Typing Based on Expression.

[88chaz88]

Why do you think so many people are mistyped?

Because of guys like Adymus.

 

[Arsal]

^ oh you silly isfps! crack me up.

 

[88chaz88]

^ oh you silly isfps! crack me up.

I'm an ENTJ dammit!

 

[Trifoilum]

I'm an ENTJ dammit!

an WHAT?

 

[Billy]

[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

 

[Billy]

Because of guys like Adymus.

heh, bingo, I was wondering what his credentials were. Like VH I am guessing there are no credentials... in which case I would say I know more about the subject then they. Since we are going completely on faith.

 

[Arsal]

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.

Psychology, while not having much to stand on other than empirical observation, should not be accused of not providing scientific proof, as -- and I've said this before in another thread -- human nature cannot be quantified. That said, if certain patterns do emerge from empirical observation of a phenomenon, one would be foolish reject it. It is happening in front of you, what more could you need?

I'm not defending Adymus, I'm saying parallels between outward appearance and type do exist. At least, as long as people ascribe to function theory. It's what directly follows, having belief that one's brain is wired a certain way. It makes perfect sense to me that Fe-types outwardly show emotion on purpose and Te-types do not, as that is how both the cognitive functions are defined.

I have no proof or credentials, and I will not ask you to believe me, but I would recommend you try this for yourself before rejecting it entirely.

 

[Billy]

empirical observation of a phenomenon,

This is precisely what I am asking for. Where are the results from those observations? I doubt such a test has even been done on a scale that involves anything more then peoples personal observations. But if it has I would be more then happy to read the findings.

 

[Trifoilum]

Hmm. I don't say I agreed with Billy, Limit, Adymus, or anyone in here, really; but;

in which case I would say I know more about the subject then they. Since we are going completely on faith.

I have to agree in this case. There are sides...of psychology. Of metaphysics. That rely on...well, what Arsal said;

That said, if certain patterns do emerge from empirical observation of a phenomenon, one would be foolish reject it. It is happening in front of you, what more could you need?

Proof. As in, it -has- to happen and noticed by the person in question for them to really accept it. If one doesn't and one doesn't believe as the result... I guess it's basically that?

And I assure you I know my type better then he knows the type of people he has never met, who are ACTORS by trade and who get paid MILLIONS to portray people they are not.

I guess there's often a difference between typing a character and typing an actor... If a character, there's a story to tell (and often it adheres to an archetype no matter how vague or specific). If an actor, there's a lot of materials; interviews and a lot other things to check.

And you do realize that what most people are saying when they are typing a public persona is often, "(From what I'm looking here and everywhere I've looked on,)X is type A!" No?

 

[Billy]

I have to agree in this case. There are sides...of psychology. Of metaphysics. That rely on...well, what Arsal said;

Proof. As in, it -has- to happen and noticed by the person in question for them to really accept it. If one doesn't and one doesn't believe as the result... I guess it's basically that?

Then I would say point me in the direction of the study that has a larger sampling size with set controls, and doesn't rely on people putting together their own limited personal observations.

I guess there's often a difference between typing a character and typing an actor... If a character, there's a story to tell (and often it adheres to an archetype no matter how vague or specific). If an actor, there's a lot of materials; interviews and a lot other things to check.

Again, we dont know their types to begin with so anything we assume is subjective and biased with our feelings and not based on anything remotely empirical. I see this on MBTI forums constantly with actors and famous people. People all chime in, HITLER WAS INFP! NO INFJ! NO ISTJ! Its irrelevant because A. Hes dead, B. He was never tested. C. We are going on VERY limited data. Conclusion? Inconclusive. The same for actors we dont know, how they act in interviews is often different then how they act in real life, ever seen a Bella Lugosi or actors interview from the 1940s? They coach themselves on how to look, stand, act, speak for these interviews. Conclusion? Inconclusive. Those are the facts. Granted its not the 1940s, but they still do it to this day. Ever seen Steve Jobs in an interview? STARKLY different from the raving psychotic he is by 2nd hand accounts from people he fired on an Elevator ride.

And you do realize that what most people are saying when they are typing a public persona is often, "(From what I'm looking here and everywhere I've looked on,)X is type A!" No?

Yes, and its not based on anything remotely realistic, just personal observations by a lot of non professionals who have no legitimate authority in Science let alone the MBTI theory field.

 

[aeon]

Psychology, while not having much to stand on other than empirical observation, should not be accused of not providing scientific proof, as -- and I've said this before in another thread -- human nature cannot be quantified.

It isn

 

[Arsal]

This is precisely what I am asking for. Where are the results from those observations? I doubt such a test has even been done on a scale that involves anything more then peoples personal observations. But if it has I would be more then happy to read the findings.

Then I would say point me in the direction of the study that has a larger sampling size with set controls, and doesn't rely on people putting together their own limited personal observations.

There will be, over time, given its very recent popularity in MBTI circles.

Yes, and its not based on anything remotely realistic, just personal observations by a lot of non professionals who have no legitimate authority in Science let alone the MBTI theory field.

Ad hominem.

Again, we dont know their types to begin with so anything we assume is subjective and biased with our feelings and not based on anything remotely empirical. I see this on MBTI forums constantly with actors and famous people. People all chime in, HITLER WAS INFP! NO INFJ! NO ISTJ! Its irrelevant because A. Hes dead, B. He was never tested. C. We are going on VERY limited data. Conclusion? Inconclusive. The same for actors we dont know, how they act in interviews is often different then how they act in real life, ever seen a Bella Lugosi or actors interview from the 1940s? They coach themselves on how to look, stand, act, speak for these interviews. Conclusion? Inconclusive. Those are the facts. Granted its not the 1940s, but they still do it to this day. Ever seen Steve Jobs in an interview? STARKLY different from the raving psychotic he is by 2nd hand accounts from people he fired on an Elevator ride.

Typing this way is difficult, however not impossible. There are nuances that despite any amount of cover-ups show up, for example, a Feeler attempting to look like a Thinker is obvious to spot.

 

[Arsal]

It isn’t an accusation, as there is nothing to defend or prove in the assertion. Psychology, in general, does not provide scientific proof.

And yea, in that human nature is likely wider and deeper than our ability to conceptualize, I agree that it is likely beyond quantification.

That said, the domain of psychology is within our ability to conceptualize, and thus can be quantified. One way of doing so is to observe that psychology does not provide scientific proof of any theory of human nature. My sense is that psychology would also fail logical testing in this regard.

This, in and of itself, doesn’t make psychology any more or less valuable, but it does provide a clearer context by which to assess its value regarding a particular argument or assertion. I value that approach.

Yes, indeed! And I agree. Thank you for providing clarity. :]

 

[Billy]

There will be, over time, given its very recent popularity in MBTI circles.

Until then, you cannot pretend that your belief in this theory is true or based on anything other then faith and limited sampling.

Ad hominem.

Its ad hominem to point out that non experts are non experts? I'll try that one out in court one day, ill let you know how it works out.

Typing this way is difficult, however not impossible. There are nuances that despite any amount of cover-ups show up, for example, a Feeler attempting to look like a Thinker is obvious to spot.

A faulty conclusion based on faith.

 

[Arsal]

Until then, you cannot pretend that your belief in this theory is true or based on anything other then faith and limited sampling.

A faulty conclusion based on faith.

A Hydrogen atom contains one electron. I read this in a book. I have not proved it myself.

Wouldn't you also call this faith?

How do I know the people who claimed to have proved this to be true have any authority to make such a claim? How do I know this to be true at all, unless I can scientifically prove it myself?

Have you scientifically proved that the Hydrogen atom contains one electron yourself? Then why do you believe it to be true? (Assuming that you believe that -- if not, let's say you do for the sake of argument.)

Similarly, why can't you believe this to be true? Does it have to be written in a book, in clever, scientific wording for you to accept it as truth?

Its ad hominem to point out that non experts are non experts? I'll try that one out in court one day, ill let you know how it works out.

Define experts and non-experts in terms of psychology.

 

[Billy]

A Hydrogen atom contains one electron. I read this in a book. I have not proved it myself.

Wouldn't you also call this faith?

Of course not, there has been actual research done into it, as well as millions of tests to prove it, which is how you were able to read a book on it.

