The INFJ's Visual Signature

Auburn

Auburn

Regular Poster
MBTI
INTP
This is a followup to this thread, aimed more specifically at the understanding the INFJ personality type.


Although there is a variety in a type's expression, there is also a limited range which each type possesses, as well as a specific signature of expression. This signature, when learned, can be used to identify a personality visually - sometimes instantly. In this thread I will explain, to the best of my current ability, via impressions, what an INFJ actually looks like.

Perception Lead:

For a Perception-Dominant type (such as an INFJ), the Eyes are the most prevailing part of their face. They act as the driver/captain of the rest of their body, often steering the head and body in new directions. The eyes are the center of focus, while the rest of the face is peripheral and disconnected from them. This disconnect causes the face of a perceiver type to have two separate dynamics occurring at the same time. When they smile, the smile occurs in the peripheral and does not overtake/consume their eyes. This can cause a manic appearance as the eyes remain wide open at the same time they are smiling.

The hands and body of a Perceiving type have a fluid, ongoing quality to them. Their body follows the navigation of their eyes, and has a more loose feel to it. It has a rhythmic and syncopated nature - most notably in the way the head moves then the body catches up to it slightly afterward. Slight swaying is more common for this type.


Worldview Lead: - LIQUID | CONCENTRATED | SLOW-MOVING | DENSE | SAP-LIKE

As a worldview (Ni) lead, INFJs have an inertial quality to their body movements - as a type of slow-moving, thick liquid substance that courses quietly, steadily through them. Their eyes and brows carry a sense of gravity and intensity in them that channels itself through the rest of their body. Their head, particularly the eyes, will direct the rest of the body.

When moving, the body moves/leans as one mass rather than in separate segments, and their arm gestures are in synch with the direction of their eyes. When articulating, their brow will generally remain fixed and their eyes will concentrate. As an element, it resembles tree-sap. It is a liquid, yet a thick liquid. Worldview leads lack the strictness, solidity and axiomatic nature of discerners - being instead more visceral beings - yet having it's own form of firmness.



Ni Dominant:

The most distinct quality of Ni dominant eyes is their Steadiness. The eyes will appear focused, present and able to maintain contact on an object or person for long stretches at a time. Ni/Se eyes tend not to blink or divert their gaze as often as Ne/Si eyes. When changing focus point, Ni eyes will often move the whole head in the new direction as opposed to just the eyes.

When in deep thought or searching their memory intensely, their eyes may go out of focus and "zone-out". When this happens the brain becomes involved in a holistic, zen process and accesses all parts of itself in unison to find its perspective. As such they will often respond in universals - from a collective (rather than specific) perspective they have of reality.


​
Penetrative Stare:

The eyes fall into a dream-like state and stare off into the distance. The eyes will appear to be looking through the object of it's focus, rather than being fixated on it like Se or Si.

When the eyes come out of this state, they reconnect with Se with the environment, but not as strongly. Ni eyes have a mild penetrative quality to them at all times.


​
xYZ9m.gif
C7DPs.gif

​

Mesmerizing Eyes:

Ni eyes also have a hypnotic quality to them. Their steadiness and calmness can evoke a sense of tranquility in others, especially when combined with Fe. This happens unintentionally and is not malicious in itself, although some Ni users become masterful manipulators using this trait.


​
4fzm3.gif
X7oPD.gif


​

​
Fe Auxiliary:

Fe is identified most easily by the movements of the mouth and smile. For an INFJ Fe is secondary, as such, their smiles will be warming, impressionable, but the smile will not overtake the eyes. The steadiness of their eyes will prevail while a smile forms underneath them.

Fe's Warming ability will create a sense of assurance, acceptance and safety. It will make it known by it's words or body language that it considers you an ally. If the user is malevolent, the inverse is true. It will make it known that you are on it's bad side and create an atmosphere of hostility. But in each case, each word is meant to elicit a certain emotion in the audience.


​
Smile With Me:

This is one of the most signature Fe gestures. The user smiles and animates while staring at you, with the aim to amuse or surprise you with it's words. It is, more than anything, looking for a reaction of some positive variety.

They will pause for a little bit after speaking to see your reaction. The user may have a slightly tense look to them as they wait for your response. If you laugh, they will deflate their tension and laugh with you too.



​
XyQa8.gif
Y8bQw.png

​

Ti Tertiary:

The whole-mass movements of INFJs are sometimes broken by bits of tertiary Ti. The movements of Ti will be straightforward but a bit jittery/glitchy, possessing a sort of sophisticated awkwardness to them. Ti communicates mostly via hand movements, but the hands will stay confined within a certain radius of it's self and not impose upon the space of others.

Ti is best known for its Momentum Halting ability. When an INFJ is engaging in Ti, they will go silent while the face becomes flat/dead and the voice becomes stale. The eyes will also shut off or start deflecting as this occurs. Ti will sharply halt the momentum of the extroverted functions (Fe/Se) in order to process, and then release the breaks when finished screening the thought for clarity and precision, letting the flow continue again without much loss of energy.

Hence the INFJ, when articulating, will alternate between appearing lifeless one moment, then charming and passionate the next - speaking their words with a sense of conviction and want to impact the audience. The processing time of an INFJ will be Cooling, while the articulating will be Warming.

Se Inferior:

The most distinct trait of Se eyes is their ability to Lock-On. The eyes will connect strongly with the environment, latching onto objects with focus, often maintaining eye contact for long stretches at a time. Even when their eyes switch from one object to another, each new place they land upon is equally latched onto with intensity. The eyes of Ni and Se are one in the same -- it is a combination that alternates between zoning-out into space and then snapping back into reality and reconnecting.

For an INFJ, this reconnection will be a bit painful, disruptive and intrusive to their thought-drifting. The most natural state of Ni eyes will be in this serene, looking-through-objects state, but they may make an effort to muster more eye contact in conversation with others. However, even when "Locked-In", the eyes of an INFJ will still have a penetrative quality to them that may make others feel exposed.


​
 
Last edited:
The Si article was pretty neat.

Although I found the Si(Te) profile rather repetitive.
link
 
Last edited:
I don't believe it. I sat here and talked to my (ISTJ) husband about this. I asked "What's the first thing you notice about my face?" He looked at me and shaked his head that he didn't know. He said, "I see the whole face (everything in the face, all the details), not just one thing."

He then reverts back to a show that we watched: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/brain-games/ In one segment of this show there were dancers on a stage and you were to count how many times they moved in the spotlight. At the end of it, I had my number. Husband had his number. Then they asked: "Did you notice the pink bunny walking across the stage?" I never noticed a bunny, he did.

He says, "That's always what you do to me. You try to put me in a box saying you always do such and such when it isn't true." He is right. I'm only fixating on one thing and that is my perception, I don't see the other things. He sees the whole picture.

What I believe is that the above description is an INFJ's perception of an INFJ. If you ask others, their perception will be different.


ETA: I can tell you when I watched the member videos, I never noticed this "eye" thing either. lol
 
Auburn said:
@Sriracha - Well, I'm not an INFJ, I'm an INTP. :)

Though, would you consider the possibility of not being INFJ?
If what you say is true, you may actually be a discernment (T/F) lead.


Also, I have taken a peek at the video thread and,
I suspect several of the forumers here are not INFJ.. ^^

*cue controversy time*
Click to expand...

Yep, it's THAT time of the year again.
 
I have seen a lot of this in myself, particularly the Heating/Cooling cycles. I tend to unconsciously override with Ti a lot and freeze the fluid theatrics of Fe, making me very muted in-person. It's like all of my momentum and creativity shuts down, the proverbial acrobat crash-landing on stage. This is quite frustrating.

Something I have noticed about my eyes is that they will driftingly float along the upper edge of my eyes when I'm dealing with theoretical material. Everything else you said about our eyes fits, which begs me to ask if you have an explanation for this?

On the other hand, how would you determine the types of actors and comedians? They live on their ability to put themselves in many outfits.
 
Last edited:
If I posted a video I made for another forum, do you think you could use that to give opinion to my type?

I made the video before I read both threads and visited the site, in fact I made it in Feb. Interesting.
 
Auburn said:
@Sriracha - Well, I'm not an INFJ, I'm an INTP. :)

Though, would you consider the possibility of not being INFJ?
If what you say is true, you may actually be a discernment (T/F) lead.


Also, I have taken a peek at the video thread and,
I suspect several of the forumers here are not INFJ.. ^^

*cue controversy time*
Click to expand...

What's your first clue?

