The INFJ's Visual Signature

[Auburn]

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.

Sure, I can take a look and see if there is indeed a correlation.
If I can't see any parallel I'll let you know, but if I do recognize a pattern I'll let you know what it is.

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).

Funny you should mention that. It is indeed true that the two functions nourish one another, and part of what I've noticed. Not only psychically, but visually they'll manifest as a pair. I hate to show an incomplete page, but it's better than nothing: http://physiognomy.me/4.html - this explains a bit about how the functions work together.

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.

I can't say for sure I know what you're referring to. XD
I'll have to ask my Ni(Fe) friends.

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.

@hush
That may be true.
I have noticed a few exceptions to that particular cue lately, and is being looked at more carefully.
I'm definitely open to changing that perception. What does seem clear to me though is this in Ne(Fi) and Se(Fi) types. They'll have a manic look to them when they smile as the smile lingers beneath their alert/perked eyes. However, the other things about being perception-lead still hold true, I believe. A perception-lead will navigate their body by the steering of their eyes, while a discernment lead will navigate themselves with their body, and there are various signals to tell apart each dichotomy.

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.

I know intuitively it may seem that way. Like the thought-train that "actors can't be read because they're so good at acting, even offstage", but I've personally found that to be a myth. Actors like to just be themselves too, and in interviews they express themselves in the same way I've seen non-actors. It is also a different dynamic in an interview because you don't have time to prepare all your responses.

When engaged in a conversation that forces a person to dig deep into their thoughts/memories and articulate all at once, it is near impossible to also keep control over your face. It is like trying to speak two languages at the same time, it doesn't work. The actors instead begin to emit the signals that are a byproduct of their brain's activity; revealing what processes they're utilizing in the formation of their answer.

While on stage they have a lot more time to prepare their responses, how they're going to motion, and still get several takes (often a whole day) to shoot a single scene.

Thank you for providing information on the fuzzy topic of personality, Auburn. It's nice to see some grounding and understanding on the subject.

You're most welcome.
I realize this is a complex topic I am attempting to tackle, but I do think it is not beyond knowledge or clear understanding.
And I've never been one to throw up my hands and call bs on something just because it doesn't make sense to me.
I'll continue to search until it makes sense to me that it is true, or it makes sense to me why exactly it is untrue.

 

[sassafras]

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.

Wow, I really threw you a stick there, didn't I? the lecture on science and archetypes was interesting, but not at all necessary.

What I meant by 'solid evidence' in the context of my previous post was really as simple as having an agreed upon standard. With MBTI, while there are already so many different variations in the interpretations of the theory, there is still more of a unifying theoretical backbone because it's on paper and relatively two-dimensional. When you introduce things like individual facial features, on the other hand, that element introduces yet another subjective layer to the process of interpretation. After all, people do not look alike. One person can see 'Ni eyes' while another person can identify them as more "Fi." It starts to hinge more and more on individual perception.

This is not to dismiss the merits of subjective wisdom, only to suggest that it is going to be difficult to adapt this proposed system. And when you're trying to set a theoretical and agreed-upon standard, having as much objective (solid) evidence as possible makes it easier to adopt across the board.

 

[Auburn]

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.

Yep. ^^

I'll try to give you an estimate, if not an actual configuration.
Some people I can tell within seconds, while others may require a lot more exposure.
A single video may not always be sufficient, but generally it narrows it substantially.

 

[Auburn]

@TheDaringHatTrick I realize it was a bit off-topic.

But I decided to address it fully now because I know the matter will inevitably be brought up by others, 's all.
I felt it was necessary for this thread, as for all endeavors of knowledge, to touch on the methodology.
I didn't mean to offend you in any way. It was not really addressed at you, as much as just.... reality.

 

[sassafras]

@TheDaringHatTrick I realize it was a bit off-topic.

But I decided to address it fully now because I know the matter will inevitably be brought up by others, 's all.
I felt it was necessary for this thread, as for all endeavors of knowledge, to touch on the methodology.
I didn't mean to offend you in any way. It was not really addressed at you, as much as just.... reality.

