Archive of ‘Style Systems’ category

An Alternative to “Trying On” an Image ID

This post contains affiliate links.

Most people try to figure out their Kibbe Image Identity in the dressing room. This seems logical–it is a style system, after all. But after studying Kibbe for several years now, I’ve come to the conclusion that this doesn’t really work.

This may seem disheartening, and somewhat frustrating. But I have come to believe that it really is an internal process. It is about coming to grips with your physical self. In other words, we come to this process basically knowing the answer, and we cycle through types as an attempt to deal with this, or we have a distorted view of ourselves to begin with and this process forces us to see ourselves as we actually are, perhaps for the first time.

For many, it’s probably a combination of both. When I first started looking at Kibbe, I looked at yin types, because I knew what my actual measurements were and every online calculator had given me the “hourglass” body type designation. Nevermind that the issues that “hourglass” dressing guides were supposed to correct weren’t things I’d personally ever dealt with. The measuring tape gave me this result, so I could never look at yang types.

On the other hand, I also knew that I wasn’t really a curvy person. I had to rid myself of the perception created by numbers and see myself how I actually was, which was someone who actually had a straighter shape, made straighter by torso elongation.

The other issue is, of course, the misperceptions surrounding what women in the Image IDs actually look like. For instance, many of the celebrities labeled as, say, TR on Pinterest are actually FN. For the longest time, I had lingering doubts about FG because many of the women in the FG Facebook group had a broad shoulder line, and I did not. But then David joined and told us that FG is unequivocally narrow, and began redirecting women to SN and SD and other IDs.

So why doesn’t putting together outfits work? Because whatever you put on, you look like the Image ID you are, not what you’re trying on. An SC silhouette isn’t going to look SC on an FN. It will just look like an FN in an outfit that doesn’t match her yin/yang balance. And then there are so many limiting and flat-out incorrect ideas about what a head-to-toe outfit for a certain Image ID is going to look like anyway.

Many of you may be feeling like you might as well just throw in the towel at this point, since if you can’t try on outfits and if most of the information out there is inaccurate, how can you ever figure out your yin/yang balance?

There are only two things you need: The Book and yourself. And maybe access to YouTube/Netflix/Turner Classic Movies/etc, as a bonus.

The excerpts on the internet don’t do Metamorphosis justice. A lot was cut out of the descriptions of the Image IDs when they were typed up and posted. David shows you the experience of having a certain yin/yang balance, and he tells you how to dress it, even before you get to the concrete recommendations, which are just a jumping off point and which can be hit or miss, since clothing construction has changed so much in the past 30 years. But if you read the book over and over, you start to get an intuitive sense of the Image IDs.

And then by looking at the classic celebrities, you start to get a feeling for what links these women all together, and which group of women you would fit into. Most likely, there is something you have had a sense about for most of your life. I latched onto Audrey Hepburn at a young age, for instance, because I related to her shape and to her mix of facial features. Marilyn and Liz resided on a distant planet. Audrey felt familiar. The clothes she wore were clothes that I could wear, since they didn’t require a bust or a voluptuous shape.

I literally keep The Book on my nightstand, and refer to it all the time. Reading the book and absorbing it, and exploring the pantheon of stars mentioned, will do more to reveal your Image ID to you than trying out every piece of clothing at H&M. You may get a sense for what works and what doesn’t, but it won’t show you who you are. Only by really going inward and being honest to yourself about your experience of your physicality will you figure out your Image ID.

Follow me on Facebook and Pinterest.

Stylesyntax.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Dressing Your Truth Is Now FREE

This post contains affiliate links.

On November 2nd, Carol Tuttle announced that Dressing Your Truth is now free.

What this means is that Dressing Your course videos are now free, and then for $49, you can purchase an optional Before & After Support Kit, which includes the four style guides, wallet-sized style guides, and Facebook group membership that you used to get when you bought the old course, and then the new pattern guides and a copy of It’s Just My Nature!. So basically, the videos are now accessible to all, and then the rest of the benefits of being a course owner are now available for half the price of the usual sale price of the course, which was $99.

I think DYT is one of the first systems many of us encounter when we first start looking into style systems. It has a large online community and corporation behind it. At the time I started studying these different systems, DYT looked a lot different, and while some of the essential elements of the system resonated with me, I have to say that the results did not. I recognized that I was a 3/4 pretty quickly, but I didn’t like T3 clothes, for the most part. I have to say that they have upped their style game across the board in recent years–even the color palette for T3 looks completely different than it did when I first found the system. And I have always enjoyed the video content they produce.