Seriously, though, you're going to have a hard time conclusively proving anything or typing anyone accurately. Even when you're armed with visual cues, you're dealing with people sitting behind a screen and communicating via text. Even though you might be able to pick up on some Fi or Ti-vibes from some users, you don't have the full picture of the person---much as a lot of people who are typing themselves don't have a full understanding of the theory and cherry-pick the traits and the 'idea' of the type that appeals to them. Controversy of this kind is pointless because we're going to arrive at that precise impasse.

People turn to MBTI for a number of reasons; it's not always because they want a better understanding of theory and or an objective assessment of themselves---even if that is what they want to believe.

The only thing you can do is provide accurate information and present it clearly and concisely. Let people decide what they want to do with it and how it fits them. Trying to type other people without their consent is a harbinger of drama and butt-hurt and brings pointless unrest to the forums. Let those mistyped dragons (in your opinion) lie.

As for this whole 'visual signature' theory, mmmm.... I think it has some merit, but I personally believe that the more accurate crux of personality is found within the chocolate-y middle rather than the candy-coloured coating. Therefore, I'd say this theory, if it is accurate, would be best paired with an interview examining the subject's thought processes rather than exclusively observing visual cues. Even then, however, it's seems more like it would be prone to an examiner's confirmation bias than any solid evidence.
 
Last edited:
Radiant Shadow said:
I have seen a lot of this in myself, particularly the Heating/Cooling cycles. I tend to unconsciously override with Ti a lot and freeze the fluid theatrics of Fe, making me very muted in-person. It's like all of my momentum and creativity shuts down, the proverbial acrobat crash-landing on stage. This is quite frustrating.

Something I have noticed about my eyes is that they will driftingly float along the upper edge of my eyes when I'm dealing with theoretical material. Everything else you said about our eyes fits, which begs me to ask if you have an explanation for this?

On the other hand, how would you determine the types of actors and comedians? They live on their ability to put themselves in many outfits.
Click to expand...

Heya @Radiant Shadow
I was actually just thinking of you, as an example.
I was hoping you'd reply.

I suspect you're indeed INFJ,
just from a picture I saw of you in the members picture thread.
Although still images aren't complete verification.

The Ni Drifting you experience, we believe, happens when in deep thought or searching your memory intensely. The eyes may go out of focus and "zone-out". The eyes drift off because they need to disengage from the environment in order to go into the mind.

We suspect this happens when what Dario Nardi observes as the "Zen" effect is occurring and the brain becomes involved in a holistic, zen process and accesses all parts of itself in unison to find its perspective.

I try not to type actors while in acting, but most actors don't act during interviews, which makes it possible to type them accurately as well. Although I think it also isn't impossible to type via film, but it depends on the skill of the actor. Johnny Depp, for instance, is damn hard to type in films because he's so good at transforming his persona.
 
Last edited:
Serenity said:
Yep, it's THAT time of the year again.
Click to expand...

The whole "you aren't an INFJ!" thing, whether said directly to someone, or indirectly, is quite tiring. :[

Also, I'm not sure about this visual signature business. I'm almost 100% positive I'm not an Fe-dom, but when I smile I typically use my whole face, and it just about always reaches my eyes. When I worked as a cashier a while back, a lady came into my line and I gave her my usual sunny smile, thinking nothing of it, and she said "Now there's a smile, you don't see many of those." Yet, many persist in claiming such smiles are limited mostly to Fe-dom or aux. How could that be possible? There is much variation between individuals, which makes ideas such as this difficult to back up - especially considering the pictorial examples and some of the resulting observations are based on people whose types aren't verified.
 
Especially since people turn to MBTI for a number of reasons other than a thorough understanding of theory and an objective assessment of themselves.

The only thing you can do is provide accurate information and present it clearly and concisely. Let people decide what they want to do with it and how it fits them.
Click to expand...
@TheDaringHatTrick - Quite true.

Ultimately all places humanity inhabits (forums alike) are susceptible to the same psychic-games that humans experience in all fields. The factor of egos. Power plays. Many have to grow old before they actually realize what mindtricks they were unconsciously playing with themselves in their youth.

That aside, as a truthseeker/truthspeaker I still feel compelled to share what I've come to understand, but only as knowledge for others to do with as they will. I feel that although much of the time there aren't immediate results, sometimes a seed is planted in the mind of the other, that will grow in due time.

But going back to the visual-reading, I also agree the core of type is the chocolatey center.. ;D
Visual reading is only useful insomuch as its able to properly identify what the center is. If the visual read doesn't align with the psyche, then its useless. Its on this principle that I've formed my observations, and only identified patterns that hold true psychically as well as physically.
 
Auburn said:
@TheDaringHatTrick - Quite true.

Ultimately all places humanity inhabits (forums alike) are susceptible to the same psychic-games that humans experience in all fields. The factor of egos. Power plays. Many have to grow old before they actually realize what mindtricks they were unconsciously playing with themselves in their youth.

That aside, as a truthseeker/truthspeaker I still feel compelled to share what I've come to understand, but only as knowledge for others to do with as they will. I feel that although much of the time there aren't immediate results, sometimes a seed is planted in the mind of the other, that will grow in due time.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, but I would be careful. Like messengers, truthseekers/truthspeakers have a tendency to get shot first. People don't like to be told things they don't want to hear. Especially if it jars with the way that they see themselves. Diplomacy and objectivity is key... which is what I suppose you mean by 'planting the seed in the mind' ;)

But going back to the visual-reading, I also agree the core of type is the chocolatey center.. ;D
Visual reading is only useful insomuch as its able to properly identify what the center is. If the visual read doesn't align with the psyche, then its useless. Its on this principle that I've formed my observations, and only identified patterns that hold true psychically as well as physically.
Click to expand...

See my edit above.
 
Trying to type other people without their consent is a harbinger of drama and butt-hurt and brings pointless unrest to the forums. Let those mistyped dragons (in your opinion) lie.
Click to expand...

I think this is best, yes. o.o
This thread is only informational. I'm happy to elaborate if any questions exist, but I'm not here to try to 'convert' people's type.

Therefore, I'd say this theory, if it is accurate, would be best paired with an interview examining the subject's thought processes rather than exclusively observing visual cues. Even then, however, it's seems more like it would be prone to an examiner's confirmation bias than any solid evidence.
Click to expand...

Mhm, I began that way. I began precisely that way, via very careful examination of the psyches of people through months/years of knowing them in all range of expressions. And then, via enough time spent with two or more people of the same type it became possible to observe parallels in visual manifestation.

Then, for instance, I would notice the visual pattern in someone new I meet. I would think to myself "this is interesting, i wonder if their psyche will also align as well". And as I spent more time with them, sure enough their psyche also aligned. I took note of this simply as an observation, but kept checking to see how reliable it is.

It turned out to be very reliable, and as I confirmed more people's type psychically+physically I had more samples of that type to work from and identify the nuances of their expression. Identify them so precisely that I could then identify them in a complete stranger and be pretty confident that if I were to spend time with them, I'd definitely conclude that they're that type.

Now I concede it still remains a type of proxy. So if anything the visual signature can be like a quick-identification of a type, but the full verification comes from knowing them psychically. However, I haven't yet come across a person who clearly shows a signature of a certain type while being psychically another.

There are still many people whose expressions I don't understand, but there are some in which the pattern shows up clearly and who, whenever I get to know them personally, always reveal themselves to be of the type I suspected. So although I agree I can't know a type with 100% certainty from just a visual read -- because ultimately I need to look at the chocolatey-center to know for sure -- it would be backwards and silly for me to ignore a very real pattern I've identified and withhold an opinion simply because I haven't spent months knowing them yet.

And I also believe this pattern can be seen by other eyes outside of my own, and seen to hold as an accurate guide to type recognition beyond the limits of my own subjectivity.
 
Auburn said:
Heya @Radiant Shadow
I was actually just thinking of you, as an example.
I was hoping you'd reply.

I think you're indeed INFJ,
just from a picture I saw of you in the members picture thread.
Although still images aren't complete verification.

The Ni Drifting you experience, we believe, happens when in deep thought or searching your memory intensely. The eyes may go out of focus and "zone-out". The eyes drift off because they need to disengage from the environment in order to go into the mind.

We suspect this happens when what Dario Nardi observes as the "Zen" effect is occurring and the brain becomes involved in a holistic, zen process and accesses all parts of itself in unison to find its perspective.

