The thing with visual reading is, if you want to explain it properly, you must also explain the signs you don't see and why you don't see them. For example, let's say in video A you annotate a timestamp as "Ne naive eyes", then in video B, you type someone as Ni (for whatever reason) while someone else see (what he thinks is) Ne naive eyes (in video B). Or worse, you annotate something as "Ne naive eyes" but because that's such a vague term, other people might not see the eyes as "naive" or anything like that.
I get what you're saying, but this is more of a political-correctness issue. It's the tendency (particularly in the West) to make things idiot-proof. Reality simply doesn't work that way. Like, suppose that visual reading really is a legitimate practice but not teachable to people below a certain level of discernment (it cannot be simplified further), that doesn't automatically make it invalid. No less than calculus isn't invalid just because some people lack the capacity to comprehend it. Now I'm not saying VR 'gets away' from all criticism and falsifiability using that argument, but that it has to be understood that VR isn't a low-level skill. It's not like identifying colors, or shapes. So long as it's understood that some level of intelligence is required, I'm willing to discuss the topic.
As for the topic itself, you have a point - that not all will consider 'Ne naive eyes' to appear "naive" in whatever sense they understand the word "naive". It's not about fixating on one's own subjective feel of a word, but on trying to understand what is being demonstrated. So the point isn't that what is being shown in the timestamps labeled "ne naive eyes" fit one's own definition of naive, but that they demonstrate (regardless of what you call it) the same phenomenon or expression --- and it is that consistency that is really in question. The name can definitely be adjusted, or even called something impersonal such as "Signal 09Q5" so long as what it's pointing to is the same thing.
As for falsifying things by demonstrating also the absence of other signals, I agree. And for that person who argues the fist person and says that they see Ne in video B, they'd also have to demonstrate consistent exclusion of anything they may call signals of Ni, as well as confirm the presence of signals of Si. Will their view have the same or greater consistency than the first person's view? Ultimately one of the two will have more consistency and that one should be valued higher.
So there are two real ways to argue a read: - 1: claim something else is there instead (i.e. a person is Ne, not Ni), which is just as bit difficult to 'prove' as what the original person is putting forth. - 2: claiming contradictions/inconcistencies in one's read, or in the model, without putting forward an alternative.
I anticipate a lot of both will be presented but moreso the second. But there's ways to formally debate these things. It's not totally opinion-based (like the rest of psychology), even if there is an element of subjectivity in there. Bad or faulty models can be destroyed, torn to shreds at every assumption, possibly going as far as to tear it all down and be left with nothing and no significant consistent pattern in all of this. At which point we can just leave the whole idea of VR having concluded nothing real could be said about it.
On the other hand, we can spend ages shredding and destroying hypotheses, building new ones and shredding them again at every inconsistency, until something - at least something - seems to stand consistent, or at least more consistent than zero correlation. I'm not against that sort of approach either, and a group of us spent several months doing just that -LINK. Which may help answer your earlier question of:
I'm still curios though about where you got your ideas from.
I mean, what makes you think that your theory of visual reading is correct? Is it based on observing the behavior of people whose type was known to you (via other means)? Or is it based on some kind of idealized theorization?
No less than calculus isn't invalid just because some people lack the capacity to comprehend it.
Um, I don't think that's a fair comparison. Math requires things to be formally defined so that there's no ambiguity.
So long as it's understood that some level of intelligence is required, I'm willing to discuss the topic.
Fair enough .. that's not something I will argue against (nor was it something I argued against).
I think anyone who is into psychology understands that there's a lot of ambiguity in this field and so much reliance on intuition and heuristic methods. But this is no excuse to leave things poorly defined.
The more ambiguous something is, the less credible it is.
I'm not against that sort of approach either, and a group of us spent several months doing just that -LINK. Which may help answer your earlier question
The info in the link seems to indicate the project is pretty new, and indicates that you have no data about the correlation between "motions" and psychological type.
Yet you seem pretty confident about your assessments regarding the relationship between motions and psychological type.