I’ve actually started using the T3 palette as my primary palette–it feels like restrictive than Dark Autumn, and easier to work with. And I don’t think that Flamboyant Gamine is wholly incompatible with T3; my T3 just looks different than the stereotype, and that’s totally fine. And since I am in a phase of life where I am really working on myself, that aspect of Carol’s work has been very helpful to me. I’ve even found things in Remembering Wholeness: A Personal Handbook for Thriving in the 21st Century that have been helpful to me, even though I’m not a religious person at all and this book has much more religion-based content than her other books.

Dressing Your Truth is a system that I think a lot of people find and then abandon once they discover things like Kibbe and Zyla, but there is definitely some good content in it. Are you going to take the course now that it’s free? Do you work Dressing Your Truth into your own style philosophy?

Follow me on Facebook and Pinterest.

Stylesyntax.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Resistance: The Key to Unlocking Your Image ID?

This post contains affiliate links.

Every once in a while, I’ll get a comment on this blog from someone who is borderline irate because, for instance, at 5’10”, they are too tall for Theatrical Romantic. They will insist that these are the clothes that look best on them, and David Kibbe is wrong when he says that someone who is 5’5″ has too much yang for Theatrical Romantic.

A lot of this stems from fundamental misunderstandings of how the system itself works, of course, but another part of it lies in resistance to your Image ID. There is an entire chapter on this topic in Metamorphosis, and part of it has been transcribed here. (Missing are the parts relevant to gamines, unfortunately!) I believe that rather than the “Kibbe Quiz,” this chapter may be the best place to start if you are trying to find your Image ID.

The reason for this is that, barring body image issues that lead us to see ourselves not as we actually are, we know what we look like and what we are. We know what issues we have dealt with our entire lives in terms of self-image. I’ve always known that I wasn’t a curvy girl, that I was on the shorter side, that my facial features were unusual. The idea that I even considered Theatrical Romantic based on a self-assessment is thus patently ridiculous. The only thing that fit is being short. Likewise, I am generally a narrow person and there are no real wider parts on my body, so I shouldn’t have spent so long thinking that I may be a Soft Natural instead of a Flamboyant Gamine because I simply don’t have the bone structure to support the clothes.

Sometimes, this process isn’t pleasant. It can be very hard to hear that you are “too” something or “not enough” of something else. It brings up these exact feelings of inadequacy that are created by feeling like you are “too” something or “not enough” of something else. This is why we often see women who see themselves are more yin than they are or vice versa–as David says in the chapter, the grass is always greener. Never mind that the person who would be your opposite in terms of yin/yang balance is looking at you and feeling just as envious–these feelings are something we all go through.

The right Image ID will shift your thinking. You will recognize that everything you thought of as your faults are actually your strengths, and what makes you a unique beauty. You will look at the celebrities in the book and recognize yourself in them, and feel proud to have entered such a pantheon of beautiful women. Your type should never make you feel inadequate. You shouldn’t watch a movie with one of the celebrities and feel like you would need to change something about yourself. You should feel buoyed by the fact that there is a woman like you on screen, one who dealt with all of the same insecurities as you and turned them into her strengths.

So if you are confused about where you would fit, think about what you are insecure about. Turn them into “I love statements” (i.e..–“I hate my broad shoulders”>”I love my broad shoulders that provide a beautiful frame for clothes”) and see where that leads you.

Stylesyntax.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Follow me on Facebook and Pinterest.

David Kibbe: There Is Only One

One of the things I have on my to-do list is to go through my old blog posts and rewrite the ones that I feel misrepresent David Kibbe’s ideas. Unfortunately, this will not solve the real problem, which is the plethora of misinformation out there that led me to said incorrect ideas in the first place. While Pinterest especially is full of it, one of the major culprits are the stylists who have taken David Kibbe’s work and now make their living typing people themselves. There are people who renamed his types and use his quiz and sometimes even have added some “types” they view as “lacking” in the original; there are people who have excerpts of his book on their professional analyst website with no credit; and there are even “schools” in some countries that offer courses in how to become a Kibbe analyst.

None of these people, of course, can replicate Kibbe’s work. Whenever someone tells me, in a Facebook comment or in the comments to this blog, that they are a “verified TR” (or whatever) and I know they haven’t gone to NYC to see David, I can say that it means absolutely nothing to me in terms of their yin/yang balance and their Kibbe Image ID. Someone who has gone through a long period of self-exploration and who has done their best to understand their yin/yang balance on their own has a far better chance of getting it “right” (i.e., the same thing Kibbe would give you) than one of these analysts, in my observation. I give the latter a 1-in-10 chance of getting it right, only you’ve paid money for the privilege.

