Visually-Reading Cognitive Type (I)

[Auburn]

Hello dear forum.. ^^

I'm happy and exhausted to bring to you something I hope you enjoy. The video below, and what will follow is an accumulation of years of thought & theory - summed up as best as we can - in the hopes of ushering in a new comprehension of psychology. ..no INTPs were seriously* harmed in the production of this film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdIEDNUOhUY


And I've put together a transcript of the video for quicker reference.

• http://cognitivetype.com/database/transcript01.pptx

This is the beginning of what will eventuate into a series that will be going several months, beginning in March. If all goes according to plan, each week the visual breakdown of another type will be time-annotated, showing all their functions, and showing how to identify them. Lots of other articles also on the way, at cognitivetype.com.


A video of "What a TiNe/INTP Looks Like" will be the first of the set, and I'd estimate will be ready by February 25th? Assuming our Pness doesn't get in the way...

And now for some special people who must be summoned! / I promised to show.

@cheese
@Fukyo
@ElvenVeil
@Ink
@Puffy
@EyeSeeCold
@Architect (hehe, remember?)


..*sits tentatively*
i hate being on camera. >.<

* = the trauma from being on camera for so long and the many caffeine snacks required for the video's completion had only temporary effects. >.>

 

[Coolydudey]

Wow, I could never do something like that... Around strangers I'm very shy, and stick to social customs to conceal it (around people I know well, I can often seem extraverted though). All I can say is Congrats!

Hope you enjoyed making it despite any stress...

 

[Auburn]

Lol.. ^^;
yeah.. and we're both terribly awkward. But I guess that's what two INTP/TiNe look like on camera pretending (and failing!) to be extroverted. >.<

Our video-making skillz will probably improve with time too though, I hope. It's the content that we want to communicate most tho. Thanks for the support! O:

 

[Cybeny]

Wow! That's really cool! Thanks Auburn!

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

Very interesting. I liked the distinction between the respective Ni and Si ways of "zoning out." As I was listening to that part of the video, it made me think about my INTJ friend and I (INTP). He rarely seems like he's in the room and he really does go "through" what he's looking at while I generally stop at whatever catches my eye and I'll take in that thing only and won't go beyond it.

All in all I thought it was pretty solid and I could definitely recognize aspects you mentioned in real life situations (The alertness of my ISTP friend's eyes, the abrupt physical motions of my INTJ and ENTJ friends', etc.). I don't really take stuff like this at face value (I have an ongoing beef with psychology as a whole, but that's not important), but I thought it was very interesting.

Spoiler

PS. Not to make things awkward, but I'm embracing a new (almost autistic) policy of blunt honesty so I'm compelled to say that I think you're pretty.

 

[snafupants]

Lol.. ^^;
yeah.. and we're both terribly awkward. But I guess that's what two INTP/TiNe look like on camera pretending (and failing!) to be extroverted. >.<

Our video-making skillz will probably improve with time too though, I hope. It's the content that we want to communicate most tho. Thanks for the support! O:

I didn't find it too awkward. Both of you come off as thoughtful, sincere and articulate.

Spoiler

The music might be too loud...it can be distracting at times.

 

[snafupants]

Those examples at the end (Neil!) were pretty accurate.

Would you care to elaborate on Ne's "softer" quality? 23:12

I feel like Ne fits your description as "darting" and "scattered" more than "childlike."

Haha I recall Jung describing Ti-dom as potentially a "misanthropic bachelor with a childlike heart," or something like that.

If it's not too much trouble, would you also elaborate on "childlike"? Do you mean naive? If so, what exactly do you mean by naive?

@Auburn - On the whole, professionally done!

 

[redbaron]

That was great!

I'd love to see more.

 

[snafupants]

@Auburn

I specifically want to know what "naive" and "childlike" mean to you vis-a-vis Ne's physiognomy. I can infer enough from my own experience and readings of Jung, and indeed I house my own opinions, but I would very much like your elaborated take on it.

 

[PhoenixRising]

@Cheeseumpuffs

It's interesting to hear your experience with Ni vs Si perception. The phenomenon of staring "through" something would be especially noticeable with an INTJ, since Ni is their dominant function.

PS. Not to make things awkward, but I'm embracing a new (almost autistic) policy of blunt honesty so I'm compelled to say that I think you're pretty.

(if directed at me..) why thank you
(if directed at Auburn..) hmm, yes i agree.. he ish pretty ^^

 

[Auburn]

@snafupants - Sure. ^^

'Naive' and especially 'childlike' are a bit ambiguous - especially considering Ni/Se children don't have it. Unfortunately the look of Ne/Si can best be shown rather than described.. and giving more verbal descriptions would be counterproductive to the point of CognitiveType's aim, as each person can take it to infer multiple things! (oh the curse of subjectivity)

But to demonstrate it better, here are five people each for Ne & Se eyes.

​

Spoiler

Ne: The eyes of Ne look unreal. They almost have a sort of 'Cartoonyness' to them, as if they were painted on the face. They're softer in their gaze and non-intrusive. When they perk up they look playful and curious.

