# Visual typing: intuition eyes



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Straystuff said:


> Yeah I agree. But the gaze is different. Se -gaze is "hard" but it stays in the surface levels when Ni stare is soft but it leaves you feeling like someone just managed to read your mind. Piercing, but in a different way. You know Madonna vs. Vera Farmiga.


Not the best person to ask. I hardly pay attention physical cues like that and I am not even sure I see the difference lol. 



> The speech was so abstract I had hard time keeping up even if I was reading :'D I figured it must be 'cause of the stronger Ni. I mean I can get kind of abstract and sound like Shakespeare when I get excited but that was something else in total. Apparently you disagree? How you see strong Ni speech?  Again my experience of Ni -doms is lacking, all new info would be great!


Ni speech isn't being abstract but Ni speech is more about symbolic imagery so more about metaphors etc. If I were to for example describe that particular use of Ni as "childish", that's Ni because it links a specific physical experience to a non-physical description where a specific idea is being attributed to this state. In particular, if I were to elaborate the idea and say, "it's childish because it feels like it's a child trying to act and do things the way adults do it, like a teenager thinking they are grown-up just because they turned 18", that's Ni because of the imagery that I described it with. This quote is an attempt to Ni while utterly failing at it because the imagery is complete and ultimately ends up making little to no rational sense:



> But Ni-Fe is like the greatest atomic cannon ever built, that has never hit the mark once. It always over or undershoots. Or maybe it is right, and everybody else is wrong. I think my aim is true.


What has the aim to do with hitting the mark or not, to undershoot? That's the thing, it doesn't. If you want to compare Ni with Fe as the greatest atomic cannon built, you would have to deal with physical particles. Aim would only be relevant in comparison to size. In the end, to me, this entire analogy becomes nonsensical because the archetypes it tries to tap into isn't done so properly. It doesn't get into the core of it but stops halfway and the end-result is that the final conclusion comes out half-assed. Anyway, that's how I see it as Ni base.



Amaterasu said:


> I don't think I have a very penetrative gaze. I usually don't even stare at people because that's just awkward. But the times I do, I've often received the response "stop judging me omg" even if the person in question is sitting across the room and I wasn't even planning to be judgmental or anything. (My standard response to this is "I always judge everyone.") Alternatively, some people like to call it "concentration" or "focused thought" or some crap like that. _Some_times, I can look so annoyed that I can shut people up with one look. I wish that was a skill that worked more often  Life would be peaceful.


I think of it as penetrative because it's actually present-oriented in that it actually sees. Insofar that I ever bother actually paying attention to people's actual expressions lol. Most of the time I don't. They are just in the way of my own thoughts.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

It never really occurred to me so much before, but I do only glance at things. What I 'see' only requires a glance... and comes across not so overtly as would be required by scanning the monotonous details of the thing. 

That being said, I strongly hold to my view that any attempt at visual typing is FOLLY in the extreme. That is to say, every attempt I have seen at systemizing it has been worse than a joke, and I have no faith in this changing... it is too subjective, and riddled with too many variables. It is a fool's errand, often taken up by the same. 

However, if Jung said to me, "you can tell an Intuitive by the eyes", I'd happily retort: "No, sir, YOU can... but we, it appears, cannot."

When doing this, I'd likely only glance at him.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

arkigos said:


> It never really occurred to me so much before, but I do only glance at things. What I 'see' only requires a glance... and comes across not so overtly as would be required by scanning the monotonous details of the thing.
> 
> That being said, I strongly hold to my view that any attempt at visual typing is FOLLY in the extreme. That is to say, every attempt I have seen at systemizing it has been worse than a joke, and I have no faith in this changing... it is too subjective, and riddled with too many variables. It is a fool's errand, often taken up by the same.
> 
> ...


Because it can't be systematized. I said that is why you can't use Jung in psychology. Because you can't put him in some book, give it somebody with a degree, and get any kind of results. Because most people don't think like Jung. Jung thinks everything is real, if you look at it closely enough. Smart guys have argued this stuff for years, and still don't agree on anything. It was made to be unique to each person, basically. I said that Jung basically created a personal religion, that could never be systematized. It has a protection mechanism built in. It is meant to be a personal tool. It's same reason Christianity isn't consistent. It was never meant to represent so many. 