Why do they get it so wrong? There are two major factors.

The first is a fundamental misunderstanding of yin/yang balance as Kibbe describes it and how to apply it. They don’t understand the Image IDs themselves, and they don’t understand what yin and yang actually look like in a person in Kibbe’s Metamorphosis framework.

The two most common mistakes, in both celebrities and real-life clients:

a) Someone yang is put in Romantic or Theatrical Romantic.

Someone who is 5’9″ with a cute/pretty face and curves is given Romantic. Someone with wide shoulders, a “dangerous” face, and muscles/taut flesh and who is maybe even 5’6″+ in height is given Theatrical Romantic. Clients and celebrities given TR/an equivalent in other systems have been FN, SN, SD, and FG in Kibbe. Romantics have been FN and SD. The result is that the overall perception of both of these types among the internet community is far more yang than they actually are.

b) Someone youthful and/or funky is given one of the Gamines despite having larger bone structure.

Romantics put into Soft Gamine; FNs/SNs put into Flamboyant Gamine. Since SG is described as wider than TR in the book, and FG is given “broadly angular,” it is understandable how these mistakes are made, but the latest word from David is that a larger bone structure that needs to be accommodated in clothes automatically rules out a gamine type. This also causes a lot of confusion–for a long time, I thought my shoulders were too narrow for FG, but now my sense is that if I did have shoulders as broad as some of the other people who identify as FG, I actually wouldn’t fit into gamine clothes.

Again, your chance of this analyst getting your Image ID correct, if what you’re seeking is your Kibbe Image ID but you can’t afford to see him in NYC, is the same as if you pulled one out of a hat, and maybe not even that good, considering the misconceptions.

The other major factor is a misapplication of the Image Identity itself. An Image ID is not a style. The style comes from you. It’s framework that you use you create a style; it is your guide. It is not a box. So often in the FG group we have women come in who say something like, “I think I’m FG, but I’m a 55 y/o professional with kids in college. How can I dress like Twiggy or a punk?” The perception of FG, to use it as an example, is that it is limited to these specific style inspirations. FG can be sophisticated, glamorous, professional, elegant… It can be whatever you need it to be. I wrote this post over two years ago, and while I’m not sure if I still stand behind all of it, the part about Audrey Hepburn’s and Grace Kelly’s versions of “classic” style still rings true to me. You can express anything you want within your Image ID.

Now, if you like someone’s work, that’s your prerogative if you want to spend your money and get analyzed by them and receive whatever services they offer. But if your goal is to get some kind of confirmation of your Kibbe Image ID, getting “typed” by someone who is using his work (or, as they do in many cases, claims to have “improved” upon his work, “filled in the gaps,” “modernized it,” etc.) will actually do the opposite of what you seek, and will set you back in your Kibbe journey of self-discovery and self-love. Just reading the text in the book accompanying the reveals and the chapter on resistance will do more to lead you to your Image ID than paying someone else several hundred dollars to give you an answer that is, in all likelihood, incorrect if what you really want to know is what David Kibbe would say.

Fantastical Beauty: Iris

As I mentioned, I had placed an order with Kati at Fantastical Beauty. I commissioned a guide for the Iris subtype as an early birthday present for myself. I had written about Iris and why it appeals to me a couple of months ago. Once subtype commissions opened up, I knew that they wouldn’t be available for very long, so I decided to just eat the cost and commission it on my own.

In commissioning Iris, I wasn’t looking for something that perfectly fit the style I already have. When I saw on her Facebook page that Iris would pull from Dragon Princess as an influence, if anything, I knew that it wouldn’t be 100% in line with my tastes and what I already do–and that’s exactly what i wanted. I wanted something that would expand my vision for myself. When I got the Wood Puck guide, it appealed to me, but it didn’t offer me anything new. It contained what I was doing before I ever discovered Kibbe or color analysis.

So I wanted something different, something that would help me stretch my boundaries. I am in love with the story of Iris how Kati sees it, and the color scheme, especially, resonates with me (Iris is the rainbow, so I think you can infer what her colors look like!). Being a bold and bright communicator is as close as you can get to my own mythology.

