Edmond Zedo

That is a significant issue. Defining the "functions" has never been anything remotely close to a hard science, it's more philosophy. I like that, but it's the kind of thing anyone can take or leave at will, because it's not presently provable. What I want to do, ideally, is at least help instigate the study of 16-type as a scientific phenomenon. It's unrealistic to assume that I could figure everything out alone, but if I can demonstrate biological links, I can only hope that scientists will become more interested. As to how to define the preferences at this moment, scientifically, questionnaires seem to be the most likely option. Even though I think I can determine a preference in another individual with greater validity, it wouldn't be considered repeatable if a study revolved around that.

As I noted in the post where I originally presented the hypothesis, I don't claim to know, but I think it's possible that brain development could shape the face, by pressing the skull, sinuses, nasal cavity, etc. outward. Hmm. As I understand it, people born missing normal parts of the brain/cranium tend to be rather limited. But that's most certainly not my area of expertise.

I don't disagree with the type classifications, only the function assignments, and function orientation itself. For example, under MBTI , the INTP is said to have this function order: Ti-Ne-Si-Fe (Introverted Thinking-Extraverted Intuition, Introverted Sensing, Extraverted Feeling). You want some hokum, there it is. It's never quite sat well with me, and I was only recently able to pin down exactly why. Firstly, Socionics got it righter, assigning Ni-Te-Si-Fe. But I got it righter still, by separating I/E out of the functions. Jung should never have included Introversion and Extraversion in information processing, because it's a separate element. I've written a bit about that here (Multiple, sequential posts, most importantly the second post): http://jfmb.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=90 There's a link within that link to my function system. It's not an easy read. __________________________ tar, I tentatively disagree with the assessment about field of vision, because it seems more likely to me that a biological difference in the brain itself is responsible.

Quite. You can't determine depth with a portrait. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIt's not easy finding straight profiles on the net, but I have, to at least illustrate where the ideas of mine are coming from. Clint Eastwood has been typed by many as ISTP, and I agree with that, but I believe I typed Dawkins as INTP without input. I'm personally confident in both of the individuals' types. Eastwood (ISTP) Left, Dawkins (INTP) Right. Note the positions of the front of the eyes.

I assume you're again mentioning that paper which did not state the same things I've stated in my hypotheses. Vaguely similar is not equal.

Cool. Any papers I offer officially will have data to back them up. I'm quite used to being controversial. For the past 3/4 year, I've been arguing that Jung and Myers were absolutely wrong about the functions or "mental processes" we all use, while offering a better system. People are starting to pick it up. Smart people.

Now there's a neutral statement I don't have to take as ill-informed, opinionated derogation. Thanks.

You keep saying that, but it's not getting any more relevant with each repitition. I have been dealing with questions, and statements. I don't even "not want to," as you put it. Perhaps if you had done so (moved it) without the flavor text, I would believe you. But if everyone has a superpower, mine is "determining motivation," and I don't! I have...How can I explain this any better...Okay, here's a scientific difference: This hasn't been scientifically tested, and shown to be inaccurate. Hardly any of the discussion points from others have had anything to do with the methodology of experimentation, as you should be aware. It's been primarily equivalent to "Yeah right, whatever." ESFJ (Seriously, look it up). We're destined to absolutely never find common ground, because of type difference. (INTP is quite contrary with ESFJ.) You don't understand, and I won't expect you to. You can't debunk something with an opinion, and that's what you and others are trying to do. I intend to demonstrate the accuracy with experimentation, not with words.