But Ni-Fe, by cognitive descriptions, is the exactly the type of person who would see these cues. I can't tell others how to do it, but I can. I know you have a different perspective. I've been saying that Fe is a main reason good athletes become great. Reading others. Like Gretzky. STP types. Fedor too. Lee. That gap, that technique never teaches. Nothing does, you find it yourself.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Since nobody is talking about Si, it can be the most understanding and vulnerable stare. It is scary to be on the receiving end. But blissful, because you understand that someone understands. It is the sexiest look. A look of love. It is the look of seeing a cute kitty do something adorable. There is just pleasure in the eyes. And on the other side, hate. It can also be a look of utter disgust.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Because it can't be systematized. I said that is why you can't use Jung in psychology. Because you can't put him in some book, give it somebody with a degree, and get any kind of results. Because most people don't think like Jung. Jung thinks everything is real, if you look at it closely enough. Smart guys have argued this stuff for years, and still don't agree on anything. It was made to be unique to each person, basically. I said that Jung basically created a personal religion, that could never be systematized. It has a protection mechanism built in. It is meant to be a personal tool. It's same reason Christianity isn't consistent. It was never meant to represent so many.
> 
> But Ni-Fe, by cognitive descriptions, is the exactly the type of person who would see these cues. I can't tell others how to do it, but I can. I know you have a different perspective. I've been saying that Fe is a main reason good athletes become great. Reading others. Like Gretzky. STP types. Fedor too. Lee. That gap, that technique never teaches. Nothing does, you find it yourself.


I have an INFJ friend, and they are so sublimely like this. "No one else can see it, but I can..." ...and it is simultaneously so removed and so tied to the ego. Anyway, I politely avoid the point with him... I see no harm in his belief that he has a powerful second sight into the soul of a person... no more than I pick a fight when he gets going with his intensely subjective metaphysical views. 

I think that both are total hogwash, but it is clear that hardlining such a view would cause a tragic and unbearable rift between us and I just don't care enough about it to even think to risk such a thing. Nevertheless, I do and will always resist the idea that something can be utterly subjective and yet still be real in any meaningful sense. In fact, it's subjectivity, in my eyes, is another way of saying "not real". Definitionally unreal. It will present itself to the Court of Objectivity to be judged, or it will be declared Shenanigans and dismissed. 

I greatly value the profound and deep willfulness of INFJ cognition, and find it magnetic and fascinating. Still, I won't call it real. 



Stelliferous said:


> Since nobody is talking about Si, it can be the most understanding and vulnerable stare. It is scary to be on the receiving end. But blissful, because you understand that someone understands. It is the sexiest look. A look of love. It is the look of seeing a cute kitty do something adorable. There is just pleasure in the eyes. And on the other side, hate. It can also be a look of utter disgust.


I think you have someone specific in mind here.

Also, you are totally an Fe, right? I mean, c'mon.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

arkigos said:


> I have an INFJ friend, and they are so sublimely like this. "No one else can see it, but I can..." ...and it is simultaneously so removed and so tied to the ego. Anyway, I politely avoid the point with him... I see no harm in his belief that he has a powerful second sight into the soul of a person... no more than I pick a fight when he gets going with his intensely subjective metaphysical views.
> 
> I think that both are total hogwash, but it is clear that hardlining such a view would cause a tragic and unbearable rift between us and I just don't care enough about it to even think to risk such a thing. Nevertheless, I do and will always resist the idea that something can be utterly subjective and yet still be real in any meaningful sense. In fact, it's subjectivity, in my eyes, is another way of saying "not real". Definitionally unreal. It will present itself to the Court of Objectivity to be judged, or it will be declared Shenanigans and dismissed.
> 
> ...