No worries. No offences were taken. I'm usually more specific when I lay out my thoughts and I should have clarified what I meant.

Still, it was a really intriguing glimpse into your thought process.

 

[Sriracha]

@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.

I test very close ... nearly 50/50 in both S/N and T/F. I've just had enough influence to see things differently from the S/T POV. If I wasn't an INFJ, I wouldn't be surprised. I'm not possessive of the MBTI trait. INFJ descriptions fit me to a "T" ... but my learning environment and everything that has shaped my life is unique ... just as it is for you.

Time, experience, children, being forced into many social situations, etc have given me the tools to adapt well in my personal and professional worlds (both being entirely separate.) You cannot learn to improve how you communicate with others if you sit in the corner and observe them. I certainly do not enjoy confrontation, but I also don't enjoy being a doormat. Each individual can be placed somewhere on a bell curve during any interaction, some being reclusive and inexperienced to very well adapted.

If you read my posts ... I often refer to sociology.

 

[Quiet]

[MENTION=346]Auburn[/MENTION]

Very interesting topic.

I can relate to some of your descriptions. They have been things I have observed but have not been able to artculate in a meaningful way. Since I cannot observe myself, and only know one other INFJ I am unable to comfirm or deny these visual signatures.

I think I relate strongly to the visual signature for tertiary ti and inferior se. I am uncertain about ni and fe.

I have definately observed the cues for other cognitive functions and types mentioned in your previous thread.

Where can I learn more about this?

 

[Trifoilum]

I wish I can see a more.....grounded approach; less staged, more candid; and with a non-public figure. It may give more awareness to how each type talk freely.
With this stage of proof, I...am quite suspicious; not that they're lying, but chances of misreading might have been pretty big due to:

1) Interview
2) Staged, planned one, at that;
3) With a public figure, who to -some- degree will have more experience / training on public speaking, not to mention
4) Image maintaining. (while this is by itself a behavior a.k.a part of personality sphere, due to the circumstances there -may- be a certain restraint towards being -too- animated, and there -may- be attempts to be more careful of what they are saying >> more 'concentrating', which may or may not be seen.)

Sorry to nitpick. :|

 

[Auburn]

@Auburn

Very interesting topic.

I can relate to some of your descriptions. They have been things I have observed but have not been able to artculate in a meaningful way. Since I cannot observe myself, and only know one other INFJ I am unable to comfirm or deny these visual signatures.

I think I relate strongly to the visual signature for tertiary ti and inferior se. I am uncertain about ni and fe.

I have definately observed the cues for other cognitive functions and types mentioned in your previous thread.

Hooray!
Yes, we're definitely not the only ones who are seeing these things. It seems others (like yourself) have subconsciously picked up afew of these naturally. We are still aiming to perfect our understanding though, as more things are constantly being discovered.

Where can I learn more about this?

You can find us here: http://physiognomy.me/forum/ ^^
We have a small development team there and a lot more material that is still unpublished/unposted on the actual website site.

Sorry to nitpick. :|

Don't worry. We/I ask ourselves all the questions you asked too. And we discuss possible answers.
Generally I have found that actors are not in acting-mode 24/7. Actually, probably only during set.

If you take, for example, Johnny Depp, the way he acts in interviews is totally different from a lot of his movies. It's more natural. And people like J.K. Rowling (who is a hardcore introvert) told Oprah in her interview that she felt more natural with her and that it didn't feel like she was under pressure. These sort of things help tell apart who are and who aren't over-acting.

I think that shows like Conan and Ellen Degeneres -- which have an audience as well an image to uphold (light, comical) -- are more prone to put the celebrity under pressure. But I've found that the interviews that are just with one other person, like at a movie production set, are much more natural. However, it's not like a person doesn't emit their cues while under pressure either. Different types react differently under pressure, I think, but that's definitely not where one ought to start learning. =P

 

[Trifoilum]

Don't worry. We/I ask ourselves all the questions you asked too. And we discuss possible answers.
Generally I have found that actors are not in acting-mode 24/7. Actually, probably only during set.

