Psychological, linguistic surveys in development

Up until now, CT has focused most heavily on defining types by body mannerisms, and has connected that to behavioral effects in a statistically significant manner. However, a valid criticism which can be raised towards the current state of CT is its lack of more rigorous psychological survey tools to use, to compare against people's vultologies. While a simple energetic survey has been developed, which appears to show significant parity with vultology, this only tests convergence with Je, Ji, Pe and Pi.

Tools need to be developed which test function-specific, axes-specific or development-specific effects, in order for studies to be performed that measure whether vultology matches up at this level of resolution as well. However, robust psychological surveys or psychometric devices are notoriously difficult to make, and their inability to isolate type consistently is a chief reason for why CT pursued an outside-in direction of inquiry to begin with.

Their reintroduction into the mix will need to be done carefully, and even then they cannot be the sole verdict of type, but can still offer another valuable opinion to weigh into the holistic mix. A few such tools are currently in development:

Linguistic Analysis Tool

Back at the start of CT's evolution, the vultology code included within it linguistic signals which rely on an analysis of what a person said and how they said it. In an effort to more objectively measure vultology separate from psychology, these signals were removed from the latest code in early 2021. However, they will see a reintroduction in a new tool that's designed to track the way different functions affect linguistic expression. A brief sketch of the expected connections can be seen below, first shared on Discord. This rough outline is subject to change.

Energetics:

• Pe:
  • Short phrases
  • Descriptive in nature (P)
  • With rapid followups
• Pi:
  • Long phrases
  • Descriptive in nature (P)
  • Narrative rambling/meandering
• Ji:
  • Terse, minimalistic language
  • Declarative in nature (J)
  • Pointed, specific word choice
• Je:
  • Syllogistic language
  • Declarative in nature (J)
  • Causal in form

Functions:

• Se - vivid realism / persistence effect
• Ne - tangent hopping / indiscriminate correlating
• Ni - associative rambling / aphorisms
• Si - anecdotal rambling / truisms
• Fe - emotional shepherding / handling
• Te - matter of fact articulation / dictating
• Fi - self-revealing / oversharing
• Ti - semantic disclaimers / ontological clarifying

Integration Survey

The second survey under production pertains to the level of integration a person might have across their four functions. Developments can be evaluated physically, by measuring how many PR, RR, RF, PF signals a person shows, but this also needs to be compared against a person's psychic integration of the corresponding functions.

The survey is expected to be 160 questions long. For each of the four energetic functions, it will ask 40 questions, 10 for for each of its four aspects of integration. This level of detail is important, since a person may feel psychologically attached to the idea of a certain function and believe they have it well developed, yet they may not exhibit a majority-share of the 4-aspects of integration. This ensures the survey does not confuse "admiration" for a function, or even "dislike" for a function, with actual usage. It measures like/dislike separately from usage and other factors. As with the above survey, this structure is still in the works.

Cognitive Survey

Lastly, a survey is in development which aims to test the strength a person has at performing different cognitive abilities, such as temporal contextualizing (Pi), procedural processing (Je). It also aims to devise ways of measuring vortical (Ni/Se) processing, modular processing (Si/Ne) and so on. This survey will be structured in much the same way as IQ Stratum III surveys are:

However, considering G factor is its own independent variable (which some have more of than others overall), the point wouldn't be to compare the absolute competence a person might have in a given cognitive area, but the relative distribution of their intelligence across these cognitive areas. The hypothesis would be that the ratio would be biased towards the equivalent of temporal contextualizing for Pi, procedural processing for Je, semantic/definitional processing for Ji and information absorbtion for Pe. This fits CT's hypotheses that no matter how much general intelligence a person has (their overall IQ), they'll tend to use it more for some things than others. It's the proportions that matter, not the absolute amount.

Suggestions?

If you have suggestions for me on how to implement these surveys, or would like to assist with their creation, message me and I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.