FeSi Profiles
FeNi Profiles
TeNi Profiles
TeSi Profiles
NeTi Profiles
SeTi Profiles
SeFi Profiles
NeFi Profiles
TiNe Profiles
TiSe Profiles
FiSe Profiles
FiNe Profiles
SiFe Profiles
NiFe Profiles
NiTe Profiles
SiTe Profiles
Practitioner Program (Preview)

Home 2023 › Forums › Official & Introductions › Practitioner Program (Preview)

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #13785
    Juan E. Sandoval
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Given the recent discussion about CT's future, with the mindmap and video projects, I think it might be a good time to paint a picture of the long-term goal which is the Practitioner Program. Starting with the:

    Manual

    A while ago I put together this mockup cover of what I feel would be the eventual successor to the original CT book:

    Spoiler


    *images likely to change*

    [collapse]

    This book would be written after we've learned enough about how the reality of functions intersects with psychoanalysis. It would include all we've learned about development levels and be up to date, and have the new database at the back of the book.
    But more importantly it would be a step-by-step guide to the reading process. I figured out how to do this, by having it be a PDF book that has GIFs in it. Apparently it's possible for PDFs to have moving images, so this book would be optimal for web viewing. It would then function as a canonical source for CT's interpretation of vultology, and be the official manual from which new practitioners emerge, alongside the lecture series.
    The book could also be made a paperback, hopefully with minimal loss of quality. The GIFs would also have animated arrows showing the highlighted movement, so those would help retain the relevance of the images even in print mediums. The book would be intended to be used in academic settings, and for example to function as a university course textbook if needed. I expect the printed book would have dimensions around this size:

    Spoiler

    [collapse]

    Most of the material on the website so far, like the function profiles, would be cleaned up and published here. I've gotten some warnings from some of you that I need to "publish" this material soon, to retain more legal claim over it and I agree. This would help establish that.

    The Course

    The Practitioner Program would consist of a training course, alongside the textbook. The youtube channel would have lots of free material introducing the theory, but there would also be a more "advanced" set of videos which will at least initially be reserved for those in the program.
    The program would happen maybe 4 times a year, and be broken down like so:

    • Introductory Videos (visible also online for free)
    • Advanced Videos (visible as part of the program only)
    • Quizzes (~3 to ~5)
    • Personal Assistance

    After they've viewed all the advanced videos, I'd administer controlled celebrity typing "quizzes" consisting of some 5 or 10 samples, and seeing what they score. If at the end of the 3-5 quizzes their level of accuracy (in relation to CT) is at an acceptable level (~95%), they'd be listed on CT's website as a Certified Practitioner. CT may revoke their listing in the future if they diverge away from CT's methodology, etc, allowing a level of quality control and standardization to the model.
    The practitioner program in whole, including the cost of the materials + book (a paperback would be sent to each person) would be in the range of some hundreds of dollars, but not terribly much either. A working practitioner can easily make that money up again with doing ~10-20 readings. This would be intended mostly as an additional certification for psychologists to have (just as they often have Big Five and MBTI certifications under their belt, etc).
    This would be the initial stage of penetration of CT into the mainstream. From there, if we start getting a few dozen psychologists certified on the site, and if it proves to be successful in helping clinicians improve people's lives, I believe more academic attention would gravitate naturally.

    #13791
    Juan E. Sandoval
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Resources

    The program would also require, but essentially inherit, an abundance of public CT resources, such as:

    • The completed vultology code
    • The finalized Web App
    • Tally Sheet PDFs for Printing
    • Profile Printouts
    • 1000+ Samples Database File

    These will all be public and free, because it's important to me that the information not be closed off. We want as much exposure as possible, and one could get pretty far in their visual reading on their own, without taking the program. So this is by no means to restrain or withhold the material's scope. But the program would offer the guided assistance and training needed to make sure the process is clear. Because just like any visual-recognition skill (like lip reading or sign language) it does take training.

    ---

    What do you guys think of this roadmap?
    (Any feedback is welcome. )

    #13798
    Nymph
    Participant
    • Type: Unknown
    • Development:
    • Attitude: Unknown

    I'm new here, so I hope you don't mind me pitching in.
    I think the model is excellent as is your roadmap. My only caution would be getting pyschologists certified in using the model may be nearly impossible. Given what I've seen and heard, the majority of psychologists are actually rejecting of new models. It may be a waste of your time. However, LPC's LMFT's and LCSW's are far more open-minded, from my experience, and would actually have more interest because they are working with a broader scope of the population. They are the ones who are always looking to incorporate new strategies into their practice. There are also 20x more LPC's and LCSW's than psychologists, many of whom know each other and are connected on social media.
     

