Developing an Objective Typology
October 24, 2021 | By Auburn


So, now that I've properly painted how bleak the situation of personality is, I want to start building things back up, because despite everything I just said about Carl Jung's shortcomings, which are real, I also wholeheartedly believe that Carl Jung was not essentially wrong. He didn't prove what he was describing but it doesn't mean that he was wrong just because he didn't prove it. It just means that, you know, up until somebody proves that, there's no reason to believe that he was right. But I only believe that because of what I know of vultology and if it weren't for what I'm about to show you in this video, I would be of the exact same opinion as those other scientists out there who are very rightly skeptical of pretty much every Jungian model out there or variation of it. And so this leads me to part two of this video which is the solution. What you see on screen are five papers that I've published with the help of my teammates describing what could very well be a solution to our problem on personality psychology. These studies can be found for free at and I encourage anyone interested here to check them out because the rest of this video is going to be about these five papers. These studies have the potential, if they can be reproduced by other teams in other labs, to change the face of psychology because what they're suggesting would break ground. It would establish an objective typological system that is more robust and more physiologically, genetically grounded than the big five or any other existing system. But I'm getting ahead of myself here. So let's just start with the basics of what these studies say. So, on the whole these studies make use of Jungian concepts and they attempt to test those concepts rigorously to see if they have any objective reality in people's vultologies. So, that's the approach of these studies. It's: Do Jungian concepts correspond to an objective reality that can be measured on people's faces and body mannerisms, etc? That's kind of the the baseline of what all these studies are trying to measure. But as we mentioned before in problem number two, Jung didn't provide an empirical description of his types and he didn't provide a quantitative description that we can even use to test them. And so the empirical definitions that we used had to themselves be discovered through a long process of trial and error, and this is how we did that. So Carl Jung was not entirely consistent in his writings when he described a process. He used these kind of umbrella terms which contained more things in them than one and, you know, according to modern scientific methods, each one of these is not the same thing. So you have to kind of test each one individually to see if any of them have any reality to them. So, for example, let's say that we have four different psychological definitions of judgment here on screen; we could then look at ten samples who fit the psychological definition of number one, ten for number two, ten from number three, and ten for number four. So what you see there in the second row are ten people that match the psychology according to each one of those various definitions, and then we can look at these 10 samples per definition and see if any of them share physical commonalities with each other. So what you see here in columns one, two and three is that the definitions only have one or two physical matches between their individuals, but here we see in column number four of judgment that this definition of judgment has eight out of the ten people also having similar physicality - similar vultology and so forth. And that's where we find the winner. (So here I've just scroll down to have more space) And so now that we've found a psychological definition in which eight out of the ten people have matching physicality, we can try to do the process in reverse; we use the commonalities of those eight individuals in the case of four and out of those eight individuals who share physicality, we extract out a physical signal set. And then we find 10 samples which only fit that physical signal set without checking their psychology. We're just checking their physicality, and then we see afterwards how many of those people that we just physically typed, without thinking of their psychology, how many of those people have a similar psychology. And so here on screen for illustrative purposes we have nine out of ten, so in other words we took 10 people, we typed them using a physical typological system and then we checked to see how many of them have corresponding psychologies, and the answer was nine out of ten. And that's how we can discover if there are any physical to psychological correlations between any of the various Jungian definitions of the functions, if there are any to be found. Now this experiment could have been a null result, which means we could have found no consistent or meaningful correlations between psychology and vultology but that is not what we found. Instead, we did find vultological correlations to psychology which proved reproducible, which means if we got another 10 samples, or another 50 samples, or even another 100 samples, this correlation continued to be true. And you know as the database expands (we have an open database by the way), as the database expands it continues to reaffirm, as it grows, that this correlation between psychology and vultology is true. And honestly that's why this work has preoccupied a big chunk of the last decade of my life, because once I saw this I just couldn't put this down. I couldn't let this stand without being noticed and that's also why I'm making this video with you guys today. So what I'm going to show you now is those specific psychological definitions of Jung's work that did end up having a statistical correlation to physical realities. So here you see two things on screen: you see an image and a set of descriptions. So what we found is that the people who fit this Jungian description on the left side also fit this physical description on the right side. And