# Cognitive Functions and their Facial Expressions - Wonderfully Insightful



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Robert2928 said:


> I agree with the Fi/Te and Fe/Ti pairings (You know with the smiles because you can see a difference, Ti users eyes look away when searching for info, etc.) However the Se/Ni and Ne/Si portion doesn't sit well with me yet. My gut is telling me something isn't quite right although I can't quite put my finger on it.
> 
> I also agree on the order thing. IMO I see an application to distinguish Feeling/Thinking functions through sight alone but I'm not 100% confident you can do with Intuition/Sensing functions.


Se dominants are easy to note though, because they really have that Se stare. 

I know what you mean though, and it's very murky when it comes to Pi. I for instance type Tom Cruise as an INFJ or NiFe type and I do this mostly based on a video of him when he's very young and you really see his cognition clearly. Not just in his body language, but you "see" it in his actual cognition too, the way he thinks and reasons. Auburn types him as an SiFe type and I don't understand that. It's because based on later photos he's got that Si focused brow wrinkle apparently, but I don't feel it's fool proof.

The rigidity of body langauge also seems sketchy. It might make sense if you consider it in socionics (the VI of socionics part notes similar patterns) and cross-check it like that, I for instance am a socionics irrational type or ILI-Te, in other words, NiTe, and as a socionics irrational, yes, my body movement is more "flowing" than it is of J doms. 

Cognitively in a strict Jungian sense though, I'm struggling with whether Fi or Ni take prominence in my psyche after having some realizations of how my psyche operates. In the end, it really just becomes a matter of what system you think "got it right", I guess. Personally, I see them simply reflecting different layers of the human psyche, none necessarily right or wrong.


----------



## Robert2928 (Apr 6, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Se dominants are easy to note though, because they really have that Se stare.
> 
> I know what you mean though, and it's very murky when it comes to Pi. I for instance type Tom Cruise as an INFJ or NiFe type and I do this mostly based on a video of him when he's very young and you really see his cognition clearly. Not just in his body language, but you "see" it in his actual cognition too, the way he thinks and reasons. Auburn types him as an SiFe type and I don't understand that. It's because based on later photos he's got that Si focused brow wrinkle apparently, but I don't feel it's fool proof.
> 
> ...


It's amazing how complex the human psyche is. It always fascinates me trying to figure out personalities. I agree with you through they are just different methods trying to answer the same question. I do have one more question though. If there was an method that could tell you your function order with 99.9% accuracy would you use it?


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Jung and MBTI are not yet concrete enough to themselves be guessed from physical features. What is a function, physically?

Not to say there aren't patterns to be noticed, but I don't think there's a reliable methodology here. There's really no reason to try and type people by facial expression when you can interact with them first hand, or at least observe online - the attention should go to their preferred communication style, verbage, and long-run patterns of behavior since these are the real denominators of the functions to begin with, from an observer's POV.


----------



## zallla (Oct 11, 2011)

Awesome thread! I think there's something there, different types do seem to have different facial expressions. I'd love to know more about this though, how and what in brains really controls and affects this etc. The issue is intriguing. It's kinda cool to recognize types based on their facial expression ^_^ I wish I could do that!

A friend of mine has said I have the Ne eyes and Fi expression, you can see a short video of me here, what do you think? I'm no expert in this but also I think I can recognize the Ne eyes


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Robert2928 said:


> It's amazing how complex the human psyche is. It always fascinates me trying to figure out personalities. I agree with you through they are just different methods trying to answer the same question. I do have one more question though. If there was an method that could tell you your function order with 99.9% accuracy would you use it?


Hm, good question. Yet I feel there is no right or wrong or correct or incorrect answer to that either, like the answer cannot be of absolute nature. To me reality simply exists in layers that you peel one at a time, and all these layers are reflective of the same essence. 

Consider for instance this: What is a function? How would we define it? That definition will yield different results. Accuracy then, simply seems to be accurate according to the definitions we've proposed. We could figure out someone's type with 100% accuracy but that would simply be a reflection of the definitions we're operating with. Re-define what we're looking for somewhat, and we no longer yield 100% accuracy wit hthe method we are applying to detect/figure out functions. 

This is for instance a problem you often see in science, especially between the realms of objectivity/positivism and subjectivity. Some scientists will claim that a definition is a fact that is static and unchangeable. A rock is a rock. Yet to me anyway, it simply becomes a matter of, when we look at a rock, what are we in fact looking for? 

In geophysics, a rock has a different connotation than what it has in astrophysics, or for the matter to the sculptor trying to depict said rock or the culture that reveres the rock as a holy place. It's all a rock but different layers of the rock.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

zallla said:


> Awesome thread! I think there's something there, different types do seem to have different facial expressions. I'd love to know more about this though, how and what in brains really controls and affects this etc. The issue is intriguing. It's kinda cool to recognize types based on their facial expression ^_^ I wish I could do that!
> 
> A friend of mine has said I have the Ne eyes and Fi expression, you can see a short video of me here, what do you think? I'm no expert in this but also I think I can recognize the Ne eyes


Heh, I'm no expert  Don't ask me.

You're Enneagram type can be determined visually too. Just post a few pictures of yourself on the Enneagram Explorations facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/Enneagram.Explorations?fref=ts) I sent my picture to a person with a good track record (on the page) and they guessed 974 but that it was hard to tell if my leading was 7 or 9. My tri-type is 974. The page's group also correctly guessed my brother and a friend. Check it out


----------



## Carmine Ermine (Mar 11, 2012)

There is a specific expression for every type. I'm no expert on identifying them but I can see the ISFP / ESFP expression easily. I think the functions show up in the faces of people so it can become part of their face eventually.

Type these names on Google Images: their faces are mostly examples of the charcteristic expression of their type:

(Male SP versions)
ESTP: Ray Stevenson
ESFP: Robbie Williams
ISTP: Tom Cruise
ISFP: Brad Pitt (edit: probably ESFP but with ISFP expression)



LeaT said:


> Se dominants are easy to note though, because they really have that Se stare.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Carmine Ermine said:


> There is a specific expression for every type. I'm no expert on identifying them but I can see the ISFP / ESFP expression easily. I think the functions show up in the faces of people so it can become part of their face eventually.
> 
> Type these names on Google Images: their faces are mostly examples of the charcteristic expression of their type:
> 
> ...


I actually think there is a possibility Pitt is an ESFP but xSFP is definitely valid.


----------



## Carmine Ermine (Mar 11, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I actually think there is a possibility Pitt is an ESFP but xSFP is definitely valid.


Oh yeah! I think he's more of an ESFP rather than ISFP. Although I do think he has an "ISFP expression". I guess looks can be deceiving!


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Carmine Ermine said:


> Oh yeah! I think he's more of an ESFP rather than ISFP. Although I do think he has an "ISFP expression". I guess looks can be deceiving!


I was looking at the interview with him and Norton the other day again and it struck me that he spoke more from the perspective of Se than Fi.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Yedra said:


> This is really interesting and I believe there is something to gesturing and facial expression that is indicative of type but different people come to different conclusions.


It's probably interesting and maybe even consistent, but it's a heuristic that shortcuts and solidifies what is an ongoing consideration of type.

From what I can see of these two (both INTP?) their systemizing is falling back on Si. Ti (deep analysis) and Si (sense impressions - procedure) spiraling in on itself. Essentially, they are trying to pull the abstract into reality by the only means of cognition they possess to do so, Si. They are establishing sense-impression-based precedences. It's a great example of 'run-away' Si in a lower position. (EDIT: Or, if @LeaT has the correct impression, dominant position? My impression was INTP for him, but it was a shallow one).

(I know it is because I do it)<------ Si reliance on sensory-based precedence.



