# Why Visual Identification Is Bad



## cyamitide

Kamishi said:


> Yes, I clearly typed as such before, but cognitively, no, it doesn't fit. It's like when I was watching the third Iron Man movie some weeks ago and at the end Pepper Potts is kicking some guy's butt and when she comes to her senses she suddenly goes, "That was so violent!" Does not compute. I've come to associate her manners and thinking process with EII which seems to be an accurate typing to me. I certainly don't think that way and I notice a difference too with one of my RL friends who is clearly Fi ego. She occasionally tells me how to behave in social settings which is one of the reasons that also made me reconsider my typing among other things, too long to go into here.
> 
> Can you explain how his eyes look more like Ne than Se though? He is for example typed as an ESFP here:


The demonstrative intuition and sensing sections in this articles explain it very well imo: Socionics - the16types.info - Gulenko VI Method

Notice how the look in the eyes of people pictured in demonstrating sensing section is very concretely focused on something that is right in front of them. Then inspect Pattinson's photographs -- he next to never features such look (instead his look is very airy and diffuse). If not EII, then at the very least it can be derived that he is some intuitive type from his V.I.



Kamishi said:


> I'm curious how the visual cues in socionics would suggest EII over SEE or ESI. Plus, there are plenty of videos of me floating around here. For the record, the same people who typed Pattison as ESFP also typed me as INTJ when I still typed as INFP/EII. I could use more EII examples to get a better grasp of the type, though.


What I would suggest for you to do is go to Socionix gallery and look at people of different types posted there. Then write down what impressions you have of the look in their eyes and facial expressions i.e. how would you characterize them? Do they look soft, warm, sharp, wet, lost, subtle, kind, unpleasant to you? If you have time, watch some of their videos in addition and observe their body language (for example, see if you can tell any differences between Ip vs Ij body language). Contrast and compare what you see. Write down your impressions. Then you'll be able to use these impressions you have gathered to type someone in the future.

V.I. has a subjective, individual component to it. What impressions I get from people of certain type isn't going to be quite the same as what impressions you get. You should practice it for yourself using Socionix gallery as your starting point.


----------



## Entropic

cyamitide said:


> The demonstrative intuition and sensing sections in this articles explain it very well imo: Socionics - the16types.info - Gulenko VI Method
> 
> Notice how the look in the eyes of people pictured in demonstrating sensing section is very concretely focused on something that is right in front of them. Then inspect Pattinson's photographs -- he next to never features such look (instead his look is very airy and diffuse). If not EII, then at the very least it can be derived that he is some intuitive type from his V.I.


Fair enough.


> What I would suggest for you to do is go to Socionix gallery and look at people of different types posted there. Then write down what impressions you have of the look in their eyes and facial expressions i.e. how would you characterize them?* Do they look soft, warm, sharp, wet, lost, subtle, kind, unpleasant to you?*


I don't understand this... I don't classify or understand people in this way. I don't know how I exactly classify people, but not in this manner. At best it's something in the lines of, I like this person or I dislike this person.


> If you have time, watch some of their videos in addition and observe their body language (for example, see if you can tell any differences between Ip vs Ij body language).


I already asked the people at CognitiveTypes about this. I think I understand the difference in that EJ and IJ are more rigid in terms of composure but it honestly doesn't seem fool proof.


> Contrast and compare what you see. Write down your impressions. Then you'll be able to use these impressions you have gathered to type someone in the future.


Again, this logic is so... strange to me.


> V.I. has a subjective, individual component to it. What impressions I get from people of certain type isn't going to be quite the same as what impressions you get. You should practice it for yourself using Socionix gallery as your starting point.


The problem is that I don't get any vibe or holistic sense from most of the people in the Socionix gallery. I often entirely fail to see what they actually have in common in terms of say, facial structure etc.



cyamitide said:


> This is a typical ILI approach to accounting for their inadequacies and incompetence at particular fields (simply criticize them into oblivion and write them off!),


Also want to point out that I don't think that's just an ILI thing.


----------



## Cantarella

Oh god... the Fe smile is VERY Fe-subtype (for ESE, EIE, SEI OR IEI), haha. That one gave me flashbacks. I never could smile like that, though. In most of my pictures, I have this sort of pissy, somewhat challenging or "get out of my space" look.

