Hi everyone, here a is a little bit of criticism of CT and a proposal for a different process for typing subjects that relies on collective readings, aggregated results, and probabilities over time . I've been thinking about this for months, but have been too nervous to post.  I am also not aware if anyone else has thought of this too and has been argued against.

• Is Cognitive Type aiming for Objectivity? Some objectivity largely and some subjectivity. Aims to be balanced to different psychological perspectives, but I think it is primarily looking for an objective basis.
• The way I see it, the Emergentism mentioned in this article is not enough to link the objective and subjective parts of CT. As the scale gets larger, the weaker properties of a person’s individual psychology (mythologies/archetypes) that can be empirically proven/predicted diminish. Yet better language and structure for understanding/healing psychological problems increases and perhaps even large scale social/global problems. The scale is also not reversible, mythologies and archetypes don’t accurately predict vultology and metabolism. Also, Emergence doesn’t explain or seek to explain the causality between the different scales, I think. I’m not too aquatinted with this philosophy, so I might be wrong on several points or misunderstanding/giving too much weight of the point of emerging properties.
• My perspective is limited, but I think CT is currently split into two domains because of this, with people who appreciate its objectivity and people who appreciate its subjectivity, because its the part that aims to explain one’s “personality,” give meaning /context to one’s life narrative and phenomenology. However, it leads to explanatory problems when an individual/group disagrees because it doesn’t match their own subjective experience. I see that in its objective domain, it has much potential to provide a structure for research between the relationship of psychic processes and brain processes/networks, and also its relationship to behavior ( I have a post that I’m thinking of formulating based on my  thoughts of the brain scan session I had with Dario Nardi).
• With this preface comes a proposal for a more objective (collective, instead of repeatable) system of vultological typing, which I think would prove that Cognitive Type is a phenomenon that exists without a supercomputer having to track human movements among thousands of individuals to find patterns or by large scale social research to verify its claims. CT has already found the significant patterns (we did it! and I bow down to Auburn and whoever helped to contribute to this discovery) and now they need to be put to the test by collective scrutiny, which in turn would also provide a more reliable and accurate typing system.
• The system that I am envisioning and proposing for debate is one in which the typing of a person is done collectively based on objective criteria (vultological code). By this I mean that instead of training experts in vultological analysis and having them agree on a typing, or, as it currently stands, just one highly experienced/expert person (Auburn) having to type, it be open to a process in which any person whatever can contribute to the typing of a subject on this website (that is, both experts and novices) because if cognitive type does really reflect a phenomenon that is universal and consistent, then it should be able to be seen by anyone, even if they only see one signal from the code or see signals that other people are missing, or misjudge signals.
• The process would be the same as Auburn has set up in the interface of the CT Reading App, where a person plays video of a subject and signals are checked off from the vultogical code, the person then makes a prediction of the subject’s type based on the code. The results of many people typing the same subject are aggregated by the App, with the assumption that the more people contribute to the subject’s typing the more accurate (and objective) the typing is based on the frequency of the signals being noticed. It could be based on percentage, where the App gives a probability score that this subject is a certain type. That is, based on 100 readings by random people, this subject is 90% likely to be Ji lead, and 80% likely to be TiSe, 20% likely to be FiSe, etc.
• The App can have hyperlinks to GIFS of the signals in case the person reading the subject doesn’t know what signals they should be assigning from the code. And a small introductory summary of vultology should preface the reading too.
• Developments levels can be part of it.  I think it would have to be time specific based on year/month and the Reading App could account for that by having the reader submit the approximate time and date (their age) of the subject in question.
• The result would be a public database of the aggregated probability readings on the CT website of people both public and private. The high agreement of many random people of signals and of type for various subjects would show the objective phenomenon that CT has been trying to show.
• That is all for now, just wanted to get the idea out there to see what the community thought of it and its viability.