What can you know by looking at someone?

What can you know by looking at someone?

People always look at each other as if they are sussing them out, as if by looking at someone you can know anything.

There are facial expressions and micro-movements, but i would think they can be mimicked, ~ for a careful actor.

Something freeing about not being seen as anything. Also something disturbing about not knowing what you are looking at. It’s much more comfortable to play roles.

_

I do not like (or agree with) how I am perceived as it is always in a sexual/sexualised manner, but those that know me know that this is not the angle to approach me from or communicate with me through - I can give examples if you so wish, but right now I am tired, and there’s more tiring political activism for me to partake in tomorrow. :neutral_face:

Yes this is the problem with ones inner desire to be regarded as sexually attractive, most people confuse that as a global.

Be better if people were educated to be more intelligently selective. …from an early age.

Coming from a Roman Catholic background, I found everyone to be over-sexualised… as if that was all they had going for them… moreso than intellect or forward-thinking.

When I look at/into others’ I am rarely wrong with my initial thoughts on them - I start on a basal level upwards when reading others, which seems to work for me.

sure, but how much do you really know. even married people can become strangers, and end up realising they knew a different person to how they turned out. though mostly people do act in predictable ways.

Looking at someone corresponds to degrees of familiarity with them. This familiarity is grounded in what Wittgenstein coined as family of resemblances,
where evaluating meaningful ideas about people, we search for commonality.

This was well and good before the technological explosion, where quantum duplication did not change up the process from ligitimising and grounding science, but now, it is a differance, a different world, where we no longer look for commonalities, but differences.

We exclude certain people from considering their qualities, even before we intend to recognze them for those qualifying traits. We just don’t have the time to waste for that kind of a thing. The world is becoming too big of a place to do that, irrespective to the promoted idea of the global village.

Rest assured Magsj, I see you as a boring person trying too hard to be fashionable and in the in crowd, and ultimately failing. Your not a sex object, your a anti-sex object. You’ll never cease to be boring to be.

You can obviously personality type people visually, I got pretty damn good at it, psychology forums do this a lot, with awhile lot of skeptics in the beginning. INXXs are exceptionally good at this (under MBTI) as their secondary function is ESXX… We look at people and see them in their environments, they shoot off a thousand social cues. How the dress, which eye is dominant in their gaze, his they stand, if the twitch, sway, or stand still… how their hands move about as they talk, are they talkative or silent, tanned or pale, his they are dressed… if they are scanning their enviroment or ignoring.

This tells you a lot about a individual. Says a lot about how we are wired… and how people react to situations that cause a change in behavior says a lot about second tier personality traits.

We are unique, just like everyone else… there isn’t a whole lot of variation out there people. I know, I know… “your special, your the exception”.

One knows nothing by looking at another person other than his/her own biases.

Exactly, and biases are based on knowledge in relation to sensory assumptions, and some people are way better at judging others than say, you are. In fact, your presenting a paradox in asserting others can’t, cause you presume they can’t without even having exposure to them… you judge them without even looking. At least they look.

Sherlock Holmes for example, would be a much better judge of character at a mere glance than say, Ierrellus. Why? Holmes is a obvious INXX, highly attuned to doing exactly that. He has a lot of bias, but this bias is enlarged into a methodology that borders on a science. He can go back, and recall minutia for the sake of supporting evidence of intent and state of mind.

Ierrellus, however, can’t, as he let’s house flies get drunk off of his stale beer and walk all over his screen, and thinks it something amazing.

Why the venomous attack?

What does INxx stand for? I googled it but it wasn’t clear to me.

In other words, misperceptions?
Are biases more based on knowledge or on the refusal to have more of an open mind?
And can we actually KNOW someone by simply looking at them?
We might unconsciously relate them to someone we know but can be wrong.
And we’ve been proven to be wrong - it’s called what - first appearances can be deceiving?

I wouldn’t want to be attractive to a turd (how fitting a user name is that) like you, nor to 98% of the males out there… I’m very selective in whom I appear attractive to.

Actually we probably are…

There was no venom, you perceived it as a aggression, as you say something threatening in either myself or my behavior. You projected.

Arc… I use XXXX to describe MBTI neutral points. If I just was to talk about SF or EN functions, I list it as XSFX of ENXX.

Sometimes I’ll go farther and do XSFx if I’m trying to determine function X but not x.

Reason why this matters is this:

MBTI has been shown for decades to closely parallel the nerves in the brain. The functions are neither the nerve nor region of the brain it travels through, but a combination of both.

So say I say IXXX… That’s potentionally 50% of the possible description of the brain as far as the level of detail MBTI is capable of, it could seemingly be any number of these. But you say IXXP, reduces it seemingly by half again. ISXP much more specific, but it could… to use an analogy of a map, a number of specific intersections across town. If I say ISFP, then its down to two linking intersections, two areas of the brain, and I’m focusing on one half of a feedback loop.

Its a odd sort of math, but it is something you rapidly learn to calculate.

#-o

Gees, you Brain. Can you please just google something for me that this dummy might understand? I’m interested in the concept but I’m a layperson not a neurologist.

I’m a Sherlock Holmes fan.

I’ll send you a introductory kit, its real old from the 80s, the video series appears off the net now except for the chapter discussing their assumptions regarding how heiddegar was wired (thankfully he isn’t considered my type any more, they thought it back then), but I got you a few online ebooks that can catch you up on the terminology. So check your box, and don’t share, like I said, its 80s era, they had several mistakes in it, but still pretty advanced. You’ll be able to nail stuff within a small margin or error.

The goal shouldn’t be to rest here, but look deeper in self study. Its a blunt instrument, but if you follow the guides, you’ll be better off than 99% of the people here. Its not the ends of philosophy, merely the table of contents… though admittedly their goal was to end it back in the day by explaining the thought process of every philosopher, and how it interrelated from a engineering perspective.

You gotta pinky swear not to give it out.

Sent.

Cognitive Neurology made simple, simple enough for a orange butted glow in the dark bug to understand.

Thank you and I’ll look forward to it. :mrgreen:

Done.jpg

Keep playing your game with me TF… your posts to me are designed to annoy/aggravate, and now you say you meant no harm, now you want to backtrack… perhaps you expected a more ‘defensive’ reply from me?

You do not aggravate me, just make me curious :wink: