Human body and face types

[joft]

I know right off that many other people must notice this too, and there is probably a word for it and a science of it (genetics? I think). At my college I constantly notice people who look extremely similar to other people, like they were constructed using the same schematics with slight discrepancies.

Even more interesting, a lot of the time they seem to have similar personalities too...

I was going to write more but I'm busy reading about genetics on wikipedia now

[simian20]

chicken and egg. people see an ugly person and they are victimised, insulted, belittled or ostrascized. accordingly the personality of the person will change in kind. meanwhile the happyshiny photogenic people are treated kindly because people want to fuck em or bask in glory by association. accordingly these people see the world as a nice place. the only spanner in the works is the intp; we dress only to cover our appendeges, we are indifferend to impression. but with a bit of a spit and polish we scrub up ok. are the majority of intps ugly ducklings/late bloomers i wonder?

i know what you mean by face/body types. i know by simply looking at some one whether i want anything to do to with them. the most obvious way in which all types judge however is whether someone is poor, different colour, uncleanly etc etc. some characteristics are implied as to whether a person is backwards like some one living on a bench for example. everyone knows to stay away although i personally would have sympathy and delay judgement.

obvioulsy there is more to the issue than stated but i cant be bothered to go into too much detail

[simian20]

beauty shows good breeding however we all know that this is only skin deep comrades

give me nina simone over britney spears any day. although britney is entertainingly complex in a cosseted sort of way

[simian20]

which beauty is more preferable; kate moss supermodel beauty or jenna jameson pornstar beauty?

[simian20]

there is a morph technique where by many faces can be morphed into one median image. it would be interesting to do this for each of the types, male and female dont you fink. "oh how does the time go?"

[booyalab]

which beauty is more preferable; kate moss supermodel beauty or jenna jameson pornstar beauty?

you mean one achieved through a cocaine addiction or one achieved through plastic surgery, tons of makeup, and good lighting?

[Birdsnest]

Its Physiognomy for the face, and Phrenology for the head shapes and lumps.
Amazon has a book called "Amazing Face Reading".
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0965593126/qid=1128879228/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-8804347-2253443?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[kwis]

So can you tell personallity type by facial features yet?

[Master O]

I know right off that many other people must notice this too, and there is probably a word for it and a science of it (genetics? I think). At my college I constantly notice people who look extremely similar to other people, like they were constructed using the same schematics with slight discrepancies.

Even more interesting, a lot of the time they seem to have similar personalities too...

I was going to write more but I'm busy reading about genetics on wikipedia now i was literally contemplating this very topic yesterday.

at one point a few years ago, i saw so many people that seemed near duplicates of others i had seen, i started to think there must be a certain number of major groups with similar attributes. i was picking people out of crowds and assigning them to their respective groups.

I too have noticed that many people with similar looks do have similar personalities.

I've always wondered how our specific physical attributes affect our personality. I've also wondered if certain personality traits can effect our physical development - even the most subtle of changes to even the way our mouth curls when we smile or the way our eyes squint when we laugh can be perceived by others. If those physical attributes are linked to personality traits, that could explain why someone can just completely rub you the wrong way with one glance and no dialogue.

Think about it. I've seen people that i know can't be trusted just by the 'look in their eyes'. What if that assesment is based on a compilation of not only their expressions, but also of actual physical facial characteristics that have been formed as a result of their general disposition or the way they think or approach things.

[Mr. Beef]

It's obvious that because of different brain specialization and evolution people with different personalities tend to have different appearances. Since particular portions of the brain are responsible for expressing certain emotions physically, it is only logical that people for people of similar personality persuasions to have similar facial expressions. For example, INTPs in my experience tend to have a more distant and aloof facial expression, and in many cases exhibit a relaxed lower jaw. This is because their mind is somewhere else. They're not focused physically, and hence have weak bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, and probably most likely a smaller motor cortex than other types. Even more, the physical appearance applies to not only the face.....but the entire "F" ing body!!! This is because evolution created differences in human beings to function at a more advanced level. For instance, we need sensors to......work in construction and building and sports and all that junk. In order for this to happen, they not only need to have compatible personalities, but compatible bodies!! Another example of this would be feeling types generally having pronounced sexual organs, namely female. This is true because of the function of certain hormones....like estrogen. It serves multiple purposes, including emotional sensitivity and breast size regulation. Feeling people tend to look more feminine, which makes sense because women serve the general evolutionary function of care-taking and empathy, whereas men are less feeling and more systemizing/thinking. Another important thing to mention is that many ESxx types tend to be more masculine or femine and exhibit this through physical appearance. As you'll see, the INxx types are generally more androgenous-looking. I hypothesize that INxx, especially INTs are slightly more evolved than ESxxs. Since people with similar personalities tend to mate with each other, over thousands of years you start to see a growing disparity. Another thing to mention is that in society, we generally need very few highly intelligent people, and a whole slough of workerbee ESxxs, which is why ESxxs breed more, much like lower-level species. It's simple if you look at it holistically! INTx is the future, and whether anyone likes it or not we will not need many ESxxs once maintenance bots take over all the physical labor. So enjoy your time while it lasts, humans!!

