symmetric face, but Samus' is quite asymmetric (you can go to his YT channel - 66samus and watch his latest for a good example), but they both have similar ratios and patterns and if you watch their stuff they're both ENTP. 
Dr. Patrick has a very Rational face (F dom) she's a very analytical person, but she's also clearly NE both in appearance and in attitude, if you watch her interviews & work, quite adaptable and open. Here's another pic https://www.instagram.com/p/B-XrsOdnTaY/


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Wow. At what point do we realize we are falling into patterns racists have gone into? 
What are our motivations with this? I’m serious.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Llyralen said:


> Wow. At what point do we realize we are falling into patterns racists have gone into?
> What are our motivations with this? I’m serious.


understanding nature? and why is it racist-like?


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> SI is not memory though.. Jung observed SI as a preference for following one's subjective sensory impressions and not challenging them. My SI mother sure follows this behavior pattern. SI in me manifests as hypochondria exactly as Jung described (sadly). Hyperfocusing on small bodily sensations I didn't before, then I think intuition picks on that and spins it out of proportion. I think skepticism is the Rational attitude the most (what T and F doms have the most), as Jung describes, the Rational type needs for all new info to make sense according to their formulas, else the info can't be integrated so it's discarded. I think your skepticism is likely your T and not Si coming through. SI types learn by rote probably because the information becomes expected and makes an impression. Also, actual TI has nothing to do with knowledge perfection, it's essentially about confirming one's own systems and shutting down reality, NE and TI don't go together well. I haven't met a person of any type, who has no routines whatsoever..
> I wonder if you have anxiety? Some of the things you describe kinda make me suspect this. In Jung's system FE and TE are normal function-attitudes for ENP, including the tertiary if there's conscious use of it.


You should read up on the CT theory, it is an extension of Jung that adds additional elements and I think you will like it. Got to get on the continuous improvement bandwagon (hey you do have si)
So Si is an irrational worldview function and Ne is an irrational explorer function. So the Si I observe in myself come directly from this notion. Basically when my worldview is challenged I irrationally think the challenge is wrong and my existing worldview is correct. Then My Ne kicks in and and goes “what if my worldview is wrong?” Then it starts considering alternate possibilities until Ti sorts out who is right. So basically to have Si and Ne conscious is to run around assuming you are always right and wrong!


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

L P said:


> Yea but your just taking a guess here, and that's a pretty hard guess. Saying personality is the picker of your genes. No one knows where personality comes from whether it's even developed in the womb or after and now it's a filter for you genes? That's a hard sell.


It's not a guess, as you can see from the research. Also I didn't say personality is the picker, or filter of the genes, rather it's all related and works both ways. Genes work 24/7 in the regulation of our body & mind, how you think, feel, etc produce a specific chemical result that comes from which genes get activated, that in turn can reinforce a specific way of thinking or feeling. Obviously it's very complicated.


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> It's not a guess, as you can see from the research. Also I didn't say personality is the picker, or filter of the genes, rather it's all related and works both ways. Genes work 24/7 in the regulation of our body & mind, how you think, feel, etc produce a specific chemical result that comes from which genes get activated, that in turn can reinforce a specific way of thinking or feeling. Obviously it's very complicated.


I mean you're making the claim that which genes get expressed on your face is influenced by personality and a chemical balance cooperating. The claim that personality is involved in which of your parents genes gets expressed on your face has no support especially since the origin of personality is unknown, so to know it's place in the development cycle isn't known either, all we can guess is it's either at some point in the womb or out. The research doesn't seem to support personality being involved either, it seems to support an idea that the unique chemical balance would be the influence of both facial structure and personality, not in cooperation with personality. The testosterone making the face wider and the person more aggressive etc. Just expressions of testosterone levels.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

L P said:


> I mean you're making the claim that which genes get expressed on your face is influenced by personality and a chemical balance cooperating. The claim that personality is involved in which of your parents genes gets expressed on your face has no support especially since the origin is unknown, so to know it's place in the development cycle isn't known either, all we can guess is it's either at some point in the womb or out. The research doesn't seem to support the feedback loop your talking about either, it seems to support an idea that the unique chemical balance would be the influence of both facial structure and personality, not in cooperation with personality. The testosterone making the face wider and the person more aggressive etc. Just expressions of testosterone levels.