If you take, for example, Johnny Depp, the way he acts in interviews is totally different from a lot of his movies. It's more natural. And people like J.K. Rowling (who is a hardcore introvert) told Oprah in her interview that she felt more natural with her and that it didn't feel like she was under pressure. These sort of things help tell apart who are and who aren't over-acting.

I think that shows like Conan and Ellen Degeneres -- which have an audience as well an image to uphold (light, comical) -- are more prone to put the celebrity under pressure. But I've found that the interviews that are just with one other person, like at a movie production set, are much more natural. However, it's not like a person doesn't emit their cues while under pressure either. Different types react differently under pressure, I think, but that's definitely not where one ought to start learning. =P

That's true, but--

how do I say it; the nature of the talk (from the angle, kind of like interview?) ensures that makeups are used; speeches are controlled, etc.
Just like how some people, when going to a job interview, tend to present themselves differently compared to their usual.

I wonder, must it be celebrities?

 

[Auburn]

That's true, but--

how do I say it; the nature of the talk (from the angle, kind of like interview?) ensures that makeups are used; speeches are controlled, etc.
Just like how some people, when going to a job interview, tend to present themselves differently compared to their usual.

Well, this just seems like an offhanded speculation without any basis - like something that kinda sorta makes sense on first impression, but you'd actually have to watch a lot of interviews to know whether that is true or not, and when specifically it is true and when it isn't, imo.

1. "All interviews are scripted, planned and staged."
2. "Therefore all interviews cannot be trusted to show the real person."

Though watching over 300 celebrity interviews I have found that neither of these 2 are true. I know from experience that not all interviews are scripted because the interviewers often get stumped by questions, and have to think up answers for them on the spot. And also because certain interviews exist exclusively for getting to know the celebrity truly. For example the Michael Jackson interviews. He was a recluse who never gave interviews. And when he finally decided to give one, the interview was honestly about getting to know who he was - and you can tell it was a conversation they were having for the first time (unscripted).

But as I mentioned, talk-shows like Ellen DeGeneres and George Lopez Tonight are indeed mostly scripted, so those aren't very reliable. They have punch lines to deliver, and an audience to please, so they don't really care to know more than just shallow things about the interviewee while their show does its thing. But interviews in places like little booths right outside a movie premier, where an interviewer quickly asks to steal a few minutes from the actor for an interview, the questions are totally unknown to the actor.

That said, even scripted, planned and staged interviews can still be honest and reveal truths about a person. Take for instance The Actor's Studio, led by dean James Lipton. All his interviews always have the same set of questions (so all the actor know what they'll be asked), and it's always planned and on a stage. But he is so honest and non-commercial in his approach that it makes the actors feel comfortable, and many have even opened up and cried on stage.

So, in short to answer your question: The speculation is valid, but the answer to that speculation ought to be to investigate the extent of those facades and where they are and aren't present, rather than to just give up and not use interviews.

I wonder, must it be celebrities?

If not celebrities, then who?

Celebrities are a safe sample of people to use since their name is already public and there is no compromise of privacy to examine them. On the other hand, with non-celebrities, not only would it be a pain to find enough people who'd want to volunteer, but many may be wary about their videos being public. But they need to be, for other readers to see.

That said, we actually also do use non-celebrities. We have a volunteer list where members who wish to aide the project can donate their videos. It is just a lot harder to find volunteers for that and if we limited out scope to them we wouldn't get very far. But there is a second and very important reason for why I use celebrities. Celebrities have a great range of footage and often decades of exposure on them that people are already familiar with. So it makes it easier to relate what a type looks like by identifying it in people many already know.

If we just used random volunteers, then others who'd visit the physiognomy.me site would know nothing about them personally. All they'd have to work with is a small bit of footage in comparison.

 

[Seraffa]

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.

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.
​

This is the first time in my life I've ever been called a sap, or thick - How insulting!
Why couldn't we have just been dubbed "caramel" or "taffy" if you wanted to stereotype me, you beast!
I've always been pleasing to the masses, in large, gooey amounts.........and retailers know it!
My reputation is now.....ruined for life..................*shuffling away, slowly*........

