Our userpics

[Uncwilly]

Over the years I have had avatars that fit into multiple categories. What does that say? I have had at least 2 people that weren't me (one nice, one not nice), an animated character, a vehicle, and text. My current one is a photo of a painting.

Greenskull does not know the history behind some people's avatars.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by retina

<snip>
And I suspect the pseudo-psychology analysis that followed is not too dissimilar to the standard horoscope fare of everything matches everyone to some degree, so it gives no useful value.

People have many dimensions, you can't simply put them into a box and label it with a limited set of attributes.

"Pseudo-psychology analysis" is right!

The OP is basing this correlation between an avatar and the "psychological characteristics of its owner" on - what? Posts to a blog?

IMO more revelatory of the user's psychology is the blog or forum they post to, and whether they are generally accepted as contributing to them, or merely tolerated as cranks or harmless eccentrics.

For example, folks recognized as contributing to this Forum might generally be viewed as more rational and analytical than most folks. Those contributing heavily to conspiracist blogs or forums, perhaps not so much.

As has already been pointed out, users of this Forum don't always choose their own avatars, and some change theirs.

One of the Administrators of this Forum has a noticeably variable avatar. Is the OP claiming that this Administrator is psychologically unstable?

[greenskull]

Originally Posted by retina

You missed at least one category.

5. No picture.

And I suspect the pseudo-psychology analysis that followed is not too dissimilar to the standard horoscope fare of everything matches everyone to some degree, so it gives no useful value.

People have many dimensions, you can't simply put them into a box and label it with a limited set of attributes.

5. No picture. = №4
There are infinitely many dimensions.
And any model is a simplification.
This model consists of 4 groups.

[greenskull]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Over the years I have had avatars that fit into multiple categories. What does that say? I have had at least 2 people that weren't me (one nice, one not nice), an animated character, a vehicle, and text. My current one is a photo of a painting.

Greenskull does not know the history behind some people's avatars.

The human condition changes from time to time. It is not steel.
Your avatars may have similarities.

By the way, what is the picture on your avatar? I have not found one.
It would be interesting to see your userpics that you installed earlier.

[greenskull]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

One of the Administrators of this Forum has a noticeably variable avatar. Is the OP claiming that this Administrator is psychologically unstable?

If you specifically point to someone, I will give my perception.

This is not pseudopsychology.
People like what is more suitable for their mood, self-awareness, what, from their point of view, is better associated with them at one time or another. Sometimes the choice of such things carries some non-verbal message of their owner to society.

For example, according to the choice of clothing, you can draw some conclusions about the character or mood of a person, as well as his preferences.
The owner avatar is a type of clothing.

Of course, there are many nuances here. But overall it works pretty well.

[xilman]

Given that the doctor is in, perhaps Lucy (may I call you Lucy?) would like to psychoanalyse my avatar.

[greenskull]

And we can say unequivocally that, as a rule, the user will never install on the avatar a picture of what he does not like, not at all close, or forms a fundamentally wrong image of himself.
Of course, there are always exceptions, but in most cases, users subconsciously associate their avatar with themselves.

[greenskull]

Originally Posted by xilman

Given that the doctor is in, perhaps Lucy (may I call you Lucy?) would like to psychoanalyse my avatar.

This is definitely type # 2.
There is no face here, there is a complex dynamic screen or barrier. Like the one that the bullfighter flashes in front of the unfortunate animal :)
Personally, I perceive self-appreciation and snobbery here.
One of the gestures, apparently by pure chance, is indecent.

I'm glad you asked me twice :)

PS I will give the decoding of the avatar to two more who wish. Well, who wants to?

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by greenskull

One of the gestures, apparently by pure chance, is indecent.

Which one and in what culture. Maybe others are indecent in other cultures. You are making assumptions.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by xilman

Given that the Doctor Is In, perhaps the good doctor would like to psychoanalyse my avatar.

I can't psychoanalyze an avatar. It would have to be you, the user.

I don't make house calls, but you are welcome to come to the office.

Dr. Sardonicus, Chief of Client Placement
Frederick Charles Krueger Institution for the Criminally Insane
666 Elm Street NW
Washington, DC 20001

[xilman]

Originally Posted by greenskull

This is definitely type # 2.
There is no face here, there is a complex dynamic screen or barrier. Like the one that the bullfighter flashes in front of the unfortunate animal :)
Personally, I perceive self-appreciation and snobbery here.
One of the gestures, apparently by pure chance, is indecent.

I'm glad you asked me twice :)

PS I will give the decoding of the avatar to two more who wish. Well, who wants to?

Now that is interesting.

A moving GIF of a human hand is an "inanimate object". That description violates at least two common meanings of the English word "inanimate".

About par for the course, in other words.

I guess that you object to the depiction of 6.