Yeah that someone specific is me lol. No I am Fi dominant.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

arkigos said:


> I have an INFJ friend, and they are so sublimely like this. "No one else can see it, but I can..." ...and it is simultaneously so removed and so tied to the ego. Anyway, I politely avoid the point with him... I see no harm in his belief that he has a powerful second sight into the soul of a person... no more than I pick a fight when he gets going with his intensely subjective metaphysical views.
> 
> I think that both are total hogwash, but it is clear that hardlining such a view would cause a tragic and unbearable rift between us and I just don't care enough about it to even think to risk such a thing. Nevertheless, I do and will always resist the idea that something can be utterly subjective and yet still be real in any meaningful sense. In fact, it's subjectivity, in my eyes, is another way of saying "not real". Definitionally unreal. It will present itself to the Court of Objectivity to be judged, or it will be declared Shenanigans and dismissed.
> 
> ...


It isn't some second sight. It is an organic psychological process that manifests itself in many different ways. Which is what Jung said religion is. And Freud, and a bunch of others. Even if you don't believe in this stuff, you are trapped within the bottle of a man who did. I am not saying it is real. It is my truth. Like Jung said. All that matters is the inner images. That is Jung's autobiography, not the outside world. His inner images. That is what Jung wants people to decide themselves by. I'm probably a crank, but so was Jung. That is all I'm saying. Guys like us create religions. Not saying they are true.

And my INTP buddy and I can talk all the shit we want, all we do is argue. He is like you. He finds this stuff amusing, and like art. But not real. And fights it the whole way. It is fun. But who else will listen to this stuff?


----------



## Truth Advocate (Apr 14, 2014)

Amaterasu said:


> For Ni dominants, the standard that I have seen is thin eyes that have a "lazy" sort of gaze; sometimes unfocused, pensive and to the side, in conversation, and then slowly shifting focus back to the conversation partner or the object in front of them. Their eyes usually don't dart around so when they come to rest on you it's a tiny bit electrifying. At least that's how it is for me, with new Ni dominant acquaintances. When they look at me it feels like they can see my soul or something, and idk man it's just impossible to masquerade as anything around them. For some Ni doms the penetrative gaze isn't present (obviously), but their eyes seem lazy and lucid nevertheless.


Is this what you were referring to? My eyes have that look all the time. I call it the "drugged" look.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Stelliferous said:


> Yeah that someone specific is me lol. No I am Fi dominant.


Know that there is a soul in this world that is pretty sure you are an Fe. If this thought is unbearable to you, you can always have me killed. If you have good connections, it might even be fairly cheap. I warn you, though, my schedule is very erratic. That might make it cost more. 



FearAndTrembling said:


> It isn't some second sight. It is an organic psychological process that manifests itself in many different ways. Which is what Jung said religion is. And Freud, and a bunch of others. Even if you don't believe in this stuff, you are trapped within the bottle of a man who did. I am not saying it is real. It is my truth. Like Jung said. All that matters is the inner images. That is Jung's autobiography, not the outside world. His inner images. That is what Jung wants people to decide themselves by. I'm probably a crank, but so was Jung. That is all I'm saying. Guys like us create religions. Not saying they are true.
> 
> And my INTP buddy and I can talk all the shit we want, all we do is argue. He is like you. He finds this stuff amusing, and like art. But not real. And fights it the whole way. It is fun. But who else will listen to this stuff?


Yeah, that is pretty much where I am at with my INFJ. To me, though, it is a just a really fancy version of a, say, ISFJ, who says "well, everyone is entitled to their opinion" in a syrup-soaked pedantic tone. 

You've just replaced that with equally subjective delusions of internal grandeur. Then I realize that whether or not it is real never mattered to that ISFJ and never mattered to you. Damn your subjective perceptions! Damn them all to hell. 

Still, you'll undoubtedly get me swept up in a 6 hour conversation about it because it is just too damn interesting. 