VI is still too complicated for me, but I don't think I'd write it off prematurely just because I'm bad at it.  Seriously, why the hate?


----------



## cyamitide

Kamishi said:


> I don't understand this... I don't classify or understand people in this way. I don't know how I exactly classify people, but not in this manner. At best it's something in the lines of, I like this person or I dislike this person.


Those were only examples, but as I have mentioned you should write down _your own personal impressions_ and try to be more detailed and nuanced than a simple "like/dislike" a person (that looks like unrefined Fi).



> I already asked the people at CognitiveTypes about this. I think I understand the difference in that EJ and IJ are more rigid in terms of composure but it honestly doesn't seem fool proof.


V.I. should not be used as stand-alone method for typing, but instead it should be applied together with other information you have about a person. Even after extensive practice I've made mistakes, so you cannot rely on it alone.



> Again, this logic is so... strange to me.
> 
> The problem is that I don't get any vibe or holistic sense from most of the people in the Socionix gallery. I often entirely fail to see what they actually have in common in terms of say, facial structure etc.


What you're saying is very strange to me, because I do get holistic impressions and draw many associations from which I can make guesses about people's IM, temperaments, and thus their types. It is possible that you are one of the people who do not possess innate ability needed for drawing useful type-related info from visual cues. In which case V.I. would be a waste of time for you and you would fare better if you find other methods for typing that are more suitable to your style of perception.



> Also want to point out that I don't think that's just an ILI thing.


I've never said that ILIs are the only type who engage in this, but it is very common tactic among people of this type.


----------



## Entropic

cyamitide said:


> Those were only examples, but as I have mentioned you should write down _your own personal impressions_ and try to be more detailed and nuanced than a simple "like/dislike" a person (that looks like unrefined Fi).


I understand that. I am just pointing out that I don't even understand what you are asking me to do, really.


> V.I. should not be used as stand-alone method for typing, but instead it should be applied together with other information you have about a person. Even after extensive practice I've made mistakes, so you cannot rely on it alone.


Of course not, and I never suggested such a thing. I was just trying to point out that I don't quite visually grasp IJ and EJ as temperaments from visual cues usually, or I don't pick it up easily, although I intellectually understand what is being inferred to.


> What you're saying is very strange to me, because I do get holistic impressions and draw many associations from which I can make guesses about people's IM, temperaments, and thus their types. It is possible that you are one of the people who do not possess innate ability needed for drawing useful type-related info from visual cues. In which case V.I. would be a waste of time for you and you would fare better if you find other methods for typing that are more suitable to your style of perception.


Well, I don't tend to pay much attention to how people look usually. I'm pretty bad at picking up visual details and such about people.


> I've never said that ILIs are the only type who engage in this, but it is very common tactic among people of this type.


And I never said you didn't say it was specific to ILIs, but I think you strongly implied ILIs are prone of doing this and I am not sure I agree with aestrivex' selftyping so I am not sure his behavior can be dismissed as an "ILI thing".


----------



## Yedra

@Kamishi 
I don't know what happened there, the pictures are probably copyrighted or something. 
But you can always google those people and see for yourself, if you like.

On topic, I pretty much agree with @cyamitide, VI has its merits. One has just to know what to look for. Most of the time I just take a "snapshot", I get an overall vibe about that person and I know what type they probably are. It's always the easiest to look for people who actually resemble each other (facial structure and articulation).
Here ar four LSI, you don't even have to listen to what they say, just pay attention to _how_ they talk:

Kimi Räikkönen, F1 driver





Tomas Berdych, tennis player





Valteri Bottas, F1 driver





Nico Hülkenberg, F1 driver






Here are three guys who most likely belong to the same quadra and the first two are the same type (ExE), pay attention to the shape of the nose and the lips:

Nick Lachey, singer 








Roger Federer, tennis player








Quentin Tarantino, director


----------



## cyamitide

another LSI guy -- lots of visual similarities with the LSI videos that Yedra posted


----------



## Entropic

cyamitide said:


> another LSI guy -- lots of visual similarities with the LSI videos that Yedra posted


But wouldn't ESI also have many of those similar qualities considering they are also Ji base with Se creative?


----------



## electricky

I didn't think many still bought into the VI by pure physical feature thing. If face shape had something significant to say of a type, wouldn't it mean that children must have similar types to their parents? Or that people of the same racial group must be somewhat similar in type? 

I'd say the verdict is still out on mannerisms though....


----------



## Inguz

ElectricSparkle said:


> I didn't think many still bought into the VI by pure physical feature thing. If face shape had something significant to say of a type, wouldn't it mean that children must have similar types to their parents? Or that people of the same racial group must be somewhat similar in type?
> 
> I'd say the verdict is still out on mannerisms though....


There are some genetic traits that can be attributed to how a person is psychologically. A thought experiment, name one introvert that has a very hairy chest, name one extrovert that has a clear ectomorph body type (the slim introvert type body figure).

The problem is though, not every extrovert has a hairy chest and not every introvert is skinny. But if you think about it in the way of some genes that affects physical traits also being linked to psychological aspects such as extroversion/introversion then it can be explained through which genes that are activated in you that determines some of your psychological traits as well. The following statement is pure speculation on my part, but if these genes exists in every human then it would just be a matter of which genes are "turned on" or "turned off", the randomness of newly created genes are beneficial for any specie, it means that you can be exactly the opposite psychologically from your parents yet have inherited their genes.

As far as socionics VI goes, it seems to be at an infantile stage at best. It doesn't seem to be well developed enough for this kind of typing to be even remotely reliable, or, the links of physical traits and a certain type is only useful in generalizations and not for the individual; meaning that the premise of VI as a tool for typing individuals falls flat already from the start.


TL;DR some correlations can be made, but VI is useless as it is.


----------



## NYEnglishRose

I am an EII. Do I look like one? Don't know. I don't really care if I fit some arbitrary standard a Socionics EII (MBTI INFP)'s appearance. I know what I am and that's it.


----------



## Yedra

Kamishi said:


> But wouldn't ESI also have many of those similar qualities considering they are also Ji base with Se creative?


Sometimes I can't tell for sure, if someone is LSI or ESI just going by appearance. But LSI have a type specific humor, there's nothing quite like it. That's one of the ways I can tell them apart easily. 

While I'm at it , here's a female LSI (compare her to Kimi Räikkönen):

Agnieszka Radwanska, tennis player


----------



## cyamitide

Someone started a Pinterest for INFjs: INFJ



Kamishi said:


> But wouldn't ESI also have many of those similar qualities considering they are also Ji base with Se creative?


Yes, LSI and ESI share some similarities in V.I. since both are decisive, Se-creative, rational types. But with enough vi-ing practice it's possible to start telling them apart. The negativist-positivist differences are usually perceptible for me from their interviews -- LSIs as positivists are more accepting of whatever info the interviewer shoots at them, more willing to build and expand upon it, while ESIs are less willing to go along with it, they can be superficially charming but there's more negativist resistance there. 

This has effect on their looks too, LSIs look more welcoming at a distance while ESIs suffer from this.


----------



## Inguz

cyamitide said:


> Since Socionics was incepted in Eastern Europe, initial V.I. studies were done on rather homogenous population of ex-USSR countries. You can see that Filatova's portraits are composed of exclusively Eastern European faces. There were very few people of Asian or African ethnic groups living in that part of the globe back in those times to do a study on them.


I feel the need to correct you on this. Ex-Soviet had everything but a homogenous population. Just take a look at a map and you'll see how far USSR streched. Apart from that, not even the modern Russia's population is homogenous by any strech of the definition.

http://images.nationmaster.com/images/motw/commonwealth/soviet_union_admin_1989.jpg


----------



## Nobleheart

Yedra said:


> Here ar four LSI, you don't even have to listen to what they say, just pay attention to _how_ they talk:


Judging by their body language, the third guy (Valteri Bottas, F1 driver) is not the same type as the others. He is very still and focused with eyes that don't move away from their target (His eyes look very Si). The other men are animated and bounce back and forth from eye contact to their thoughts (clear Betas - lots of Ti internalizing [looking down and away] and Fe smile flashes, combined with Se animation and fidgeting with Ni zoning out to collect thoughts).