the effect is proportional, so the more they fit the psychology on the left the more they fit the vultology on the right. So, and we read here the rationality (that is of the judgment type) involves a deliberate exclusion of everything irrational and accidental. Rational judgment in such a psychology is a force that coerces the untidiness and fortuitousness of life into a definite pattern or at least tries to do so. So here you have a kind of controlling tendency. Rational judgment tends to want to coerce or bind reality into a tidy form an organized form. Now, following that same line of thought the second quote says: everything that agrees with this formula is right everything that contradicts it is wrong and anything that passes by it indifferently is merely incidental. And then the third quote is: everything is rational that accords with these laws everything that contravenes them is irrational. So here reading the left side you have people who think in terms of general principles or formulas of right or wrong, of correct or incorrect, of rational or irrational. These these people think in a very law-like way, and so what we've found in testing is that the more the psychology is present in a person, the more their vultology manifests rigidity. Now, what is rigidity? So from an empirical perspective we can define rigidity as: Number one is that they have rigid vertical posture. Now rigid vertical posture doesn't necessarily mean "good posture," it just means that the spine is stiff. Usually the spine is doesn't move too much; it doesn't sway, it kind of stays in its place even if they may have a bad posture or whatever. There's just a kind of a tension running down the spine on the back that keeps them clamped up. Number two, they tend to have a neck that moves either up or down left to right, so a lot of kind of this going on. And number three is vertical hand movements, that's hand movements that tend to go up and down in their accentuation as opposed to side to side like this. And number four, kind of going along with the verticality of hand movements is linear slicing gestures, so that would be angular stops. So for example they tend to go up and down but they also tend to definitively halt so you have a lot of this going on almost as though somebody's swinging a strong sword. So when you put these together you have somebody who has a stiff spine, who accentuates like this and whose neck moves like this, or like this, so you have a very almost robotic, very precise body language. But all these of course are kind of an extreme version, when everything is there then the person is maximally judgmental; maximally rigid. But to get a more practical idea of what these gestures look like you can think of a judge or a lawyer as we see here. So as the name implies, judges and lawyers are very judgmental, because they literally have to judge according to rules; that's their whole job. So when we read hear from Carl Jung saying that "everything that agrees with the formula is right, everything that contradicts it is wrong" that's the very nature of legislation. So lawmakers are naturally among the most judgment-heavy people, no surprise there. They bind, they categorize, and they discriminate reality according to the lines that they make. But what we have observed is that for reasons that we don't yet fully understand, the body will echo the mind's restriction and become very controlled whenever they're making a cognitive restriction. So you have restriction in the mind in terms of laws and rules and protocols which leads also to a restriction of the body. As we become more rigid and inflexible in our thoughts we also become more rigid and inflexible in our bodies. Now like Carl Jung i am making an empirical observation here. I'm not so much claiming to know why this happens, I'm just describing that it does. And we can run tests to see that it does happen, which is exactly what we've done. By the way, what you're seeing here is not just judgment or rigidity in isolation, it's actually judgment in an extroverted form, and that's because it's impossible to depict rigidity on its own without it having some sort of vector direction, either an internal vector or external vector. So I'm introducing you to the concept of rigidity or judgment in relation to extroversion first because extroversion tends to make itself more known, it's more easy to see extroversion because by its very nature it's expressive and it's proactive. But you'll see later on that rigidity can also pair with introversion and that's the non-motion aspect of this - where the body just kind of stays rigid yet not active. It stays rigid, contracted but frozen in a way. Now, to flesh out this picture even more, I want to show an example of extreme judgment, so that would be the absolute highest percentage that you could find of judgment in effect which is what we see here, which is the army or a totalitarian regime. A group of marching soldiers are the epitome of judgment. Why? Because they follow rules of movement, rules of mind, rules of conduct, and they only move when movement is obliged, and they don't move when it's not. So, here you have very controlled measured movements coming from a very controlled and measured mind, and this is not by accident, this is by design. Militaries across the world actually intuitively understand this and they will train their soldiers to be rigid, because rigidity corresponds with control, and control is what they want from their shoulders. They want precise, definite decisions, according to laws and regulations that they follow precisely, and the body can do that as well. If the body is doing it that means the mind is doing it too. But of course as a human phenomenon, armies are a kind of exaggeration, they're a kind of artistic representation of something that is actually normal in human beings. So it's symbolic in a way, but it's symbolic coming from a natural tendency that humans display already. You know, it's part of the origin of phrases like "don't be such a square" where "square" (square shoulders, square rigid back) means to be very "to the letter." This is something that we've unconsciously known for a very long time, but we're getting to know this better and getting to know ourselves better by actually quantifying it precisely. Now as you can imagine, the opposite of rigidity is fluidity, which also corresponds to Carl Jung's opposite of judgment, which is perception. So like before the description here on the left corresponds to the image on the right, and this is what it says: The irrational functions, sensation and intuition, are those whose aim is pure perception, for as far as possible they are forced to dispense with the rational in order to attain the most complete perception of the general flux of events. Their perception is directed simply and solely to events as they happen, no selection being made by judgment. Events both conform to law and are accidental, insofar as they conform to law they are accessible to reason, insofar as they are accidental they are not. They base themselves exclusively on experience so exclusively that as a rule their judgment cannot keep pace with their experience. What Jung is saying here is that perception is about simply observing reality informationally. Generally speaking, life happens with way too many accidental things that we don't understand. As we're going through life, most of it seems kind of chaotic to us, and if you're not the kind of person that is trying to constantly rationalize things and events, it can't all be said to be coming or not coming from a principle aligned or not aligned to a value, etc. So, in order for perception to be true to itself and full, it has to release itself from the bounds of language and concept. And now, vultologically, we can also precisely define what this looks like and that would be fluid body posture. So that would be where the spine is not stiff the muscles are not clamping the spine. So the spine leans and sags to the sides the neck rolls also side to side so there's often a lot of this sort of activity. Hand movements are horizontal, so that would be going this way, more often at least in proportion to going this way, and the hands have circular hand gestures, so that would be things like this. So something like this might be a kind of characteristic perception body movement. So, people who move that way (what I just showed) also tend to have a mind that's not so restrictively trying to define everything in precise categories, and definitions, and laws or principles, or values. It doesn't mean that they lack these things, it just means that they don't primarily operate through life with that as the kind of philosophy through which they view and and box reality. They more so approach life as an enormous accident that's evolving and which they're trying to learn about dynamically as it happens, and flowing with it to see where it leads or where it's going. And so in the extreme case of perception, the musician and the artist are the kind of person that are icons for this kind of mindset. The musician flows with the music and tends to pursue their love of experiences, perhaps at the expense of rigid plans or any rigid adherence to any laws or any do's and don'ts. Which is what you see here in this image, and as you can see the fluid body posture is reflected in that. But as with before what I'm showing you here is not just pure perception, but perception in an extroverted vector, because as I said before there has to be a direction of energy flow in order for us to distinguish rigidity or fluidity, or perception and judgment. And so i have to show it in one way or another, so I'm starting off by showing it in extroversion. So this is actually extroverted perception that I'm showing on screen. So when I put these two next to each other, here we have proactive rigidity, in other words deliberate rigidity. You come out but in a rigid way: that would be extroverted judgment. And then proactive fluidity, which means you come out but you come out in a loose way, you come out in a relaxed way, that's extroverted perception. And these are these vultologies correspond with the descriptions that we just read from Carl Jung and the correspondence is high. And I'll mention it here too: these are the introverted forms of those two processes as well. So here we have introverted judgment on the left and introverted perception on the right. But I'm not going to go into the details of these four in this video I'm gonna dedicate a whole other video to that. So right now we're just doing an overview on the four energetics. So in the last video I talked about how Carl Jung described, I think correctly, that introversion and extroversion are like the movement of the heart's activity between diastolic and systolic, in other words there's a real-time oscillation that happens. It can happen from second to second, you can switch from introverting to extroverting and the same thing applies to judgment and perception, they are also real-time processes that are oscillating between the two, according to what you need to process at that particular moment. So, whatever you're processing mentally, your body, at that particular moment, is going to reflect that in a corporeal sense. And that's how we can tell what cognitive process you're currently using. And then if we aggregate that across enough time, enough video footage, we can see what is your most dominant process. So here's where this comes together, you have rigidity and fluidity as an axis and you have proactivity and reactivity as an axis, and you can put these as an X and Y graph, and you can show the four quadrants which are the four energetic quadrants of where a person might fall in their expressions. So for every person, if you aggregate their movements over enough time, they will land somewhere within this square and that would be their designated typing. So these are called the four energetics and they are the very cornerstone of Model 1, and it's what the entire rest of the theory depends upon. Now, what I've just shown you is a "new model," you can categorize people across these two axes and you have four types. You have a typology system, that's it, right? But except, you know, building a new typology system is not what I'm interested in. It's not what I'm here to do. If all I wanted was to add a new model of typology into the pile of hundreds which are already existing, there were far easier ways to do that. Remember this plot that we saw earlier which plots humans across these four axes? Now, hold that image in mind, and now what you see here is like the graph I showed you earlier, but what we're actually looking at here is density distribution. So, the deeper oranges and reds are indicating higher density and the lighter colors represent lower density. This study involved 583 individuals that were visually categorized according to the vultology system that we have, and what you see if you look closely is that there are four local maxima, one contained within each of the four quadrants. So the way to read this diagram is to say that when we plot individuals along these two axes of rigid-fluid and proactive-reactive, most of them will cluster around one of these four energetics, and this produces a kind of natural typological situation. So there's a high likelihood that what we're seeing here is a naturally occurring "multi-modality." So, bimodal is when there's two local maxima, multimodal is when there's more than two local maxima. In this case there'd be four local maxima. So to illustrate this concept in a more intuitive sense, here we have a 3d representation of a normal distribution up on top and a multi-modal distribution at the bottom. So this is not the data of the study, I'm just showing you what these modalities would look like when when plotted in a three-dimensional graph. So the image on the top would be what's called the null result. So if the majority of people are somewhere in the middle of the spectra of proactive and reactive and rigid and fluid, we have no reason to believe that the typological designations are a true dichotomy, just as we saw with the personality trait theories, the bell curve would mean everybody is somewhere in the middle, and there's no discrete division between the two, so it's not a true dichotomy. But here at the bottom we see a multi-modal result, and what that would look like. So if the majority of people are localized in these discrete clusters, within the distribution, then we have reason to question the null hypothesis. Which means that we have reason to believe that it is not just a normal distribution and that there may be a discrete reality to why these are clumping the way they are. So to put it another way most people do have a higher degree of prominence in one of these modes at the expense of the others. The rarest mode of all is actually the one that has all four of these energetics equally developed, we see the least amount of people there, and we see the most amount of people that have just one of these categories represented. So this is really fascinating because it goes against what we see in every other model and in my opinion it sets the foundation for a true physical typology of humans. "But wait a minute..." you might say, even if what I'm saying is true, this multi-modality is about vultology right? It's not psychology. Just because people express themselves in one of these four modes more likely than in the middle of all of them, it doesn't mean that their human psychology follows after these four modes of expression, does it? And that is entirely the right question to have. This study by itself, which I just showed you, only provides evidence that human expressivity may be multimodal when it comes to these two axes but it doesn't by itself provide evidence that human psychology is divided across these four visual clusters. For that you need to make a different study. Now this next study involves two independent measurements. On the one hand an individual was visually typed using the vultology code and on the other they were given a psychological survey called the Energetic Survey 1, which you could get four results on: extroverted judgment, extroverted perception, introverted judgment, and introverted perception. So basically the four Jungian energetics, as psychological descriptions. And so, because these are two independent test methods, we can see whether or not they have any correspondence to each other. So this study involved 60 individuals, which were visually typed and then given the survey independently, to check whether or not there's correspondence. And what we found is that, yes, in each of these four categories there was a greater statistical correlation between the vultology that we saw and the expected psychological matches. So, you know, how great is this correlation? Well using a Chi-square test the likelihood of this match being the result of random chance is lower than 0.5 percent, so that's a very strong and significant result. And like I said before, we can run this test again and I encourage other labs to run it as well. You know, just feel free to contact me and I'll tell you how we did it and we can see if it shows up in your data as well. I'm very interested to see if other people can reproduce this. So, when we put these two things together what we see is that not only do humans seem to be naturally divided across these two visual axes, into four vultologies, but these vultologies also are significantly predictive of a corresponding psychological group. So, these two things put together have the potential to establish a true dichotomy of psychology, one that is rooted in a physical reality. So, there's a physical reality here, that we see these four vultological groupings, and they correspond to four psychologies in a discrete fashion. And this would root the system in an objective reality and not just the arbitrary imagination of some creative psychologist. "But wait a minute..." you might think, even if vultological multimodality corresponds to psychological multimodality, that still doesn't prove its "innate" - it might still be learned. It could be that those two things are correlated, but it could also mean that