Jung was surely a crank, but the problem is that I am quite convinced he was totally right.. and not in a subjective 'inner images' way. It might have originated from inner images and hunches and all that collective unconscious stuff, but by the time it gets to me, it is a working machine and I think it is just magnificent and perfect and bound to be true. That is what makes it meaningful to me. I have enough Intuition to see that it is soul-crushingly REAL and I just need to find a way to extract it from that realm to this. Then you say, "no, no, it's all just subjective" and I say NO! I see it there, clear as day. It is real! I can just touch it if I stretch far enough... just a little further and I've got it and then the world has it. Then we win and everything is better.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

arkigos said:


> Know that there is a soul in this world that is pretty sure you are an Fe. If this thought is unbearable to you, you can always have me killed. If you have good connections, it might even be fairly cheap. I warn you, though, my schedule is very erratic. That might make it cost more.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fe is not afraid to show weakness. INTP may be, but they respect emotional weakness. I have bad panic attacks. Driving back from the city. My buddy is driving. He does not get emotions, or this stuff. I tell him to pull over, I need to walk around. My whole body is going numb. He pulls over immediately. Most people, he would roll their eyes at. I don't make stuff like that up. I have shown him it is serious. So he gets it now. He can say anything to me. We are honest. He told me wouldn't go the bar with me recently, because I would embarrass him. lol. Which is true. He has a teaching job there, and can't be seen with me. Or can't take that chance. Of course, I argue I will behave, but he knows when drinking all bets are off. So, what did he just say to me:

"You are my best friend, but I refuse to be seen in public with you, because it may jeopardize my career. You are that embarrassing." And he is right. It's the right call. We're still friends. He knows what affects his career more than I do. I was being selfish, trying to enforce. He knows he has to play by others rules. That is how real friendships are maintained. 

But the reason I think this stuff is right, is because Lee actually proved it. That is how I put it together. Because ideologies are a fight. Every system says they are the best. Lee says no style, but a continually evolving one that uses the best of all available is. Cuz if you're a wrestler, and some guy chokes you. Then what? Your art betrayed you. It failed you. Never be true to any art, because no art will be true to you. Lee's like, "Karate is supposed to teach people how to fight." He put all these systems to the test, and destroyed traditional martial arts. He was predicted right in the UFC. The best guys know many arts. It started off looking like Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat or Bloodsport. Competing styles. Now they all look the same. Wrestlers giving up on wrestling. Everyone giving up on system, to win fights.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

arkigos said:


> Know that there is a soul in this world that is pretty sure you are an Fe. If this thought is unbearable to you, you can always have me killed. If you have good connections, it might even be fairly cheap. I warn you, though, my schedule is very erratic. That might make it cost more.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm just an Ne Fi user. They can look very similar outwardly. The differences lie in the internal.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Fe is not afraid to show weakness. INTP may be, but they respect emotional weakness. I have bad panic attacks. Driving back from the city. My buddy is driving. He does not get emotions, or this stuff. I tell him to pull over, I need to walk around. My whole body is going numb. He pulls over immediately. Most people, he would roll their eyes at. I don't make stuff like that up. I have shown him it is serious. So he gets it now. He can say anything to me. We are honest. He told me wouldn't go the bar with me recently, because I would embarrass him. lol. Which is true. He has a teaching job there, and can't be seen with me. Or can't take that chance. Of course, I argue I will behave, but he knows when drinking all bets are off. So, what did he just say to me:
> 
> "You are my best friend, but I refuse to be seen in public with you, because it may jeopardize my career. You are that embarrassing." And he is right. It's the right call. We're still friends. He knows what affects his career more than I do. I was being selfish, trying to enforce. He knows he has to play by others rules. That is how real friendships are maintained.
> 
> But the reason I think this stuff is right, is because Lee actually proved it. That is how I put it together. Because ideologies are a fight. Every system says they are the best. Lee says no style, but a continually evolving one that uses the best of all available is. Cuz if you're a wrestler, and some guy chokes you. Then what? Your art betrayed you. It failed you. Never be true to any art, because no art will be true to you. Lee's like, "Karate is supposed to teach people how to fight." He put all these systems to the test, and destroyed traditional martial arts. He was predicted right in the UFC. The best guys know many arts. It started off looking like Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat or Bloodsport. Competing styles. Now they all look the same. Wrestlers giving up on wrestling. Everyone giving up on system, to win fights.


