"Credit" for hypothesis?

[Edmond Zedo]

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.

[tar]

Edmond Zedo,

 

So what are you? ENTP?

 

Do you look it?

 

Do I look INFJ?

 

Regards, TAR

[Mr Skeptic]

Seems like an interesting hypothesis to me. Be warned that you are far from the first to have considered the possibility of visual cues to mental aspects, so if you want any credit at all for the idea you will have to actually prove it. Newscientist, for example, had an article about how girls had no clue as to how intelligent a guy was, but nevertheless managed to rate the more intelligent guys as more attractive.

 

What I would focus on is your first hypothesis. Facial recognition software is getting quite good, and as I understand it, it measures the various proportions and shapes of the face, ie, would be ideal for testing your hypothesis. If you were to combine this data with their Myers-Briggs results and feed it through a computer program such as a neural net, this should provide not only an unbiased assessment, but could potentially spot very subtle differences as well, differences too subtle for you to spot. In addition, in this format your work would have immediate value if true.

[tar]

iNow,

 

Which of Jung's types am I?

 

We can do a check on Edmond's hypothesis. We will have your assessment of my personality type, which I trust will be accurate. And the picture in my Avatar. See if Edmond can make it all fit.

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

iNow,

 

Which of Jung's types am I?

Beats me. I don't pay attention to that stuff any more than I pay attention to what color peoples chakras are or what moon Venus is in and how that effects behavior or numerology or any of that nonsense.

[Edmond Zedo]

Edmond Zedo,

 

So what are you? ENTP?

 

Do you look it?

 

Do I look INFJ?

 

Regards, TAR

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.

 

Seems like an interesting hypothesis to me. Be warned that you are far from the first to have considered the possibility of visual cues to mental aspects, so if you want any credit at all for the idea you will have to actually prove it. Newscientist, for example, had an article about how girls had no clue as to how intelligent a guy was, but nevertheless managed to rate the more intelligent guys as more attractive.

 

What I would focus on is your first hypothesis. Facial recognition software is getting quite good, and as I understand it, it measures the various proportions and shapes of the face, ie, would be ideal for testing your hypothesis. If you were to combine this data with their Myers-Briggs results and feed it through a computer program such as a neural net, this should provide not only an unbiased assessment, but could potentially spot very subtle differences as well, differences too subtle for you to spot. In addition, in this format your work would have immediate value if true.

Very interesting. (I realize I'm far from the first; I even mentioned learning about VI from others' work.)

[Mr Skeptic]

Please disregard my previous post. After determining how I would test your hypotheses, I used the appropriate search terms to see if it had been done. What you are interested in is called physiognomy.

 

Also, you may want to read this: Recognition of Psychological Characteristics from Face [warning, pdf]

 

Anyhow, yet another example of someone who was afraid to share their precious idea for fear someone would steal it. Lucky for you, you beat your fear.

[Edmond Zedo]

Please disregard my previous post. After determining how I would test your hypotheses, I used the appropriate search terms to see if it had been done. What you are interested in is called physiognomy.

 

Also, you may want to read this: Recognition of Psychological Characteristics from Face [warning, pdf]

 

Anyhow, yet another example of someone who was afraid to share their precious idea for fear someone would steal it. Lucky for you, you beat your fear.

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?

[Sisyphus]

Apparently, relative hormone levels influence both face shape and personality traits. Testosterone, estrogen, serotonin, and dopamine are the ones to look into. More quantifiable than all this Jungian stuff.

[Edmond Zedo]

Apparently, relative hormone levels influence both face shape and personality traits. Testosterone, estrogen, serotonin, and dopamine are the ones to look into. More quantifiable than all this Jungian stuff.

 

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."

[tar]

My Myer-Briggs results, entered for consideration.

Your Type is

INTJ

Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging

Strength of the preferences %

56 38 25 1

You are:

• moderately expressed introvert

• moderately expressed intuitive personality

• moderately expressed thinking personality

• slightly expressed judging personality

 

Regards, TAR

[Edmond Zedo]

My Myer-Briggs results, entered for consideration.

Your Type is

INTJ

Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging

Strength of the preferences %

56 38 25 1

You are:

• moderately expressed introvert

• moderately expressed intuitive personality

• moderately expressed thinking personality

• slightly expressed judging personality

 

Regards, TAR

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.

[Mr Skeptic]

What makes me so lucky?

 

That you didn't decide to hide your precious idea for fear that someone would steal it, which would have caused you a lot of unnecessary anguish and wasted a lot of your time. Not only has your idea been thought of, but the research has already been done, and the software already developed. Perhaps you didn't read my second link?

[Edmond Zedo]

That you didn't decide to hide your precious idea for fear that someone would steal it, which would have caused you a lot of unnecessary anguish and wasted a lot of your time. Not only has your idea been thought of, but the research has already been done, and the software already developed. Perhaps you didn't read my second link?