[Mr Pink]

Hah, that's weird, I was thinking the excact same thing earlier today (the last 1/3 of your post).

Anyway, I believe I'm able to point out Fs and Ts pretty accurately by looking at their eyes. Fs tend to have a more "dreamy" look.

[joft]

that all made perfect sense,

of course it would be logical for people of particular personality persuasions to have matching bodies (or vice/versa). also, the actions taken by people based on their preferences can change their appearance, like physically oriented people spending more time doing physical tasks and being more muscular, or slouched, or something

[Mr. Beef]

Agreed with Mr. Pink on the eye thing. Good call! Anyway, the whole body type/personality correlation is still kind of sketchy, but I think that for some extremes (i.e. INTP/INTJ nerds/ESTP football jocks) the effects of personality on physical appearance is pretty obvious. But it might be a little harder to tell an ISFP, say, from an ENTJ or something (ISFP might have small hands for musical inclination, but this is a very vague correlation and should not be used for practical purposes). What I've noticed in general though is that most extreme INTxs (generally nerds) and extreme ESxxs tend to be easier to determine because of their preferences and emotional expression (or lack thereof), and that most other types are a little harder to distinguish because of more well-roundedness. There are also distinctions for feeling types and thinking types (noted by Mr. Pink) that can be made (facial expression, eyes, etc.). I think the big picture here though is that physical appearance can only determine personality to the extent of its pronunciation (ex. slightly expressed INTP might be harder to visibly discern than full-blown uber-INTP nerd). Another thing that i noticed is that many of the rational types tend to have more extreme body-types. The common stereotypical nerd appearance is either a fat slob or an emaciated corpse. Obviously, the lack of physical health comes from a lack of physical exercise. But why the two extremes? I hypothesize that the slim body-type comes from and increased metabolic rate needed to supply their powerful brains, but what about us fatsos? Why aren't we all skinny? Oh, and just to clarify, it's not only because of preferred physical activities that certain personalities look the way they do....most are genetically encoded to physically develop the way they do because of their designated societal roles. Also note the importance of gender roles on personality. :banana:

[PlayerOfGames]

When I was still in school, a friend of mine used to say "That's a face", referring to people who had a very specific look - he figured there were about 9 of them.

About geekiness and being fat/skinny, I think a lot of that can just happen by coincidence. I was always very skinny in school - because I ate hardly anything, as I was always too busy doing other interesting stuff. That kind of thing is self sustaining - your body adapts over time to being in a certain state, and will maintain it IMHO, that's why it takes so much effort to change it. The same friend mentioned above actually went from the 80kg fat kid in grade 9 to being a cut male model today. Strange but true - neway, it took him probably about 4 years in total to really change his body type over, but now he is "naturally" thin - his body wants to maintain that state.

Well, slightly offtopic...

[eyebyte_atWork]

Agreed with Mr. Pink on the eye thing. Good call! Anyway, the whole body type/personality correlation is still kind of sketchy, but I think that for some extremes (i.e. INTP/INTJ nerds/ESTP football jocks) the effects of personality on physical appearance is pretty obvious. But it might be a little harder to tell an ISFP, say, from an ENTJ or something (ISFP might have small hands for musical inclination, but this is a very vague correlation and should not be used for practical purposes). What I've noticed in general though is that most extreme INTxs (generally nerds) and extreme ESxxs tend to be easier to determine because of their preferences and emotional expression (or lack thereof), and that most other types are a little harder to distinguish because of more well-roundedness. There are also distinctions for feeling types and thinking types (noted by Mr. Pink) that can be made (facial expression, eyes, etc.). I think the big picture here though is that physical appearance can only determine personality to the extent of its pronunciation (ex. slightly expressed INTP might be harder to visibly discern than full-blown uber-INTP nerd). Another thing that i noticed is that many of the rational types tend to have more extreme body-types. The common stereotypical nerd appearance is either a fat slob or an emaciated corpse. Obviously, the lack of physical health comes from a lack of physical exercise. But why the two extremes? I hypothesize that the slim body-type comes from and increased metabolic rate needed to supply their powerful brains, but what about us fatsos? Why aren't we all skinny? Oh, and just to clarify, it's not only because of preferred physical activities that certain personalities look the way they do....most are genetically encoded to physically develop the way they do because of their designated societal roles. Also note the importance of gender roles on personality. :banana:



What have you noticed?? have you really?




Obviously, the lack of physical health comes from a lack of physical exercise. But why the two extremes? I hypothesize that the slim body-type comes from and increased metabolic rate needed to supply their powerful brains, but what about us fatsos? Why aren't we all skinny? Oh, and just to clarify, it's not only because of preferred physical activities that certain personalities look the way they do....most are genetically encoded to physically develop the way they do because of their designated societal roles.




THats a pretty bold set of statements - I am not convinced since I am neither - nor is a few other NT"s that I persoanally know - I think that the ultra skinny dudes you talk about are more likely to be youngsters than typical. I mean you have a nice hypothesis - but given a larger control set I think you will find that it does not hold water (not much anyway).

We can discuss this further - and I do welcome some argurement.


Mu ha ha ha ha ha

[Mr. Beef]

Keep in mind that of course not every NT will follow this theory, just a significant number. From all the NTs that i know (and that's quite a few), at least 70 percent are either over or underweight. Just because you happen to defy the general rule doesn't mean that there isn't at least a moderate correlation. There also seems to be a stereotype of NTs (let's loosely use the term nerds) being either over or underweight in society, and while stereotypes cannot always be trusted, they do exist for a reason! Now, the thing about metabolic rates was just pure speculation, but it is something worth examining. It's likely that more of the health extremes are caused by lack of exercise. The body type extremes are also probably caused by natural selection trying to conserve resources by giving intelligent people less muscle mass. The question then still lingers as to why they have different body types. Maybe because lack of exercise and muscle mass accents the effects of metabolic rates on the body? I don't know, it's something i'm still trying to explain to myself. Anyway, regarding all of the stuff about "bold statements" and so forth, I agree. They are.....but that's why it's a hypothesis! It's just an idea that hasn't been proven, but I can offer some more support and examples if you like.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Keep in mind that of course not every NT will follow this theory, just a significant number. From all the NTs that i know (and that's quite a few), at least 70 percent are either over or underweight. Just because you happen to defy the general rule doesn't mean that there isn't at least a moderate correlation. There also seems to be a stereotype of NTs (let's loosely use the term nerds) being either over or underweight in society, and while stereotypes cannot always be trusted, they do exist for a reason! Now, the thing about metabolic rates was just pure speculation, but it is something worth examining. It's likely that more of the health extremes are caused by lack of exercise. The body type extremes are also probably caused by natural selection trying to conserve resources by giving intelligent people less muscle mass. The question then still lingers as to why they have different body types. Maybe because lack of exercise and muscle mass accents the effects of metabolic rates on the body? I don't know, it's something i'm still trying to explain to myself. Anyway, regarding all of the stuff about "bold statements" and so forth, I agree. They are.....but that's why it's a hypothesis! It's just an idea that hasn't been proven, but I can offer some more support and examples if you like.


You had me agreeing mildy until ...




The body type extremes are also probably caused by natural selection trying to conserve resources by giving intelligent people less muscle mass.


I know where this is going - and it is not true -

btw- about 70% of people under 25 are either over or underweight and not well defined no matter their type or intelligence. THat's a fact - I was underweight at that age - and now - thanks to weights - I am not (thank goodness).

The statement quoted above was stated to be many years ago - with a slightly different angle - THe person proposing the same arguement also used it to explain why black people are more athletic (and therefore less intelligent) that the intelligent people attending my college (I guess they neede to feel better about being puny and this helped their ego). If this is not where you were going - I do apologize.

I have seen that less athletic people are either skinnier or more overweight - but not in relation to intelligence or type.

Please fight me on this.


-EYEBYTE

[Mr. Beef]