HAHA, your friend sounds like me. I don't show emotional weakness: ever. But if someone else shows it, they've found their champion, though a fairly uncomfortable one. Still, I wouldn't go around with someone who was going to embarrass me. I'd hope that our relationship was such that I could make a reasonable request and get a reasonable response. I value such intercourse very much in a friendship.

On the point of martial arts, it is kind of a shame, though, isn't it? Modern martial arts has lost all pretense of aesthetic. It is a better machine, sure, but now what is the point? Is it art at all anymore? On one hand I will never hate innovation, but ...... changing the subject a bit, I have been thinking about Tibetan Buddhism and the culture around it. It is backward superstition and ignorance... but the reality of its fairly inevitable dissolution is... what? Fast food pill popping first world culture? I have been wrestling with this paradox... of the requirement to sacrifice the richness of life in order to have a better one. Is man meant to be without pain? Is it a sin to offer sanitizing logic and progress to something? To destroy a painting because it is worn and imperfect and even doomed... and replace it with some gaudy bit of plastic? Perhaps a tangent, but I really don't know why we are talking about this anyway. Oh, right, ideologies. They mesh into one to become something greater. Best of them all. Sure... 

...bringing this back down. I think the moral of the story is that they need each other. I need Fi. Unquestionably, I would be nothing if not for the strong influence of Fi types in my life. I was shaped by them, and in shaped them. I would be so much less if it weren't for them, and I hope that they would be wildly more stupid if it weren't for me. HAHA. They need the anchoring of my logic, and I need the anchoring of their souls (for lack of a better word). Their Te is shit without a little help, and my Fe is as well. I think it is harder for this synergy to work with a stronger Fe or a stronger Te... but that just means it is all the more important.



Stelliferous said:


> I'm just an Ne Fi user. They can look very similar outwardly. The differences lie in the internal.


I disagree. I have been shockingly close over long periods of time with three NFPs. It is not remotely mistakable. They are clearly and definitively Fi types, and Ne does not cause them to appear Fe. They do not crusade, they are not objective in their values, they do not extravert them. The only thing I could say is that Se/Fi and Ne/Fi types tend to be really engaging and thus could be potentially seen as focused on ramping up enthusiasm... but this falls apart almost immediately when one becomes aware that their intensity toward new objects is simply infectious. They are not showing Fe at all. It is clear as day.

We really don't have to get into it. Maybe PM if you ever have the call to question your type. Other than that, feel free to disregard.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

arkigos said:


> HAHA, your friend sounds like me. I don't show emotional weakness: ever. But if someone else shows it, they've found their champion, though a fairly uncomfortable one. Still, I wouldn't go around with someone who was going to embarrass me. I'd hope that our relationship was such that I could make a reasonable request and get a reasonable response. I value such intercourse very much in a friendship.
> 
> On the point of martial arts, it is kind of a shame, though, isn't it? Modern martial arts has lost all pretense of aesthetic. It is a better machine, sure, but now what is the point? Is it art at all anymore? On one hand I will never hate innovation, but ...... changing the subject a bit, I have been thinking about Tibetan Buddhism and the culture around it. It is backward superstition and ignorance... but the reality of its fairly inevitable dissolution is... what? Fast food pill popping first world culture? I have been wrestling with this paradox... of the requirement to sacrifice the richness of life in order to have a better one. Is man meant to be without pain? Is it a sin to offer sanitizing logic and progress to something? To destroy a painting because it is worn and imperfect and even doomed... and replace it with some gaudy bit of plastic? Perhaps a tangent, but I really don't know why we are talking about this anyway. Oh, right, ideologies. They mesh into one to become something greater. Best of them all. Sure...
> 
> ...bringing this back down. I think the moral of the story is that they need each other. I need Fi. Unquestionably, I would be nothing if not for the strong influence of Fi types in my life. I was shaped by them, and in shaped them. I would be so much less if it weren't for them, and I hope that they would be wildly more stupid if it weren't for me. HAHA. They need the anchoring of my logic, and I need the anchoring of their souls (for lack of a better word). Their Te is shit without a little help, and my Fe is as well. I think it is harder for this synergy to work with a stronger Fe or a stronger Te... but that just means it is all the more important.