Yedra said:


> They need to re-engage Ne, release the parking break, and realize we are a long way from having a wide enough perspective (Ne) to parse down (Ti) into a reliable sense-based system (Si) for the betterment of all (Fe). LOL. That was fun!
> 
> For example, Auburn (the guy in the video) types PerC member @_pneumoceptor_ as ESFJ, while Pod'Lair typed her based on her hand gestures and facial expressions as ENFP. Yet, she herself identifies as INFJ.
> So who's right?


 @_pneumoceptor_ is a lovely example of NFJ† by any objective perspective. Her typing is very easy I assume due to her general mental health and a general moderate aire that probably indicates well-developing functions. I have watched many of her videos and never saw any indication of Si (reliance on sense-impression precedence) in her thought process (note that I just did use Si, just then! note that though I never explicitly state so, it was based on non-abstracted impressions). As far as Pod'Lair calling her ENFP... I'll just say that their system is so fundamentally different, that comparisons are a red herring. Maybe she is whatever their system makes her. Great. I won't conflate the two systems nor will I create a dichotomy out of them. They are separate considerations. 

If they are calling her an ENFP by the functions as they are generally understood, then .... well, they really shouldn't be doing that considering they reject it. 


† I've never met an INFJ who was as .... chill .... as her, which means Si says she should be kicked out of the club. Because of the bias of my limited sensory impressions, I'd probably mistype her ENFJ. She doesn't seem like INFJs I know. Ne then chimes in with the promise of a greater perspective. I can subjectively 'loop' Ti/Si and adamantly reject her typing as inconsistent with my model... or I can induct new perspective (Ne) to formulate better questions (Ti). 

The fundamental problem with Pod'Lair and CognitiveTypes is the attempts to end a process of perspective that has just begun.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@arkigos who are we talking about?


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

LeaT said:


> @_arkigos_ who are we talking about?


Sorry, the folks who did the video that started this thread.. the CognitiveType duo... I am confused on their names, but they are apparently both typing themselves INTP?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

arkigos said:


> Sorry, the folks who did the video that started this thread.. the CognitiveType duo... I am confused on their names, but they are apparently both typing themselves INTP?


Both type as INTP. I opine they are both xSFJ based on the conversations I had with them.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Both type as INTP. I opine they are both xSFJ based on the conversations I had with them.


I think their system is a huge Si grind. I 1000% think you nailed it with calling out that Si. I think they are probably INTPs who are 'looping' on this stuff... or just kicked into that mode somehow. It happens just the same as ISTPs going Rambo (the first one?) with their Ni grinding their objectivity to a halt. 

From how you present your model, your 'Jungian perspective', which I actually think is a pretty purist interpretation... from my reading of Jung I can at least see how you could easily call what you do 'pure Jung'. Totally. You'd have to type them Si. I don't think we disagree, I think we are using different frameworks. I think we are saying the same thing, really. I just think they could 'snap out of it' and normalize their functions to INTP if they were to engage their Ne to break out of their overbearing system. I wonder if the effort of developing a system either causes, or is a symptom of, a Ti/Si cognitive loop. Rather, I know it is... but I wonder if what I know is objectively true.

I can already anticipate your rebuttal and I totally get it. 

Also, you are working with more information that I am. Which may or may not matter.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

arkigos said:


> I think their system is a huge Si grind. I 1000% think you nailed it with calling out that Si. I think they are probably INTPs who are 'looping' on this stuff... or just kicked into that mode somehow. It happens just the same as ISTPs going Rambo (the first one?) with their Ni grinding their objectivity to a halt.
> 
> From how you present your model, your 'Jungian perspective', which I actually think is a pretty purist interpretation... from my reading of Jung I can at least see how you could easily call what you do 'pure Jung'. Totally. You'd have to type them Si. I don't think we disagree, I think we are using different frameworks. I think we are saying the same thing, really. I just think they could 'snap out of it' and normalize their functions to INTP if they were to engage their Ne to break out of their overbearing system. I wonder if the effort of developing a system either causes, or is a symptom of, a Ti/Si cognitive loop. Rather, I know it is... but I wonder if what I know is objectively true.
> 
> ...


