[e30sequel]

I read somewhere that the next level of typing is actually typing someone based on their physical characteristics ala the discredited four humours theory - any thoughts, any more knowledge on the matter would be appreciated

[FeriaKaiser]

When I try to read and analyze people, I watch their behavior mostly. Appearance wise, I know that (in the area I live in, at least, where there's a lot of asians) if a girl wears a lot of make up, wears (especially eye shadow) expensive clothes from retail stores, and walks up straight, she's usually the type of girl who parties a lot, is socially adept, knows how to meet new people, although she prefers to stay within her friend circle, which is quite large. Long answer, but it's just what I think.

[e30sequel]

Have a quick gander at the different facial patterns ohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Temperamentsf the different temperaments

these to me seem pretty accurate based on my experiences - as a matter of fact, certain characteristics hold very true based on recent and past interactions with people (I deal with ALOT of people on a regualr basis) - at this time, I can almost instinctually type a person based on their looks and facial structure and I have almost ALWAYS been correct - maybe not exactly who they are but the basics are pretty evident
so feriaKaiser I agree with you - it mostly comes from my observation of their behaviour in certain conditions but my analysis also comes with the matching facial structure etc - I also happen to find intj types attractive (IF they decide to dress up and DO NOT look like they just finished taking a shite) - the other types especially Artisan and Guardian I can see smell from a mile away and they look/behave a cetain way - I adjust myself accordingly for smooth relationships for the future.
Back to the elements however, so why exactly was this discredited?? I mean if it was being used for so long, it should have had some effect right?? I mean a sanguine would have surplus blood and bleeding them via leeches yielded the intended balancing out of the person - I mean if this happened and it killed people then it woulda kinda been dropped right? IT WAS NOT FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS until the advent of 'modern' medicine (money making machine that it is) - any insights appreciated.

[Polymath20]

Yes, and everything is made of Earth, Fire, Water or Air.

The MBTI is just a collection of 4 easily discernible spectrums, not so different from the Big Five.

I think that once genotyping is more widespread that will become a much more important analysis.

"Oh look, little Johnny, with his mutant dopamine receptor gene is a thrill-seeker! He jumped off the roof today AGAIN. Time to medicate him! We know just the right pill for him too!"

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think that once genotyping is more widespread that will become a much more important analysis. "Oh look, little Johnny, with his mutant dopamine receptor gene is a thrill-seeker! He jumped off the roof today AGAIN. Time to medicate him! We know just the right pill for him too!"

When psychologists start medicating based on science, and not on a basis of trial and error, patients will be leaping for joy.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	When psychologists start medicating based on science, and not on a basis of trial and error, patients will be leaping for joy.

It won't be psychologists though... maybe someone with an MD (like your GP) will write a prescription for your genome to be sequenced, or at least check for certain genetic markers, and then they will prescribe medications based on evidence.

I had a discussion with a friend about this kind of thing a few years back. We were considering fMRI technology. We supposed that once we have a good enough understanding of neurology, pretty much any mental/emotional problem could be identified by a neurologist - even things like marital problems or job stress. It was an interesting thought experiment.

[e30sequel]

Socionics is based on more physical features and that is where I got my start. If the physical appearance theory of socionics holds true, then why or who discredited the theory that was being employed for the last 2-3000 years? - remember that these people were actually being treated for their fluid 'imbalance' and repeatedly over the course of, say, at least 1000 years by the medical establishment. So someone must have benefited from these treatments (like the leech thing) and someone must have noticed that it was not working IF it was not. Anyway, if that part of it was true, it does not make sense that the rest of it was not true (granted a few thousand years may not be long enough for someone to have figured it out). This, I theorize, ties in with our problem with the medical establishment and is therefore 'discredited' and made much more complicated to continue the race for the loot.
From my experience, certain people that look a certain way almost ALWAYS are who they look like. Yep, that weasly looking chap has ....you guessed it - weasly characteristics. Maybe it was because of the environmental factors (peers etc) but my guess is that, just like I know I am/was/will be an intj, the chap was indeed born this way and his look gives it away. What do you think - this is just my opinion based on what I have seen and maybe misinterpreted (maybe simple arrogance.....)

[Zombicide]

There's little if any telling with women, sometimes it's obvious but for this gender known for falling into a toilet bowl just because the fucking seat was left up (and that we only know of because it's dumb enough to tell us under the assumption that it's our fault), there is found to be little variability between e.g. their IQs, and with considerations to them being circumstantially more aggressive than males (see William Ickes et cetera) and aggression (an importantly, possibly the most important, matter of temperament) and stupidity being strongly linked (see the likes of Kandel), it doesn't look like it'll matter that one cannot tell but that one can simply predict in general. There has been a study which tried to show women to be more empathic than men but the results turn out to be self purported and so many like Sarah D Hodges, Cordelia Fine, and Kristi Klein disproved that with actual neurological and blind studies, so the study that says women's physiognomy is more inferable just because the studied think women more trustworthy by appearance, is not likely correct.