Well, what you stated about the 70% thing may be true, but there is no denying that a LARGER concentration of those exist among INTxs. Also keep in mind that many INTxs have tend to have a higher prevalence of mental......well, I call them advantages, pop media calls them "disorders" (i.e. autism, aspergers, ADD, etc.). Many of these "disorders" are encoded on the same genes. It is important to note that these advantages dramatically effect personality as well (especially social skill). Also, it is worth mentioning that many of these disorders have phsyical symptoms. For example, those with autism are known to be commonly near-sighted and generally have minor physical health problems. This could explain the stereotypical visually-impaired emaciated and socially awkward nerd. Now, keep in mind that this only explains a a small number of cases. There are still the obese INTxs and the majority who are just average-looking. The average-looking ones I'm guessing are just people who happen to have that personality type, and the obese ones i'm guessing are those who don't have any abnormalities...but "suffer" from a lack of exercise! Anyway, from another perspective, it would just downright be illogical for nature to make a smart guy athletic (in a GENERAL sense). That's not to say that there are plenty of smart athletic people, but they most likely just have quality genes, and probably don't comprise the group with advantages. Also, it's an axiom that most xNTxs don't like physical work, so even if they have a well-rounded body type their likely to be slightly less healthy due to lack of exercise. The simple fact of the matter is that nature is ultimately logical and would have no need for creating intelligent beings with exceptional physique. Keep in mind that the 70% thing applies to the whole population, but I guarrantee that it's closer to 85% for xNTxs based on strong empirical evidence and moderate scientific evidence. And this has not just been supported by biggots, many people realize it. Just because some crackpot believed it doesn't mean it's not true. You have to realize that while on a case-by-case basis it might not always be true, the big picture is definitely accurate. Invariably. But i do agree that it's hard to really prove this and there is a lot of confusion regarding it.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Well, what you stated about the 70% thing may be true, but there is no denying that a LARGER concentration of those exist among INTxs. Also keep in mind that many INTxs have tend to have a higher prevalence of mental......well, I call them advantages, pop media calls them "disorders" (i.e. autism, aspergers, ADD, etc.). Many of these "disorders" are encoded on the same genes. It is important to note that these advantages dramatically effect personality as well (especially social skill). Also, it is worth mentioning that many of these disorders have phsyical symptoms. For example, those with autism are known to be commonly near-sighted and generally have minor physical health problems. This could explain the stereotypical visually-impaired emaciated and socially awkward nerd. Now, keep in mind that this only explains a a small number of cases. There are still the obese INTxs and the majority who are just average-looking. The average-looking ones I'm guessing are just people who happen to have that personality type, and the obese ones i'm guessing are those who don't have any abnormalities...but "suffer" from a lack of exercise! Anyway, from another perspective, it would just downright be illogical for nature to make a smart guy athletic (in a GENERAL sense). That's not to say that there are plenty of smart athletic people, but they most likely just have quality genes, and probably don't comprise the group with advantages. Also, it's an axiom that most xNTxs don't like physical work, so even if they have a well-rounded body type their likely to be slightly less healthy due to lack of exercise. The simple fact of the matter is that nature is ultimately logical and would have no need for creating intelligent beings with exceptional physique. Keep in mind that the 70% thing applies to the whole population, but I guarrantee that it's closer to 85% for xNTxs based on strong empirical evidence and moderate scientific evidence. And this has not just been supported by biggots, many people realize it. Just because some crackpot believed it doesn't mean it's not true. You have to realize that while on a case-by-case basis it might not always be true, the big picture is definitely accurate. Invariably. But i do agree that it's hard to really prove this and there is a lot of confusion regarding it.


THat;s an interesting way of looking at it - might I suggest a book I think you would find very interesting???

PM me if you want the title - I seriously think it will be interesting to you.


-EYEBYTE

[Mr. Beef]

sure. i would be fine with that

[PlayerOfGames]

Also, it's an axiom that most xNTxs don't like physical work

It may or may not be true, but it is in no way an axiom

[MaroonBells]

I know right off that many other people must notice this too, and there is probably a word for it and a science of it (genetics? I think). At my college I constantly notice people who look extremely similar to other people, like they were constructed using the same schematics with slight discrepancies.

Even more interesting, a lot of the time they seem to have similar personalities too...

I was going to write more but I'm busy reading about genetics on wikipedia now


You should first map the faces by a number of eye-nose-mouth distances' boilerplates, than match them against their type/ personality/ etc. I am thinking about picking up portrait sketching to get the boilerplates down..

[eyebyte_atWork]

You should first map the faces by a number of eye-nose-mouth distances' boilerplates, than match them against their type/ personality/ etc. I am thinking about picking up portrait sketching to get the boilerplates down..


wow - a revival of phrenology

[MaroonBells]

give me a minute, i have to look that up ...

[MaroonBells]

i love those pics of the dummies with numbered patches on their skull!
note that I do not suggest an actual link, just provide a method for joft to test his theory..

[Lee]

It's obvious that because of different brain specialization and evolution people with different personalities tend to have different appearances.Almost. It is obvious that different personalities have different appearences because that is how we judge personality in the first place.

Nobody says 'oh yeah, that guy has an arrogant personality because his brain organisation.' We do not judge what a persons personality is like from what is going on in there mind, because we have no idea and have no way of actually finding out, because our senses can only pick up their actions and behaviours. Even when they tell us about their thoughts, they do so through an action i.e. speaking. So we simply cannot know what their conscious experience is actually like.

It is obvious that different personalities have different appearences, but not because of brain organisation and evolution, but because different appearences are how we distinguish personality. So it is the other way around. People have different appearences and so they have different personalities.

The realization that personality is a measure of our observations of behaviour is important, because it is at the root of a problem within MBTI, Jung's Psychological Types, Socionics etc. and one of the reasons why I think Keirsey's model is the best of those I know of. Most typological frameworks speak of peoples inner world of thoughts, but since two different processes can lead to the same behaviour, and personality can only be a measurement of behaviour... most of these typology models are flawed to begin with, relying upon untestable speculation.