Se: The eyes of Se look 'real'. There is a sharpness to them and an element of 'Contact' to their surroundings. They're more intense in their gaze and a bit intrusive. When they perk up they look shocked, and you feel a bit penetrated by them.

Psychologically... there's a reason for this too. The sharpness of Se eyes comes from the relationship it has to the outer world. For Se users, peeling their eyes back to the brim of their sockets is instinctually more normal given that their perception function is intaking literal information.

For Ne, it never truly connects strongly to the environment because it abstractly absorbs information and only uses the outer world as fuel for its idea-generation. In other words it never truly looks at things for "how they are", but where they can lead. That is why it lacks attention to details, and it is satisfied with staring at something only long enough to get the jist of what is "there" then go somewhere else with that. Hence the eyes sit more comfortably in their sockets, and more casually feather across the scenery, only tentatively floating from one thing to the next.
​

 

[snafupants]

@Auburn

Words such as "real" and "primal" and "present" are how I view Se. These Se eyes are almost flatter and less sporadic than Ne eyes.

Ne is a very strange perceiving function - it has Se elements to it, but Ne constantly seems to coordinate with Si. Ne is, at once, attached and disconnected from the environment.

Because intuition is orientated by the object, a decided dependence upon external situations is discernible, but it has an altogether different character from the dependence of the sensational type.

It seems true that Ne looks at an object and sees possibilities (divergent), whereas Ni sees an object and conceives the ideal form of said object (convergent).

Yeah, playful and curious about does it for Ne, however.

The perk-up is definitely a physiognomical feature worth noting with Ne as well.

 

[snafupants]

The forum is a lie! I feel so, deceived.

 

[Ink]

Really great work! All stuff spot on as far as I can tell and expressed in a very informative way... Is this part of your schooling or work? I'd love to come help you out

Spoiler

Only thing I'd have to add was about the Ni-Se examplte, while that's what they look like I am pretty sure she is a Ne-Si user (INFP)... Jennifer Lawrence is someone who uses Ni a lot (in conversation, an INFJ) so, yeah... no big deal anyways since it got the point across

 

[EyeSeeCold]

After watching, I was left wondering: what was the main focus, or eventual goal of the project?

I noticed most visual cues discussed weren't accompanied by video examples. I was thinking maybe more could be added to emphasize the visual aspect. In general though the presentation seems great even as an introduction for those with little exposure to Jung's theories, or typology in general.

When will the site be fully functional and featured? It looks promising. The overall concept is a lot to take in but I'm interested in the future updates.

 

[snafupants]

Here's a recent conversation between Auburn and me. Read from the bottom up, if interested.

I'm guessing Jung, and subsequent typology theorists, are holding dissimilar definitions about "repression" and "unconscious." You can't possibly say someone has two function pairs in their functional stack, as Celebrity Types does, and simultaneously contend the inferior function is repressed, right?
View Conversation Edit Report

Today 03:52 AMsnafupants
Perhaps in the same way one is either male or female, and the other "potential" gender didn't happen -- so with the psyche; and its selectivity to exclusive processes.

That's how Jung has it, and such un/conscious demarcation accords with my experience.

What benefit would even come from scrutinizing the unconscious? Or attempting to entirely move the unconscious to consciousness? Jung was quite clear that such an abrupt transition was the hallmark of psychosis.

Then again, doesn't Jung call Se for the Ni-dom unconscious here:

The introverted intuitive's chief repression falls upon the sensation of the object. His unconscious is characterized by this fact. For we find in his unconscious a compensatory extraverted sensation function of an archaic character.
View Conversation Edit Report

Today 03:47 AMsnafupants
I agree there are four functions in the functional stack, but Celebrity Types calls the inferior function "repressed." Confusingly, that site upholds the concept of function pairs.

In this way I do somewhat disagree with Jung believing the 3 remaining processes were of opposite orientation than the dominant. So essentially the functions of, say, an INTP would be: Ti-Fe, Ne-Si. This does not mean Fe is "secondary".

Jung did argue that the three remaining processes were opposite orientation. He did also, however, talk about intuitive and sensing, and thinking and feeling, being highly separated, which would preclude a Ti-Fe one-two scenario.
View Conversation Edit Report

Today 03:24 AMsnafupants
You may have addressed this somewhere, but what is your feeling on the functional stack? Three or four functions? What is repressed? Do the functions predictably interact beyond function pairs? Also, do you feel people basically have eight functions going a la Beebe's model? If so, what influence do the "shadow" functions have in your mind? Good? Bad? Ugly?

(As for the so-called unconscious/shadow functions, I think my position would be this: "The theory on this site does not venture to inform on the subconscious, of which it admits to be ignorant, but on the apparatus of consciousness. It is far too easy to make speculation as to the nature of the subconscious, and such speculations remain unchallenged since there is no way to know with certainty what are the realities of its causalities." )

There are four conscious functions. That much is clear. I cannot say for sure whether there are or aren't four unconscious ones, since they would be unconscious, nor have I observed said functions manifesting in either regular or stressful states. So thus far my experience tells me there aren't. Perhaps in the same way one is either male or female, and the other "potential" gender didn't happen -- so with the psyche; and its selectivity to exclusive processes.
View Conversation Report

Today 03:40 AMAuburn
There are indeed four functions, because they always come in pairs. The psyche has a pair of perception functions and a pair of judgment processes -- one pair of which is dominant in the psyche while the other pair is subordinate.

In this way I do somewhat disagree with Jung believing the 3 remaining processes were of opposite orientation than the dominant. So essentially the functions of, say, an INTP would be: Ti-Fe, Ne-Si. This does not mean Fe is "secondary".

The function-stack is too simplistic a view for the psyche, as it cannot be described as a 'sliding scale' of importance. Thus the common "1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th" functions model is somewhat misleading.

I think I probably describe it more elegantly here: http://cognitivetype.com/thesis/#p1 - also I'm enjoying your questions! I'm really excited about all this ^_^

 

[Architect]

@Auburn,


Very good, I'll watch and read it later. I'm trying to remember the reference, was this during the Pod'Lair discussion? At any rate I like what you're doing here, which looks to be taking the best from MBTI and incorporating new ideas such as visual reading.

Thanks for doing this. I don't remotely have the time for doing this so I'm glad somebody is.

 

[Auburn]

After watching, I was left wondering: what was the main focus, or eventual goal of the project?

I noticed most visual cues discussed weren't accompanied by video examples. I was thinking maybe more could be added to emphasize the visual aspect. In general though the presentation seems great even as an introduction for those with little exposure to Jung's theories, or typology in general.

When will the site be fully functional and featured? It looks promising. The overall concept is a lot to take in but I'm interested in the future updates.

The main focus is to share knowledge. It is part of our polar-Fe's impulse to externalize and impact the outer world. Though I would be content with simply putting it out there, even if nobody listened to it...

Where and how far that reaches & impacts the world is unknown, but it will spread depending on if others can see these things clearly too. Though the form of it has the potential to become more popular than MBTI and perhaps make it obsolete.

Indeed, more attention could be added to the visual aspect. 0: The videos that will follow, 1 for each type, will be almost nothing but visual cue breakdowns of various examples. It's just the opening video that explains the cues & reasoning for them - then the rest is showing that.

Ah yes, the site's largely unready... So much to type! >.<
But yes, the profiles for all the types will be redone, because it irks me that there is no place online that has real, true-to-psyche profiles. And it also bothers me that there is no simply-Jung system, where people can learn about Jung directly - without having to go through MBTI first. Even those "JCF" advocates use the 4-letter code and still carry lingering stereotypes from MBTI over into their thoughts, and the keeping of the code perpetually reinforces those false stereotypes.

Spoiler

I suppose the goal is to create a Jungian-based* system that is independent and whole on its own --- rather than to first introduce people to a system already well understood to be flawed (MBTI), only to then have them re-learn the proper system that sits behind it through prolonged exposure. That's the general cycle of how things go atm. It would be most efficient to learn the theory properly from the beginning, skipping the process of attaining and removing misconceptions of MBTI/Keirsey.

And that is why the site is designed in such a way that will be self-dependent. It's own profiles, own methods of identification and thesis so that people could come directly to this from the start and attain all they need from it.

* = though Jung also had his own misunderstandings here and there, and that's cleaned up too.

The thing is, people like PersonalityJunkie and a few other typologist scattered about have already honed a much more sophisticated understanding of this phenomenon, but no-one of us has created something so complete that it can stand on its own. So we still trail on the tail end of MBTI, ...only creating addendum articles here and there to refine things. But in the end because they're not stand-alone they end up having to refer people to other pages or sources (like tests) ..which they find have the least error of the ones available.. but still error.

 

[Ink]

Does the female in the interview have an account on here? Anyways, just checked out the website and like that you ordered the temperaments into IP EJ EP IJ etc, looking forward to you releasing more content... Are there more than you two working on the project? It would be cool if we gathered everyone interested in this, socionics, pod'lair etc to be able to contribute... Obviously what pod'lair did, distancing themselves from everyone else, didn't work, but the way you are going about this might end up more succesful... Planning on setting up a public forum or something along those lines?

 

[Cybeny]

Hey Auburn. I've been watching your video up on your site with the visual cues for TiNe, and it looks very cool. But I do have one question: using these visual cues, how do you figure out the order of the functions?

As I was watching that TiNe video, I thought that I saw so much Fe compared to Ti, and so wouldn't it be possible that a novice like me could accidentally read her as a FeSi? Or maybe even as a NeTi?

 

[Auburn]

@Cybeny - Ah, whoopsies! :P That video isn't supposed to be there yet! You're correct in that she isn't TiNe but does have those functions. The TiNe video hasn't yet been made. As for telling apart the order of the functions -- there are ways, yes. The intro video [posted in the OP] doesn't have those details, but those details will be revealed with each type's video. It was too much to put in one place!

Identifying type is complex (like language) and has a couple avenues for arriving at the right answer depending entirely on the individual one is assessing. But as a general focus:

A :: Identify the function-pairs in use.
- - - - 1: Te/Fi or Fe/Ti?
- - - - 2: Se/Ni or Ne/Si?
B :: Identify which of the pairs is the primary pairing. (dom/polar)
- - - - 3: J-axis Lead or P-axis Lead?
C :: Identify the orientation of the pairings (which one is above the other)
- - - - 4: Ji > Je
- - - - 5: Pi > Pe

The order of obviousness is not always A-B-C, and different things will be more obvious for certain people, but you do have to identify A, B & C.

An example of how you'd resolve this is...
You see someone who uses Ti/Fe, and Ne/Si -- "A"
You then see they use Ti > Fe, and Ne > Si. -- "C"
You then have to identify if they are NeTi or TiNe "B", and you do that by examining which pairing is dominant. That takes you to the realm of: Judgment vs Perception.

So an NeTi will show all the signals of being a Perception-Lead, as well as being an Explorer (Ne/Se) lead, while TiNe will show the signals of being a Judgment-Lead as well as a Compass (Ti/Fi) Lead. That is what you use to isolate the specific type. Bear in mind though that this is oversimplified for presentation.

While we're at it!!

Quick Tips: Common Errors / Wrong ways of typing

Error 1: Narrowing in on type base on a single facet of a dual. For example getting an "F" vibe from a person but not knowing if it is Fe or Fi. But assuming that must mean F is above T, and that eliminates 8 possibilities.

Why : The expressiveness of a process doesn't determine their hierarchical position. Especially in cases such as Fe, whose very nature is to be expressive regardless of where on the hierarchy it is, that reasoning is heavily misleading. Fi is unexpressive and Te is expressive, and thus one can "appear" outwardly T when being F, etc.

Error 2: Relying on number of uses to determine hierarchical order. For example, a person who does a lot of Te head shakes and nods must have it dominant.

Why: This would intuitively make sense, but the reality is that each person has two Extroverted processes, and there is a specific phenomenon that happens. If a person is, say, an Se-dominant they will have momentum and energy generation. This momentum will also augment their speech, along with the rest of their body. So an SeFi can very well use their Te excessively out of the sheer energy behind their Se, but may be mistaken as Te-lead.

In contrast, a real Te-lead may not be that energetic because their momentum function is 'sub-polar' (tertiary). So they may express less Te cues than the SeFi, but they will still have the "groundedness" and the rigidity that the SeFi will lack.

I may have gone overboard, but I hope that answers your questions!

 

[Duxwing]

Bravo, Auburn, Bravo! But how did you know the types of the examples? Wouldn't the absence of an empirical model make doing so impossible?

-Duxwing

 

[Auburn]

Does the female in the interview have an account on here? Anyways, just checked out the website and like that you ordered the temperaments into IP EJ EP IJ etc, looking forward to you releasing more content... Are there more than you two working on the project? It would be cool if we gathered everyone interested in this, socionics, pod'lair etc to be able to contribute... Obviously what pod'lair did, distancing themselves from everyone else, didn't work, but the way you are going about this might end up more succesful... Planning on setting up a public forum or something along those lines?

She is @PhoenixRising.
It is just us, yes. We're content with that atm. The burden of proof falls on us, so before asking for more help we intend to put something complete forward (vid series) and see if people find that accurate. In reality more hands wouldn't help atm since it's all in our personal thoughts. Then, help would come in the form of critique/peer-review. (im actually surprised there's been none of that so far! huh..)

Mhmm, IJ/EJ/EP/IP are the temperaments. As you know we're not the first to note this, as well as several other accurate concepts. It would be nice to collab with some people (i have some in mind) but not podlair. For my part, I am not their enemy but they'll likely think of me as so. Alas the Ni messiah vision & Fe condescension.. have claimed and made many cultures in the past.

Err.. forum... at the moment, no.. maybe if it grows enough to need it - dunno what will happen yet. Mostly focusing on other contents first.

p.s. - hum, I wasn't expecting this much agreeing. surely someone's got a critique about the content?

 

[Ink]

The reason I thought a forum or something along those lines would be good was that people could easier communicate their critiques and question about your content there, not the community aspect of it.

 

[Auburn]

Bravo, Auburn, Bravo! But how did you know the types of the examples? Wouldn't the absence of an empirical model make doing so impossible?

-Duxwing

Well if that were true, then the human race would know nothing. Because we've started out with the absence of any empirical models. ;] Err, but more to your question ==!

The way I know is via the explanation. In the video it's explained why each of those signals occurs, from a psychological perspective. And thus the bridge over from psychology to visual signals is direct.

The path of logic and the deduction process is in the open. So for example, if a person says "How do you know Dawkins is a judging type?" then I would say, because when a person is using judgment, this and that happens, and that is happening in Dawkins.

