Typing Based on Expression.

Trifoilum

Trifoilum

find wisdom, build hope.
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
A friend (the same one that told me I have a >: | expression) gave me this link;
http://www.socionics.org/type/Default.aspx?type=INFJ

(WARNING : Russian, but just click on the types :P)

What do you think? I understand there seems to be a difference between Socionics and MBTI, but between INFP and INFJ face there, my face fits the INFJ more than INFP (on the side note, the INFP face is cool. So is INTP.)
Also, apologize if this has been posted in the forum.

ETA: ah and I would assume this is 'default expression'.
 
Last edited:
lol~ infj~ the only F type that doesn't smile xD
 
Yeah, i feel like i have that expression quite a bit.

The socionics is kind of similar to mbti but at the same time, it is completely different. The infj and infp in socionics don't exactly correspond to their mbti counterparts. The J means that you are more rational in socionics while the p means more irrational. I think the first three letters are pretty much the same though. I may be wrong and if i am, set me straight.
 
It's not detailed enough; it needs several drawings for each gender. The ESFJ they show is the bad variant of that personality, for example. ESFJ's have a few roads they can go down just like any personality, some choose the bad route and that lady is one of them.

ISTJ - Good
ESTP - Decent

INFP - Okay... could mistake her for an S-type, her eyes aren't nearly dreamy enough. Maybe she has her Te engaged when they're drawing that.

INFJ - Depends

The INFJ one applies to me, but I don't think it applies to all of us. Really depends if we have our Fe engaged at that moment or not.

So basically a bunch of pictures that don't say a whole lot since they're incomplete and very rough. A compilation of real photos would be better.
 
How can anyone type the worst drawings on Earth?
 
Last edited:
ISFP.gif

Looks like ISFPs have free candy.
 
I once read something about xxFJs and xxTPs typically being much more likely to be "emoters" (people who show emotion on their faces) than xxFPs and xxTJs, who typically didn't emote as much.

Reason being, if I remember right:
xxFJs (emoter) force emotions because they feel they need to show them
xxTPs (emoter) can't be bothered with hiding their emotions
xxFPs (non-emoter) actively suppress showing their emotions
xxTJs (non-emoter) don't feel any need to show their emotions on their face

I used that rule of thumb to help me type some people out. It didn't work too bad for narrowing things down.
 
I am disinclined to think that you can reliablly type someone based off a still photograph. There may be small overall trends, however it is not reliable or provable enough to make it into a regular method to use to type people.

However, typing someone based off active expressions on how they speak, move, look around, etc. that I believe is a very effective method on typing someone. It gives off a lot of subtle cues about how someone things, and it manifests in ways in which someone can tell what type you are.

So really, yes you can type based off expressions if you actually watch the person, not off still images.
 
IndigoSensor said:
I am disinclined to think that you can reliablly type someone based off a still photograph. There may be small overall trends, however it is not reliable or provable enough to make it into a regular method to use to type people.

However, typing someone based off active expressions on how they speak, move, look around, etc. that I believe is a very effective method on typing someone. It gives off a lot of subtle cues about how someone things, and it manifests in ways in which someone can tell what type you are.

So really, yes you can type based off expressions if you actually watch the person, not off still images.
Click to expand...

+345
 
IndigoSensor said:
I am disinclined to think that you can reliablly type someone based off a still photograph. There may be small overall trends, however it is not reliable or provable enough to make it into a regular method to use to type people.

However, typing someone based off active expressions on how they speak, move, look around, etc. that I believe is a very effective method on typing someone. It gives off a lot of subtle cues about how someone things, and it manifests in ways in which someone can tell what type you are.

So really, yes you can type based off expressions if you actually watch the person, not off still images.
Click to expand...

Disagree, many facial expressions are genetically inherited, for example I have a lot of my fathers expressions, and we are polar opposites. Plus, people tend to pick up expressions via mimicry from those around them. YOu cannot type based on this.
 
Billy said:
Disagree, many facial expressions are genetically inherited, for example I have a lot of my fathers expressions, and we are polar opposites. Plus, people tend to pick up expressions via mimicry from those around them. YOu cannot type based on this.
Click to expand...

Just because you have the same expressions does not mean you are going to end up being the same type. I have a lot of similar facial expressions to my father who is an ESTJ. I mean, he's my dad. However there is a subtle quality difference that one can learn to differentiate between. On a subtle level me and my dads expressions actually are different, pretty dramatically. It is these subtle differences that actually make it be different on a deeper level. There are many many people all over typology forums that believe this to be a confimable way to type someone. I am inclined to think that you are not going to agree to this though, and that is fine. The fact of the matter is there are many of us that use this to determine type in addition to other information, and it has and does work. Disagree all you want, but it works for many of us and other have confirmed it.
 
IndigoSensor said:
Just because you have the same expressions does not mean you are going to end up being the same type. I have a lot of similar facial expressions to my father who is an ESTJ. I mean, he's my dad. However there is a subtle quality difference that one can learn to differentiate between. On a subtle level me and my dads expressions actually are different, pretty dramatically. It is these subtle differences that actually make it be different on a deeper level. There are many many people all over typology forums that believe this to be a confimable way to type someone. I am inclined to think that you are not going to agree to this though, and that is fine. The fact of the matter is there are many of us that use this to determine type in addition to other information, and it has and does work. Disagree all you want, but it works for many of us and other have confirmed it.
Click to expand...

ok, prove it with evidence, not hearsay.
 
