Reply To: Basics: Face Comparisons

Home Page Forums Vultology & Learning Center Basics: Face Comparisons Reply To: Basics: Face Comparisons

  • Type: TiNe
  • Development: l--l
  • Attitude: Adaptive

I like this guy.

I like Socionics’ generalization of the quadras, from what I can tell.

But oh my, the heavy use of qualia is the downside of this method. I do use some qualia in my visual reading as well, but qualia-only vultology is very unreliable. What exactly is “stoney” and can we really quantify that? I’ve found that it’s incredibly difficult to get a group of people to agree on what exactly constitutes these looks, even though in general most will circle around the definition without putting their finger on it.

Though I still fail in some divisions, I try to distill any qualia left in CT down to very physical processes. Something that can be hard-coded and eventually run on a computer algorithm that tracks body motion. I find this to be essential, methodologically speaking. For visual reading (well, we’re bordering on physiognomy in this case) to be meaningful, it has to be described at the facial-muscle level. What muscles are contracted, and in what ways. Furthermore, why are those muscles contracted? What relationship do they have to mental functions? These are not trivial questions.

It’s incredible to see how painstakingly Paul Ekman had to work to establish just the reality of 7 universal facial expressions, so we can all agree what “happy”, “angry” and “sad” look like at the muscular level. Defining terms with accuracy is necessary to propel anything forward.

A relevant quote from the CT book:

It is no surprise that Socionics, having a mostly accurate comprehension of psychological type, should be baffled by the apparent similarities in appearance that are naturally elicited. If only the question of similarities in appearance had been more thoroughly explored, the production of this book may not have been necessary.

The failure of Socionics to fully capture the phenomenon of visual reading is due to an almost complete lack of a systemic progression of signals. The V.I. system of Socionics is far more static, lacking a dynamic flow of causality between all the signals of the sixteen types. What results instead is a type of physiognomy where practitioners have little to use for typing aside from the structural correlations between the faces of their patients. Typings by V.I. are most commonly performed by comparing the subject to static photographs, or to an aggregation of many faces belonging to people of that type. This has made V.I. notoriously unreliable, as the static structure of a person’s face is not itself relevant to cognitive type, and type must be visually measured by the manner in which a person’s facial muscles dynamically contract or rest in tension.

  • This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by Auburn.

© Copyright 2012-2020 J.E. Sandoval


The content on this site is not
intended for medical advice, diagnosis,
or treatment. Always seek the advice
of your physician or other qualified
health provider with questions you
may have regarding a medical condition.
For more information visit this link.