Well, being that all hypotheses are speculation, and a scientific hypothesis is by nature not pseudoscience, I take issue with the classification. Especially since it's about psychology. I wasn't trying to convince any of you it was accurate! If I could convince you that it was accurate with mere words, I would severely doubt your sense! But you do think that's what I'm trying to do, which is a problem. I've only presented something "for the record," and discounted notions which are untrue. I say again, I don't think the hypotheses should be adored, only that they should be called what they are (Which isn't phrenology). On the contrary, if you care to review the thread, you'll find that I've said "Thanks," and "Very interesting" to people who have provided meaningful views which did not equate with "That's stupid." This isn't science, you know. It's a bunch of people on the net talking about what they like and what they don't, and what X sounds like to them, subjectively. It's still a straw man! A straw man is actually replacing my argument with another argument, that is, in this case: I presented a specific argument about a potential positive correlation between two variables. 1., Brow/Nose depth, relative to the eyes, and 2., Preference for Intuition over Sensing, in the various 16-type systems. It's based on observation, not some random wish I came up with. You (and others) extended my argument, rhetorically, with "Phrenology and things of that nature." This is changing my argument out for something else, and arguing against something else, at least in part: Straw man. That is not specifically my hypothesis, as noted above. In a vague sense though, yes. As I've already said more than once, phrenology was not based on observation. That is the principle difference, and it is major. I haven't run away! I'm not angry in the least. Perhaps insensitive. Now, about these claims... The difference, as stated, revolves around the basis for the claims. I accidentally noticed similarities and differences in types, and presented them. Phrenology was created out of absolute thin air, most likely as some sort of money-making scam, which probably worked very well. I can easily create an experimental design, that's no problem. I don't have a lab available at the moment, however. Honestly, I only wanted to put this out there in case someone else researched it between now and the time I'm able to do the experiments myself. However implausible you may find the notion, if I'm right about the orbitofrontal cortex, and was able to discover the connection completely independent of anyone, any professional tools, or professional organizations, it's impressive. Moon shot, sister.

Tbph, I don't ever read rules, because I figure if the powers that be can't stand me how I must naturally be, then there's no point in submission. It's nothing personal, as you say. That said, I haven't been arguing with people who say only "It needs data behind it," because I completely agree. I have been arguing with people who say "That's just like phrenology" or "It makes no sense." Because 1., It's not like phrenology at all, and 2., We have to find out just how much sense it makes, don't we. Now, about this evidence. As to the facial simliarity of those of X type, I know not of any database of images of those people who have tested as X types, but as I've mentioned, I do have a small database of those I've personally typed. This database helped me construct the specific hypothesis in question. It's here, if you would like to take a look at it: http://jfmb.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=72

You both made it. Is it? She moved the thread from psychology to "pseudoscience/speculation," and if that's not indicative of an opinion, then I don't know what is. Do we need signed affadavits to make inference?

I've asked no one to accept it, or "not discard" it, as you put it. I presented it as a hypothesis, which is exactly what it is. It's based on informal observation, on my part, which tangentally relates to the observations others have made on people of certain personality types. The goal is to make it eventually a formal study, with said observations included. You have personally equated it with phrenology, which is indeed a straw man. That's why I'm forced to argue with you. You are claiming that my hypothesis is rightfully subject to ridicule because both it and phrenology involve the correlating the physical with the mental. It's an erroneous and anti-scientific association, and exactly like claiming the entire field of psychology is ridiculous because Freud made wild, unsubstantiated claims. It's assumed guilt by weak association.

That's what they told Galileo. That's a straw man argument. I'm making a specific claim based on countless observations which back it up. You aren't aware of the observations, because you haven't done the research, and you don't even want to hear about the research. Have you analyzed the faces of many individuals who have tested and self-identify as certain personality types? No. Do you intend to? No. Phrenology was debunked because it didn't follow reality. It was conjecture which was not remotely based on previous observation. Thus, it made no sense. This is completely opposed to that methodology. I didn't bring up race! Someone else did, take a look, and my response was only "Race does affect the face." On consideration of the matter, it seems only logical that if the sample is small, racial differences could meddle with the results. Furthermore, the applicable measurements may vary by race. Does that not make sense to you either?