In particular I'll quote something from the Feynman video:
"If the process of computing the consequences is indefinite, then with a little skill any experimental results can be made to look like the expected consequences"
So far .. your process suffers from this. It's not clear what's the difference between an Ni stare and an Si stare, an Fi smile and an Fe smile, an Se eye and an Ne eye .. and so on.
And what I am saying is that it may not be possible to be as clear as hard science would demand. If you'd like to be that rigorous, and sterile, then you'd probably never understand something like the psyche. Or it would take trillions of terabytes of data to factor in all the empirical information that a real wide-scale experiment of the psyche would have. I'm not against that sort of approach, but I think that using 'intuition' to steer things in the right direction will get us there sooner. For example, say that we do use this (subjective) reading method, but through it we find out that the brain activity of people read via this approach does match. People may be baffled as to why it matches if the methodology used to arrive at that was subjective. But from then science can take over and make it empirical by testing those people in all sorts of different ways to find the underlying genetic reality.
An address by Albert Einstein in 1918, given at the Physical Society in Berlin, for Max Planck's 60th birthday:
"The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them. In this methodological uncertainty, one might suppose that there were any number of possible systems of theoretical physics all equally well justified; and this opinion is no doubt correct, theoretically. But the development of physics has shown that at any given moment, out of all conceivable constructions, a single one has always proved itself decidedly superior to all the rest. Nobody who has really gone deeply into the matter will deny that in practice the world of phenomena uniquely determines the theoretical system, in spite of the fact that there is no logical bridge between phenomena and their theoretical principles; this is what Leibnitz described so happily as a "pre-established harmony." Physicists often accuse epistemologists of not paying sufficient attention to this fact. Here, it seems to me, lie the roots of the controversy carried on some years ago between Mach and Planck."
The reductionist approach, with its fabrication of complete certainty in knowing all available variables, is not the way reality operates, and in truth no human thinks completely in this manner. The human psyche operates via making associations of greater and lesser consistency between all things within it. This does not mean it is illogical of it, but it is simply highly complex in its order and the logic behind why we deduce a certain way rather than another has a mathematics to it even if we don't understand it.
All minds generate their different views, empirically, but they are all presented incomplete and different information - which is what causes the variance - not necessarily a flaw in the information itself. Western civilization has a strong bias against this reality, and only finds credence in the reductionistic approach, which is only one of several approaches to gauging reality.
Per example, there doesn't seem to be any rule in english language that isn't broken at some point. That doesn't mean the english language doesn't exist. But it exists with exceptions which take a plethora of contexts to discern. These contexts are learned by children and they learn to speak and join the rest of us. This is what I mean by saying that just because it isn't simplistic doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I have clearly defined the functions. And noted a clear difference between Fi and Fe smiles here: LINK That doesn't mean there won't be exceptions, per example, depending on the person's facial structure or a meme they may have. Some people's cheekbones may naturally be high and cause the appearance of Fi tension where there isn't any. Some people's eyes could be droopy at the outer edges, genetically, and not really be Si. Some people may have grown up in a culture where the intonation of their voice naturally has a monotone preference, in which case your average Fe user in that country will sound like the average Te user in another country, but if you just focus on that one country there will be a difference between Te and Fe within that cultural context. One has to learn all these subtleties.
The info in the link seems to indicate the project is pretty new, and indicates that you have no data about the correlation between "motions" and psychological type.
Yet you seem pretty confident about your assessments regarding the relationship between motions and psychological type.
Did you read what I said below the video? It explains: the project isn't new, it was just stopped. And the model of CognitiveType emerged from personal perception of where the data was leading, but no, the data itself didn't get to go as far as to narrow down particular motions to psychic processes. Since linking it to psychology is another mass empirical undertaking of its own - which requires measuring how exactly we can even quantify the psyche. And whether neural activity is even enough, etc.
So while I understand your criticism, I'd beg to ask you - how would you approach the topic of visual reading differently? I'm open to suggestions as to how it could be structured better. Or is the whole notion that visual expressions are related to the psyche completely false or a fruitless realm of inquiry?
And what I am saying is that it may not be possible to be as clear as hard science would demand. If you'd like to be that rigorous, and sterile, then you'd probably never understand something like the psyche. Or it would take trillions of terabytes of data to factor in all the empirical information that a real wide-scale experiment of the psyche would have.