There's much more variability in the levels of testosterone (a substance which noticably effects physical appearance) between males,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, low testosterone correlating with high IQ (in males at least), and given that overall temperament (particularly referring to the likes of aggressiveness, see Giancola / Zeichner) correlates with IQ. It's looking like a lot can be inferred from the physical appearance of a male this way.

Also, I've noticed that if someone is of the prototypical temperament (a breeder), they tend to look the part, phenotypically speaking, and by degree even. Some looking beastly/ zombiesque / more breeding than others, they have more kids. Which makes sense considering, smarter people are less likely to reproduce, see Vining for how effective the dumber one is the more reproductively successful they are likely to be, it's frighteningly dysgenic.

---------- Post added 12-07-2011 at 07:22 PM ----------

It reminds me of the word ornery born of the lexical-hypothesis, a derivative of the word ordinary. The general populace (yes, including the INTJ) looks ornery to me and has been throughout history, it's ornery physiognomy / somatotypes are perfectly consistent with its temperament, especially in men. There's naturally going to be cross over with the humours.

---------- Post added 12-07-2011 at 07:46 PM ----------

In fact e.g. of the earlier statement
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[e30sequel]

	Originally Posted by Zombicide To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There's naturally going to be cross over with the humours

I agree with this as it sounds reasonable - but I think that based on the (possibly) much larger population that we have today (compared to the last 2000 years), interbreeding between the types may have created a much broader range of types which did not exist in those simpler (less mixed) times....hence each category is now diluted to the point of requiring much more complex typing techniques to get the degree of whatever family they belong to (but no less true).
Testosterone may also make your forehead bigger and your cheekbones less wide - this methinks falls into the humour interpretation of facial features (altho I agree that the aggression is pronounced with wider cheekbones - I happen to be aggressive *or is that psychotic intj dark side?* and not facially wide at all - just a larger forehead).
Actually turning more interesting than I initially thought.

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It won't be psychologists though... maybe someone with an MD (like your GP) will write a prescription for your genome to be sequenced, or at least check for certain genetic markers, and then they will prescribe medications based on evidence.

Nice idea. But not really going to help me, or anyone like me.

I have developed a variety of psychological issues over the years, different ones at different times in my life, depending on what was going on. A lot of the reasons why I developed issues in the first place, was to do with my childhood experiences, being an extreme INTP, in a household filled with extreme Js, and the fact that my father developed cancer, and had it for 12 years, and the fact that we didn't have much money, and a lot of other environmental factors, and also the peculiarities of my parents' upbringings, that cause them to develop the way they did as well. So genetic markers would help, but only to identify what things I might be prone to, given any number of parents and siblings, any number of their childhood experiences, any number of my childhood experiences, and whatever factors might be going on in my life at the time, all of which would not be significant to anyone but me.

	I had a discussion with a friend about this kind of thing a few years back. We were considering fMRI technology. We supposed that once we have a good enough understanding of neurology, pretty much any mental/emotional problem could be identified by a neurologist - even things like marital problems or job stress. It was an interesting thought experiment.

I suppose you could just read the neurons, using fMRI scans. But you'd need to be able to precisely identify the concept neurons that are a problem. As much as the brain does have a certain order, it's by no means that specific, that you can guarantee to pinpoint where a particular concept will be stored, or everyone would access the same data in exactly the same ways, and it's clear that different people access the same concepts in different ways. Even so, that would allow you to use pinpoint accuracy to re-program the neurons that are a problem. But chemicals don't work that way. They diffuse across the whole brain. So I don't think that drugs would work in that way.

Also, I'm not so sure that people would be happy having their brains re-programmed. You could make a mistake and turn them into a serial killer. It could also be used to make people do the bidding of those who control those machines. Highly unsettling.

If you could diagnose the biological chemical imbalances that are part and parcel of a person's mental illness, and could identify what chemical equations would precisely resolve those imbalances, then I think you might have a good shot at it.

But to do that, brain scans would need to identify the exact nature and proportion of the chemicals in the brain, and their distributions over the different areas of the brain. I don't think that fMRI scans and PET scans can do that right now. But I'm pretty confident that someone will come up with a way to do that, and a machine that can do it.

Personally, I'm betting on psychologists learning to diagnose objectively, rather than just listening to what a patient says, and taking their word for it, which is not a good idea to do with someone who isn't quite right in the head in the first place, and diagnosing based on that objective diagnosis, and getting enough drug variants that allow them to match the drug to the issues. That's what we do with physical illnesses. So why can't we do that with psychological illnesses?

I live in hope.