Billy said:
ok, prove it with evidence, not hearsay.
Click to expand...

I can't prove this in just a single post. This is something that takes time to learn and understand. I initally picked this up by typing methods that were explained in detail on INTPf (which I don't go to very often anymore due to time constraints). This will give the basic understanding of it, but mind you everything in this is not completely correct, and it takes time to refine down and understand (months). I have since digested this and begun to understand how it works, and see this in action with typing other I know on these forums, and other forums. The most recent examples were that of people who use videos to supplement typing information in the observatory on PerN.
 
Still seeing hearsay, has Mila, Tom or Jesse actually taken the MBTI assessment? If not, we dont know their types. assuming that they are something by consensus doesnt really work, especially on actors.

What I would like to see is some real research done, like people with known types being typed by said means by a number of people so we can compare how many people get it right.

You cannot conclusively say this is true if you have no actual proof. Lets not forget, you and some of your friends in the facial expression camp, also mistyped me based on my own facial expressions.
 
None of this can be "proved" for certain. What you are asking for is simply unobtainable. I am of the opinion that the majority of MBTI tests are not the most reliable pieces to use in the ways of typing someone due to the fact that it is very often based off stereotypical external manifestation of cognitive functions, which can not be accurately used to type someone. Cognitive functions are thought processes; external behavorial manifestations have loose connections to this at best. You need to take information from all sides. That being some test results, insight into how one internally works, and video evidence. It all ties together. I gave you the information you would need to look into this further. If you do not wish to look into it then that is your decision and you are free to believe what you wish on the matter.

Personally? I do believe that this is a reliable tool to use when you are attemtping to type someone, and I have seen it work time and time again many places over. I am not the only one who follow this idea with cognitive functions and it is certainly not a creation of my own by any strech of the word. Thus I will continue to believe this and use it until I am shown a mass of proof otherwise with this.
 
IndigoSensor said:
None of this can be "proved" for certain. What you are asking for is simply unobtainable. I am of the opinion that the majority of MBTI tests are not the most reliable pieces to use in the ways of typing someone due to the fact that it is very often based off stereotypical external manifestation of cognitive functions, which can not be accurately used to type someone. Cognitive functions are thought processes; external behavorial manifestations have loose connections to this at best. You need to take information from all sides. That being some test results, insight into how one internally works, and video evidence. It all ties together. I gave you the information you would need to look into this further. If you do not wish to look into it then that is your decision and you are free to believe what you wish on the matter.

Personally? I do believe that this is a reliable tool to use when you are attemtping to type someone, and I have seen it work time and time again many places over. I am not the only one who follow this idea with cognitive functions and it is certainly not a creation of my own by any strech of the word. Thus I will continue to believe this and use it until I am shown a mass of proof otherwise with this.
Click to expand...


You cant prove a negative.

stereotypical external manifestation of cognitive functions
Click to expand...

Is the problem. Its based on something other then science or even scientific method.

you can believe it on faith if you want, for me thats not good enough. I say its not possible and when it happens its merely coincidence. Again, you and several others in your camp, mistyped a number of people who were later revealed to be contrary to what you thought they were based exactly on the criteria you listed, myself included, as such I am unimpressed by this theory. And without substantial proof or at least testing, its merely a faith based belief, no different really then belief in Santa or the Easter Bunny.

I remember when VH was on here talking about this too, he couldnt offer proof either other then his "word" and while I would love to believe something based on someones word, I simply cannot, as it would be a bad policy to follow a leader blindly on faith like that.

As it stands, I guess we will have to agree that there is no real proof, or studies done on this, and as such, you cannot say it actually works at least not with any credibility.
 
As far as my history of attempting to type people, if this was done prior to near the end of this past summer, I wasn't really using the criteria that I use now. That was before I understood what I understand now. I also will not say I am the best at understanding typing by visual observation; it's hard. I am better at confirming or not confirming someone elses observations based on this. Understanding cognitive functions is a very difficult process and it takes a lot of learning to begin to understand things. I have had many perspective shifts on the matter many times over since I began learning, it really is an on going process. The stuff isn't faith based at all for what you are calling it. It's based on what the actual cognitive functions are themselves at a very basic level. How they work, and how they manifest. It really is rooted in the base of what cognitive functions are. Typing by expression is an extention of that and not everyone is going to agree with that. However, there is a very very high corralation with what others pick up on outside of that. Again this is largely based off what I have learned since the end of this past summer.

You also are taking what I said out of context in regards to what a stereotypical external manifestation. These are behavioral conscious actions that I am speaking of. Not the subtle subconscious manifestations that appear due to the thought processes that are cognitive functions themselves.
 
[MENTION=1451]Billy[/MENTION]

I think you should take a step into the the observatory at PersonalityNation. I find it interesting that you can be so assured of your type, but then point out someone like Adymus (who probably has a lot more knowledge than you on Jungian functions) that he’s wrong. I’m willing to bet that it’s more likely you’re wrong about your own type than he’s wrong about the types of those actors.

Furthermore, even if they were to take tests it wouldn’t prove that they are that type. Tests are crap. Why do you think so many people are mistyped? :m169:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top