I didn't ask for mathematical definitions; I asked for more clarity, for the removal of as much ambiguity as possible.
If you say "a smile", every one knows what that is, even without a mathematical definition. If you say "a stare", every one would understand what that is, even without a mathematical definition.
But when you refer to one smile as "personal" and to another smile as "interpersonal", you need to explain what you mean by these terms, and how do you distinguish between these two types of smiles.
That's all I'm asking for - in terms of removing ambiguity.
The same applies to the "Ni stare" which you describe as "piercing through objects", and the "Si stare" which you described (if I remember correctly) as focusing on objects without piercing through them.
I have clearly defined the functions. And noted a clear difference between Fi and Fe smiles here: LINK
That's good, but you need to do the same for the other signals.
Though there are still issues even in that clarification, for instance:
Fi: - Smiles: Pull the head back when smiling or laughing - Smiles: Tucks its chin to its neck
These 2 points seem somewhat contradictory ..
And:
Fi: - Smiles: Gives a giddy vibrating giggle
Fe: - Smiles: Gives an interpersonal chuckle/laugh
Not sure what's the difference here .. still seems ambiguous, though it might be due to English not being my first language (what' the difference between a giggle and a chuckle?)
the model of CognitiveType emerged from personal perception of where the data was leading, but no, the data itself didn't get to go as far as to narrow down particular motions to psychic processes
My original question was, assuming you have all the signals reasonably well defined/understood, how did you make the link between the signals and the type? Did you know ahead of time the type of the people you were observing to extract gestures, or was it based on some idealized theorization?
By "idealized theorization", I mean a kind of thinking along these lines: "since Fe pushes the feelings outward, the Fe smile must be the type that feels more interpersonal, while the Fi smile must be the type that feels more private/personal", and so on.
Alerith and I spent a couple hours contemplating your video, eventually I settled on you most probably having Fe(>Ti) as lead (but a really shy one) while she sided more with Fi.
Both you and Alerith, as far as we can tell, are the leaders of this project; at least it was you two who made the introduction video. Yet you reach the opposite conclusions while doing visual reading for the same person: you concluded Fe, while she concluded Fi.
We are not perfect readers - and are also learners of this phenomenon which we think exists outside of us. I won't pretend not to be confused sometimes, as there are many cultures and languages which I know nothing about and which have quirks that I need to understand before I can gauge their type within the parameters of what is normal expressions in their culture. Sorta how heron was tough too because Italy has a very heavy influence on gesticulations to communicate.
It's an ad-hominem fallacy to use that as 'evidence' of the untruth of this theory. I enjoy when she has differing opinions from mines because it helps me expand my perspective and perhaps see things I'm not seeing myself. In this case it seems I was more on the right track (I've been doing this longer) but was leaving open room for other possibilities.
But yes, I agree I need to state things less ambiguously. Working on that. And I'll post something soon describing the process of how this all came about.
It's an ad-hominem fallacy to use that as 'evidence' of the untruth of this theory.
Hm? No. Ad-hominem is making personal attacks. I did not make a personal attack. I cited an example where the opposite conclusion was reached by 2 experts on the subject .. as evidence of a degree of unreliability in this method. Please note: I'm talking about your methods of reading; regardless of whether or not the phenomenon exists.
Speaking of personal attacks, I'll admit it, the reason I'm fierce in my critique is that you concluded ISFJ for my type, which I felt was insulting. (Please, don't tell me ISFJ is not SiFe; it is). Though I'm open to accept that if I see enough persuasive evidence/arguments.
I think the idea of me being SJ is ridiculous. Given how much I know myself, and given my ideas and perceptions of type theory (inaccurate as they may be ..). It's ridiculous to assume a personality type I don't have based on my gestures instead of my patterns of thinking. I can't prove to you that I'm an INTP, or that I'm not ISFJ, but I *am* certain that I'm not an SJ, and that I'm at least an NP; if not NTP; if not INTP. With that in mind, I'm convinced that the error is in your method of reading. Given the amount of information you've shown so far, I see no reason to not doubt the reliability of your methods.