You also claim that evolution is behind different personalities. But evolution is simply a word used to describe the gradual change of species over a period of time. You are saying evolution is the cause, but then failing to mention how you think evolution occurs; I presume you are speaking of natural selection, but you could be speaking of lamarckism for all I know. And just because natural selection may be the cheif cause of evolution, that does not mean it is the only cause... genetic drift may well play a small part for example.


Since particular portions of the brain are responsible for expressing certain emotions physically, it is only logical that people for people of similar personality persuasions to have similar facial expressions.Again, you are almost there. The reason that people of similar personality persuasions have similar facial expressions (which is a behaviour), is because facial expressions are one of the ways that we judge personality. It is not the other way around as you suggest.

And the activity of particular portions of your brain are not directly responsible for the end physical behaviour, they are indirectly involved. and no particular portion of your brain has total control.


For example, INTPs in my experience tend to have a more distant and aloof facial expression, and in many cases exhibit a relaxed lower jaw.This sounds eerily like the socionics INTp V.I. description. If it is then you should know that most MBTI INTPs fit the socionics INTj profile. The big reason for the difference in letters is because socionics uses the first function to determine the final letter, while MBTI uses the first extroverted function to determine the final letter. In this case, Ti is a judging function, and Ne is a perceiving function.


This is because their mind is somewhere else. They're not focused physically, and hence have weak bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, and probably most likely a smaller motor cortex than other types.What basis do you have for that assumption? there are many reasons why a person may have poor motor control, or coordination. For example, parkinsons disease does not attack the motor cortex, it attacks the basal ganglia, a stroke in the cerrebellum will cause impaired motor function even though the motor cortex is fine, the flaw could be along the spinal cord, where the incoming and outgoing messeges are routed.

What is more is that coordiantion requires for sport almost always requires a combination of both bodily-kinesthetic intelligence and visual spatial intelligence (I am asuming you speak og Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences here?), and INTPs tend to be visual learners and likely have good visual spatial intelligence.

Your comment is also at odds with the no doubt many INTPs on this forum who are good at sports, even if they can be somewhat clumsy at other times due to absent mindedness (not poor coordination).


Even more, the physical appearance applies to not only the face.....but the entire "F" ing body!!! This is because evolution created differences in human beings to function at a more advanced level.No, evolution did not create anything, neither did natural selection. Natural selection is a blind process that has no goal, it simply generates outcomes based on probabilities.

A more advanced level? what more advanced level?


For instance, we need sensors to......work in construction and building and sports and all that junk. In order for this to happen, they not only need to have compatible personalities, but compatible bodies!!Evolution had no part in this. You speak as if genes were selected because they they could forsee that there would ba construction industry in the near future. You keep getting everything backwards.


Another example of this would be feeling types generally having pronounced sexual organs, namely female. This is true because of the function of certain hormones....like estrogen. It serves multiple purposes, including emotional sensitivity and breast size regulation. Feeling people tend to look more feminine, which makes sense because women serve the general evolutionary function of care-taking and empathy, whereas men are less feeling and more systemizing/thinking.This I can agree with.


Another important thing to mention is that many ESxx types tend to be more masculine or femine and exhibit this through physical appearance. As you'll see, the INxx types are generally more androgenous-looking. I hypothesize that INxx, especially INTs are slightly more evolved than ESxxs.What criteria do you use for 'more evolved'?


Since people with similar personalities tend to mate with each other, over thousands of years you start to see a growing disparity.Actually, it completely the other way around, and the reason why eventually all 'races' will merge into one. And while the probabilties that smart parents will hav smart kids is greater, there are far to many exceptions to your rule, so they will keep everything mixed up.


Another thing to mention is that in society, we generally need very few highly intelligent people, and a whole slough of workerbee ESxxs, which is why ESxxs breed more, much like lower-level species. It's simple if you look at it holistically! INTx is the future, and whether anyone likes it or not we will not need many ESxxs once maintenance bots take over all the physical labor. So enjoy your time while it lasts, humans!!So we do not need them, what would you propose we do with such people? prevent them from breeding? kill them?

I think you are mistaking ability for interest. Most SP and SJ personailties lack interest, not necassarily ability.

[eyebyte_atWork]

i love those pics of the dummies with numbered patches on their skull!
note that I do not suggest an actual link, just provide a method for joft to test his theory..


I am not attacking you - I just think that it is a bit simplistic to find physcial evidence for a very subtle thing in a sea of physical diverity. It is alot like trying to fugure out who will be a serial killer or alcolholic because they are left handed.

Illustration: if B is less than A and C is less than A - the only thing that can be said with any certainty is that both B and C are less than A - you cannot say that B is greater then C - though the temptation may be there.


Sure INTX's can show many physical traits - that does not neccessarely mean that the physical traits identify the INTX's.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Almost. It is obvious that different personalities have different appearences because that is how we judge personality in the first place.

