You look like an INFJ/INTJ/ESFP/ENTJ etc etc BS!

[Reon]

It is not unreasonable to expect that picture context and facial expressions may give insights into a person's personality when they pick that picture specifically to display. So while looks are obviously uncorrelated with personality in any way, if you allow people to self select the picture for a test, it is absolutely possible to end up with correlations. (This clearly calls for a study. Maybe you could compare ok cupid personality tests with guesses of the results of those tests from profile pictures? )

On Edit: For instance I've never seen anyone extroverted doing the "death stare" in a profile picture while lots of introverts do.

On second edit: Also another one is that it seems like Duchenne smile's are correlated to F vs T.

Anecdotal evidence, a bit of logic, and some science.

I told myself I was going to ignore this thread, but I have to say something. No, you can not type someone by simply looking at a photograph of them all the time. However, you absolutely can guess with reasonable accuracy what the person is like (in particular if you take the context of the rest of the picture involved with it). You can not day that you can't gather anything about a person by looking. That's what people do, we read people to guess how best to interact with them. People can attempt to gather information about someones type by videos, that has reasonable accuracy to it. I believe you can guess at someones possible personality type by looking at certain photographs in certain cases. Why else to people try doing that here? Because people have gotten it right or resonablly close to keep doing so enough of the time.

The fact of the matter is, ones personality will absolutely dictate what kind of expressions demenor and feel that they give off, and some people can interpret this. Is it perfect? Hell no, people will make mistakes. However, the reason people continue to do this is because they have had enough accuracy within themselves to show that there is use to it.

You can disagree all you want, some people find use to this with themselves. I have found use in gauging what someone is like by looking at photos, videos, and in person. It is not perfect, and I will be the first to admit I get it wrong at times. I will also admit when I can not guess at it with everyone. It gives use though, and for me to stop doing this would greatly hinder who I am as a person. Guessing at an MBTI type is just an extention of this. If you think it is a bad assumtion to do so, then that is your opinion, but some of us have found use and accuracy in doing so.

I also am not going to stand up to any sort of challenge to prove any of us wrong. I have no paients for that sort of thing (never have). You can make your own conclusions from this, I truly do not care. It works for me, it works for others, but it doesn't work for anyone else. That's all.

Logic. Anecdotal evidence.

*clears throat*

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210130000.htm

Science

Physical looks are not a factor in cognitive functions. None whatsoever.

However, mannerisms, body language, and other factors of how the personality is subconsciously expressed through the many ways that people move and communicate are. Science has proven again and again that the subconscious is expressed physically due to the way the nervous system interacts with itself.

So say that someone has physical traits and is therefore some manner of type is preposterous. To claim that someone's type can be seen in their mannerisms is pretty accurate.

Logic. Anecdotal evidence.

Look goes way beyond DNA. Just go through the photos of specific types on this site: http://www.typetango.com/ . Even counting the typing mistakes people make, there still are patterns forming. I also know more than 1 person from each MBTI type (i mean, knowing them personally), and they do have similarities, extended to lists of famous people of that type, or such websites. Just increase the pool of data.

What you are saying is: my data doesn't form patterns, hence your data must be wrong. Well, I can't transfer my human database to everyone, unfortunately, which doesn't automatically invalidate my insight.

I've been interested in gathering a large sample of head photos for each type, and then use computation to construct the medium face for each one. And see if those averages are truly distinct.

Summary: people with the same DNA could have different MBTI types, but look differently as a result.
Call it one big role-playing if you wish. Like the Vinegar Tasters.
And no, I don't think you could completely mimic it. You could to some extent, but there will be details that tell. Because we are talking about years, decades, of controlling your muscles in specific ways. This causes you wrinkles, forms your body in some ways, which cannot be overcome in a short period of time (also too much of the process is most likely subconscious, that is, you are not really controlling it, and if you try to, you won't get the same results).

Logic, bit of science, anecdotal evidence.

Why dont you take a stab at it Reon.

Quite frankly, it's because I don't think it'll be of much use; I don't practice exercises in futility. I don't think this is a black/white issue. I don't think anyone is saying that you could always type a person from how they look nor even do it most of the time, I do think how a person naturally presents themselves to the world 'can' be an indicator of type though. From what I've read, you don't seem to think so and think that it's completely impossible and the only way to prove this to you would be an objective study on the subject and that's something no one can provide. I'm also not sure how pivotal culture is to discerning MBTI type. So, it's grey. I can't make it black or white for you.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Quite frankly, it's because I don't think it'll be of much use; I don't practice exercises in futility. I don't think this is a black/white issue. I don't think anyone is saying that you could always type a person from how they look nor even do it most of the time, I do think how a person naturally presents themselves to the world 'can' be an indicator of type though. From what I've read, you don't seem to think so and think that it's completely impossible and the only way to prove this to you would be an objective study on the subject and that's something no one can provide. I'm also not sure how pivotal culture is to discerning MBTI type. So, it's grey. I can't make it black or white for you.