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.

[tar]

iNow,

 

Beats me. I don't pay attention to that stuff any more than I pay attention to what color peoples chakras are or what moon Venus is in and how that effects behavior or numerology or any of that nonsense.

 

It is only viewed as nonsense if there is no science in it. That is, if the mechanisms involved are not approachable by science. But unapproachability is not a terminal condition. When correlations between things that don't seem like they should have any correlation are noticed, then guesses are made as to the mechanisms involved. Noticing the correlation begs for a theory to explain it. The quess could be wrong, and lead the school in the wrong direction for a while, but the investigation will sprout other guesses, and the weak ones will wither, while another guess might gain strength. Unfortuneatly, when no guess pans out well, the strongest of the weak might be bolstered by some form of mystical involvement.

 

The correlation still begs for a mechanism.

 

Regards, TAR

[JillSwift]

It is only viewed as nonsense if there is no science in it. That is, if the mechanisms involved are not approachable by science.

I keep seeing people make this claim that there are "things not approachable by science". What things would these be?

 

 

But unapproachability is not a terminal condition. When correlations between things that don't seem like they should have any correlation are noticed, then guesses are made as to the mechanisms involved. Noticing the correlation begs for a theory to explain it. The quess could be wrong, and lead the school in the wrong direction for a while, but the investigation will sprout other guesses, and the weak ones will wither, while another guess might gain strength. Unfortuneatly, when no guess pans out well, the strongest of the weak might be bolstered by some form of mystical involvement.

 

The correlation still begs for a mechanism.

 

Regards, TAR

Correlation is not causation. It may sometimes be suggestive of it, but it is no guarantee.

 

As such, it proves nothing and as evidence it is weak.

 

We can seek evidence for a causative link, but if none is found the answer is certainly not to drag in another entity like "mystical involvement". That would be like noticing the correlation between rivers direction of flow and down hill, then attributing it to "river spirits".

 

If no evidence for a causative link is found, the answer may well be that the correlation is happenstance. If the correlation continues with 1 to 1 certainty and no causative link is evidenced, then new hypotheses are needed, based on evidence gathered. Perhaps the link will not be found, but it will never be because the scientific method failed us, rather because we lack the skill, knowledge, or technology to find it.

[Edmond Zedo]

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.

[GDG]

It is possible that factors that influence personality and temperament, and factors that shape our faces, are genetically linked. It is not necessary that the same gene cause both the facial characteristic and the personality tendency*; there may be two (or more) genes that are merely close together and usually inherited together. If your statistics hold up, and we can determine the genes that influence facial structure, this might be an excellent lead-in to genes that influence human behavior.

 

*It is possible, though: there are other instances of genes that seem to have novel functions in the brain, as compared the rest of the body. I'll remember one of them at some point...

 

The danger, of course, is that this type of theory can be misapplied to "racial" characteristics, and used as "scientific justification" for stereotypes. Very careful wording is called for...

 

BTW, now that we are discussing the theory itself, perhaps this should be split off into its own thread. Moderator?

Edited September 30, 2009 by GDG
last thoughts

[Edmond Zedo]

It is possible that factors that influence personality and temperament, and factors that shape our faces, are genetically linked. It is not necessary that the same gene cause both the facial characteristic and the personality tendency*; there may be two (or more) genes that are merely close together and usually inherited together. If your statistics hold up, and we can determine the genes that influence facial structure, this might be an excellent lead-in to genes that influence human behavior.

 

*It is possible, though: there are other instances of genes that seem to have novel functions in the brain, as compared the rest of the body. I'll remember one of them at some point...

 

The danger, of course, is that this type of theory can be misapplied to "racial" characteristics, and used as "scientific justification" for stereotypes. Very careful wording is called for...

 

BTW, now that we are discussing the theory itself, perhaps this should be split off into its own thread. Moderator?

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.

[iNow]

I forgot to mention race, as it's a contributing factor to facial construction

 

No, it's not. Race is actually a rather meaningless and empty word.

[Edmond Zedo]

No, it's not. Race is actually a rather meaningless and empty word.

It affects the face, my friend.

[iNow]

A) Define race

B) Show evidence of your claims

[Edmond Zedo]

A) Define race

B) Show evidence of your claims

^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

[iNow]

^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

Yep. That's more or less the response I thought I'd get. I appreciate you reinforcing my decision to ignore your hypothesis.

[StringJunky]

No, it's not. Race is actually a rather meaningless and empty word.

#

 

What's wrong with this definition of 'race', iNOW?:

 

" A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics."

 

How is it meaningless?

 

If one uses the word strictly related to a a person's genetic origins (NOT cultural) it is pertinent, meaningful AND can be subjected to the scientific method to define those categories ie races. Through genetic analysis we can unravel and understand the human genome and, hence, the various physiological characteristics members of a human sub group share, specific to their original geographic origins.

 

Clarification would be nice.