Of course the other possibility would be that Jungian psychology is itself invalid; but let's not go there yet. I've seen enough variation in people to be convinced that at least the schism between Ti/Fe and Te/Fi really exists. I've seen it in real life so many times. I'm not sure about Ni, but I've also seen the difference between Si and Se and I'm convinced it's real. And, even though I don't understand Ni, but it seems that NJ types do understand it, they can talk about and they understand each other when they do. So, given that it doesn't seem to be contradictory to anything, I see no reason to reject it.
With that in mind, I can summerize my logic in the following points:
- Possibility of me being NP: very strong. - Possibility of me being SJ: very weak. - Method X of deduction suggests SJ for my type. - Reliability of method X? Unknown. - Reasons to doubt the reliability of method X? Plenty. - Reasons to trust method X? Hardly any. - Evidence presented in defense of method X? Hardly any.
Natural conclusion? Method X is highly doubtful.
Again, don't bother arguing that SiFe is not ISFJ.
MBTI is base on Jung. Your theory is based on Jung. ISFJ's cognitive functions are Si > Fe > Ti > Ne. Your theory's SiFe has the same cognitive functions in the same order.
Why do you keep referring to the SJ temperament? NP temperament? How do you link temperament to cognitive type, especially when it seems to mean something pretty different to be, say, Si > Fe vs. Fe > Si or Ne > Ti vs. Ti > Ne?
I figured it had upset you, and I'm sorry that it did... >.> Mmhmm, we can say SiFe is ISFJ, but still... the "SJ" temperament is something Keirsey came up with. It's not even MBTI. And Keirsey's model, if you've heard anything about it, is entirely based on behavior without any consideration of the functions. So when he says "SJ" he's literally just describing a set of behavioral stereotypes - he's not saying "high-Si users". But in the MBTI community things get mixed/blended together. Your prejudice against 'SJ' types is exactly the kind of thing I'm fighting to destroy!
Who the heck says that certain people are born without being able to help but be bossy, shallow-minded rote-workers? It's dehumanizing. It's dehumanizing to create a concept of "SJ" in order to differentiate oneself from it ("oh, i'm not one of THOSE people, yick, thank goodness"). In the typology community nobody believes they're 'SJ', and generally it's believed all the SJs are the people who are not interested in typology.
That's bullshit. Sorry but I'm gonna have to get mad here too. >>
I grew up being best friends with an SiTe, and my mother is SiFe. My brother-in-law is also SiFe. My sister is FeSi. And they're some of the quirkiest people I know. They're very consistently drawn to things they find familiar comfort in (and its different for each) but they can use their Ne more randomly than I use mine. It takes them over and they become fluid and silly.
My father, a now deceased FeSi, was the only one who fit the SJ stereotype. He was bossier and this was because his Fe had a certain "protocol" in mind. To his Fe, the proper social arrangement of people involved things like male-dominated society, women-are-housewives, etc. But the exertion of that agenda was entirely Fe. It is Fe/Te that does the "micromanaging", Si itself has nothing to do with that. Si is quite a passive process, a nostalgic hoarder/collector of comforting impressions combined with a sense of innocent exploration and optimism (Ne). Very often Si-leads don't do anything fruitful with their life, or organized, but instead just let it roll by as they tinker with their favorite things.
If anything it is Je types that more closely fit "SJ". But even they don't fit it perfectly - no type on its own does. People like pneumoceptor & thehotavocado are examples of "SJs" quite interested in typology. They have no place in the MBTI, no box that fits, so they pick another one (INFJ).
I admit that when I first found out about being an "INTP" I felt some validation in my differences, but I soon grew out of that and realized it was silly for me to rely on that as any indicator of my limitations or those of others. Still my desire remained to comprehend humans and do so with consideration of the equal-validity of each of their realities. My SeTi brother's, my SeFi friend's, and all the rest.
ps. None of this was a reply to your specific type (i'm willing to re-entertain that it's not SiFe) but to your view of SJs.
pps. Notice how this post is emotionally charged in a specific way. This is because I know you use the same functions as I, and we can communicate more rawly using all processes (including hostile-Fe) than just pretending to play the pure-Ti game. I hope you take it as such, and not as offense. I quite respect you already for all the ideas put forth.