Then the debate turns into whether or not it is true that when a person is making or executing a judgment, the body becomes rigid and movements become exacting/linear, etc.

If that is true, so long a it holds true, then by extension Dawkins is confirmed to be a judging type, because it is evident in the footage that he displays rigidity of body and exacting/linear motions.

If that is not true, then we don't know if Dawkins is a judging type or not because we don't know the criteria for identifying judgment.

 

[Ink]

We can conclude that Dawkins is a lead judging type, but I hope you won't draw the conclusion further in the videos since I disagree with you on the Te-Si typing of him, still believe he is Ti-Ne... Best to keep to people who have the most backing (both Fe and Te backing)

 

[Auburn]

I avoided using Dawkins as anything but an example of a Judgment-lead because his case isn't particularly clear. It was necessary to use clear examples. I won't say that I'll shy away from narrowing further on his type in future videos though..

What makes you think he has Ji above Je?

And would you say you concur with the OP's description of Je's visual expression?

 

[Ink]

I avoided using Dawkins as anything but an example of a Judgment-lead because his case isn't particularly clear. It was necessary to use clear examples. I won't say that I'll shy away from narrowing further on his type in future videos though..

What makes you think he has Ji above Je?

And would you say you concur with the OP's description of Je's visual expression?

Te-Si O'Reilly with Ti-Ne Dawkins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Ald5f_nao

Dawkins answers the criticism with already internalized introverted judgments all throughout

 

[Auburn]

Oh geeze. >.<
Every time I watch O'Reily my brain loses neuron cells..
He embodies about 95% of what I loathe about human nature.

But anyhow, there are several thing to note about Dawkins. Firstly, your average TiNe will not be that articulate, nor that quick, nor that on-point. Although Ti strives to have its logic converge and refined to zero ambiguity, when it articulates it will swell up and push emotively with Fe.

This is because a TiNe only has two extroverted processes: Ne and Fe. And always, when a TiNe acts it is through Ne or Fe.

So if Dawkins was TiNe, then he'd be using Fe in this case to articulate (Fe & Te being the articulate functions) and do so more similarly to Neil Tyson.

Furthermore, because Fe is the polar process of a TiNe, articulation comes with great effort and Ti halts the momentum of it continually. Ti's momentum-halting is the reason TiNe types have a difficult time maintaining flowing speech. There are a lot of pauses and breaks when receding back to Ti. These pauses may not be present if the TiNe is only utilizing Fe (as in social situations) but in something like a debate they constantly need to re-check Ti.

~~ on Te vs Fe ~~


What you see in Dawkins, instead, is a rather effortlessly fast, consistent, unbroken chain of articulations that are both on-point and emotionally dry. There is the element of on-point-ness which is usually characteristic of Ti but he breaks that stereotype by showing that Te can also be spot-on and polished.

But aside from the level of polish to his arguments, the manner on which he talks is entirely indicative of Te. Blunt, sharp, quick, snippy, logical/emotionless. TiNe's articulation doesn't come off that emotionless unless they're being very Ti, in which case they don't say much of anything. You can't have both powerful articulation and emotional neutrality in a TiNe. It is either one or the other..


~~ on Si/Ne ~~

His Si is also very well informed and prepared for any context. The type and breadth of data-recall he has, which would be quite unusual for a TiNe though not impossible, supports the idea that it is his primary mode of perception.

As opposed to TiNe who have Ne leading Si, there is more divergence of perception than convergence. Dawkins has little Ne, shown mostly only in the way he remains openminded to the unknown but also doesn't fill that unknown with unwarranted data. He instead highlights the known (Si) data and is merely aware of the Ne realm as possibilities.

 

[Economica]

You can't possibly say someone has two function pairs in their functional stack, as Celebrity Types does, and simultaneously contend the inferior function is repressed, right?

Hi Forum

I'm one of the admins of CelebrityTypes.

Just to answer this question, our approach is to view a person as having four processes in total. The fourth function will normally be repressed from consciousness and only approachable indirectly.

This is not the only interpretation that is possible on the basis of Psychological Types, but it is certainly a viable one:

§115
The inferior functions are
opposed to the superior, not so much in their essential nature
as because of their momentary form. They were originally neglected
and repressed because they hindered civilized man from
attaining his aims.

That said, perhaps we are causing more confusion than clarification by calling the inferior function "repressed" in our diagrams, rather than simply inferior.

---

As for the topic in general, we watched some of the video and it seems that there is an interesting paradox at heart in the new project: One the one hand, the people behind it say that they are more true to Jung than MBTI. Yet on the other hand, Jung also wrote in a letter to to Ernst Hanhart that:

The question of psychological and physiological types is a complicated one. Kretschmer’s types are based primarily on somatic criteria. My typology is based exclusively on psychological premises which can hardly coincide with physiological or somatic qualities. (boldface added)

C.G. Jung: Letters, vol.2 Routledge & Kegan Poul 1976 pp. 346-7

I don't know if this is of interest to the people behind the new project, but at any rate: Best of luck with the new project.

 

[Ink]

This is because a TiNe only has two extroverted processes: Ne and Fe. And always, when a TiNe acts it is through Ne or Fe.

I disagree with this statement, one can still speak while using only introverted processes.

You can't have both powerful articulation and emotional neutrality in a TiNe. It is either one or the other..

I disagree with this also, it definitely can be done (all INTPs can do it speaking to themselves, it just takes effort doing it in conversation)

 

[Cybeny]

@Cybeny - Ah, whoopsies! :P That video isn't supposed to be there yet! You're correct in that she isn't TiNe but does have those functions. The TiNe video hasn't yet been made.

Ah! I thought it was odd no one else had talked about that video. I just found your original video so interesting, so I did a bit of digging into your site!

I may have gone overboard, but I hope that answers your questions!

On the contrary, thank you for taking the time to go into that level of detail. I really appreciate it, and I'm looking forward to your future releases!

 

[Auburn]

Woot! =D
You're most welcome my friend.

@Economica - Oh wow, word gets around quick! ^^;

Thanks for the support. Yes, I'm aware Jung made no claim to either somatic or physiognomic parallels. In that sense, and a few others, it is different from pure Jungian theory, and it would need to be so, else there would be no purpose in this endeavor as it'd only be repeating what he said. Having a thing based on something does not necessitate all things be identical. If so, it would not be based on it - it would be it. (:

Hence I do believe Jung missed various details, but then I would not expect any one individual to discover everything about a given phenomenon. o.o


@Ink - A fair objection...
How do you define introversion and extroversion?

I would say that introverted processes are concave and inward-turned, and as such they not only don't express themselves externally but they resist and reduce expression.

I would propose that when one is engaging an introverted process, efforts are directed inwardly. And I would also propose that because of the very nature of a duality, and the nature of oscillation-pairs which operate via the tension between the two polar orientations, then the introverted processes must be purely introverted.

If there was extroversion mixed in with introversion then that would beg the question of whether it is a legitimate dichotomy or not. It would also place in question where the line is drawn between Fe & Fi, Te & Ti, etc. How would you address this dilemma?

 

[Ink]

Woot! =D
You're most welcome my friend.

@Ink - A fair objection...
How do you define introversion and extroversion?

I would say that introverted processes are concave and inward-turned, and as such they not only don't express themselves externally but they resist and reduce expression.

I would propose that when one is engaging an introverted process, efforts are directed inwardly. And I would also propose that because of the very nature of a duality, and the nature of oscillation-pairs which operate via the tension between the two polar orientations, then the introverted processes must be purely introverted.

If there was extroversion mixed in with introversion then that would beg the question of whether it is a legitimate dichotomy or not. It would also place in question where the line is drawn between Fe & Fi, Te & Ti, etc. How would you address this dilemma?

His Fe is used to acknowledge the person he is speaking with, he doesn't use it to articulate. He 'oscillates' in a similar fashion as INFP Ellen Page does between Ji-Je... Should we battle that one out here also?

edit: we're getting off-topic here, we'll take this elsewhere

 

[Duxwing]

Well if that were true, then the human race would know nothing. Because we've started out with the absence of any empirical models. ;] Err, but more to your question ==!

The way I know is via the explanation. In the video it's explained why each of those signals occurs, from a psychological perspective. And thus the bridge over from psychology to visual signals is direct.

The path of logic and the deduction process is in the open. So for example, if a person says "How do you know Dawkins is a judging type?" then I would say, because when a person is using judgment, this and that happens, and that is happening in Dawkins.

Then the debate turns into whether or not it is true that when a person is making or executing a judgment, the body becomes rigid and movements become exacting/linear, etc.

If that is true, so long a it holds true, then by extension Dawkins is confirmed to be a judging type, because it is evident in the footage that he displays rigidity of body and exacting/linear motions.

If that is not true, then we don't know if Dawkins is a judging type or not because we don't know the criteria for identifying judgment.

So you're saying that all people have the same reaction to using a certain process, and therefore a person who exhibits certain external symptoms must be using that process? How did you figure out which symptoms evidence which function?

-Duxwing

 

[Auburn]

@Duxwing - Essentially yes. The hard part is finding what 'symptoms' are exclusive to a function and which just happen to be there.

It was done by observing the people whose minds I know clearest and can definitely attest have a certain process, and observing how they gesture.

For example, say I know two NiFe/INFJs, one SeTi/ESTP, and myself TiNe/INTP the keenest. I know them intimately to the point of understanding the impulses of their mind and what drives them to all manner of activities they perform.

Then I observe when I believe they may be using a certain process -- for instance a situation that calls for emotional engagement. I would postulate that in such a situation they'd utilize Fe, and I'd observe them to see how they gesture as they use it.

Through a long time of observation of this sort, eventually I started seeing patterns between people that have the same functions. I noticed that the two INFJs did some of the same things, at the exact same times that they were thinking in a certain direction. And then there were also things which were quirks specific to them.