I try not to type actors while in acting, but most actors don't act during interviews, which makes it possible to type them accurately as well. Although I think it also isn't impossible to type via film, but it depends on the skill of the actor. Johnny Depp, for instance, is damn hard to type in films because he's so good at transforming his persona.
Click to expand...

Hello, Auburn.

If you like, I can send you a video of myself for confirmation when I have time. It could perhaps give some tangible solidarity to the discussion; as TheDaringHatTrick noted, this is the Internet, our own digital Wonderland where most anything goes.

The Ni Drift. Would this occur often in an INFJ with dextrous use of Se? The two functions seem to complement and nourish one another, forming an unbroken convergent stream at the peak of physical activity (i.e, the meditative routines of Tai Chi).

Zen Wave. Is this why Ni comes out to play after strenuous mental/physical activity, because the brain has more to consider and consolidate? The subtle whoosh of clarity hours after being presented to new data.

INFJ Smiles. I am in the same boat as Hush - genuine smiles light up my entire face, leaking into the eyes and pouring out warm & tranquility. Schoolmates have commented on how they appear radiant when I'm happy.

Tangenting to a previous point, how does one stop Ti domination? I admit, I mostly use Jung's personality work for developmental purposes. It's great as a medium for personal insight and growth - especially apt for youths - and understanding interpersonal interaction.

Actors. I see your point, but couldn't they give out the impressions and expressions they want regardless? Interviews are srs business and could affect their careers.
---

Thank you for providing information on the fuzzy topic of personality, Auburn. It's nice to see some grounding and understanding on the subject.
 
TheDaringHatTrick said:
...any solid evidence.
Click to expand...

What is solid evidence?

Hehe, I don't mean to turn this into a mass debate but I do want to address this briefly.
I find many people like to make appeals to objective evidence without really understanding the implications that sort of statement has.

What does a person consider solid evidence?
Do you consider something solid evidence if it is in a wikipedia page?
Do you consider something solid evidence if it is in a school textbook?
Do you consider something solid evidence if it has citations that you never really read anyhow, but just the fact that it has citations makes it legitimate to you?

If so, why would the word of another be considered solid evidence to you?
The reality is, imo, that throughout human history there has always been what I like to call a Wisdom archetype. This wisdom archetype is the figure which the populace adhere to as authority - when they have not themselves been learned enough to know otherwise. This archetype changes with each era and has had many names: oracle, guru, elder, king, lord.

It just so happens that in our era this archetype has become Science, but the tendency in the mind of humanity remains to defer to it, rather than investigate for themselves the claims it makes. It is an appeal to an authority (science) and it is no different than the way peasants of the 1500s would defer to the Pope's words as authority.

How many people actually care enough about solid evidence to go out of their way and explore?
In my opinion, the most solid evidence one could get is if they ran the test themselves in the lab, and saw for themselves the result of an experiment. Relying on the word of a professional is still only indirect proof and requires faith in the goodwill of all the practitioners involved in the experiment.

But doing it yourself, the only leap of faith that is made is your faith in your own eyes.
That is as much as we can hope for, and as close to evidence as it is humanly possible to attain.

A real scientist is someone who investigates for himself, with labor, delicacy, and sincere inquiry, and who believes what he does because it is what he sees.

All academic 'evidence' is, is one thin-slice, an isolated instance of observation. But it remains nonetheless observation that was done humanly and subjectively as all are. The things that we see and observe every day are no less objective than what a scientist sees in his lab. The only difference is that he is taking notes, and has the credentials to have his subjectivity trusted above others, because he is trusted to have been trained to know how to do the deduction properly. This is not wrong in itself, it just needs to be understood.


Having said that, the approach I advocate to this visual-reading phenomenon, is likewise an experiential one - where observation is fundamental, and where knowledge is attained from firsthand exposure "in the lab" per se. Once one realizes their own subjectivity is as close to reality as they can possible come to have, then a person ceases to have a problem with doing this sort of personal mapping or trusting their own eyesights. They need only to caution in how they make deductions from those observation.


edit: I should add though that I do believe Science is a step above previous wisdom-archetypes since it takes a lot of time and work to reach a solid conclusion, by constantly replicating experiments which yield identical results, and usually single studies only suggest the existence of a pattern or phenomena. Similarly, we at physiognomy.me are currently in the process of experimenting and trying to understands the limits of the consistency of these patterns - and being able to replicate this perception in others. So far, things are looking promising. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top