| Socionics Personals |  | Female
Straight
16-25
Oceania
Libra
ENFj |
|  | Male
Straight
16-25
Middle East
Sagittarius
INTj |
|  | Male
Straight
26-35
North America
Pisces
INXj |
| | Join now! |
Who is who?Learn how to convert between different systems
V.I.An introduction into the widely used Socionics Visual Identification technique
TestsA collection of Socionics related tests and quizes
Q & AsAsk a Socionics related question or provide an answer to an existing one
ArticlesVarious articles on the subject of Socionics and Types in general
ForumsWant to discuss Type? Head to Socionics Forums!
|
Notes on V.I.
by Sergei Ganin
Quote: "...V.I. (Visual Identification) is the fastest and most reliable method of Type identification of today...". Apparently this particular statement appears to be largely misunderstood by sceptics. What this means is that in comparison with all other existing ... methods of Type identification, V.I. is the fastest and most reliable (in comparison!). And of course it is not 100% bullet proof. Even the experts can make mistakes using V.I. So imagine what the other methods are like in comparison - the Stone Age! But having said that, there is no way one can master V.I. on their own without mastering the Stone Age basics first.
Some narrow-minded people say that V.I. cannot be possible because looks are genetic. It is partially true (not that V.I. is impossible but that looks are genetic). However, ask two artists to paint the same portrait with the same palette. Even if the portraits end up looking identical, upon closer examination you should be able to notice different brush strokes, different techniques or different style. In V.I. one does not look at what is obvious: "Oh look, he has got no chin and she has got an upturned nose!" In V.I. one looks past the obvious. Once you are able to recognise what to look for then the rest becomes rather rudimentary. Some people are naturally observant and can grasp the essence of V.I. fairly quickly, some need more time and some are pretty useless.
Some people claim they can V.I. by a single photograph, which undoubtedly involves lots of guessing. A single photograph could be useful as it can give many clues as to which Type a person on the photo is, but it can not be definitive. Only in very rare cases might a single photograph be enough. Also, it is essential to know the handedness of a person. Without it the photo could be pretty useless. But because majority of people are genuinely right-handed, it almost works in majority of cases. Glasses, hats, makeup, plastic surgeries, photo manipulations can throw even the expert off course. This is why it is necessary to have more information about a person than a single photo. A video, for example, already contains tons and tons of useful information. Meeting someone in person is highly recommended.
V.I. is very intuitive method of Type identification. Imagine the equation with hundreds of variables. When everything falls into place - you just know. When something is not quite right - you just know. There is no way to explain this feeling, you have to experience it to understand. There is also no mystery in how intuition works. It relies on your memory and experience. Each variable in the equation is what you know about Type. The more you know the more accurate the prognosis will be. Intuition takes all the variables and processes them all at once. Bang!, and you get the answer in a form of gut-feeling. It is up to you then to verify the answer. This is why it is important that what you know about Type is quality data.
In conclusion, V.I. takes time to master. If you want to learn V.I. be prepared to admit you might be wrong. Only this way you can keep an open mind and maintain the right attitude towards this method.
|
|
|
| C24 C23: There is more tacit information contained within a person's face/speech/mannerisms/etc. that could ever be assimilated in words through a type profile. V.I. is indeed quite accurate once fully understood. -- INFp guy |
| C25 The following website illustrates the VI technique in practice. More than half of these images display people with identical personality type. It is quite a challenge to separate the identical types from the ones which only look similar. For example Winona Ryder vs Natalie Portman and Courteney Cox vs Nelly Furtado are not the same types. http://www.inmirror.com -- jgbr |
| C26 C24. This link points to a video which is a technology capabilities demonstration of imagery captured using unique, proprietary Photon-X Biometric Sensor enable camera. The capabilities of the system are demonstrated by an ESTJ male. http://www.photon-x.com/flash/markemotions.html -- jgbr |
| C27 Another video portraying an ESFP female. http://www.photon-x.com/flash/robinspin.html -- jgbr |
| C28 Pittpatt is a face recognition demonstration available on the Internet. It can automatically determine whether two faces are the same person. For example you can compare images from actresses Vera Farmiga and Jennifer Love Hewitt. They are the same psychological type. Another good example is the comparison of Beyonce Knowles and Kim Kardashian. Good matches can be found by setting the recognition threshold to -2. http://demo.pittpatt.com/recognition_demo/index.php -- jgbr |
| C29 Google works on facial recognition app. Imagine someone snaps a picture of you on the street and from that picture they are able to get your name, phone number and access to other personal information such as your personality type. Discussion on CNN T.J Holmes (ENTJ) and Mario Armstrong (ENTP) Interview with former Google CEO Eric Schmidt (ENTJ) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/01/facial-recognition-google_n_869583.html -- jgbr |
| C30 3D face capture system. Video game developers have been making realistic cars and buildings for years, but LA Noire is set to take facial realism to the next level. The clip includes a short interview with actor Aaron Staton (MBTI:INFJ) (Dostoyevsky) LA Noire - Tech Trailer -- jgbr |
