"Credit" for hypothesis?

[swansont]

Unless those I've analyzed have completely misrepresented themselves, which I very much doubt, then yes, they can have different types under the 16-type systems. I'm quite familiar with an ENFP-ENFJ twin set, for example. That's self-assessment (Including testing, I assume), in addition to my personal assessment. I find it intriguing that the appearance of each of them matches more closely with other ENFJs and ENFPs, respectively. This leads me to believe development is at least as responsible as genetics, overall.

 

Doesn't this negate your hypothesis?

[A Tripolation]

Doesn't this negate your hypothesis?

 

ROFL

 

Bam.

[Edmond Zedo]

Doesn't this negate your hypothesis?

 

No. Development is physical, just as it's mental. And besides, as I've previously noted, I don't know if the S/N preference is genetic or not. (Note that the twins in question were both f'n N.)

[tar]

Edmond Zedo,

 

Just wondering. When you "typed" Mooeypoo, did you do it based on the careful measurements of the brow and nose in her Avatar?

 

Regards, TAR

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Side question on the Myers-Briggs test. Can a group of family and friends answer a Myers-Briggs test, on behalf of a subject, and score the same as the subject scored?

Can an expert in the Myers-Briggs test and the methodology behind it, observe a subject (how they looked, what they did, what they said, where they went, how they reacted to stuff) for a 24 hr. normal day, and type that person accurately?

 

If so, would that not prove that personality can be typed by appearance?

 

If so, then that would not be anything new for Edmond to observe or prove.

 

However, if the brow-nose alone, without any other expertise or observation could reliably predict which of the 16 personality groups a subject would subsequently type as, this would be curious fact which would have to tell us something about either personality, or how we type it, or both. Or something about the brow-nose's effect on personality, or personality on the brow-nose, or the brain on brow-nose, or personality on the brain, or the brain on personality, or some causation or correlation or another.

 

So Edmond. I think you should drop the occipital cortex stuff and other speculations out of your hypothesis. Such things would come after establishing the fact that personality types can be determined by nose-brow ALONE.

 

Now I have also noticed you are not saying that brow-nose alone can type a person.

You seem to be saying that it correlates to the N/S aspect alone. And somehow you tie that to I/E.

 

So I think it crucial you strip it down to what personality aspect exactly you have noticed the correlation about. Then see if that aspect could always be determined "by someone else's observation of" or specific measurement of the brow and nose alone.

 

Regards, TAR

[AzurePhoenix]

Edmond... hypothetically (thereby speculatively, thereby not scientific and thereby well-placed in the pseudoscience/speculations section) isn't it more pyscho-developmentally feasible and assumptively parsimonious to speculate that socio-cultural expectations contribute to the development of someone's personality based on what others EXPECT them to be like based on their appearance? (assuming those same tohers would treat the person in question accordingly)

[Edmond Zedo]

AzurePhoenix: There are naturally countless things which can affect personality, but I consider types under 16-type to be a framework for how people think.

 

tar: I think "no" to all that, what can I say. Not to say you're definitely wrong, esp. about determining types visually, but I have too much swimming around in my head already to take on a bunch of someone else's ideas right now. ..Oh, P.S. I agree with the last sentence. Sorry, I'm a bit groggy atm.

Edited October 3, 2009 by Edmond Zedo

[swansont]

No. Development is physical, just as it's mental. And besides, as I've previously noted, I don't know if the S/N preference is genetic or not. (Note that the twins in question were both f'n N.)

 

How will/can you discern between the two?

[tar]

Edmond Zedo,

 

Indeed there is too much swimming around in EVERYBODIES head, to "take on other peoples ideas right now".

 

But consider this, it is hard to know what other people are considering, what they know, and what they don't. And put on top of that the fact that it seems that people consider stuff in 16 different ways.

 

Everybody has, over their lifetime, had a specific set of experiences and ideas, shared a specific set of ideas and experience with others, and has one of 16 different basic approaches to determining their person. And we each started our lives with a particular set of genes that contained the information to construct our persons.

 

What are the facts involved?