I already said it, but I am going to say it again, as others are now being open about it. Billy, you are impossible to talk to at times. Your opinion is SO rigid here that there truly is no point in talking to you about this. Notice, even people that agree with your core idea are now disagreeing. You've just come across as having some kinda vendetta and dislike of anyone who claims to do this simply because you think it is wrong (even when you have no proof). You want to be right so bad (you want to be right with every single idea you seem to have) that you will do anything and everything to make it so, even if it means just fighting for the sake of fighting. Yet, you wonder why you encounter so much conflict.

As for VH's post, he DID get lucky. or he lied. One or the other, I choose to believe lucky.

I've talked to VH off the forums forms for a very long time now. He isn't lying, you just are rejecting anything and everything that even slightly differs from your preconvcived notion. You want logic and proof. That statement, is neither. Yet you get angry when someone does the exact thing you are doing here (and have done several times over).

 

[TheLastMohican]

As for VH's post, he DID get lucky. or he lied. One or the other, I choose to believe lucky.

Let's figure out just how lucky he would have been.

To make it simpler to conceptualize, and to remove any confusing hints of non-randomness, let's imagine it as rolling a 16-sided die. Suppose there is one blank side, which represents a correct guess (the one correct type, out of 16 possible).
Roll it 151 times. What should we expect? The blank side should, on average, face up 6.25% of the time, or between 9 and 10 times in that particular run.
What is the probability that the blank side will face up 49 times? It's about 0.000000000000000000000002%, or 1 in 5 sextillion. To put that in perspective: if you rolled that die once every second, it would probably take about 22.5 quadrillion years to duplicate VH's equivalent result.

Maybe VH should repeat his feat and take a screenshot for good measure. Would that convince you to review your thinking?

 

[DoveAlexa]

Though I think the most awful part of all of this is the claim that VH would lie and that he would have any reason too. It had nothing to do with anything and somehow it got brought up.

 

[BlinkandThink]

Again, it's not hocus pocus. I'm not saying "an INTP looks like this" nor "an INTP has these physical features" ...I'm saying "an INTP tends to make that particular facial expression - because I know INTPs, and I've noticed that they tend to share the tendency to make that particular facial expression" It's subtle, very subtle, but it's there.

My INTP mother has those wrinkles ... the vertical ones between the eyebrows, because she is *always* making that face.


I don't have many wrinkles yet, but I can tell where they're developing. I have deep smile lines around my mouth (they were deep enough to be classified as full-on wrinkles by age 19), because I smile a lot.

Also just starting to get a trace of smile lines around the eyes ... and those forehead wrinkles from a surprised expression where the eyebrows lift up (the horizontal ones).



ADD: Actually, that might be from an excitement expression ... not sure.

ADD: And I do the brow furrow too ... but not nearly enough for it to line my face.

 

[Quinlan]

Accuracy:
single type: 18/44 (41%)
full type: 2/11 (18%)

Hah, I suck but after two goes I'm really good at spotting ESFJs (My wife is ESFJ).

 

[Zero Angel]

Accuracy:
single type: 113/240 (47%)
full type: 7/60 (12%)

I wouldve gotten higher if I picked ENTP when my gut said so. In fact 4 of my correct guesses were ENTP.12% is not bad given that 100/16 = 6.25

Will retest at a later date and see if I can achieve a different score. 2x probability is still a decent chance of being a fluke.

 

[TheLastMohican]

I noticed something weird while taking this test again: even at my peak this time around, 10 pictures in (I ended up going for about 30 pictures with around 10% full type accuracy), the screen said that I was below average. Apparently the average is already well above random selections.

 

[Quinlan]

Bwaahahahaha!

 

[Raccoon Love]

2nd try:

single type: 24/40 (60%)
full type: 3/10 (30%)

 

[TheLastMohican]

Photoshopped or no?

 

[Zero Angel]

2nd try:

single type: 24/40 (60%)
full type: 3/10 (30%)

Actually, out of 10 isnt much of a good representation due to the fact that theres an increased chance of fluking off either a high or low score. Out of 50 would be a lot more accurate, I think.

 

[Starry Night]

I think it must be possible to read ppls types from how they act, mannerisms etc. in a lot of cases. Probably not always, but pretty often if you have the skill. To me the idea of being able to do that is fascinating. I`d be really interested if you, VH could give a few clues to this, the ones you can see sorta concsiously?