But I'm not saying that personality is something that pre-exists and selects the genes, but that facial features are not some random thing that's not related to personality. Someone who has a high fWHR is also going to have an social dominant personality because both those things are the result of a certain expression. The high/prominent cheekbones, or the straight eyebrow bone relate to fWHR. The feedback loop is generally part of how our biochemistry works, so there's good reason to think this whole process is continuous especially as we go through our growing phases and perhaps later in life there are some smaller changes, especially by muscular involvement. 
Obviously that research didn't go into this at all cause it's not what they were trying to figure out.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Also speaking of personality and genes, Williams syndrome is super interesting. People who have it miss 27 genes and as a result (aside of the developmental health issues) have a hypersocial and hyperfriendly personality, they're basically incapable of thinking maliciously. Researchers have found genetic similarities between them and hypersocial/friendly dogs & wolves.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Shrodingers drink said:


> At this point the reports are just technical, they just display the results with a fairly brief summary. They haven’t done enough work with the psychology to determine the potential for outliers. The guy who runs it is a lovely INTP and the community is very small and polite, they are just focused at the problem at hand.
> Now for my interesting result, I typed NeFi, which according to their model actually makes sense. However I have determined the entire causal chain its actually an environmental forcing of 7th position Fi from a native ENTP as a consequence of being a empath who cannot disconnect from emotions like a Ti user normally does.(not what you call healthy) So basically I’m NeFi but my Fi uses the moral framework derived from my native Ti/Fe values. Ie my worth is determined by my Ti adherence to objective accuracy and value I provide for the community, with zero room for movement, unlike a native Fi user. Of course being a mastermind in interconnected positioning (think positional chess, I assign values to every piece and track how every piece actions affect every other piece, who then take that data to identify patterns, principles and methodologies) I can see that the nature of methodology “answering questions about oneself” isn’t going to test the subject sufficiently across there full range of function usage. Ie its personal so it will show Fi personal function usage, as opposed to how you manipulate the environment with Fe/Te. The fact the signals are reliably showing up at all shows that the underlying theory is sound, but as red panda mention he was less confident for body motions since they could be psychologically manipulated. Of course I could probably make a more accurate measurement system but then 99% of people couldn’t employ it! The current system is linear and just works on additive signal acquisition, its objective but drops a lot of detail (like frequency of use) to try and generate simplicity and consistency across operators. Being a microbiologist we differentiate using a branching checkpoint system, and I think some the signals are clear enough to do this, but it requires a deductive approach that is not easy for a lot of people.
> Anyway from what I’m seeing it is enormously useful, they are just in a very early stage of development and relying of a single principle person (who fortunately doesn’t treat it as his baby and tries to employ the scientific method) I’m just a little hesitant in how to present myself since my mind tears holes in any incomplete theory and I don’t want to come off as too critical and pushy. (I’m prone to be blunt)


If I was the researcher I’d want to hear it. And sometimes just people asking yes too a gives a researcher the chance to show that they controlled for that thing where sometimes maybe controlling for it might not have been heard or understood by everyone which then hopefully makes the research look even more true. So... I think you should go for it. Pose it in a question for politeness? Does the INTP talk to you?


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

L P said:


> I mean you're making the claim that which genes get expressed on your face is influenced by personality and a chemical balance cooperating. The claim that personality is involved in which of your parents genes gets expressed on your face has no support especially since the origin of personality is unknown, so to know it's place in the development cycle isn't known either, all we can guess is it's either at some point in the womb or out. The research doesn't seem to support personality being involved either, it seems to support an idea that the unique chemical balance would be the influence of both facial structure and personality, not in cooperation with personality. The testosterone making the face wider and the person more aggressive etc. Just expressions of testosterone levels.


The evidence that genetic elements are involved is fairly obvious from twin studies and inheritance patterns. If your parents are alphas (Ne/Si + Ti/Fe) the you are very like likely to be an alpha (of course your parents could be heterozygous or you could inherit all 4 genetic factors if you parents have opposite functions Ne/Si + Ni/Se + Te/Fi +Ti/Fe)

The genetic factors you inherit then serve as your toolkit from which the epigenetic (hormonal) and environmental factors determine your type expression (there may or may not be dominant/recessive genetic expression patterns)
For instance say a demanding baby that gets rewarded would be expected to develop their Je function which manipulates the environment. Indeed if you look at a lot of the Vultology signals then you see that they relate to obvious psychological processes.