 

Regards, TAR

[Edmond Zedo]

How will/can you discern between the two?

That's not required. It would be "nice to know," someday, but isn't among my worries.

 

Edmond Zedo,

 

Indeed there is too much swimming around in EVERYBODIES head, to "take on other peoples ideas right now".

 

But consider this, it is hard to know what other people are considering, what they know, and what they don't. And put on top of that the fact that it seems that people consider stuff in 16 different ways.

 

Everybody has, over their lifetime, had a specific set of experiences and ideas, shared a specific set of ideas and experience with others, and has one of 16 different basic approaches to determining their person. And we each started our lives with a particular set of genes that contained the information to construct our persons.

 

What are the facts involved?

 

Regards, TAR

I dont disagree with any of that, and that is indeed the question.

[swansont]

That's not required. It would be "nice to know," someday, but isn't among my worries.

 

 

Then I don't see how what you're proposing is science. If you're proposing that there is a cause that is physical, you absolutely have to be able to distinguish it from the part that is mental.

[Mokele]

So, what exactly *will* negate your hypothesis? Do you have explicit falsification criteria?

[tar]

http://www.personalitypage.com/info.html

 

Personality typing is a tool with many uses. It's especially notable for it's helpfulness in the areas of growth and self-development. Learning and applying the theories of personality type can be a powerful and rewarding experience, if it is used as a tool for discovery, rather than as a method for putting people into boxes, or as an excuse for behavior.

The sixteen personality types which we use in our assessment are based on the well-known research of Carl Jung, Katharine C. Briggs, and Isabel Briggs Myers. Carl Jung first developed the theory that individuals each had a psychological type. He believed that there were two basic kinds of "functions" which humans used in their lives: how we take in information (how we "perceive" things), and how we make decisions. He believed that within these two categories, there were two opposite ways of functioning. We can perceive information via 1) our senses, or 2) our intuition. We can make decisions based on 1) objective logic, or 2) subjective feelings. Jung believed that we all use these four functions in our lives, but that each individual uses the different functions with a varying amount of success and frequency. He believed that we could identify an order of preference for these functions within individuals. The function which someone uses most frequently is their "dominant" function. The dominant function is supported by an auxiliary (2nd) function, tertiary (3rd) function, and inferior (4th) function. He asserted that individuals either "extraverted" or "introverted" their dominant function. He felt that the dominant function was so important, that it overshadowed all of the other functions in terms of defining personality type. Therefore, Jung defined eight personality types:

1. Extraverted Sensing (modern types: ESFP, ESTP)

2. Introverted Sensing (modern types: ISTJ, ISFJ)

3. Extraverted Intuition (modern types: ENFP, ENTP)

4. Introverted Intuition (modern types: INFJ, INTJ)

5. Extraverted Thinking (modern types: ESTJ, ENTJ)

6. Introverted Thinking (modern types: ISTP, INTP)

7. Extraverted Feeling (modern types: ESFJ, ENFJ)

8. Introverted Feeling (modern types: INFP, ISFP)

Katharine Briggs expounded upon Jung's work, quietly working in silence and developing his theories further. But it was Katharine's daughter Isabel who was really responsible for making the work on Personality Types visible. Isabel, using her mother's work and Jung's work, asserted the importance of the auxiliary function working with the dominant function in defining Personality Type. While incorporating the auxiliary function into the picture, it became apparent that there was another distinctive preference which hadn't been defined by Jung: Judging and Perceiving. The developed theory today is that every individual has a primary mode of operation within four categories:

1. our flow of energy

2. how we take in information

3. how we prefer to make decisions

4. the basic day-to-day lifestyle that we prefer

Within each of these categories, we "prefer" to be either:

1. Extraverted or Introverted

2. Sensing or iNtuitive

3. Thinking or Feeling

4. Judging or Perceiving

We all naturally use one mode of operation within each category more easily and more frequently than we use the other mode of operation. So, we are said to "prefer" one function over the other. The combination of our four "preferences" defines our personality type. Although everybody functions across the entire spectrum of the preferences, each individual has a natural preference which leans in one direction or the other within the four categories.

