To apply concrete vultology, we necessarily take a scientific approach and isolate a fragment or partition of the subject as a whole, and analyze it meticulously. While a person’s entire life experience contributes to their type and nature, we take but a single video and from this single video we select out a 1 minute (or longer) time-frame.
In order to combat this narrowed perspective, an analysis of concrete vultology will increase in accuracy if we can also take a 1 minute slice from other videos taken at different times/days. The more slices, the better.
The slice of video selected for analysis should contain the most ideal conditions such as even lighting, a steady camera angle, clear audio, and so on. The video should be from the waist up to the head. The camera should be at eye-level. It would be best to skip over any setup processes or warmup, and begin the breakdown at a point where the first question or answer is being articulated.
For videos where the subject is not interacting with another person, there will need to be an adjustment to the statistics equation below. A single-person video will display far more introverted energy, even for extroverts, due to an absence of objects for interaction and conversation. The level of engagement of questions is also important. Ideally, an analysis should focus on questions that evoke a significant response from the subject.
In order for this concrete method to fulfill its purpose as an unbiased, purely reductionist approach, it necessarily requires a static analysis of the facts – absent of context or subjective impressions.
Step I: The Raw Data
Signals are compared to the CTVC and if there is a visual match, then a timestamp is documented. What this means is that the concrete method of vultology will often display results such as:
Here we see a subject with a very high probability of being NeTi. The functions Ne and Ti are prominent, while Si is the third most prominent – a typical expression of the polar function in this type. Now I also want to bring our attention to the Se and Fi signals. While the Te and Ni signals are virtually absent, Se and Fi are visible to so small degree. This is actually to be expected, given the NeTi is an Explorer type.
Notice, however, that no attempt is made to exclude the opposite signals. This is actually intentional, and encouraged in concrete vultology in order to avoid confirmation bias, or a subjective distortion of information to fit into a given hierarchy. Concrete vultology analyses will always (unless the subject is absolutely one-sided) display some crossover in signals. The reason for this crossover is directly related to the methodology of concrete vultology itself.
As concrete vultology is not concerned with interpreting the signals within its greater context, but simply doing face-value annotations of signals, we can only ever expect a degree of accuracy that is generally indicative of function presence. To give just one example of this limit, if the subject was shot in bright daylight and they were partially scowling to remove light from their eyes, this signal would be conflated with Si in the breakdown. Likewise if a person was smirking asymmetrically or grimacing for reasons related to general emotion or contempt, the CTVC would wrongly categorize the signal under Fi. As abstract vultology teaches us, the omission of qualia can lead to erroneous interpretations of data such as these.
The 110 signals (selected from an infinite variety) that currently define the instrument would have to expand to account for more of these irregularities, but at present they represent a mathematical estimation of a function’s presence.
Step II: Probability of Type
When the measure of a function, such as Te and Ni, is so lowly represented in the signal count, we can reasonably infer that the subject lacks the function. It would not be correct to say “the subject has 2% Te”. As we discussed above, the signal counts are not measuring the degree of existence of the 8 functions within a person, but the probability of the existence of the functions within a person. The signals themselves only indicate psychology via secondary effects, but their psychology itself is something that requires a subjective analysis of the person in question.
We can therefore use a statistical application of thresholds to filter out the data initially gathered into its most probable conclusions. Our results may look something like:
- NeTi: 84% Probability
- TiNe: 36% Probability
- SiFe: 30% Probability
If we encounter a situation in which the data analyzed births a result such as the below, there are many things we can still infer:
Here we see that Ti and Fi both have a very strong representation in signals, with Fi’s lead over Ti not being significant enough to make an evaluation of type. A second or third video may be needed in order to make a stronger determination. However, what we can say from this analysis is that the subject is certainly a Compass type. They will very likely display all of the psychological characteristics of Compass types even though the specific functions present are not determined.
We should not lose sight of the fact that even in such cases, we can still say a lot about a person. Going straight down to one of 16 types is not necessary in the first video analysis, nor is an analysis unsuccessful if it does not narrow down to 1 type this quickly. In such cases, seeking the help of abstract vultology is also intelligible, as a match may exist and be immediately recognized through that avenue.