PS. Notice how this post is emotionally charged in a specific way. This is because I know you use the same functions as I, and we can communicate more rawly using all processes (including hostile-Fe) than just pretending to play the pure-Ti game.
I didn't find your post hostile or offensive in anyway. And yes I agree, having similar functions, specially the J functions, makes communication a lot easier.
It's dehumanizing to create a concept of "SJ" in order to differentiate oneself from it ("oh, i'm not one of THOSE people, yick, thank goodness"). In the typology community nobody believes they're 'SJ', and generally it's believed all the SJs are the people who are not interested in typology.
No, what are you talking about? Plenty of people associate with the SJ type and they don't find offensive in the least. You find the description offensive because you wouldn't want to be it. My cousin is ISTJ and he's proud of it, he doesn't it offensive in anyway. He probably wouldn't want to be an INTP. The INTP type also has negative stereotypes: lazy, impractical, spends his time thinking about useless things, etc.
Yes, ISTJs are easy going, because their Te is not dominant, but they tend to be very practical, they think linearly, they need to have certainty, not only in their lives, but in their ideas too. I don't know any ISFJ male, but I think they'd be similar to ISTJs, probably a bit more easy going, and different in how they handle social situations.
I have an ISFJ female cousin, and she's also very practical and wants things to be simple and straight forward. One difference I've noticed is, she, and my ISFJ aunt, seem to casually enjoy philosophical conversations from time to time. This is probably due to their Ti. It's not that they participate much, but they enjoy listening to it. The ISTJ on the other hand quickly gets bored and tries to steer the conversation back to more concrete or straightforward "rules".
Mmhmm, we can say SiFe is ISFJ, but still... the "SJ" temperament is something Keirsey came up with. It's not even MBTI. And Keirsey's model, if you've heard anything about it, is entirely based on behavior without any consideration of the functions.
Yea, I've read his book, and it had a small section on why he doesn't like the "cognitive functions" model. I disagree with a lot of what he says about different types, including what he says about INTPs, but I do find a degree of validity or usefulness in referring to SJ as a "thing".
I figured it had upset you, and I'm sorry that it did... >.> (...) None of this was a reply to your specific type (i'm willing to re-entertain that it's not SiFe) (...)
Well, I don't want to come off as a whiny bitch Opinions don't matter here. I'm willing to change my mind if enough persuasive evidence or argument is presented.
I know it's difficult for one to accept "facts" or "truths" that are opposed to things related to his identity. I used to think I was an INFP, and accepting that I'm not INFP was difficult; it made me very confused; almost as confused as I felt when I lost my religion.
Who the heck says that certain people are born without being able to help but be bossy, shallow-minded rote-workers?
That's not really my perception of SJ.
My problem with the SJ description is the concrete (as opposed to abstract thinking). Of course, no one is a 100% concrete thinker or a 100% abstract thinker, but SJs lean more towards concrete thinking, and NPs lean more towards abstract thinking. NJ types are probably more abstract than NP, but in different ways. The thing that I don't associate with (and I don't want to be "accused" of) is the concrete thinking aspect.
Given that my original question was never answered:
My original question was, assuming you have all the signals reasonably well defined/understood, how did you make the link between the signals and the type? Did you know ahead of time the type of the people you were observing to extract gestures, or was it based on some idealized theorization?
By "idealized theorization", I mean a kind of thinking along these lines: "since Fe pushes the feelings outward, the Fe smile must be the type that feels more interpersonal, while the Fi smile must be the type that feels more private/personal", and so on.
I'll have to assume it was based on idealized theorization .. or unverified speculations based on personal impressions.
Please do clarify if my assumption is not correct. (Ironically my assumption itself here is a speculation based on personal impressions).
Sorry, I meant to reply to this sooner. I'l post a few accounts that I've written of it before:
February 2013
"It was done by observing the people whose minds I know clearest and can definitely attest have a certain process, and observing how they gesture.
For example, say I knew two NiFe/INFJs, one SeTi/ESTP, and myself TiNe/INTP the keenest. I know them intimately to the point of understanding the impulses of their mind and what drives them to all manner of activities they perform. I know them both in the Jungian-context and in the context of their personal history.
