This is a discussion on Can you guess a person's personality type just by looking? within the Myers Briggs Forum forums, part of the Personality Type Forums category; Originally Posted by TurranMC Of course I can tell personality type just by looking. For instance, if I see someone ...
It's near impossible to describe looks, and a picture is indeed worth a thousand words here. For example, you can begin practicing by noting the personality types of your parents and close relatives or friends, then using that association you can try to look for personality types in others. Hope that helps.
Sparky, I've seen what you're talking about in Socionics.
This method is based on the principle that people of the same Psychological Type have similar body structures, facial expressions, facial structures and eyes. Socionics experts use the visual method of personality identification as a main method (wherever possible) and all other methods for assistance. More on this method later.
Advantages of the method: instant identification; the quickest and most reliable of all known methods; no need for personal involvement; allows remote identification and identification by photographs;
Disadvantages of the method: practical application requires a great deal of experience and training; the identification process can be complicated by racial differences.
Methods of Psychological Type identification
Thank you for the information, Linus. I find Socionics to be more complex than MBTI, and believe MBTI may be just as good in finding personality types in people by observation from a photo or statue. Of course as you mentioned, this takes practice depending on the variety of people you meet or how much experience you have. There also seems to be a lack of research in this area. However, I don't see it being complicated by racial differences as it is by masculinity.
Hi All. This is my first post and it's actually this topic I'd like to see discussed more. I began with MBTI but then transitioned to Socionics. Both are based on similar foundations but those of Socionics are more stable thus allowing for far better and deeper analysis. (Sorry if I offend any die-hard MBTI users. My purpose is to keep this thread on Visual Identification and in order to do so you'll have to relate. Thanks.)
@Linus : Good catch on the link. Sergei does a fair job of promoting Socionics but Visual Identification is not considered the Main Method by all Socionics users. It's actually never been researched as thoroughly as I'd wish to see.
@Sparky : Thanks for posting this thread topic. In my observations I've noticed two individuals with the same type but different race have many features that are similar. I don't agree, however, with MBTI's efficacy in typing as well as Socionics. Also Soconics is not that hard. The Russians did a wonderful job in this field : )
@Jinxies : You made a fine point on the bit about making analysis on Auras. The limited research in the Socionics area does make a discrepancy that clears up this argument. Using Visual Identification requires the need to isolate Static vs Dynamic (facial & physical features). In practice I've compared the Static facial and body structures of ENTjs like yourself (against pictures of verified ENTjs) with the Dynamic features of many ENTj friends and acquaintances I've had experience with. Dynamic includes facial twitches, eye direction, body stance, etc. -- and these are done on a consistent basis.
please let me continue on the next post....
Blah, that sucks. I just wrote a beautiful additional post with proper links to material I've used BUT I don't have 10 posts and can't post a link just yet. Another time then.
@Amyrose : the links I wish to provide in the future will have better analyzed and verified types. Also, I suggest studying the Mechanics of each function. E/I, S/N, F/T etc.
@OrangeAppled : You have to observe both Static AND Dynamic features of a person. After a while it becomes easier... -- I haven't yet looked at the typeologycentral.com(?) person's collection but I'm guessing it's kind of loosely guessed then yayed or nayed? As I wrote above I'd like to provide some links to more concrete material I've collected and used. I hope it will be more enlightening.
Thanks. I’ll look out for that.
Thank you jezroue for the respones. What is that link you were about to post? I think you are able now.
Note: Visual Identification (VI) is not promoted by the Socionics community in general. But I find that the platform is stable enough to actually see similarities of certain types.
1. Visual identification - Wikisocion (Please Read this first. It will clear up a lot of misconceptions and allow for a standard to begin with)
2. SOCIONICS: Functions, Types, Tests (Very practical and interesting. There's a note that the original researcher did not have any intention of promoting VI. Pictures were taken AFTER her diagnosis. I use these pictures frequently)
3. Socionic Types of Famous People (Rick has an interesting view on how he types people. I don't, however, agree with all of his types)
4. The site ₪₪₪ Socionics - The New Psychology ₪₪₪ has a lot of information for the beginner but I don't enjoy their VI list. Quantity over Quality.
These name conversions should help a lot:
ILE - Intuitive Logical Extratim - ENTp
SEI - Sensing Ethical Introtim - ISFp
ESE - Ethical Sensing Extratim - ESFj
LII - Logical Intuitive Introtim - INTj
IEI - Intuitive Ethical Introtim - INFp
SLE - Sensing Logical Entrotim - ISTj
EIE - Ethical Intuitive Extratim - ENFj
LSI - Logical Sensing Introtim - ISTj
ILI - Intuitive Logical Introtim - INTp
SEE - Sensing Ethical Extratim - ESFp
ESI - Ethical Sensing Introtim - ISFj
LIE - Logical Intuitive Extratim - ENTJ
IEE - Intuitive Ethical Extratim - ENFp
SLI - Sensing Logical Introtim - ISTp
EII - Ethical Intuitive Introtim - INFj
LSE - Logical Sensing Extratim - ESTj
Last edited by jezroue; 02-11-2011 at 08:03 AM.