I don't think they are "looping." Yes, the system is very much built on Si, but what became apparent when I engaged with Auburn in debate is that he became unable to actually define his system further beyond his sense impressions. He for example kept citing Nardi and when I asked him why his system disagrees with Nardi on some areas (their model is a 4 function model, Nardi's is 8), he cannot answer me and so on.

This is indicative of poor thinking because he is bad at making categorical distinctions. His intuition was also extremely weak. I am not sure what annoyed me the most when I spoke to him - poor intuition or poor thinking. Probably a combination thereof. They may identify with INTP but in terms of actual ego-conscious functions, they are both most likely SiFe. Auburn seems to be an intelligent ISFJ in denial. His girlfriend could likely be an ESFJ. 

And yes, it is possible to interpret my way of understanding the system as "pure Jung," but consider for one moment what they are doing themselves - they are also going by pure Jung. So even within their own systems, they would actually be SiFe. Auburn may think he and his girlfriend's body langauge isn't consistent with Si dominance, but they also typed Flatliner as an INFJ, so their system definitely isn't perfect. They also type Thom Yorke as an ISFP who I typed as an INTJ. 

They did however correctly type me as an INTJ before I typed as such myself, but at this point I think it's easier to say that it was more of a fluke. Their system has some accuracy to it, I use it myself to a degree when typing people, but I wouldn't say it always gets things right and so on. It relies too much on Si. 

So the problem is that he doesn't seem to fully understand what Ti is either, ironically. And he seems unable to fully differentiate between Ni and Si. If he were a Ti dom, this would not be a problem to him since Ti doms live in a world of categorization. Yet when I ask him to categorize and make distinctions beyond citing external systems where such distinctions are for most of the part already made (e.g. Nardi, Jung) he seems unable to do so. 

If you engage in any feeler in debate you will see the same pattern in most of them. This is how you tell that they are feelers.


----------



## niffer (Dec 28, 2011)

Ugh. Anyone who wants to insist upon a random internet person being a certain MBTI type has issues.

It should go without saying that any people who consider themselves to be a "guru" on a topic, especially one where it's basically Jung taking a shit and then having that piece of shit pumped full of steroids, should be taken with more than one grain of salt.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

LeaT said:


> I don't think they are "looping." Yes, the system is very much built on Si, but what became apparent when I engaged with Auburn in debate is that he became unable to actually define his system further beyond his sense impressions. He for example kept citing Nardi and when I asked him why his system disagrees with Nardi on some areas (their model is a 4 function model, Nardi's is 8), he cannot answer me and so on.
> 
> This is indicative of poor thinking because he is bad at making categorical distinctions. His intuition was also extremely weak. I am not sure what annoyed me the most when I spoke to him - poor intuition or poor thinking. Probably a combination thereof. They may identify with INTP but in terms of actual ego-conscious functions, they are both most likely SiFe. Auburn seems to be an intelligent ISFJ in denial. His girlfriend could likely be an ESFJ.
> 
> ...


Have you mentioned your thoughts to him?/And by the Feeler pattern, are you referring to the inability to differentiate concepts? Your last sentence rubs me the wrong way, maybe I'm misinterpreting?



niffer said:


> especially one where it's basically Jung taking a shit and then having that piece of shit pumped full of steroids, should be taken with more than one grain of salt.




In this analogy, Jung's shit is the cognitive functions?


----------



## niffer (Dec 28, 2011)

@MrShatter Yes.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Seen this before, still think it's shit.

They aren't even using the MBTI definitions of the cognitive functions: My MBTI Personality Type - Understanding MBTI Type Dynamics - The Eight Function-Attitudes

Also, everyone should read this: Cognitive function - definition of Cognitive function by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


----------