Then I observe when I believe they may be using a certain process -- for instance a situation that calls for emotional engagement. I would postulate that in such a situation they'd utilize Fe, and I'd observe them to see how they gesture as they use it.
Through a long time of observation of this sort, eventually I started seeing patterns between people that have the same functions. I noticed that the two INFJs did some of the same things, at the exact same times that they were thinking in a certain direction. And then there were also things which were quirks specific to them.
I kept these correlations tentatively in mind and continued to test them. I thought to myself that if indeed a certain expression belongs exclusively to a certain process then it should show up in all the hierarchies of all the types who have it. So I kept observing to see if anything held consistent across the plain. As I did this the results was alarmingly consistent. Then some weren't.
And I recognized what gestures don't relate specifically to psychic processes and which do. But of course, this worldview remained in my head and subjective. Nonetheless the consistency remained strong and the more I got to know people mentally the more it kept reaffirming the parallels they also have visually.
At some point I decided to test it in the reverse. And, for example, first observe a person visually and reference my inner template of parallels to see whose expressions they coincide with (of the people i had typed/examined) and what functions they'd, in theory, have. Then I'd get to know them more to see if I was correct in my initial visual estimation.
The result was yes a vast majority of the time until my subjective map could not ignore the massive collection of empirical (albeit subjective) data I collected and the consistency in those signals. And so at this point I can know just how a person's psyche will think, just via observing their gestures, without having to know them explicitly.
Every once in a while I'll meet someone who I cannot read properly (like maybe 5-7% of the time) or fully, but can tell some parts of them visually. I then withold judgment and don't make a call on their type until I can get to know them on a psychological level to confirm or alter the suspicions I may have of their type.
The more this happens, the more refined one can discriminate challenging psyches, as life events can lead people to use their processes in countless manners -- though some manners more typical and predictable than others.
It is not something done overnight, and it does take examination. I acknowledge there is no way for others to know whether I properly discerned the reliable visual cues from all those that aren't -- except by trying it out for oneself and seeing whether it is consistent by their own observations."
April 2012
"I began very cautiously by observing the few people in my life I was absolutely certain of their type from a psychological perspective. Then I simply noted when and why their face manifested certain expressions - depending on what mental process they were engaging at that exact time. When doing memory recall, certain things were noticed, and when articulating, others. When explaining an ethical decision, others still. I live with an Se(Ti) and an Si(Fe), and am myself Ti(Ne). My older sister who presently doesn't live with us but who I've lived with for years is Fe(Si), and my now deceased father was Fe(Si). I used all my memories on them to map out a template of mannerisms tied to specific mental processes.
However, as you might guess from that list ^ - Fi and Te are entirely absent in my family. So I struggled for a bit trying to understand it, as I had only really seen it in co-workers, friends or cousins I had not lived with extensively.β¨β¨
It took me about a month of watching probably over 100 video interviews online to become familiar with what Te and Fi look like and how precisely it differs from Fe and Ti. It took me another month more, and some 150 videos interviews more, to create a celebrity list with a minimum of two samples of each type (a goal i set for myself) from using the template I acquired in my real life interaction with family.β¨β¨
I then began to see more clearly what other types look like that I had not seen in my personal circle, and different variations of each type. After seeing enough of the same type I honed in on the distinguishing traits they shared in common. I then downloaded the videos in which those particular cues are seen most clearly, converted the clips into .GIF images and created pages { physiognomy.me/jung/ } defining the eight cognitive functions." - Auburn
So the first draft of the visual cues pages was formed from my own experiential data of family and friends. Being the Ti dominant that I am, I ran it through what I'd like to say are a lot of filters but it's not beyond err. Though it appears, from the places that I've shown the list to thus far, that it also aligns well with other people's experience."
April 2012 - Referring back to 2010-2011
"There's a story behind it, starting back at intpforum. there was a member by the name of Adymus [Jonathan Rock, who's referenced/credited on cognitivetype.com/credits] who came to the forum carrying a lot of knowledge about mbti that didn't seem to be anywhere else. when asked where he got his information he said it was from personal experience. this was unsatisfying to some, but wherever it came from it seemed to be accurate to many members. he became a sort of unofficial mbti guru. he also said he was part of a group that was working on improving the typology model, but for the most part he didn't say anything about it aside from its name - Podlair.