I actually have the same critique. Bloodsport and that shit is much funner. Who wants to play Street Fighter, when all the guys look the same? It is going in the wrong direction. Unbalanced on the other side now. Martial arts has nice philosophy and grace. Now it is a macho sport. I know there is a middle. Fedor was that. I said there was something magical about the guy. It wasn't just his record. It was him. There was something on his side. What it was, was those coin flip moments of chance, that technique never prepares you for. And won every coin flip. I thought he was the luckiest guy ever. Because he could lose every fight, but always won. He was not dominant, but you knew he would pull it off. Because he is empty in those areas of environmental chaos, and that is how he moves with them. He just knows it is right. Don't think, just do. Which was what Lee was preparing people for. Never think about the outcome. Your tools will strike when necessary, naturally, if you believe in yourself. Empty your mind. And I know Fedor is the truth, because I have other guys like him growing up. They think they can beat any guy in a fight, and that is why they usually do. Fedor is just scaled up, and much cooler. 

I'm not going to do anything too stupid. But he is a teacher, and they take that shit seriously. Conduct. Fe runs that shit, and is combing over people for flaws and gossip. Just one stupid philosophical statement, could damage him among all that superficiality.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Truth Advocate said:


> Is this what you were referring to? My eyes have that look all the time. I call it the "drugged" look.
> 
> View attachment 215594


Idk lol, because I'd say that's how she looks like :tongue:


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Truth Advocate said:


> Is this what you were referring to? My eyes have that look all the time. I call it the "drugged" look.
> 
> View attachment 215594


Oh you could be a candidate ;P But I really need to see your face in action to see if it has the same expressions I was describing. 


Entropic said:


> Idk lol, because I'd say that's how she looks like :tongue:


What? I don't look like that, if that's what you meant.


----------



## Straystuff (May 23, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Not the best person to ask. I hardly pay attention physical cues like that and I am not even sure I see the difference lol.


Well I mean look:

Hard penetrative eyes:










Soft penetrative eyes:










At least I can see a difference??? :'D


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Amaterasu said:


> What? I don't look like that, if that's what you meant.


Whatever, to me you make that face a lot.



Straystuff said:


> Well I mean look:
> 
> Hard penetrative eyes:
> 
> ...


idk?


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Whatever, to me you make that face a lot.


You're weird. I frown more and my eyes are different and so is my jaw and just... Everything. Is different. Except I don't smile too much.


----------



## fasc (Jun 23, 2014)




----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Not sure about Ne or Ni eyes, but here's something that Jung talked about with S vs N eyes:
> 
> 
> 
> - The Tavistock Lectures


Hmm... not sure about this. When I'm thinking about something I tend to acquire some kind of a far-away look and while talking or explaining something I usually shift my eyes to sides and glance at different things. Looking at specific objects distracts me from what I'm trying to convey.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

To_august said:


> Hmm... not sure about this. When I'm thinking about something I tend to acquire some kind of a far-away look and while talking or explaining something I usually shift my eyes to sides and glance at different things. *Looking at a specific objects distracts me from what I'm trying to convey.*


Why?


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Why?


Idk. It's just this way. I'm talking about something, glancing at objects, at some point my eyes become rested on something and thread of thought gets lost.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

To_august said:


> Idk. It's just this way. I'm talking about something, glancing at objects, at some point my eyes become rested on something and thread of thought gets lost.


Could it be that as an S-dom that the convergent focus on an object side-tracks the auxiliary thinking process?


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Could it be that as an S-dom that the convergent focus on an object side-tracks the auxiliary thinking process?


Probably. It feels more like objects give me competing thoughts. For instance, I speak with someone and at some point my eyes get fixed on mobile and I start getting thoughts that I need to call this person and that person, and what should I tell them and what they will answer, and further there's a book on the table, which I have to read, or remember what certain character told to the other one, and here is the stapler and I have to prepare documentation for tomorrow. It's like this all the time and thoughts are really fast, but conscious enough to cause distraction. So I try to avoid any more or less significant focus on objects.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Amaterasu said:


> You're weird. I frown more and my eyes are different and so is my jaw and just... Everything. Is different. Except I don't smile too much.