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

Llyralen said:


> @Shrodingers drink. Before I was just reading on my phone. I just went to his website and I’m not quite sure that I agree with everything.
> 
> I’m kind of amazed that he is keeping this idea of “seelie” and “unseelie” going. I think it would just translate into whether I have a positive judgement or a negative one. He almost makes it seem like it’s not a conscious process, or almost like a subdivision of Fi... which is not the case... if there is a general “closed” or “open” mood I get into the it can change through the course of a day. I’m looking into it more...


Think of it like muscle memory, when you use something frequently it becomes second nature, ie it becomes subconscious. 
The J function movements all make sense from a psychological perspective
Te seeks urgency and uses aggression to obtain its economic aims
Ti seeks objective accuracy requiring time and thus halts action. Ie hesitation and emotional disengagement
Fe seeks ethical harmony, and can uses either submissiveness (soothing motion/adaptive) Or dominance (directive motion/directive) to obtain its ethical aim
Fi seeks internal ethical consistency, and emotionally interacts with others submissiveness(appearing vunerable/positive association/Seelie) or Dominant (appearing disagreeable/negative association/Unseelie) 

So while most people can use either submission or dominance to achieve their F aims, they will develop a preference that becomes second nature.

obviously you see this same submission/dominance in all social animals, its an essential biological imperative to reduce damaging conflict and stress.


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> @Shrodingers drink
> what you describe doesn't sound unlike an ENFP, just not particularly high on F. You seem quite similar to me. I don't give much stock to the enneagram as a system but it's useful in basically a shorthand way of saying 'I have _these_ traits', I tend to type 5w4 too. Also I think how we build our self-worth is in part a learned thing from our individual experiences, coupled with our innate personality traits. A NE dom's ego is tied to their understanding of the world and how accurate it is, hence the need to constantly revise and restructure, but there's also a learned component here of how we apply that ego to build our self worth and that's usually related to our experiences with family, peers and how we process those interactions from a young age. I'm not sure how you mean that "zero movement" but maybe it has to do with which "Fi" person you compare with.
> In any case you could maybe make a less personal video and see how he types you.
> 
> PS. I hope you realize at some point that "introverted thinking" and "objective accuracy" are fundamentally inconsistent terms


Thats the thing that was so revealing. While I’m clearly and ENTP with Ti/Fe preferences, a combination inability to emotionally disengage with Ti as a consequence of being and empath and enneagram 5 gave me no other tools to deal with a catastrophic environments. So I shut down both cognitively and emotionally till there was only a shell left. Then when I had a traumatic reawakening into the world, I basically consumed with determining my Fi ethical place in the world Through the lens of my native Fe/Ti ethical framework which has zero room for movement. Basically I was NeFi from about 16 years of age using a 6th preference function with its antagonism of native functions associated energetic draining until I was able to create a worldview/belief system that was consistent both Ti logic and Fe ethics.

Net result is I am effectively NeFiTi (which was basically what the Vultology typing came up with) which is consistent with my MBTI typing tests that are alway 50% F/T and the fact I have a strong desire to not effect the world as my main ethical aim in life, Ie my Je functions are not in the drivers seat, I’m solidly on the Fi/Ti couch!


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

L P said:


> As far as visual typing, which I don't fully subscribe to, how much does personality or passed down genetics affect your face? Like someone mentioned J cheekbones, how much are these cheek bones affected by being a J type or their parents having those cheekbones? And why the hell would being a J type give you a certain kind of cheekbone? That's my issue with visual typing, how much of all of that is just your parents genes?


Its not the bones but muscles. If you use something repeatedly the muscle becomes stronger and firmer. For instance Se users are focused on the environment, so the have wide open eyes, While Ni users are trying to zone out to their Ni worldview, so they usually have droopy eyelids. Ne users look up and into their brain as it scans for connections, so they have taunt above the eyes, sweeping eye motion and relaxed muscles below the eyes. Si users attempt to squint to see the details of their worldview, pushing their eyebrow over their eye and producing two squint lines above their nose.
These factors are consistent across ethnicity, you can even see many similar things going on in chimps for instance.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Shrodingers drink said:


> Think of it like muscle memory, when you use something frequently it becomes second nature, ie it becomes subconscious.
> The J function movements all make sense from a psychological perspective
> Te seeks urgency and uses aggression to obtain its economic aims
> Ti seeks objective accuracy requiring time and thus halts action. Ie hesitation and emotional disengagement
> ...