Nobody says 'oh yeah, that guy has an arrogant personality because his brain organisation.' We do not judge what a persons personality is like from what is going on in there mind, because we have no idea and have no way of actually finding out, because our senses can only pick up their actions and behaviours. Even when they tell us about their thoughts, they do so through an action i.e. speaking. So we simply cannot know what their conscious experience is actually like.

It is obvious that different personalities have different appearences, but not because of brain organisation and evolution, but because different appearences are how we distinguish personality. So it is the other way around. People have different appearences and so they have different personalities.

The realization that personality is a measure of our observations of behaviour is important, because it is at the root of a problem within MBTI, Jung's Psychological Types, Socionics etc. and one of the reasons why I think Keirsey's model is the best of those I know of. Most typological frameworks speak of peoples inner world of thoughts, but since two different processes can lead to the same behaviour, and personality can only be a measurement of behaviour... most of these typology models are flawed to begin with, relying upon untestable speculation.

You also claim that evolution is behind different personalities. But evolution is simply a word used to describe the gradual change of species over a period of time. You are saying evolution is the cause, but then failing to mention how you think evolution occurs; I presume you are speaking of natural selection, but you could be speaking of lamarckism for all I know. And just because natural selection may be the cheif cause of evolution, that does not mean it is the only cause... genetic drift may well play a small part for example.

Again, you are almost there. The reason that people of similar personality persuasions have similar facial expressions (which is a behaviour), is because facial expressions are one of the ways that we judge personality. It is not the other way around as you suggest.

And the activity of particular portions of your brain are not directly responsible for the end physical behaviour, they are indirectly involved. and no particular portion of your brain has total control.

This sounds eerily like the socionics INTp V.I. description. If it is then you should know that most MBTI INTPs fit the socionics INTj profile. The big reason for the difference in letters is because socionics uses the first function to determine the final letter, while MBTI uses the first extroverted function to determine the final letter. In this case, Ti is a judging function, and Ne is a perceiving function.

What basis do you have for that assumption? there are many reasons why a person may have poor motor control, or coordination. For example, parkinsons disease does not attack the motor cortex, it attacks the basal ganglia, a stroke in the cerrebellum will cause impaired motor function even though the motor cortex is fine, the flaw could be along the spinal cord, where the incoming and outgoing messeges are routed.

What is more is that coordiantion requires for sport almost always requires a combination of both bodily-kinesthetic intelligence and visual spatial intelligence (I am asuming you speak og Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences here?), and INTPs tend to be visual learners and likely have good visual spatial intelligence.

Your comment is also at odds with the no doubt many INTPs on this forum who are good at sports, even if they can be somewhat clumsy at other times due to absent mindedness (not poor coordination).

No, evolution did not create anything, neither did natural selection. Natural selection is a blind process that has no goal, it simply generates outcomes based on probabilities.

A more advanced level? what more advanced level?

Evolution had no part in this. You speak as if genes were selected because they they could forsee that there would ba construction industry in the near future. You keep getting everything backwards.

This I can agree with.

What criteria do you use for 'more evolved'?

Actually, it completely the other way around, and the reason why eventually all 'races' will merge into one. And while the probabilties that smart parents will hav smart kids is greater, there are far to many exceptions to your rule, so they will keep everything mixed up.

So we do not need them, what would you propose we do with such people? prevent them from breeding? kill them?

I think you are mistaking ability for interest. Most SP and SJ personailties lack interest, not necassarily ability.


Dude - don;t hold it in.

:)

[Lee]

Agreed with Mr. Pink on the eye thing. Good call!Yes, the activity and look of a persons eyes are one of the ways that we distinguish personality, so it is to be expected that personality correaltes with eyes.


Anyway, the whole body type/personality correlation is still kind of sketchy but I think that for some extremes (i.e. INTP/INTJ nerds/ESTP football jocks) the effects of personality on physical appearance is pretty obvious.The reason that it is sketchy is because it is only a vague correlation between characteristics, nothing more. You cannot use body type to determine personality, however you may be able to make a better guess, but you would simply be using a probability.


But it might be a little harder to tell an ISFP, say, from an ENTJ or something (ISFP might have small hands for musical inclination, but this is a veryHa! are you suggesting that small hands for playing recently invented instruments were seleced for? that is likely complete bullshit.


What I've noticed in general though is that most extreme INTxs (generally nerds) and extreme ESxxs tend to be easier to determine because of their preferences and emotional expression (or lack thereof)I would hope so.

If you hadn't actually noticed, the INTx profiles frequently say 'these types are often emotionally unexpressive'. So your observation is nothing more than a restatement of a characteristic of an INTx type, the same applies to ESxxs too.


There are also distinctions for feeling types and thinking types (noted by Mr. Pink) that can be made (facial expression, eyes, etc.).[quote]Yes, I agree.

[quote]I think the big picture here though is that physical appearance can only determine personality to the extent of its pronunciation (ex. slightly expressed INTP might be harder to visibly discern than full-blown uber-INTP nerd).While I agree that observing a persons clothes, eyes, facial expressions, size, masculinity/femininity, hair style, body language could in theory help predict type with quite some accuracy... there will always be exceptions. Hence sayings like 'do not judge a book by its cover'.


Another thing that i noticed is that many of the rational types tend to have more extreme body-types. The common stereotypical nerd appearance is either a fat slob or an emaciated corpse. Obviously, the lack of physical health comes from a lack of physical exercise. But why the two extremes? I hypothesize that the slim body-type comes from and increased metabolic rate needed to supply their powerful brains,Ha! yes that must be it... our all powerful brains.. lol

You do realise that a sportsman's brain is performing an incredible array of complex calculations, precisely timed and coordinated to perform their goal. It requires a lot of 'power' as you put it. Most of your brain is not even used in the tasks that we often consider 'intelligent', such as math. The vast majority is actually used in interpreting sensory information and coordinating movements.


but what about us fatsos? Why aren't we all skinny? Oh, and just to clarify, it's not only because of preferred physical activities that certain personalities look the way they do....most are genetically encoded to physically develop the way they do because of their designated societal roles. Also note the importance of gender roles on personality. :banana:People are not designated for societal roles. Genes are not deterministic as you make them out to be, they produce modular and flexible organisms capable of adapting to different roles. How else could you explain the regular patterns in personality between siblings e.g. First borns are usually more traditional, decisive, confident etc. while second borns are more rebellious, free-thinking, undecisive etc. this correlation is not true in every case, but the fact that the correlation exists shows us how modular our genes make us i.e. capable of adapting to different roles.

[Lee]

The body type extremes are also probably caused by natural selection trying to conserve resources by giving intelligent people less muscle mass. The question then still lingers as to why they have different body types.Different body types exist partly for the same reason that differnt hair colours exist, simple variation. But most body type extremes are products of natural selection in enviroments. Why are Kenyans thin? because it increases body surface to help deal with the heat, while inuits are short and chunky for the opposite reason, because they retain heat in cold climates. Other body types have similar causes.


Maybe because lack of exercise and muscle mass accents the effects of metabolic rates on the body? I don't know, it's something i'm still trying to explain to myself. Anyway, regarding all of the stuff about "bold statements" and so forth, I agree. They are.....but that's why it's a hypothesis! It's just an idea that hasn't been proven, but I can offer some more support and examples if you like.While I appreciate wild hypothesis, these ones seem self-gratifying and largely complete nonsense or simply restatements of what was already known.

[mjolinar]

While I agree with some of the stuff you're saying, Beef, a lot of it comes off as narcisistic, like the lack of muscle mass to conserve energy for the brain. I can definately agree about the lack of exercise, but even so, i'm middle weight... i have very little muscle mass, but i'm not emaciated or overwieght. while I like your theory on a purely theoretical level (got me thinking) why not just stick to the better method of judging thier personality (preference for one action over another) by their preference for one action over another, watch what they do. There is obviously a correlation, much as there is a correlation between the length of a persons femur and thier height. Generally if the femur is a certain length we can predict within a certain amount how tall a person was.... it's not an exact amount, not anywhere near it, however there will always be outliers, some people just have long femurs. same thing with personality and body types... some peope just look a certain way. criticisms aside, i am all for further devealopement of this theory, just tone down the arrogance a little, I know you were joking about at least half of it, but some of it you seemed serious about.

[Mr. Beef]

No, evolution did not create anything, neither did natural selection. Natural selection is a blind process that has no goal, it simply generates outcomes based on probabilities.

This is where I should have been more specific. Because of less PRESSURE in modern societies for...say.....a stronger jaw, heavier body set, so forth. Evolution is our biological response to a changing environment, which clearly produced differences in intelligence and phsyique in modern humans. We basically rely less on our bodies and more on our brains. This is fairly obvious.





Evolution had no part in this. You speak as if genes were selected because they they could forsee that there would ba construction industry in the near future. You keep getting everything backwards.


Obviously evolution could not forsee anything, but it reacted to an environmental pressure. As society became more advanced, a wider variety of tasks needed to be done, thus a larger variance in the gene pool. Evolution does not create changes for no reason.



What criteria do you use for 'more evolved'?


More adapted to our current environment....'nough said.




So we do not need them, what would you propose we do with such people? prevent them from breeding? kill them?


I didn't say this at all. I thought it was clear i was kidding. I don't think it's logical or right to dispose of human lives

[Mr. Beef]

While I agree that observing a persons clothes, eyes, facial expressions, size, masculinity/femininity, hair style, body language could in theory help predict type with quite some accuracy... there will always be exceptions. Hence sayings like 'do not judge a book by its cover'.