 

[Trifoilum]

Well, this just seems like an offhanded speculation without any basis - like something that kinda sorta makes sense on first impression, but you'd actually have to watch a lot of interviews to know whether that is true or not, and when specifically it is true and when it isn't, imo.

1. "All interviews are scripted, planned and staged."
2. "Therefore all interviews cannot be trusted to show the real person."

Though watching over 300 celebrity interviews I have found that neither of these 2 are true. I know from experience that not all interviews are scripted because the interviewers often get stumped by questions, and have to think up answers for them on the spot. And also because certain interviews exist exclusively for getting to know the celebrity truly. For example the Michael Jackson interviews. He was a recluse who never gave interviews. And when he finally decided to give one, the interview was honestly about getting to know who he was - and you can tell it was a conversation they were having for the first time (unscripted).

So, in short to answer your question: The speculation is valid, but the answer to that speculation ought to be to investigate the extent of those facades and where they are and aren't present, rather than to just give up and not use interviews.

That is true. I don't mean it as an absolute truth, but more of a general tendencies.
If it's sure that for truth's sake (instead of familiarity), the interviews / cut of the interviews presented are genuine / real, then by all means, go ahead.
True, it requires certain investigation. Best case being, everything will fall into place. Worst case will just be agreeing to disagree!

If not celebrities, then who?

People. In different profession (which will require / possess different amounts of public speaking proficiency). Different culture, possibly. Different age. As varied as it can be, at the end of it.

I don't know, but wouldn't the ideal of this be creating a common (visual-based) thread from many samples, instead of making assumptions from few pointed samples? (CMIIW on this)

On the other hand, with non-celebrities, not only would it be a pain to find enough people who'd want to volunteer, but many may be wary about their videos being public. But they need to be, for other readers to see.

This is true. Which is indeed, another problem to ponder.

If we just used random volunteers, then others who'd visit the physiognomy.me site would know nothing about them personally. All they'd have to work with is a small bit of footage in comparison.

The opposite case can also work. Think of articles who claimed that Artist X is an ESTJ while Political Person Y is an INTP.
How to say it...
The answer of "how much of it are facades?" are probably unknown unless to the closest around them, no?
But we saw a lot of them.
The concern is, the mistaken assumption will murk the understanding of a type; i.e, an ESTJ using the mask of an ESFJ is seen as an ESFJ, which may affect later attempts of typing.

This is just my perspective, though.

 

[anarkandi]

Concerning all the discussions this has brewn forth,

This is me
[video=youtube;xa8Kgk8-uyo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa8Kgk8-uyo[/video]

The things I could relate to:
The Fe smile and talk, comes natural for me.
The Ti stop eye movement is simple, try to look at a certain point and do equations in your head at the same time, IMPOSSIBLE. I also see myself doing this regularly in the video, it's become a movement where I move my hand to the face, close my eyes, and then come back - the Ti cools down my Fe/Se/Ni and let's me access my hardware, pause and talk, pause and talk, INFJ's who learn to utilize pause and talk at good places, not seeming awkward, or unrehearsed, will make good speakers.

Eye-stare. As I checked, my Fe doesen't break my eyes, like it might on an ENFJ, my eyes remain focused, almost looking manic, I stare, I look through people, my eyes direct my head.

When typing, I usually don't look at the screen, rather my eyes are fixated somewhere else in the room, like Ne's would. Any clues why this is?

 

[Auburn]

Heya @anarkandi ,

You're actually not very far off, if at all. I think I agree with most of your self-evaluations. You are indeed directed by your eyes. Your eyes are also very clearly of the Ni+Se duality. Now the stopping/halting is something that Fi can also potentially do; the difference being that Ti is cooling/dispassionate while Fi is warming/emotional when it halts. I couldn't exactly tell that apart from your video. ^^; Sorry.

What I can say with some certainty though is that you are a Perception Lead, with Ni/Se as your outer wheel functions (that is, 1st and 4th).

What sort of throws me off too is that you appear to have a lot of Momentum. Momentum is a cue associated with Se/Ne, that describes a type of bubbling inner energy that compels the body to be on alert and in a mild form of restlessness all the time. The body will appear as though it is about to move at any second. There was some of that in you, which suggests Se may be the dominant function, but as you say you grew up around a lot of extroverts. Also, you do seem to be wearing a 'persona', which makes it hard to see your real self. I'd take me more time to know for sure...

But yea, you're not an ENFJ. ;-D

 

[anarkandi]

So, ok, a few questions arise, having read through all the information on the pages now.

I don't think I have any Se-dom in me, I've always had a natural momentum, and my eyes look around alot, and I've played around with the thought of being ENFP, but I don't feel with it, I just am a naturally impatient person who always moves around body, one reason for this is I'm kinesthetic, you know, the learning type for people who learn through feeling and doing, they naturally exhibit this body language. That page is full of generalisations, but also alot of interesting observations, which really helped me with rethinking and looking at peoples differences.

Another question: A friend INFJ fits more in the discernment type, while I'm more a perceiver, is this possible?

Determining my discernment lead is propably hard looking at it like that, but for me, I associate my pauses like cold pauses, while my feelings are out there, when I talk, as you might notice, so that's one way to look for it, you noticed my observations are propably correct, with the smile and talk, all the Fe symbols fit closely with me, for example I shake my head as I'm talking about something I like, and I do the pull for the same reason. Detach-cold-mode is mostly within myself, browsing my own feelings, systems and hardware, not talking with others.

Nope, no ENFJ.

 

[JGirl]

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

i couldn't agree more

 

[Paladin-X]

Except for the part about the eyes remaining unchanged (I am very often complimented by how I 'smile' with my eyes), I would agree with experiencing the rest.

When searching my memory or even when talking about heavily idealistic views (what I like to call getting on my soapbox) my eyes will definitely go out of focus and look internally. Almost like turning away from the window to look at the computer screen so to speak. And as such it almost feels like I am looking through the object or person. Although I can't quite peg a specific experience, I'm pretty sure I do stop every now and then when talking to gauge reactions to what I'm saying. I'll try to be more aware as I interact with others.

I definitely do "Momentum Halting". Sometimes I will simply stop mid-conversation or even mid-sentence to "screen" my thoughts. Especially when irritated, I will even put my hand up in a halting position to stop myself and whomever I'm talking to until I've sorted my thoughts out in order to proceed again.

I am also really aware of locking on with my eyes to various things and switching from Ni to Se continuously. I have also been told several times that others feel really exposed when looking into my eyes. As if I could see into their soul. I suppose it doesn't help when at the same time I can tell them exactly what they are feeling and sometimes even what they are thinking.

These observations are rather fascinating.

 

[Annabreher]

I'd be willing to talk to someone via skype, it would be fun to have myself "evaluated".
God, sounds so professional. HA!
Very interesting topic.

-Anna

 

[Untitled]

[MENTION=346]Auburn[/MENTION]

I'm curious to hear how your project's been advancing. I think there's an interesting similarity in the examples you posted and I can see a specific style in all of them.
I thought it very perceptive to have noted the kind of a slightly hypnotic stare. I know I tend to often engage people quite intently (even if in a slightly spacey way) when I speak to them and some do find it intense.

I also have a Se dom friend whose eyes I've previously noticed don't smile though the lower part of the face does and I think I do a similar type of a thing when I'm focused on really speaking to someone. ...that said I can also smile with my eyes, especially if something cracks me up, but in conversation there is a continuous kind of a focus that is preserved through the whole conversation where the eyes really do not smile. It's so interesting to read about this... Generally smiling with your eyes is something that's great to be able to do on cue if you ever have to do customer service. ;D Maybe we all have a tiny thespian in us for those occasions.

I have to say though that if I'm very nervous or uncomfortable my eyes do dart around.

P.S. ...I was also glad to find someone else thinks that Tori Amos is an INFJ and not an INFP like some say. Maybe you could read Kate Bush one day? ;D ...and if you also figure out Johnny Depp please let us know.