physiognomy

Anything related to the theory of socionics.

physiognomy

Postby juliorain » Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:18 pm

What's up with Socionics and physiognomy? I thought that was an outdated pseudoscience?

According to wikipedia, "No clear evidence indicates physiognomy works, though recent studies have suggested that facial appearances do "contain a kernel of truth" about a person's personality.[1]"

A kernel of truth? I'm guessing this theory seeks to evoke it? I'm not sure about that. There are facial expressions of confusion and regret, signaled by primal instinct, but the more psychology looks into that, it reveals universal patterns about human behavior rather than individual patterns that refer to specific personalities or cognitive functions. An Aristotelian would argue that determining empirically how these patterns relate would be untestable.

I read on a socionics website that when you use Ne or Se, you squint? So if I'm in a desert on a very sunny day without sunglasses, I use Ne?

This stuff disagrees with my Ti. I don't find these patterns valid. Convince me otherwise via debate.
juliorain
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:08 pm

Re: physiognomy

Postby malyshka » Mon Aug 22, 2016 8:38 pm

If you do a google search for keywords like "looks" "appearance" "correlation" "link to" "personality" "studies" etc. you'll find numerous links to articles published by people working in western universities and accredited research institutions on topic of how appearance is linked to various faucets of personality.

I'm not sure why Socionics always gets the negative rep for the mentions of external traits of types, since there are so many publications in English, some coming from tor tier universities in United States, that basically cover a variety of connections between looks and personal qualities that have been shown by various studies. While I haven't seen any studies that address socionics types in particular (or maybe no translated studies), it wouldn't be an unreasonable idea that socionics type also leaves some visual imprints that can be discerned after some careful observation.

How much attention gets drawn to this also depends on which Socionics author you read. Some authors like Stratiyevskaya don't mention much of anything about appearance in their type descriptions. So visual identification is by no means an established and enforced typing methodology in socionics communities (some polls, like this one http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/149544-visual-identification-yay-nay.html, show that only 25% of people use any v.i. in typing), rather it's more like minor remarks made from personal observations of a few socionists. Both Viktor Gulenko and A. Aushra were likely SP/SO in another typology they knew nothing about, and people of this enneagram stacking frequently orient themselves by reading various physical features of their environment and other people around them. SP is the most physical instinct, so it's no wonder that their descriptions of types are full of physical details that are of no note or importance to many of others who get into socionics. I usually cross verify if anything written in the profile corresponds to some of the people of that type that I've met, and if it doesn't I simply skip it.
malyshka
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2016 8:13 pm


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron