Notes on Methodology, Experiments & Protocol

Home II Forums Official & Introductions Notes on Methodology, Experiments & Protocol

This topic contains 3 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  sekundaer 2 months, 1 week ago.

  • Auburn
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: ll-l
    • F Attitude: Adaptive

    Hello. I write this here as a potential mitigation of practitioner error, and as a fail-safe to this system which I so value. Right now CT is far too highly dependent on me and my opinion. As with anything that is aiming to eventually grow into a science, this is far from ideal and dependency on any one person should be removed as soon as possible. I write this article to remind me of the values CT has in place (and for others here to be able to hold me accountable) until such a time comes that new vultologists and a new consensus can prevent chronic paradigmatic myopia. I’ve seen over time how susceptible we are to our unconscious biases, how we have a limited capacity to know and have a drive/impulse to want certainty where there is none.

    Subjective-Objective Matching

    Something which I wrote in the book:

    I must begin by reiterating that type is a vastly more complex matter than what these first principles of visual reading could account for by themselves. One would be at high risk of err by exclusively using an objective avenue of measure (such as vultology offers) to determine the properties of a subjective matter: the psyche of an individual. Psychological avenues of analysis must be used in conjunction with this methodology for the achievement of a refined understanding of the psyche which it is attempting to identify. And there is no other substitute for accurate psychological insights than what time and firsthand experience can birth. In this light, vultology presents but a small and partial window into the happenings of the psyche, yet I find it so deeply fortunate that we should receive even such a window into our humanity. We must never forget, however, that the information elicited by the psyche always holds priority over the signals presented by the body. Should there be a contradiction between the psychology anticipated by visual signals and the actual psychology of the person, the signals must be given less authority. Never must the nature of the actual person be ignored for the preservation of a signal’s consistency. Vultology seeks to approximate the psyche based on reading the secondary effects that emerge from the psyche itself. As such, vultology can only ever be a useful tool if it can properly manage to predict psychology; it cannot define it.

    I thought long and hard about this when I wrote it, and realized what a mess it would cause. In doing so, CT makes things exponentially harder for itself. Because negotiating with subjective experience is incredibly hard. It would be much easier to tell people their type and have them have no say on the matter. But then we would never come closer to a real truth, and would be running away from the hard problem of consciousness. So CT splits the authority equally in two places, which don’t have the luxury of disagreeing.

    CT is structured in such a way that it dares to speak about people’s inner experiences through their objective expressions. And in so doing it’s trying to bridge the gap between mind and matter, between psyche and physicality. And it’s a highly delicate endeavor that requires every ounce of interpersonal patience — to learn about a person earnestly, and truly listen to their experience — as well as the most acute perception of their physical expressions.

    So how are we to approach this? How can we make headway into the question of psychology from vultology, in a manner that is dependable?

    Ideal Protocol

    This has not been the protocol to date but officially speaking, the only thing CT ought to be able to say to a person follows a deductive path something like this:

    • 1) You appear to display [ this ] cluster of visual signals
    • 2) We have [ x number of ] samples who fit this precise constellation of signals, and what they share in common is:
      • [ this quality ] at [ this ] percentage, which is above the average
      • [ this quality ] at [ this ] percentage, which is above the average
      • [ this quality ] at [ this ] percentage, which is above the average
    • 3) We anticipate that you would share the same attributes in common, according to the hypothesis that a direct link exists between mind and expression.

    The problem is we don’t yet have percentages, as we’re not even at this stage yet. But for example if an Fe-lead comes along saying “I’m not a socialist” the right answer that CT should give is “that’s fine, but according to our stats, vultological Fe-leads are 40% more likely to be socialist in philosophy than the baseline.” This would be based on (lets say) 100 Fe-lead samples and by measuring their political preferences.

    This both makes a statistical claim that can be supported, while not imposing that quality onto the subject. In this way, it preserves both the subject’s capacity to deviate from the profile, while retaining the validity of the profile as a set of high-percentage statistics. Their lack of socialist philosophy would also, for example, reduce the 40% to 38%. If ten more Fe-leads come along and say they’re not socialist either, then the percent may drop to 20% above the norm. If it gets low enough the trait would be seen as “statistically insignificant” and be removed from the profile.

    Optimal Scenario

    And even if vultology is working properly, there would never be any quality/trait with 100% statistical fidelity. But the phenomenon of CT would be validated if for example statistics clustered in all the expected places, in harmony across all the types like so:

    So in this way, we could see clusters of traits (if they do exist) represented across quadras, function axes, etc. This would let us know if the vultology signals are actually grouping people together with “significant” differences, from an objective angle of measure.

    A study of this sort is definitely doable, and CT allows for this level of checking, but it would take lots of preparation and funding to get there. The statistics would have to be done by:

    • Using a blind selection of samples (non-celebrities) from the general population.
    • Typing them by several different vultologists in different rooms / etc.
    • Then giving each sample a long survey (I’d go for ~100 questions) related to anything from their political preferences, occupations, ideal occupations, hobbies, habits, etc.
    • Then seeing if:
      • 1. The vultologists agreed on the readings.
      • 2. The readings agreed with the surveys in a statistically significant manner.

    If the results turn out positive, then CT would be in a position to make a compelling case to other groups who could peer review it across other countries and see if the methodology is repeatable. If it turns out to be repeatable, and indeed scales up in other countries, then it will have been established as a breakthrough in psychology that (I hope) proves more significant in predicting personality than the Big Five.

    I find it important to at least make mention of “how” CT hopes to get to where it’s going, so that a target remains in sight. But before a study like this can even make it on the desk of an academic body, the CTVC has to be standardized to the point where each term is firmly defined down to the letter, and we have to have a group of vultologists that have a high level of consensus.

    Why? (& current protocol)

    Now, why go through the trouble?

    The answer to that is that, even now using a very imperfect methodology, signs of the patterns appear to be clustering in precisely the way they would in a natural phenomenon. There’s a lot of “headcanon” here, but a cursory glance reveals that not only do signals coincide with psychological dispositions, but this holds true across quadras in precisely the way we’d expect for them to compound.

    So for example, the qualities we find in Betas (Fe/Ti+Ni/Se) and Deltas (Te/Fi+Ne/Si) which are opposite quadras via their signals, are intermixed in precisely the ways we’d expect them to be in Alphas and Gammas. This lets us know that the “Fe/Ti” signals transcend quadras in an independent manner, and compound with Ni/Se or Ne/Si independently. Likewise for Gammas.

    Now, if this can also be shown to be the case in the statistical analysis, then the existence of the axes can be established. So taking a look at this chart again with some modifications:

    ^ Lets assume each bar is a question on the survey, and the length of the bar represents the level of agreement there was between the ~50 people sampled of each type. We can test to see if the new samples agree with the expected outcomes, and if a pattern emerges.

    Current Protocol

    Right now the protocol is very much like the above in its concept, but far looser and more informal in every domain.


    The profiles are indeed written from the samples, but not by taking surveys of their preferences. Instead for example, the Fe profile is written by googling all the Fe users and taking note of their careers, books, etc. From there, careers, hobbies, books, lifestyles commonalities etc are identified and written into a profile of “what this visual cluster of people are like.”


    The readings are done using the CTVC version 1.4, which does not yet have all the signals defined with precise GIF examples, although in general they’ve been described in the book.

    Psychological Comparisons:

    Test beds. So far we’ve used the Discord chat, and most recently this forum, to check for fidelity between visually confirmed samples and their psychologies. This again requires the principle at the start of this post. But the downside to this approach is that some qualities appear as grey areas. If for example, we wanna remove quality [ x ] from the [ x ] profile, we have to rely on statistical guesstimation.

    This leads to effects such as some members not resonating with certain qualities, and no frame of reference through which to know how typical or atypical such a disagreement is. Solving this problem, using the above method, would allow us to solve the “I relate” / “I don’t relate” issue without invalidating a person’s experience.

    A type can then come to say “I don’t relate to point number 5, but I relate to 14/15 of the survey questions” — in which case they would be self-convinced that the profile overall is accurate, even if some details are off. Or, conversely, if they don’t relate to 10 of the 15 qualities, then we have a fair and just method by which to say “wow! you broke our system!” and we can go back to the drawing board and do better. This preserves both ethical and logical integrity.

    How to Get There:

    To Do List:

    • Finish the CTVC listing, filled with GIFs and precise descriptions of each signal
    • Finish converting the database to the Development Levels
    • Get the database up to 2,000 samples

    And then… (or during)

    • Gather a group of 10 vultologists with 95%+ consensus
    • Secure funds for a formal study of ~1000+ random people in the general population
    • Run the experiment
      • If successful: Write profiles based on the statistical findings
      • If unsuccessful: Revise the vultology code, core assumptions, etc

    Thanks to the launch of the new website, and the reopening of readings, I’m now able to make a livable income through CT. This means that I can dedicate all my free time (aside from readings) to this endeavor. But in the meantime there will be errors made & areas of improvement identified. I’m hoping you can all be patient with me as I try to bring this all to a head, and learn more about you guys in preparation for this study.

    And if I fall into the snare of asserting realities about someone that go against their personal experience, remind me that I have no right to talk until I provide my proof. I’ve seen far too many typology “experts” fall into solipsistic caverns, and I’m actually terrified of the same happening to CT. So please continue to challenge me, and hold me to the project’s vision.

    And if you have any ideas on how to go about the experimentation process, feel free to share!

    • This topic was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  Auburn.
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • F Attitude: Unseelie

    I write this here as a potential mitigation of practitioner error, and as a fail-safe to this system which I so value. Right now CT is far too highly dependent on me and my opinion. And as anything that is aiming to eventually grow into a science, this is far from ideal and so I write this article to remind myself of the values CT has baked in place (and for others here to be able to hold me accountable) until such a time comes that new vultologists and a new consensus can prevent chronic paradigmatic myopia. I’m far too aware of human frailty and our limited capacity to know, but also of our (my) impulse to want certainty where there is none.

    This is why you’re the ideal person for the job 🙂

    You and I have disagreed more than once 🙂 to put it lightly.  Our recent argument regarding Se and Fe, for example, may be an ongoing debate among us and other members.

    However, any time I think “screw it, I’m either not articulating properly or he just doesn’t get it” – then you surprise me with some post that shows you were really listening to the dissent, considering different angles, and comprehending new material that seemed we would hopelessly disagree on only moments before.

    Next thing I know, you’ve opened my eyes to new ways of viewing things. I thought I was right, but then you show me the light 😀 just as you see the light in what others are saying.

    You continue to surprise me. I really shouldn’t be surprised anymore, because your pattern has shown itself — the pattern being: You care.  The system is bigger than you, and you honor it. You also honor other people, even when they are wrong or only half-right 🙂 but in the end your dedication to the system is uncompromising, and you’ll draw the line, respectfully – between appeasing people and actually doing what’s right for the system.

    The key is that you realize you may not always know what’s right for the system. You allow it to channel itself through you, and in doing so, you do your best to confront your own biases in the process. It would be impossible to do this perfectly and wholly, since you’re human. But every day you do better than you did yesterday, and that’s what counts.

    It is exciting to think it will continue to expand. I just hope you can find people for the team who are as dedicated as yourself, so things don’t get diluted.  After so many arguments, my respect for your process continues to grow.  It is downright inspiring to witness, and I only hope to approach my own work with that level of integrity. 🙂

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  Animal.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  Animal.
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l-l-
    • F Attitude: Adaptive


    It was with great satisfaction I read about these scientific considerations.
    I have been planning to write something of that sort, but its difficult since I dont know enough, but all that you wrote here was just down the alley where I would like to take a walk.
    The new website has a danger to it, as only members that are typed can make posts.  This could easily become a little closed group where members  agree with one another, and since it takes a long time before someone new to CT can come up with qualified critic (at that time that person has probably accepted most of CT),  CT is ‘susceptible to circularity’ to use a term from the OP.
    While still trying to metabolize the basics, I have seen new advancements lately, speculations about new formulations of Fe and its mythology, specifications of the meanings of every development level.  Its all extremely creative, in CT language its highly developed N and there is an elegance to all of it –  and I  wonder (but hope) it can survive a deeper scrutiny based on empirical investigation.  But just think of Freud’s theories that was taken for granted during a whole century.  So much that the denial of the Oedipus complex was seen as a verification of it (since it showed the strength of the suppression).  The explanations that was possible to build upon it was so appealing and this fascination kept it alive for so long although much of it was without validity.

    The beauty of CT is (for me) the definitions/descriptions of the functions. The *connections* between the functions are very appealing, but I find reasons to he skeptic, still I have already got used to make the combination Te/Fi, Se/Ni etc. and I find myself sometimes  taking it for granted although I cannot find the reasons to do so.  The same goes with the “type dynamics”.  I often find that if someone seems Je to me, he also seems Pe (the same with Ji and Pi).  I read the article by Reynierse mentioned in an earlier post that concluded: “Type dynamics, in any form, simply does not organize the data in an orderly fashion that corresponds with the facts. Type dynamics is a conceptually muddled construct that lacks coherence”.  I found it (of course) interesting that there actually IS some coherence in Jungs original idea, that goes like this E>E > I>I  (i.e. the auxiliary function is in the same attitude as the dominant function)   I know that the study was based on MBTi functions, but still…
    If that should be the case for CT functions too, CT would still have its precise descriptions of functions and the vultology signals.  Just this in itself is a major contribution.  I would like such a CT-light version. Then I could let go of all my skepticism.

    But how about a tiny, not study, but experiment, where the thesis of the function pairs/tandems were tested.  I dont know how that could be done, but maybe the hypothesis could be something like:  If  functions can be decided with the help of vultology and if Te always goes with Fi, and Fe with Ti, then if one group examined clips with 20 unknown people and select those with Te signals and another group select those with Fi signals, then the same persons should be chosen to a large extend by both of the groups.
    This setup is not good enough, as there is an overlap of Te and Fi signals,  Fi signals are included in the Te signals, but maybe there is some way around this.  Also everybody who are able to make that assessment would get the overall idea of the persons type and therefore be prone to make choices in accordance with the theoretical system.  But maybe another kind of  simple experiment could be thought of. I cannot come up with a better idea right now.




    • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by  sekundaer.
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l-l-
    • F Attitude: Adaptive

    What I asked for when I wrote the above post have been delivered in a post with the topic ” Vultology Report Explained” and I have made my comment there.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.