It’s not that I don’t understand what he says. It’s that I might wholly disagree. I especially disagree with the way that you put it right there. It’s what I said, Fi is not experienced subconsciously. What about Ti then, are Ti judgements experiences subconsciously? Also, it’s not a symmetrical way to look at Fi, is it? Divide Fi but not Ti? Jung had difficulties understanding Fi as well, imo. But I will keep looking at it. I’m not done yet, plus it would be nice to improve his understanding if I see holes.


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

Llyralen said:


> It’s not that I don’t understand what he says. It’s that I might wholly disagree. I especially disagree with the way that you put it right there. It’s what I said, Fi is not experienced subconsciously. What about Ti then, are Ti judgements experiences subconsciously? Also, it’s not a symmetrical way to look at Fi, is it? Divide Fi but not Ti? Jung had difficulties understanding Fi as well, imo. But I will keep looking at it. I’m not done yet, plus it would be nice to improve his understanding if I see holes.


From what I can see Fi detection is by far the biggest issue with the model. The signal are somewhat repetitive, and rely on emotionality The model doesn’t incorporate shadow functions use, and shadow Fi use will basically happen to anyone with emotional issues if they go into emotional introspect. The difference is that native Fi users take pleasure/are empowered by Fi use. For everyone else its stressful. 
And of course the stress response creates urgency and emotionality which are many of the Fi/Te signals, while naturally antagonising and suppressing Fe/Ti signal. However its possible that the Fe/Ti signal remain but much less noticeable, and normal psychological profiling should pick up the difference without problem, especially Ti vs Te. 
Also if you look at smiles a hypersensitive Fi user would be expected to have a strong Fi smile, while native Fe who has environmental triggered shadow Fi would have a hybrid Fe/Fi mouth depending on how much Fe usage occurred before shadow Fi sucked them in. 

Also I’m wondering if having heterozygous genetics allows easier access to shadow functions. I know I have both.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Shrodingers drink said:


> Thats the thing that was so revealing. While I’m clearly and ENTP with Ti/Fe preferences, a combination inability to emotionally disengage with Ti as a consequence of being and empath and enneagram 5 gave me no other tools to deal with a catastrophic environments. So I shut down both cognitively and emotionally till there was only a shell left. Then when I had a traumatic reawakening into the world, I basically consumed with determining my Fi ethical place in the world Through the lens of my native Fe/Ti ethical framework which has zero room for movement. Basically I was NeFi from about 16 years of age using a 6th preference function with its antagonism of native functions associated energetic draining until I was able to create a worldview/belief system that was consistent both Ti logic and Fe ethics.
> 
> Net result is I am effectively NeFiTi (which was basically what the Vultology typing came up with) which is consistent with my MBTI typing tests that are alway 50% F/T and the fact I have a strong desire to not effect the world as my main ethical aim in life, Ie my Je functions are not in the drivers seat, I’m solidly on the Fi/Ti couch!


I am "NeFiTi" too, but it's completely normal if we understand the original theory. You are strongly Extraverted, which originally meant to hold the object in higher importance and thus not want to impede on it, affect it. Then a normal development is to have both your T and F work inwards to self-correct, and build a worldview on primarily understanding the world and being ready to reconfigure your inner systems, emotionally or logically to create consistency.


* *
















Like this but with intuition on top, as the dom, T and F on the sides and S unconscious. Conscious attitude is always the preferred one, and the function that becomes conscious follows it. So having conscious tertiary use means in the same attitude. Semantics aside, that's a NeFiTi based on MBTI language. In Jung's theory it's E+N+T+F as I already explained, the conscious attitude encompasses all conscious functions. The MBTI has reversed what the attitude means for the judging functions, which creates an inconsistency in language that confuses, and it doesn't correct it because they don't even test their function theory since they only test by dichotomies. Real extraverted judging is not about imposing your own rules/thinking and controlling the object, it's not even about finding info to support your own theory (self-confirmation), it's inward-turned.


When my judging became conscious starting at ~13+ it was both T and F and were both directed towards building inner consistency in feeling and logic, how do my thoughts and actions affect the world and building a moral framework to avoid my negative impact. If your empathy and need to accommodate people gets in the way of the logical approach you may just really prefer F than T. 

There's a lot more to the above theory than just this, tho I don't think Jung talked about it, if he even realized it at all. He mentions that not everyone has a very strong preference for the attitude but he based most of his understanding on those who did.


----------