| C31 IQ Biometrix, Inc. provides law enforcement and security technology solutions for government and private industry. IQB's product FACES allows the user to create and re-create billions of human faces. Facial features selected from a database are automatically blended together to produce a photo quality composite facial image. The technology helps law enforcement agencies identify, track and apprehend suspects. Thousands of police agencies worldwide - including the CIA, FBI and the US Military - use FACES. http://www.facesid.com/products_faces_le.html How useful are such tools without type-watching (VI) skills? -- jgbr |
| C32 I have to correct my mistake C17. Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister of Russia, (MBTI: INTJ), (Socionics: Robespierre), Analyst, Conceptualizer, even-tempered, calm, and unsentimental. Highly independent, Concerned with organization, Driven by inner ideas and possibilities, etc -- jgbr |
| C33 I need to correct my mistake at C17. Silvio Berlusconi is ESFP, Napoleon, (Not ESTP). -- jgbr |
| C34 What's the point in using VI? If you know someone, with a particular type, well enough, then you should be able to point out others with the same type... eventually to the point of exploitation. -- INFp |
| C35 You give no specifics about what to look for in V.I. You look for what is not obvious? What does that mean? You need to identify observable characteristics. On the previous page, you say that faces 1 and 2 have something in common, that 3 and 4 are slightly different from 1 and 2, but you do not say how. The noses? The eyes? The expressions? I hope you're not just going to say it's a matter of "if you get it, you get it; if you don't, you don't." That's a copout. The bigger problem is your misunderstanding of the term "reliable," used in a way that falsely suggests you have substantial evidence to support your theory. "Reliable" is a psychometric term, and there are several types of reliability. In general, it means the extent to which a measure, on repeated administrations or uses, generates similar results. E.g., the MBTI would be reliable (I don't know the actual data) if, people - on average - when taking the test multiple times at specified intervals, come out as the same or nearly the same type. The reliability coefficient is a number between 0 and 1, higher numbers indicating higher reliability. Another type of reliability relevant in this situation is inter-rater reliability. I.e., do people who claim expertise in V.I. tend to draw the same conclusions about a person's type when judging independently of one another? Each V.I. expert, in this case, would be a "rater." As I said earlier, you have not identified any observable or measurable properties involved in V.I. You have not established any method of evaluating your theory, i.e., a measure that gives you a sense of whether you're on track. It would not be hard to look at this statistically. You have a bunch of people take the MBTI or whatever measure you want (it's not enough to observe, say, a celebrity's behavior and claim on that basis that he is Type X). Then you have purported V.I. experts, who don't know the testing results, attempt to type these people using only the methods involved in V.I. The number one rule of the scientific method (and if you don't want to use that method, then any discussion of whether V.I. works is moot and V.I.'s effectiveness is undeterminable) is that your theory must be falsifiable. Yours, as described, is not. I'm open to anything you can say in your defense. What's your response? What do other people think? On the MBTI, I'm an INTP - probably slight to moderate I, high N, very slight but consistently found T, and high P. -- Second-year clinical psychology doctoral student |
| C36 Agreed with C35. Even if scientific data were not given, at least some specific details of how exactly is each example similar or different would be most helpful. What we have been given here is equivalent to showing someone with no knowledge of geometry three triangles and saying that two of them are clearly congruent without any definitions or explanations of how. -- INTp |
| C37 I would venture to say, that the person that wrote this article is an INTP. It reads like something out of a Sherlock Holmes manual. -- JB |
| C38 I routinely test as an intuitive type, ENFJ, INFP, so I use intuition in making judgments all the time. BUT, if this VI method is to be useful, reliable you have to have some quantifiable observations to associate with each of the four 'quadrable' classifications. Even if its a series of generalizations, like Alpha quad types have a particular intensity in their eyes, while Delta quad types have a more overall relaxed look to their expressions. Whatever, there has to be something describable, definable, quantifiable in the use of VI otherwise, you are just fooling yourself to believe there is a usable method with VI. -- Leslie Schwartz |
| C39 SG/author is completely right, at least anybody should be able to determine type that way as taxonomy easily determines the 4 ethnicities/primates/homos (which neatly fit the 4 quadras, albinos included) and its mixtures/hybrids/meta-ethnicities (just differentiate upper & lower face and take handedness & age (puberty & "menopause") into account et voilà: foolproof - I almost cannot understand how somebody cannot see/get that), you can even simply go by the 2 inherited haplogroups in combination with the 2 inherited bloodtypes without any VI to determine type concretely/objective to a T and excluding any abstract/subjective evaluation/discussion. And yes its true: a woolve remains a woolve and a sheep a sheep, no matter which dress/clothes you put on or teach the sheep to bark -- Anonymous |
| C40 I don't think you can type someone through a picture. I think you have to do it through mannerisms. I knew my husband was an esfp because he was constantly scanning everyone and everything and everywhere. And why do people have this notion that intps are ugly? I know a couple who are ugly, but father is an intp and women throw themselves at him all day long. And same with me, I know for sure that I am good looking. because my husband is always getting mad every where we go about people looking at me (he sees everything). Anyway stops saying intps are ugly, there are good looking and bad looking of all types! -- Whitney |
|
| Would you like to add anything? |
( When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.) |
|