I kept these correlations tentatively in mind and continued to test them. I thought to myself that if indeed a certain expression belongs exclusively to a certain process then it should show up in all the hierarchies of all the types who have it. So I kept observing to see if anything held consistent across the plain. As I did this the results was alarmingly consistent. Then some weren't.

And I recognized what gestures don't relate specifically to psychic processes and which do. But of course, this worldview remained in my head and subjective. Nonetheless the consistency remained strong and the more I got to know people mentally the more it kept reaffirming the parallels they also have visually.

At some point I decided to test it in the reverse. And, for example, first observe a person visually and reference my inner template of parallels to see whose expressions they coincide with (of the people i had typed/examined) and what functions they'd, in theory, have. Then I'd get to know them more to see if I was correct in my initial visual estimation.

The result was yes a vast majority of the time until my subjective map could not ignore the massive collection of empirical (albeit subjective) data I collected and the consistency in those signals. And so at this point I can know just how a person's psyche will think, just via observing their gestures, without having to know them explicitly.

Every once in a while I'll meet someone who I cannot read properly (like maybe 5-7% of the time) or fully, but can tell some parts of them visually. I then withold judgment and don't make a call on their type until I can get to know them on a psychological level to confirm or alter the suspicions I may have of their type.

The more this happens, the more refined one can discriminate challenging psyches, as life events can lead people to use their processes in countless manners -- though some manners more typical and predictable than others.

It is not something done overnight, and it does take examination. I acknowledge there is no way for others to know whether I properly discerned the reliable visual cues from all those that aren't -- except by trying it out for oneself and seeing whether it is consistent by their own observations.

 

[Black Rose]

How do we use functions when we are not dialectic?
Is personality there when we simply cognate?

 

[snafupants]

That said, perhaps we are causing more confusion than clarification by calling the inferior function "repressed" in our diagrams, rather than simply inferior.

Maybe, but your explanation was apt. Jung clearly thought Se for an INXJ was repressed.

The introverted intuitive's chief repression falls upon the sensation of the object. His unconscious is characterized by this fact. For we find in his unconscious a compensatory extraverted sensation function of an archaic character.

As I stated before, I believe many modern-day typologists have dissimilar takes on the unconscious.

I generally enjoy Celebrity Types. What is your (or CT's) rationale, I'm curious, for typing Taylor Swift as an ESTP? @Economica

Is the nomenclature on the site (tertiary = puerile) influenced by Beebe's model?

 

[snafupants]

Thanks for the support. Yes, I'm aware Jung made no claim to either somatic or physiognomic parallels. In that sense, and a few others, it is different from pure Jungian theory, and it would need to be so, else there would be no purpose in this endeavor as it'd only be repeating what he said. Having a thing based on something does not necessitate all things be identical. If so, it would not be based on it - it would be it. (:

That's true. The Myers-Briggs and even Socionics are extrapolations of Jung. It's no secret. The Myers-Briggs takes a unique view of function configuration - Jung believed the second to fourth functions are the opposite orientation of the dominant - and MBTI makes perceiver introverts judgers, which Socionics does not. To be fair, Socionics also incorporates Kepinski's theory of information metabolism, and emphasis on Freudian psychology, quadras, inter-type relationships, function blocks and eight functions.

 

[Impact Calculus]

are extrapolations of Jung.

How do you plan to extend 'known' information if you don't know the information you're trying to extend?

And even if you did, how would you know if it was right?

And if you presume at all, any the latter, how can you discern whether your presumptions aren't tainting your shit?


@Auburn

11:46

Anybody can demonstrate with their hands.

Anybody can have a stiff neck.

Anybody can have a rigid posture.

Anybody can make consecutive head nods.

Anybody can ground their body together.

---

'nuff said here.

 

[snafupants]

How do you plan to extend 'known' information if you don't know the information you're trying to extend?

And even if you did, how would you know if it was right?

And if you presume at all, any the latter, how can you discern whether your presumptions aren't tainting your shit?

Are these rhetorical questions or actual inquiries? If the former, accept this as prima facie proof. If the latter, how can I even answer questions on behalf of Myers and Briggs?

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) assessment is a psychometric questionnaire designed to measure psychological preferences in how people perceive the world and make decisions. These preferences were extrapolated from the typological theories proposed by Carl Gustav Jung and first published in his 1921 book Psychological Types.

 

[Impact Calculus]

how can I even answer questions on behalf of Myers and Briggs?

That reasoning right there demonstrates how extrapolation is impossible in the case that you mentioned. It's a pseudo-unification. Every interpretation is a new creation.

 

[snafupants]

That reasoning right there demonstrates how extrapolation is impossible. It's a pseudo-unification. Every interpretation is a recreation.

I simply stated MBTI is an extrapolation of Jung, which is undeniably the case.

 

[snafupants]

@Impact Calculus

And even if you did, how would you know if it was right?

Even Jung didn't know he was right. Indeed, the originator is taking his best guess.