Our Flow of Energy defines how we receive the essential part of our stimulation. Do we receive it from within ourselves (Introverted) or from external sources (Extraverted)? Is our dominant function focused externally or internally?

The topic of how we Take in Information deals with our preferred method of taking in and absorbing information. Do we trust our five senses (Sensing) to take in information, or do we rely on our instincts (iNtuitive)?

The third type of preference, how we prefer to Make Decisions, refers to whether we are prone to decide things based on logic and objective consideration (Thinking), or based on our personal, subjective value systems (Feeling).

These first three preferences were the basis of Jung's theory of Personalty Types. Isabel Briggs Myers developed the theory of the fourth preference, which is concerned with how we deal with the external world on a Day-to-day Basis. Are we organized and purposeful, and more comfortable with scheduled, structured environments (Judging), or are we flexible and diverse, and more comfortable with open, casual environments (Perceiving)? From a theoretical perspective, we know that if our highest Extraverted function is a Decision Making function, we prefer Judging. If our highest Extraverted function is an Information Gathering function, we prefer Perceiving.

Personality Types Today

 

The theory of Personality Types, as it stand today, contends that:

An individual is either primarily Extraverted or Introverted

An individual is either primarily Sensing or iNtuitive

An individual is either primarily Thinking or Feeling

An individual is either primarily Judging or Perceiving

The possible combinations of the basic preferences form 16 different Personality Types. This does not mean that all (or even most) individuals will fall strictly into one category or another. If we learn by applying this tool that we are primarily Extraverted, that does not mean that we don't also perform Introverted activities. We all function in all of these realms on a daily basis. As we grow and learn, most of us develop the ability to function well in realms which are not native to our basic personalities. In the trials and tribulations of life, we develop some areas of ourselves more throughly than other areas. With this in mind, it becomes clear that we cannot box individuals into prescribed formulas for behavior. However, we can identify our natural preferences, and learn about our natural strengths and weaknesses within that context.

The theory of Personality Types contends that each of us has a natural preference which falls into one category or the other in each of these four areas, and that our native Personality Type indicates how we are likely to deal with different situations that life presents, and in which environments we are most comfortable.

Learning about our Personality Type helps us to understand why certain areas in life come easily to us, and others are more of a struggle. Learning about other people's Personality Types help us to understand the most effective way to communicate with them, and how they function best.

Practical Application for Personality Types

• Career Guidance What types of tasks are we most suited to perform? Where are we naturally most happy?

• Managing Employees How can we best understand an employee's natural capabilities, and where they will find the most satisfaction?

• Inter-personal Relationships How can we improve our awareness of another individual's Personality Type, and therefore increase our understanding of their reactions to situations, and know how to best communicate with them on a level which they will understand?

• Education How can we develop different teaching methods to effectively educate different types of people?

• Counselling How we can help individuals understand themselves better, and become better able to deal with their strengths and weaknesses?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Edmond Zedo,

 

Which aspects of personality, as defined above, are related to brow-nose shape and size, in an adult, according to your observations?

 

Regards, TAR

[Edmond Zedo]

Then I don't see how what you're proposing is science. If you're proposing that there is a cause that is physical, you absolutely have to be able to distinguish it from the part that is mental.

 

So, what exactly *will* negate your hypothesis? Do you have explicit falsification criteria?

The null hypothesis would include the proposition that there is no correlation between the type assignment and the physical characteristics.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

http://www.personalitypage.com/info.html

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Edmond Zedo,

 

Which aspects of personality, as defined above, are related to brow-nose shape and size, in an adult, according to your observations?

 

Regards, TAR

 

Well, as I believe you're aware, I don't use Jung's functions as he wrote them, or how they've been perverted (but not admittedly so) by MBTI. So, "N/A" on the first section.

 

But I have noticed that people of X type just tend to look like many others of X type, moreso than they look like Y type. It's only recently I've been able to tentatively conclude on certain, specific differences between X and Y types. The informal data-collection period has been quite long, and I'll keep looking for trends.

[iNow]

The confirmation bias is something to which you seem particularly prone.

[Edmond Zedo]

The confirmation bias is something to which you seem particularly prone.

What's something you're very familiar with? Let's say, hypothetically, it's Kung Fu, the ancient Chinese martial art. Now, say you've observed people practice Kung Fu endlessly, throughout your life, and have observed its effectiveness against, say, unskilled knife attacks. You might propose that Kung Fu is effective against goons with knives, based on your observations.

 

If I know comparatively very little about Kung Fu, and have not observed it in action, how could I possibly judge whether or not you are biased in your propositions?

[iNow]

If I know comparatively very little about Kung Fu, and have not observed it in action, how could I possibly judge whether or not you are biased in your propositions?

You assume that I know very little about personality typing and facial-cranial morphology. That would be a flawed assumption.

[Edmond Zedo]

You assume that I know very little about personality typing and facial-cranial morphology. That would be a flawed assumption.

16-type specifically? If so, make a counter-argument, because there's nothing I'd rather do than get to the reality of it.

[iNow]

My previous posts have all been counter arguments which you've ignored. I have no interest in repeating myself.

[Edmond Zedo]

My previous posts have all been counter arguments which you've ignored. I have no interest in repeating myself.

 

I'll take care of it then. This was regarding "Jung's types," in response to a question tar asked:

 

...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.

 

Being that every 16-type system is interwoven with Jung's types in one way or another, it seems to me that I've discovered a contradiction of sorts.

[iNow]

So, instead of addressing all of the other countless criticisms directed toward your idea, you are content to play "gotcha." Interesting approach. Sorry for standing in your way. I should really be ashamed of myself.

[Edmond Zedo]

So, instead of addressing all of the other countless criticisms directed toward your idea, you are content to play "gotcha." Interesting approach. Sorry for standing in your way. I should really be ashamed of myself.

Either you pay attention to it, or you don't. When I claimed that perhaps you lack the data necessary to claim bias on my part, you suddenly claimed that you were very knowledgeable. It's entirely relevant.

[iNow]

Sigh.

I have no problem with the definitions you are using for your types. I have a problem with how you are applying them, how there is no confirmation that the application is accurate, and with all of the other gaps in your hypothesis regarding typing people based on facial features alone (as I've already posted about like four times).

 

Further, you've already negated your own hypothesis by conceding that identical twins can have different personality types... hence, facial features are not an accurate indicator.

 

There's really nothing left to discuss at this point.

[mooeypoo]

Either you pay attention to it, or you don't. When I claimed that perhaps you lack the data necessary to claim bias on my part, you suddenly claimed that you were very knowledgeable. It's entirely relevant.

Fine, you 'got him'. Can you relate to the criticism, now, though? I'm quite intrigued to see how you thought these problems through, seeing as some of them seem to make this claim unfalsifiable (as was pointed out multiple times).

 

There are 148 posts in teh thread, Edmond. Ignoring the ones where we put up our criticism doesn't mean the criticism doesn't exist.. We pointed out a few times how your claim leaves too much room for bias, and how it seems to be unfalsifiable.

 

Can you answer these?

[tar]

Edmond Zedo,

 

But I have noticed that people of X type just tend to look like many others of X type, moreso than they look like Y type. It's only recently I've been able to tentatively conclude on certain, specific differences between X and Y types. The informal data-collection period has been quite long, and I'll keep looking for trends.

 

So there is no particular aspect of the typing process, that correlates to brow-nose appearance? Just the final result of the typing process that correlates to brow-nose?

 

So, if your observations are true, I could give you some nose shapes and sizes, some brow shapes and sizes, and you could tell me what? about each nose-brow pair.

 

Regards, TAR

[swansont]

The null hypothesis would include the proposition that there is no correlation between the type assignment and the physical characteristics.

 

This is fatally flawed. If there are any commonalities due to other causes, these will cause correlations independent of facial characteristics. You can't ignore this, as you have proposed. You need a falsification method that's valid.