When it comes to education and learning, cognitive type theory itself gives us many insights about how we process information and how humans learn about their world.
We can therefore apply cognitive type theory to the learning process of vultology itself. As information enters our mind in both the concrete and abstract way, there are two complimentary and necessary methodologies for learning how to read people’s types.
- 110 Signals
- CTVC Webtool
- Energy States Reading
- Twin-Shade Seeking
- Modality/Subtype Reading
The concrete reading method is the most quantifiable and is what allows for vultology to achieve a high level of consensus and repeatability. At the core of this method is the Cognitive Type Vultology Code (CTVC) which is a listing of 110 signals that are physically and cognitively defined and each communicate a certain psychological state.
A video of the subject is analyzed using the CTVC through timestamping. The film is broken down second by second and a list is created of all the signals evidenced. This list is then counted to calculate the most used signals and thus also what processes are most native to the individual.
The shortcomings of this method include a lack of consideration for contextual information and for signals outside of the 110 which are nonetheless relevant to the cognition of the subject in question. While these aggregated signals can offer a stable estimation of the strength of functions, they cannot tell apart hierarchy the best, as one’s cognitive hierarchy does not always coincide with the strength of their signals.
The abstract reading method is the most comprehensive, as it seeks to identify not only what signals are active but how those signals are interplaying with each other to create end effects. This method seeks for an understanding of a persons entire being; it looks to identify type as a whole. It does this primarily through twin shade clustering, which fits a person into a broader context by looking for other people who have an identical vultology. Rather than using deduction via signal count, it seeks to find a known sample who has displayed the same quaila as the subject, and discover a cognitive parallel.
Here we also identify the “modalities” a person gets into, how they may be over-relying on a certain function, how anatomy may be skewing signals and how nurture may be contributing to a blending of elements. A subjective, rather artistic, eye must be developed to execute this method properly. So although this is the most comprehensive method, it is also the most challenging one with expertise amassing through time and the accumulation of the quaila of hundreds of samples into a personal database.