Jung's theory of psychological type, as published in his 1921 book, was not tested through controlled scientific studies. Jung's methods primarily included clinical observation, introspection and anecdote—methods that are largely regarded as inconclusive by the modern field of psychology.

And even if you did, how would you know if it was right?

By validity and reliability. You could even use inter-rater reliability for physiognomy.

Construct validity, however, is almost always a moot point.

I would recommend employing criterion validity by having the participants take an MBTI assessment and then undergo physiognomical review; then, correlate the results.

And if you presume at all, any the latter, how can you discern whether your presumptions aren't tainting your shit?

You really don't have an empirical source work by which to compare.

The "assumptions" aren't really predicated on Jung. As Auburn has demonstrated through mentioning Jung's mild distaste for physiognomical applications of Psychological Types.

You shouldn't assume such extrapolations are de facto wrong, however.

 

[Impact Calculus]

@Impact Calculus



Even Jung didn't know he was right. Indeed, the originator is taking his best guess.

Yup

By validity and reliability. You could even use inter-rater reliability for physiognomy.

Didn't come here with the intention of arguing this. Although, if you're interested: http://www.skepdic.com/physiogn.html

I was also referring to the presumption of validity from where you are attempting to extrapolate from.

You really don't have an empirical source work by which to compare.

Who's comparing?

The "assumptions" aren't really predicated on Jung. As Auburn has demonstrated through mentioning Jung's mild distaste for physiognomical applications of Psychological Types.

Did I ever link those particular assumptions to auburn?

You shouldn't assume such extrapolations are de facto wrong, however.

Never did.

 

[snafupants]

Didn't come here with the intention of arguing this.

Neither did I. You asked questions. I answered them. Moving on.

 

[Impact Calculus]

Neither did I.

Never assumed that you did.

You asked questions.

Indeed I did, and you dropped every single one. Moving on

 

[snafupants]

Surprisingly, I can't consider a troll with a conflicting interest an impartial judge. I am confident that a qualified and dispassionate third-party would find my answers quite satisfactory.

 

[Economica]

Hi snafupants :-)

Is the nomenclature on the site (tertiary = puerile) influenced by Beebe's model?

That was not our intention, but since we used it, we discovered that it was from Beebe. We don't use Beebe as we find his theory overly personal. It is possible that all of the inferences he makes between archetypes and functions; persona, shadow, and so on are representative of _his_ personal psyche, yet (at least to us) it does not seem that Beebe's model has universal application.

But we _do_ like the word puerile to describe the nature of the tertiary function. For example (this being the INTP forum) the tertiary Si in INTPs is often seen in the form of a childish joy in collecting facts for their sake, to illustrate a theory or pattern, or simply to memorize them.

Or in the case of the ENTP, their tertiary Fe tends to make them quite charming and personable, their Fe, again, being childish and optimistic, almost dreamy with regards to what people can do.

By contrast, though, the Si of ENTPs is more repressed. They need to repress the specific facts in order for their wild hunches to come through. If they would look more faithfully at the facts, like INTPs do, their hunches would be less spectacular, but probably also more well-founded.

---

Taylor Swift: Oh, haha, that is never going to go away!

We have actually written a 3,000 piece essay on that. The redux version:

(1) She appears to be putting on the act of ingenue, however, there is something more to her character. Remarks slip through here and there that reveal something more calculated.
(2) She does not appear to have Ne or Ni amongst her to two functions. (So S type, as far as we can see.)

Anyway, it's hard to nail her down because, in our view, she's disingenuous and holding back (and at this point, we've watched SO much material with her.)

The Hollywood Reporter: "She's racked up award after award. And every time [she] looks dumfounded that she won an award. ... She should also win an Oscar."

Now, we wouldn't put it past a the Fi-Te types to be disingenuous (or even manipulative) like that. But when they are, they almost always have histrionic or borderline traits. But Swifts doesn't have those.

Given that not all we have said up to here is 100% bulletproof, but it is our best estimation, then:

(3) If she doesn't have Ni, Ne, or Fi amongst her top two functions then six possibilities remain: STP, STJ or SFJ.
(4) She's not ISTP or STJ. Arguments are superfluous here, we hope.
(5) She could be an SFJ type. It's possible, but we think its more likely that the SFJ ingenue is an act.

So yes - I don't want to push this typing as the only possible one. I merely want to say that at this time, it seems like the most probable typing to us. We are aware that we are quite alone with it. It will be interesting to see what will happen as her career progresses. Maybe we will get to see the real personality at some point.

 

[Impact Calculus]

Surprisingly, I can't consider a troll with a conflicting interest an impartial judge.

So you've concluded that my interest in this discussion contradicts what I've said to be my interest in this discussion, and you're supposing that I have an interest in arguing every opposing view that comes to me; but I'm really a troll in disguise? Kay.

I am confident that there's somebody out there who hasn't thus far been able to pick up topics covered in basic argumentation, who would find my one answer response to your six answer response to be quite satisfactory.

You don't say?


This is fun. Please, continue to bring up more irrelevant discourse as a means of convincing people that you know how to argue.