Well, I don't think I look like that Ni woman either so.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Well, I don't think I look like that Ni woman either so.


Of course not, silly. You don't have to look like someone to have the same patterns of self-expression. That's why I said I'd know only after seeing her face in action.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Amaterasu said:


> Of course not, silly. You don't have to look like someone to have the same patterns of self-expression. That's why I said I'd know only after seeing her face in action.


But I meant expressions. What else would I refer to in this context? The entire point is that she's supposed to have Ni eyes or whatever and I don't think my eyes look like that.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Entropic said:


> But I meant expressions. What else would I refer to in this context? The entire point is that she's supposed to have Ni eyes or whatever and I don't think my eyes look like that.


I thought you were referring to actual facial features :x And no, I never said she has explicitly Ni eyes, in whatever sense. Also, you're of a different race  So no shit you don't have the same sort of eyes as her.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Amaterasu said:


> I thought you were referring to actual facial features :x And no, I never said she has explicitly Ni eyes, in whatever sense. Also, you're of a different race  So no shit you don't have the same sort of eyes as her.


Well yeah but if we are talking about Ni eyes? Wasn't the point more about eh, the softer appearances of them or whatever?


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Well yeah but if we are talking about Ni eyes? Wasn't the point more about eh, the softer appearances of them or whatever?


What about it?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Amaterasu said:


> What about it?


The point was that I don't see the similarity, lol.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Entropic said:


> The point was that I don't see the similarity, lol.


Between you and the woman? There's no rule that there should be one. We don't know if she's correctly typed or if she fits the pattern I noticed.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Amaterasu said:


> Between you and the woman? There's no rule that there should be one. We don't know if she's correctly typed or if she fits the pattern I noticed.


Yes and no we don't and what pattern is that?


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Yes and no we don't and what pattern is that?


The one I mentioned in my original post.


----------



## Mimic octopus (May 3, 2014)

I've heard Se users eyes likened to cat's eyes because they're intense and it's easy to see what they're looking at. I would agree because whenever I make awkward eye contact with someone it's pretty much always an Se/Ni user (it's like terminator eyes).

If I think of eyes that dart around I think of Ne or Ti but not sure if that's true. SJs seem to be looking at nothing in particular unless it's for Te or Fe purposes.


----------



## Faunae (Mar 14, 2014)

a few people have told me my posture combined with my stare is really creepy. i will just stand entirely still, looking forward, unless i'm actually involved in something. i have very straight posture, no slumping, which probably adds to the "creepiness" of it. i haven't noticed much different in my ne-using friends, though i guess i don't pay much attention to the direction of others' eyes in general.


----------



## Sangmu (Feb 18, 2014)

Stelliferous said:


> Since nobody is talking about Si, it can be the most understanding and vulnerable stare. It is scary to be on the receiving end. But blissful, because you understand that someone understands. It is the sexiest look. A look of love. It is the look of seeing a cute kitty do something adorable. There is just pleasure in the eyes. And on the other side, hate. It can also be a look of utter disgust.


This is why ISTJ men are *wonderful*.


----------



## Sangmu (Feb 18, 2014)

crashbandicoot said:


> Ne types tend to have "donkey" eyes or "frog" eyes. They have this naive-childish look.
> 
> I associate Ni with "dull" or "dead" eyes. Similar to lazy eyes I guess.


lololololololol.


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

I do factor in people's expressions and such when typing but I don't think you can type people from visual clues alone.

People's eyes do say a lot about them though. I can generally tell if someone is a Thinker or a Feeler from their eyes.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

owlboy said:


> I do factor in people's expressions and such when typing but I don't think you can type people from visual clues alone.
> 
> People's eyes do say a lot about them though. I can generally tell if someone is a Thinker or a Feeler from their eyes.


How so?


----------