LOL, Brilliant* logic, since every hypothesis is in need of evidence. *Not brilliant No, it's nothing like phrenology at all. It's based on observation of individuals who have tested as, classified themselves as, or been classified by others as preferring S or N. Physical trends became obvious. I can assure you that the developers of Phrenology did not notice that 90% of people with a slight bump behind their right temple were honest, and 90% of people with a slight indentation there were liars (Or some such BS) before deciding there might be something to it, and wrote it down. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged More than anything else it's an idea of what people of X type act like. The MBTI test is accurate "more oft than not," so one can get an idea of the commonalities within a type, and discover when someone has tested incorrectly. Yes, what they tend to look like can also be a factor in typing, if possible. You could call the ability to draw on past observation and apply it to untyped people natural talent, indeed, because not everyone who's into 16-type is any good at it. About this whole race discussion: There's no need to complicate it. People can tell the difference between races because they have differing facial structures. That's why a (single) study on this should ideally involve people of only one "obvious" race.

^Sensor. Anyway, race is obvious, so I don't need to define it. Evidence of my claims? I can provide examples of those I've typed. http://jfmb.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=72

It affects the face, my friend.

I forgot to mention race, as it's a contributing factor to facial construction, but in any study I would do, I would isolate race as an extraneous variable, if possible. It would only help add to the correlation.

It's hard to postulate that the causation of physical difference is personality difference. If there's a correlation, the causation presents itself quite plainly. But with any methods I can presently think of, I only estimate a correlation of something like 0.75, at best. Firstly, we can't objectively gauge a preference for N over S in this case, as far as I know. The cute thing is that I'm better than a test, as are some other people, at telling the difference, but a test is what would have to be relied on in a scientific study. Secondly, I only suppose that the visible biological difference is a trend. I've seen ISTPs with deep brows, and INTPs with shallow brows. They are few enough, but they exist.

I did. Those ideas may be parallel, but not my specific ideas. Specifically about the orbitofrontal cortex...Unless I missed something major. Did I? I've never claimed to be the first to think that appearance correlates with personality. Maybe the 30,000th. +Yeah, I just checked again, and it seems like the thesis of that paper is "Appearance is related to personality, somehow." I've come up with a measurable hypothesis about just how.

I'm notoriously anti-test, but that's not to say I'm personally confident you're not INTJ, either. The thing about tests, at least the traditional tests, is that they rely on so much to align in order to produce an accurate result, like self-awareness, honesty (even to self), and most importantly perhaps, that the few questions selected out of the infinite possible which can define a type happen to align with the taker's behavior. There is some arrogance involved, but if I'm able to analyze someone in person or on video, I'm able to use a battery of separate methods which often produce the same inclination, and often become greatly confident of an individual's type. I also type through text fairly well. Yes, it's subjective, but so are self-tests, and I have the benefit of experience, detachment, and if I may say so, natural talent.

Speaking of Jung, I philosophically proved him wrong on object/subject orientation being related to extraversion/introversion, if you're interested: http://jfmb.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=90 The meat of my work, and what I really care about, is subjective analysis. I'm interested in the scientific aspects as a "support structure." Potentially knowing what part of the brain does what, and how variance in individuals is tied to that, gives great creedence to what I've already philosophically concluded. If we can prove a biological basis for 16-type, it will no longer be possible for people to call it "Made up BS."

I suppose it would be a variety of physiognomy. I notice that Socionics is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, even. What makes me so lucky?

I would need a better picture to compare you reliably with other people. I'm INTP, and yes, I look it. I've composed a modest database of typed individuals' photos (famous people) on my site. Very interesting. (I realize I'm far from the first; I even mentioned learning about VI from others' work.)

I noticed that your assessments were intuitive leaps based on little data, but that's okay. And there's a really good chance you're INFJ as well. Chomsky is nearly certainly INFJ, for reference.

Well, I just typed Rebecca Saxe as "INFJ" based on temperament comparison and visual identification in about 15 seconds, so I at least think I'm pretty good at knowing how people think, if not precisely what they're thinking about. Some other probable INFJ women are Jennifer Connelly, Natalie Portman, and Leslie Feist, for comparison.