It's obvious that there will always be exceptions. I thought i used the adjective "general" enough.









Ha! yes that must be it... our all powerful brains.. lol




You do realise that a sportsman's brain is performing an incredible array of complex calculations, precisely timed and coordinated to perform their goal. It requires a lot of 'power' as you put it. Most of your brain is not even used in the tasks that we often consider 'intelligent', such as math. The vast majority is actually used in interpreting sensory information and coordinating movements.



In response to this, i would have to say that you didn't take into account that different mental functions require more or less energy. Most of "the sportsmans brain" is used for coordinating physical movements, as you said. This is not a higher cognitive function and requires significantly less electrial/chemcial engergy to perform. That being said, I retract my original statement......many atheletes have faster metabolisms because of their need for physical energy.



People are not designated for societal roles. Genes are not deterministic as you make them out to be, they produce modular and flexible organisms capable of adapting to different roles. How else could you explain the regular patterns in personality between siblings e.g. First borns are usually more traditional, decisive, confident etc. while second borns are more rebellious, free-thinking, undecisive etc. this correlation is not true in every case, but the fact that the correlation exists shows us how modular our genes make us i.e. capable of adapting to different roles.



In response to environmental pressure (i.e. SOCIETAL ROLES) evolution did give us the genes necessary to accomplish certain things. As for the sibling question, this is NOT true in a lot of cases, but most of what does exist exists because of nurture, which accounts for a lot of personality development. This does NOT mean that freethinking, rebellious and traditional, decisive genes do not exist.



Different body types exist partly for the same reason that differnt hair colours exist, simple variation. But most body type extremes are products of natural selection in enviroments. Why are Kenyans thin? because it increases body surface to help deal with the heat, while inuits are short and chunky for the opposite reason, because they retain heat in cold climates. Other body types have similar causes.



This the reason body types exist, yes. That being said....you don't think our current societal environment would favor brains over brawn? Clearly, if the environment requires less phsyique and more intelligence then there will be less physique and more intelligence in organisms. Though the "skinny nerd" is just a stereotype, stereoypes exist for a reason and I think i've adequately supplied some good ideas about it. It's widely documented that members of our current society have less physical strength and more intelligence than those of the past. I don't understand why there's any confusion

[SilentBedlam]

I've read the whole of this thread with deep interest.

I moved to a new town about 3 years ago, and it took me a while to make friends, but I did, eventually. This move came after spending most of my school days in one place, and certainly many years around the same large group of peers.

When I started introducing myself, and being introduced to new people in the town I'm living in now, I started seeing simillarities between people I'd known at school, and the people I mix with now - that was no surprise, 'cause I think though anyone can have a wide variety of friends, the tendency is to make your closest relationships with people with whom you are most compatible. What was a surprise, was noticing exactly what the original poster said - the simillarities in appearance between my school friends, and my new friends - I would see a stranger talking to one of my friends in the street, walk over and say "hi", and know at least generally, how that person was going to be before I'd heard them speak, or been close enough to observe. Often, the resemblances were uncanny.

I think the evidence for this is very subjective, but I do believe that it is possible, in a large number of cases to know how someone will react simply by seeing them at a distance.

I wasn't always good at "reading" people, but I think it's a skill you can acquire, and hone, often without practice to a fine art. I was recently introduced to a new choir by an old friend from uni, for whom I was going to be doing some solo work, and as we sat down to the shared meal after our rehearsal, he asked me what I thought of the people there, and whether I could see what he was talking about, when he mentioned the foibles of certain individuals he'd informed me of previously. I then proceeded, not only to answer his question, but to point out the social relationships between every other person in the room, and to both his and my own amazement, he confirmed that with one hillarious exception, I had summed them up entirely accurately. It was literally: *points* "Those three are a clique, those two are going out, and she used to be with him..." and so on.

My objective in that quite narcissistic story was merely to point out that not only do I believe that you can gauge people pretty well from their physical appearance and action, I think it's also possible to do the same for groups of people, by observing the dynamics/actions of a situation, and adding that observation to those that have been made on the person's character by appearance.

Just my two penn'orth. :whistle:

[Purple-Silver Fox]

I've also noticed how people of the same body type seem to become friends more easily. In my first year of graphic design, you could pick them out: the busty & blonde, the skinny & long-haired, the fat & curly, etc.. all seemed to stick together. It was probably more pronounced because people on graphic design are visually oriented. People do cling more with people who are like them; at least in the beginning, towards the end of the year it was less pronounced.

I also recognized some people I never saw before, as it turned out from medieval paintings made in that same town. So certain fenotypes are very persistent.

As an indicator for personality, however, I consider behaviour to be the most reliable influence.