How do I know the people who claimed to have proved this to be true have any authority to make such a claim? How do I know this to be true at all, unless I can scientifically prove it myself?

global scientific panels, rigorous debate, and of course, the testing. You are attempting to derail this issue with a red herring.

Have you scientifically proved that the Hydrogen atom contains one electron yourself? Then why do you believe it to be true? (Assuming that you believe that -- if not, let's say you do for the sake of argument.)

Similarly, why can't you believe this to be true? Does it have to be written in a book, in clever, scientific wording for you to accept it as truth?

red herring. It has to be backed with actual research, I am not asking for much here.

Define experts and non-experts in terms of psychology.

People with credentials, not just anonymous teenagers on a website forum.

 

[Billy]

Before you guys devolve this into questioning my INFJ'ness (again) for lack of belief in your quasi-theory based on faith, can you just answer if you are going to actually give any evidence of your claims other than circumstantial circle jerking? It would save us all a lot of time in this waltz... because im afraid that red herrings, ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments are going to just get old and you all know I am not going to relent my disbelief in the bunk claims unless you have something substantial to offer.

 

[laurie]

I think a personality can come across on a person's face, but not one photograph/drawing. A personality moves between emotions and thoughts and the face would change (or not change) accordingly.

I can notice this when watching people, including my friends. They can pull soft or hard expressions depending on the situation, but they have no 'set face'. No one has a 'set face', except possibly a girl my teacher knew who never showed any emotion. Everyone has moments of change, be they subtle or obvious.

 

[Arsal]

People with credentials, not just anonymous teenagers on a website forum.

Do not exist. Anyone is just as capable as the most educated scholar alive, provided their ideas are properly backed up with evidence.

In this case, there is evidence. This is why any research into this subject exists at all. Because it exists.

Before you guys devolve this into questioning my INFJ'ness (again) for lack of belief in your quasi-theory based on faith, can you just answer if you are going to actually give any evidence of your claims other than circumstantial circle jerking? It would save us all a lot of time in this waltz... because im afraid that red herrings, ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments are going to just get old and you all know I am not going to relent my disbelief in the bunk claims unless you have something substantial to offer.

Fine.

ENFJ:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vQKBdXk-6s"]YouTube - ENFJ BABY![/ame]

ENTP:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T0GuglxtXA"]YouTube - ENTP[/ame]

INTP:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RNSPjyBG3g"]YouTube - INTP[/ame]

Notice the manner of speaking of the person in question in each of these videos. Do you see a common thread?

Each of them are showing emotions to evoke a response. The ENFJ is the most "domineering" with her emotions, followed by the INFJ who is subtly changing her facial expressions to convey a point, then ENTP, and lastly INTP who is only showing this with her voice (although it is there). This is because they are using Fe as their means of communication.

Now...

INTJ:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An6T_qWDpj8"]YouTube - Profile of an INTJ (Part One): The "Sociopathic" Strategist of Demented Doom[/ame]

ENFP:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npAzpRnaa-o"]YouTube - ENFP[/ame]

INFP:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oiXX-Mn6Hg"]YouTube - Myself as an INFP[/ame]

ISFP:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQriUVIcTes"]YouTube - ISFP personality[/ame]

Notice the stoic approach of the INTJ, who does not emote much, if at all. And the ENFP, while not suppressing any emotion, is speaking in a monotone and his expressions don't change much. The INFP is more comfortable showing emotion, but the emotion is for the speaker, not the listener; this is why she is also mostly talking in a monotone. The ISFP is not talking in a monotone, but she is still not emoting for the listener - although she is emulating it somewhat. Te, their mode of communication.

Do you disagree that this pattern exists?

 

[Billy]

Yes I disagree, for 1 thing some of those people are not going to be what they are listing themselves as. Bird for example (not saying shes not an infj) is being almost universally called INFP in her type Bird thread.

So on and so forth.

And yes, while I must concede that anyone can be right, more often then not, I would side with someone who has done extensive research over some teenagers on a forum. As I said.

You argument and evidence is spurious at best.

If you desire to prove your point, post 100 videos to start of the SAME type and let us see if there are differentiations and patterns.

You cannot post 1 video of several types then use stereotypes developed by looking at what they do and pretend that passes as good research. Your samples are not good enough frankly.

I appreciate the effort though, keep trying.