I think I will still attempt a pure Iris look, mixing it with Cat. But to make it seem more manageable to me, I would like to bring in some different elements, too. To that end, Kati posted the video on Fae and its subtypes a couple of days ago:

Fae was one of the first Fantastical Beauty types I considered, and while my s-curve is on the subtle/moderate line, I don’t think that my face is linear–more balanced/full. The lines of the recs do fit pretty well, but it’s mostly not anything that I can’t get from my Animal Familiar. The imagery of Fae and playing tricks didn’t seem right for me either.,

Puck is a subtype found in all three linear face types. I knew all about Wood Puck from the guide, obviously, but I knew very little about Puck in Fae. Here are the notes I took:

-Artistic, firecracker
-Puck in A Midsummer Night’s Dream
-Spunky Cupid
-High energy
-Romantic in a sassy/spunky way
-Romantic in a bright way, intensity
-Mischievous
-Lives in the clouds; appearing and disappearing world
-Wings/ability to fly through magic

I found a lot of common ground between Iris and Fae Puck. Both are winged beings living in the clouds, bold and intense, acting as a kind of intermediary between the gods and man. A Midsummer Night’s Dream uses an Ancient Greek setting. In some versions of the myths, Iris is actually Eros’s (Cupid’s) mother. I see a real through line from Iris to Fae Puck, even if it’s not official.

While we don’t have a guide for Fae Puck and we won’t for a while, I can see how adding a little Puck influence can bring Iris to something that suits me perfectly. Short hair, oversized sunglasses, and small touches of sass are just some examples things that Iris is really lacking and a Fae subtype could provide. I think the core would still be Angel/Iris–“duality” and “messenger” are really my key ideas, but I think maybe even a Fae lean would provide the little extra sass and whimsy I need.

Have Kati’s subtype videos given you any clarity on your place in her system?

Fantastical Beauty Animal Familiar: Cat

I know it’s been a long time since my last blog post. I was in the middle of a major move, and my mind was occupied with other things. But now I’m all settled in, and I hope to return to blogging regularly, as well as going through my archived posts and reworking some things so that there isn’t any misinformation about Kibbe’s system or anything else.

Today I’d like to talk about something I commissioned a couple of weeks ago: The Cat Animal Familiar in Fantastical Beauty. If you’re new to this system, I’d suggest going to Kati’s site and signing up for her mailing list so that you can receive the PDF that lays out the different elements of her system. In Fantastical Beauty, your Animal Familiar is the element that covers the particulars of your lines and facial features. It doesn’t have anything to do with vibe or personality.

The best way to figure out your AF, in my opinion, is simply to go through the list and rule out the ones that could not possibly apply to you. Unlike in, say, Kibbe, there’s no wiggle room for things like height. “Looking tall” doesn’t matter; only people who are literally tall will end up in a Tall Animal Familiar. So, for instance, in my process, I knew I wasn’t going to be “Tall” at 5’4″, so I eliminated Hawk, Snake, Panther, Wolf, and Lion immediately. Looking at what was left, it was pretty easy to come up with Cat: medium-short, medium-small, full and sharp mix of features. A collage with the Cat celebrities seemed to prove me right:

cat_collage

Unlike the Fantastical Beauty 9 types, however, since AF is really the literal lines and shapes that suit you, I couldn’t do much with this information. There wasn’t even a Pinterest board. So I decided to commission a guide, along with two other women who split the cost with me. What I wanted to see was how well I fit into the type, and whether it would deviate or replicate the line information I had from Flamboyant Gamine.

You can see the Pinboard that accompanied the guide here, but basically Cat is very similar to Flamboyant Gamine, but the physical description resonates with me more. In the back of my mind, while I couldn’t really see any other Image ID actually working, I had been questioning Flamboyant Gamine, because I have small hands and feet and my length is in my torso, not my legs, my shoulders are tapered, etc. My body lines are too yang for SG, and so is my face, but I wasn’t sure if I was quite yang enough for FG. And SN was always on my mind, since the text of the book description seemed to fit.

I’ve had some realizations in the past few weeks, though. Being inspired to try a more Gamine style has really altered my whole image, and I realized that a lot in the Gamine description fit. I felt secure that wherever I ended up exactly, the Gamine group contained the only Image ID themes that would work for me. This was only compounded by a comment David Kibbe made when I posted a picture of my haircut in the FG group on Facebook, wherein he mentioned Mia Farrow to me:

Mia Farrow
(Source)

Mia is a Kibbe Gamine in the book, and she’s one of the ones he hasn’t yet moved to either SG or FG. I think I could see an argument either way, but looking at a bunch of pictures of her, I think I’d go FG. Anyway, I don’t think he would have brought her up to me if the Gamines weren’t the right Image Identity family for me, so I’m really focusing on making sure that I don’t go too yang, as I am wont to do, as my friend’s very astute husband pointed out, and respecting my own place on the yin/yang scale, where my juxtaposed yin and yang are almost equal, with yang coming out on top just slightly, and being able to pull from a wide spectrum of Gamine ideas. The Cat physical description seems to hit right at that spot, too, so it’s good “custom” guide for me.