Anyhow, many members were excited by it and anticipating their release. Adymus had also made some threads introducing a methodology of visual reading of type. this was very new to many members and now people were even more skeptical when he presumed to be able to read a person's type just from some few minutes of footage. and though some were skeptical, others were amused and pmed him videos to get his opinion of their type.
There were a few conflicts with some well established members, such as Snowqueen who he read as NeFi, but who considered herself NiFe. and quite a few others were read as NiFe who thought they were TiNe. the forum became more divided regarding his words which were sometimes offhandedly referred to as the 'Adymus Doctrine'.
And then finally Podlair went public. And the forum was entirely repulsed by their presentation and newage terminology they had. Podlair claimed to be superior to Carl Jung and MBTI and indisputable truth. It also claimed to be able to visually read anyone no matter in what circumstances or from whatever culture. Adymus fought to defend it and succeeded in winning over the support of some members - who joined Podlair, intrigued by the prospect of discovering some solid base to what they had observed in typology all along.
Other members stated that none of this was scientifically founded and that they wanted proof. Adymus would answer saying that Podlair isn't going the academic route, or trying to prove itself to the scientific community yet. and that it was aiming first to get the support of the romantic interpretive (NF) types who are naturally more fit to learn people reading, and eventually let science come to them when they've become so big and made a large enough wave that they can't be ignored. They were very ambitious. And arrogant.
I did not like them, but I decided to join anyhow. I felt there might be some truth in there to unearth. I was then banned from their forum after I posted something about MBTI. They wanted no association with MBTI, and refused to admit they were an extension of it even though they clearly also had 16 types (or "mojos") and 8 functions (or "pod powers"), and so forth. Next I stayed at the intpforum for a while and debated with Adymus again and we came to an agreement, so I... decided to give it a second try. I wanted nothing to do with their vision to save the world. But I wanted to look at their information.
But the information didn't make much sense. I couldn't see the cues they were claiming existed. And there seemed to be contradictions in their celebrity list. I lingered a few months and became inactive. Being inactive is a nono on their forum, and the accounts of inactive members were downgraded to only see a few boards. I decided I had seen all that I needed to see, and so I stopped attending altogether.
But I had, at this point, begun to notice a few patterns of my own. Some coincided with Podlair's, and others didn't. I chatted with a few other intpforum members about my observations and several of them showed the same distaste for Podlair, but still an interest in facial reading. We would joke saying "I wish podlair was taken into the hands of another group". One without the arrogance and religious dogma that could explore this phenomenon freely like an open study group. But no other place existed.
Now I am really not a leader type, and I hate taking charge but I decided to make a cheap, free forum for the sake of having a place where we could talk about all this stuff rather than it all being in pms. I invited the others who were also dissatisfied with Podlair, and together we chatted about stuff and cues. These were members like Vangelis, Solio and Function. We came to agree on a few things, but not in others. Even if only slightly, we all had different perspectives.
I've always been very "all or nothing" in my interests, so I had a lot of energy to direct toward that and really wanted to try to understand things. I appeared to have more energy than the others, so my investigation eventually disconnected me from the others. After a lot of study I started to see things and get what I felt was a clear grasp on things but it remained only my own perspective. As you've probably already noticed I'm still kinda alone on this. This site is mostly my own creation and initiative, and it may even be wrong to use "we" as most of the site content emerged from just one mind.
Now, I confess that i don't know much, nor do I claim myself to be a guru of some sort. I'm just a random guy who thinks he's noticed a few patterns. And though the patterns are very real to me, they mean nothing to others if I can't translate that. So I made the physiognomy.me site and tried to translate my subjective views into words and see if they resonated with others.
I then posted my finds on other typology forums to see if maybe others outside of the small group had noticed similar things and whether they were interested in exploring things further. And the result is what you see before you. ^^ It may sounds like the crazy project of some wack-job, and heh, maybe it is. I dunno. If I'm the only one who sees these things then I may very well be delusional. But I hope that's not the case.."