I mention this to illustrate how cognitive functions are spotted in mannerisms, pacing of speech, inflection, facial expressions, and other 'subconscious' actions. This is where VI has merit as one of many tools used to narrow down a person's type. 

Measurements are sometimes accurate, and are showing themselves to have tendencies, but I think any of the elements in identifying type - Self Assessment tests, Window Method, VI measurements, etc - can prove exceptional to any assumption of norm, thus making them less than accurate. It's in the bigger picture that everything really comes together into an answer. Most importantly, it's when the personality is manifest that we can "see" the nature of that personality.


----------



## Yedra

cyamitide said:


> This has effect on their looks too, LSIs look more welcoming at a distance while ESIs suffer from this.


QFT, ha ha.



Nobleheart said:


> Judging by their body language, the third guy (Valteri Bottas, F1 driver) is not the same type as the others. He is very still and focused with eyes that don't move away from their target (His eyes look very Si). The other men are animated and bounce back and forth from eye contact to their thoughts (clear Betas - lots of Ti internalizing [looking down and away] and Fe smile flashes, combined with Se animation and fidgeting with Ni zoning out to collect thoughts).


Could be that Bottas is Si base, you never know for sure. I follow F1 closely, including him too this season and, dunno, always struck me as LSI. 

F1 specifically is filled with betas and gammas, I believe.
In F1 for example there are people like Button and Rosberg where I would maaaybe consider ESE over EIE but pretty sure they are Fe base. Very polished demeanor from both.

Jenson Button






Nico Rosberg


----------



## Nobleheart

Yedra said:


> F1 specifically is filled with betas and gammas, I believe.


 And hunks apparently... but yeah, it would make sense that the most successful people in F1 racing would tend to have a lot of Se. It's very much a real time reactive spatial intelligence event.



Yedra said:


> for example there are people like Button and Rosberg where I would maaaybe consider ESE over EIE but pretty sure they are Fe base.


I think you are correct. Clearly Betas, and clearly extroverted mannerisms. Lots of puppeteer hands and resolute gestures for emphasis (Fe) along with smiles going toward the ears and eyebrows highest in the middle (Fe) along with clear in the moment focus and eye darting (Se). It's a tough call, but I'm going to go with...

Jenson Button: ENFJ (He clearly loves the post race interaction, and at times his Se is overwhelmed when racing. His focus was on "we" and his relationship with his team.)
Nico Rosberg: ESTP (He clearly loves the racing itself, and at times his Fe is overwhelmed when doing the promotions and interviews. His focus was on action, reflexes, and perception.)

Therefore, based on mannerisms and the content of their conversation, not physical measurements, I came to these type assumptions. Technically, that's not VI, but without seeing the mannerisms (even in still photos), I wouldn't have been able to make a guess.



Yedra said:


> Very polished demeanor from both.


A tertiary function will often manifest almost as clearly as the dominant, especially if they're both extroverted functions. ESTPs and ENTPs are known for having a strong Fe vibe in person, despite leaning more on Ti in their biting word choices.

Think about how often INFJs come off as Ti users with their wall of text, over clarification, and seeming need to put facts ahead of people's feelings, even though their intention is Fe (trying to include others in their thought process)... like what I'm doing now.


----------



## Yedra

J Alvarez, singer





I think that's an ESI with the "bitchy resting face" as cyamitide put it, ha ha!


----------



## cyamitide

Yedra said:


> I think that's an ESI with the "bitchy resting face" as cyamitide put it, ha ha!


SLI is another TIM I would consider for this guy ... my take on it is that he has going this chill, laid-back skepticism rolling rather than "bitchy resting" face -- it's like you'd have to prove yourself to him -- which is the SLI and ILI territory


----------



## Yedra

cyamitide said:


> SLI is another TIM I would consider for this guy ... my take on it is that he has going this chill, laid-back skepticism rolling rather than "bitchy resting" face -- it's like you'd have to prove yourself to him -- which is the SLI and ILI territory


I would exclude SLI, he has that can't-be-bothered gamma swagger.


----------