    #13811
    Sander
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    [quote]Any feedback is welcome[/quote]
    [quote]If at the end of the 3-5 quizzes their level of accuracy (in relation to CT) is at an acceptable level (~95%), they’d be listed on CT’s website[/quote]
    Such an high "acceptable level (~95%)" assumes your readings are perfect. Otherwise only those with your biases can come close enough!
    [quote]CT may revoke their listing in the future if they diverge away from CT’s methodology, etc, allowing a level of quality control and standardization to the model.[/quote]
    Better make peace with your Si, then. Unconscious authority ain't pretty...

    #13812
    Juan E. Sandoval
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Such an high “acceptable level (~95%)” assumes your readings are perfect. Otherwise only those with your biases can come close enough!

    It would be ~95% in relation to my current interpretation, yes --which I understand is risky, but necessarily so at the start. But when a close team of readers forms, that measurement will be transferred to being in relation to the team/group consensus. I don't intend to remain the unanimous authority, as I know that's not wise.

    Better make peace with your Si, then. Unconscious authority ain’t pretty…

    I'm not sure I understand. Standardization is necessary for any model, otherwise the practice soon becomes fragmented and void. But as a fellow reviser type, I share your anxiety here with structure and authority. Don't worry I won't become a tyrant.
    Theoretically, CT is safeguarded against practitioner bias/monopolization by the nature of its objective reading method. Just as in science, any malpractice could be called out by an unaffiliated party examining the data if the vultology code is finished.

    #13817
    Sander
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    [quote]It would be ~95% in relation to my current interpretation, yes --which I understand is risky, but necessarily so at the start.[/quote]
    The problem isn't your accuracy but rather your precision. I'm warning that the exact boundaries will be very hard to communicate. That wouldn't be a problem if you only used clear examples; however, that would make the metric meaningless.
    [quote]I no longer feel Fe is my arch nemesis, for example, but I feel a phobia against the essence of Si.[/quote]
    [quote]I'm not sure I understand. Standardization is necessary for any model, otherwise the practice soon becomes fragmented and void. But as a fellow reviser type, I share your anxiety here with structure and authority. Don't worry I won't become a tyrant.[/quote]
    Your standardization plans surprised me as you recently admitted an Si-phobia. I feel at peace with submitting to authority, and wish you may soon feel the same. (Or you'll keep projecting on everyone that writes with an authoritive tone)

    #13820
    Juan E. Sandoval
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Your standardization plans surprised me as you recently admitted an Si-phobia.

    Lol, right? It is not my favorite thing to do. But Si (Si+J) is definitely what this project needs..

    • Si's indexal ability (re: ctvc)
    • Its voluminous worldview (re: database)
    • Its facts-checking (re: a concrete methodology)
    • Its caution in association-formation (minimal qualia)
    • Its grandfathering of information (re: canonical references)

    Si would give the model endurance, temperance, longstanding 'form', a robust precedent, clear anchors to every signal -- down to the muscle and gesture. It would eliminate ambiguity, make for repeatability and thus offer scalability. It's like swallowing nails to me, but I'm a bit of a masochist.
    I want to break models, rewrite rules, discover the undiscovered, never repeat anything twice ..I don't want to institutionalize anything when my being is somewhat anarchist at core. The new book will be outdated the moment the ink dries. As soon as I standardize CT, I'm sure I'll go back to trying to tear it apart again for a version 2.0.
    But one thing CT does for me personally, is make me aware of my faults. I cannot know about CT without being aware of the fact of Pi/Si's necessity in the broader human narrative, and in any endeavor that wishes to conduct (Pi+Je) society forward. So this has to be done, if my dreams are to ever be anything more than dreams.

    #13824
    Sander
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Thanks for sharing you take responsibility for Si 🙂
    Discipline is easier when we have plenty of energy; so, mindless exercise (or optimizing diet) relieves our Si. With dominant Ne, we're not who we were but rather who we could be, right? Good luck finding new ways to improve your energy!

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
bookmarkglobeenvelopeshopping-bag