Have you checked out Animal Familiars? Have you found a perfect spot for yourself?

Fantastical Beauty: Style Personality Exercises #1 and #2

This post uses affiliate links.

Kati has started posting videos on Fantastical Beauty and other style-related topics to her YouTube channel. Two of the videos she’s posted so far are Style Personality exercises:

Since I’ve been deeply involved in my style personality crisis, despite having my own workbook to help me, I decided to do these to help jog my thought process. (I’ve also started a new pinboard, but that’s private for now.) The first exercise is a series a questions about your preferences to help you see patterns. I’m copying my answers here.

1. Favorite movie
Sunset Boulevard,
Sabrina, and Bonjour Tristesse

2. Favorite Book
Harriet the Spy/The Long Secret

3. Favorite Song
Confetti by Cold Cave

4. Favorite Animal
Cats and dogs

5. Favorite Style Icon
Audrey Hepburn, Jean Seberg, Edie Sedgwick

6. Favorite Cake
Funfetti with vanilla icing

7. Three Words That Describe Your Personality
Smart, creative, bossy

8. Three to Five Words That Describe What You Want to Communicate
Edgy, fun, youthful, smart, stylish

Then you are supposed to go back and add some adjectives for each of your answers and look for patterns. What I found is that I had a heavy 50s and 60s influence, with a playful tomboy/gamine slant, but also just a little bit of edge and darkness, which goes along with what I’ve been thinking. In recent years, I’ve really concentrated on this edgy and dark side, and ignored my love for vintage Gamine style. In high school, my style was heavily influenced by this and I wore a lot of nods to the 60s, especially.

The next exercise is to create a Polyvore set of statement pieces: a coat, a pair of shoes, a pair of pants, a statement necklace, and a blouse. When I was thinking about it, I realized that I don’t really like statement necklaces that much, so I chose a cuff, and then the kind of blouse I like is hard to find, so I chose a coat that I could wear indoors as part of an outfit instead.

statement


I don’t know how successful this Polyvore is at conveying this style idea, but it’s a process.

Have you attempted these personality style exercises?

Stylesyntax.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Fantastical Beauty: Iris Subtype

Watching Bonjour Tristesse led to a shift in how I see my style that I haven’t really fully reconciled yet. In conversations with other people, I’ve realized that I’ve been going too hard in the yang direction, and ignoring my yin. I’m not a Dramatic. I need both, in almost equal amounts, and it’s important to keep that in mind.

I connect with the Jungian archetype of Creator, so I downloaded the Mermaid guide. Some of it appealed to me, but “fun and frothy yet elusive” didn’t really seem to get to the core of who I am. The FB 9, I think, are supposed to really address something deep inside you. Nymph did to a point, with the emphasis on acquiring and dissemninating knowledge, and for a while, I thought Woodland Puck was it. It was a punky version of Nymph. But I still struggled because it seems like that’s what I was doing all along, but there were still pieces that weren’t being addressed. When I started considering Mermaid, I figured that maybe Sea Puck would be it. I concentrated on thinking about Kibbe and DYT, and let Fantastical Beauty go for a while.

A couple of days ago, Kati put up a video, and I hope it becomes a series. In the video, she makes a cocktail and then discusses Angel and its subtypes. (If you’re just interested in the Angel stuff, skip to around 8:30):

I realized that for me, words are the center of what guides me. Writing, translating, communication. Iris, a bolder, more aggressive Angel, with an emphasis on carrying messages, is something that connects to me on a deep level. (Skip to 12:00 in the video for Kati’s description of Iris.)

Iris
(Source)

I’ve even been cast as Iris in a play before, in a rainbow minidress sprayed with glitter.

I see Iris as something that helps to iron out the things I’ve been struggling with, style identity-wise, over the past few months. It’s a reminder to me to address the dark and light, the yin and yang, and to not go too far in either direction, while also remaining myself.

