[ToriKago]

I stumbled upon this site the other day, and it was pretty interesting. Thoughts?

Jungian Physiognomy
Archive Beta 0.1

 

[electricky]

I actually think that they are onto something, with their main problem being not that they are getting the function wrong, but they are detecting the right function, but not how it relates to the individual at hand. Like, sure they might have accurately found Taylor Swift "showing Ti," but it could just as easily be her inferior as her dominant (you need only see the whole of Taylor to see that it is NOT her dominant). But then they get some of them right (as function and dominant), like Oprah (and probably that girl with the bright red hair too )

 

[ToriKago]

I actually think that they are onto something, with their main problem being not that they are getting the function wrong, but they are detecting the right function, but not how it relates to the individual at hand. Like, sure they might have accurately found Taylor Swift "showing Ti," but it could just as easily be her inferior as her dominant (you need only see the whole of Taylor to see that it is NOT her dominant). But then they get some of them right (as function and dominant), like Oprah (and probably that girl with the bright red hair too )

Yeah, I disagree with some of their celebrity typings. Everyone probably displays and uses each function to some extent, but it varies depending on strength. I agree with you.
I do think that they're onto something, as well. I've seen many of these mannerisms in people who I've later typed. A girl who I decided was probably an Fi-dom displayed lots of the mannerisms listed in the Fi section. It's pretty cool.

 

[cyamitide]

I stumbled upon this site the other day, and it was pretty interesting. Thoughts?

It's possible. There has been a lot of research published in the past century that link various personality traits to appearance, including someone's propensity to criminal behavior, their big 5 scores, and their political inclinations.

Socionics has something called VI or visual identification which is a practice of trying to narrow down someone's type by looking at their mannerisms, facial expressions, body language. Enneagram has undertaken a similar effort. There are VI collections for both enneagram types and instinctual stackings.

 

[ToriKago]

It's possible. There has been a lot of research published in the past century that link various personality traits to appearance, including someone's propensity to criminal behavior, their big 5 scores, and their political inclinations.

Socionics has something called VI or visual identification which is a practice of trying to narrow down someone's type by looking at their mannerisms, facial expressions, body language. Enneagram has undertaken a similar effort. There are VI collections for both enneagram types and instinctual stackings.

If I understand all those correctly though, those are based on physical appearance and this is based more on behavior. Not to say that there isn't some correlation between type and genetics, I don't know if there is or not.

 

[cyamitide]

If I understand all those correctly though, those are based on physical appearance and this is based more on behavior. Not to say that there isn't some correlation between type and genetics, I don't know if there is or not.

That's not the impression I got from the links you provided. Their methods rely on facial expression and even facial structure, for example this is what one of the pages said: "For a Discernment type, the whole Face is the most prevalent part of their countenance. The face is balanced, connected and operates as a collective unit. For discerners, the eyes that are peripheral and the facial dynamics of the lips, cheeks, eyebrow and forehead are central. During articulation the eyes often become unimportant and unattended as the rest of their face and body cooperates to deliver a presentation."

This is not behavior but appearance, so how is it any different?

 

[JungyesMBTIno]

I don't think function order really matters. As long as they're showing the function, that's all that counts. Frankly, I do believe the eye expressions of people can say a lot about how they think. Heh, this isn't half bad, really (I mean, I don't think there's any denying that Oprah's Fe-ness is her shining beacon of cognitive function obviousness, lol). Of course, not everyone is going to be perfectly aligned to these, but there might be something to it, I dunno.

 

[ToriKago]

That's not the impression I got from the links you provided. Their methods rely on facial expression and even facial structure, for example this is what one of the pages said: "For a Discernment type, the whole Face is the most prevalent part of their countenance. The face is balanced, connected and operates as a collective unit. For discerners, the eyes that are peripheral and the facial dynamics of the lips, cheeks, eyebrow and forehead are central. During articulation the eyes often become unimportant and unattended as the rest of their face and body cooperates to deliver a presentation."

This is not behavior but appearance, so how is it any different?

When I said 'behavior', that also included facial expressions. I don't think that they're saying that Discerning types only have rigid body stances and articulate with their entire face (and vice versa for Perceiving types) . Simply, that's what someone's body language would be like when they're using a judging function. Everyone would use both since they have both discerning and perceiving functions, but one body language would be displayed more often. I don't see how they're referring to facial structure at all.

 

[SharkT00th]

I think they are onto something with how one's face reacts to cognitive functions. I believe that someone's genetic structural face on it's own has no bearing on a specific cognitive function. Everyone can learn each cognitive function, it won't mean that you're very good at it though.