Animal Familiars

Kati has revamped her Fantastical Beauty system, replacing Base 5 (a yin/yang-based system with clear parallels to Kibbe Image IDs) with Animal Familiars, which plays the same role in her system as Base 5 did–accounting for things like height, scale, and line. I’m glad to see that Kati has moved away from something where you can make a one-to-one association with a Kibbe Image ID (i.e., Gamine Linear=Flamboyant Gamine), and has come up with something original that adds to your knowledge of yourself and the lines of your body and face.

The Animal Familiars are fairly straightforward, ranging from the tall and angular Hawk to the short and round Rabbit. Although there is some personalization possible, height isn’t really flexible, so you can immediately dismiss the ones that are out of your height range–I consider myself at 5’4″ to be on the shorter side of medium, so looking at the list, I decided I’d likely be found in either Cat, Ocelot, or Koala:

Cat
Medium-Short, medium-small build, full and sharp mix of features. Large eyes, full mouth, sloping nose, and always up to something.
Alyson Stoner, Claire Boucher, Zayn Malik, Niall Horan.

Ocelot
Short-Medium, narrow build, mixed features with accent touches of sharp/angular. Sleek and sharp in a smaller package.
Kristen Stewart, Ellen Page, Natalie Portman, Daniel Radcliffe.

Koala
Short-Medium, wide/full build, blunt features. Wide spaced features, straighter figure, mix of blunt/full features.
Melissa McCarthy, Lena Dunham, Mila Kunis, Johnny Galecki.

Looking at the rest of the characteristics, I don’t see myself as particularly narrow or wide/full. I feel like you get a different feeling from my face than either the sharp/angular/mix in Ocelot or the blunt/full in Koala. The full and sharp facial features and the build that is on the smaller side without being noticeably narrow seemed to describe me very well, so Cat was the obvious choice.

On Facebook, lots of us have been making collages. Collages are fun and so is discussing, but I really suggest narrowing the list down to which height description is realisitic for you, and then looking at the build and face descriptions. Still, though, when I made a collage, Cat seems like a good fit for me:

cat collag

Not that many materials are available yet–I can’t really do anything with the information that I am a Cat–but there is a Snake Guide, and a few Pinterest boards. Hopefully more guides and boards will be coming soon, though!

I’ve also been looking at the nine Fantastical Beauty types again, and have gotten the Mermaid guide, but that is a blog post for another day…

Have you looked at the Animal Familiars yet? Have you found yourself?

Rethinking My Dressing Your Truth Secondary

While it’s not a system I’ve used consistently over my color and style journey–although I do feel they have upgraded in the style department recently–I figured out my Dressing Your Truth Energy Type relatively quickly. I’m a Type 3, active/reactive.

I’m an introvert in MBTI, though, and I figured that my secondary had to be an introverted Energy Type for this reason. So it was Type 2 or Type 4, and Type 4 was the obvious fit. A lot of my personality and behaviors are Type 4, although my movement is not.

But one thing I’ve seen as I’ve gone back to watching DYT videos is that facial features are super important to determining both your primary and your secondary Energy Type. And as much as I see Type 4 in my behavior, I don’t see it in my face at all. In addition to my Type 3 features (face shape, hairline, eyes, eyebrows, “lump-of-clay” nose), I have apple cheeks, fuller lips, and small, child-like hands. I had a real “a-ha” moment when I was looking at Carol Tuttle’s Facebook page and came across this post. I can see a lot of myself in this woman, and I have always felt like a bit of a fruad when I said I was a 3/4 because I just couldn’t see that 4 in my features.

Part of the purpose of your secondary is to work it into your style, and even while saying I was 3/4, I have definitely been dressing 3/1. When I buy things from the Type 3 store, I go for things that are more fun/animated and a little lighter in feel.

bag/earrings/shoes

Earrings from the DYT store.

For me, I suppose, considering myself 3/4 was more about how I act, versus what I would wear. I am interested to see if committing to dressing 3/1 will have an impact on my behavior or how I feel. I’m also curious whether it is possible to be an introvert in personality and be 3/1–it’s supposed to be the highest Energy combination.

I have been thinking about my introverted qualities, though, and as much as I like to sit at home and work on my projects, I actually do this in a pretty social way. I don’t just get wrapped up in a project–I have to talk about it with other people online. So maybe that’s my way of getting my Type 1 socializing in. And when I’m out with people, I do like to keep it fun and light. People are all different, and just because I don’t express my Type 1 secondary in the same way as another 3/1 doesn’t mean I’m not one.

Have you determined your secondary Energy Type? How do you see it expressed?

1 2 3 9