people might change between them, so you know, one could imagine that these four vultologies do correspond to four psychologies, but it doesn't mean that we're born into one of these four vultologies or psychologies. Meaning, "type" might be real but it might still be fluid. And to that I would say: that is precisely the right question to ask. And to know whether or not something is innate or learned, the best method of for determining that would be to look at studies involving identical twins, and more specifically, genetically identical twins that were raised together versus twins that were raised apart so that we can account for nature and nurture. And and that's exactly what this next pilot study did. We looked at 20 pairs of twins so - that's 40 people total - with five of those pairs being raised apart for as much as 35 years, and we looked at their vultological types by looking at videos of both of them. And what we found is that all 20 pairs of identical twins share the same vultological type, including those that were raised apart. And the funny thing is, when you really listen to these identical twins talk about their experiences, this is no surprise at all. Since forever, identical twins have described themselves as thinking alike, but also expressing themselves alike. It's not just their thoughts that they feel are similar to each other, but it's the way that they move in the environment, the way that they respond in real time to reality. And I'm just going to give you a quick demonstration of this using these two sisters Paula Bernstein and Elyse Schein. Now, Paula and Elyse were separated at birth for 35 years of their life before they found each other. They didn't meet each other until way into their 30s, ruling out any possibility of having copied the mannerisms from, let's say, a shared parent or anything like that. But yet, here's what they have to say: "Was there a lot of similarities, were there less similarities? Well it's funny because we felt like we were conducting our own informal study of nature versus nurture which is ironic of course because that was the whole idea, and then we got together and we realized that, I don't know if you noticed, that our mannerisms are inherited, seem to be inherited. Kind of freaky, and you realize how you can freak people out. You don't see that until you see yourself. Imagine seeing another George in front of you?" So as you heard, they say their mannerisms appear to be inherited, and I would agree with them based on the other 19 pairs that we see. Again, just so you don't think I'm cherry picking, you can look at many more videos of identical twins and see their identical mannerisms, whether it's from the 19 other pairs in the study, or others that are not in the study. I believe that the same principle applies across the board to identical twins. They all seem to share high fidelity similarity in their vultology, whether or not they were raised together or apart - which is a very profound insight. And all of that together finally leads us to the conclusion of this research, which can be summed up like this: Genetically identical twins raised together or apart (doesn't matter) have the same mannerisms, suggesting that vultology is genetically innate, and next is that human mannerisms naturally cluster into four discrete groups when we look at those two axes, and lastly these four body mannerisms correspond to four psychologies. And suddenly, all of this comes together and now we have an unbroken sequence from the genetics of the mannerisms to the psychology connected to the mannerisms, which allows us to say with confidence that we could be looking at a genetic reality to psychological types. It doesn't mean that we're right, and it's too early to say, but Model 1 at least is built off of these premises. So, Model 1 describes a genetically based, discrete psychological reality that is lifelong and unchanging, identifiable through body mannerisms or vultology, because of the way mind is embodied. So you would expect this if you're coming from an embodied cognition school of thought, in which mind and body are one unified system. In which case, it's no wonder that twins which share the same mind also share the same body mannerisms, and it's no wonder that two strangers who share the same body mannerisms would share the same mind, making a typological system emerge out of that connection. Again, I have to add a disclaimer that these studies are the first of their kind; they're imperfect and others would need to verify them. So, I'm not saying cognitive type has been proven scientifically yet, but what I'm saying is that cognitive type is based on an empirical argument, which means that it can be proven to be true if other people come along and they reproduce the studies. But it can also definitely be falsified and debunked, if it is wrong, because it makes itself available for that kind of scrutiny. The whole model is based on an empirical argument, therefore as an empirical model, it can be empirically falsified. The same cannot be said for most other psychological models, which are unfalsifiable by nature because of how they escape or elude rigorous testing or rigorous definition, or because they're not trying to be an empirical system in the first place and are just admitting to being heuristics. But, so far, it seems to me that this really is a fact of human nature, that we really have an inborn genetic psychological type and that we would share the same psychological type with an identical twin if we all had one, and by extension that means that we also share the same psychological type with others around the world who also share our embodied mannerisms. And this brings us to the final part of today's talk, going back full circle to the start of this video, with Carl Jung. Now, we started off saying that Jung did not provide any evidence or even a description of physical descriptions of the other categories, aside from introversion and extroversion. But what we've shown in this video is that if we look at the psychological descriptions he gives for judgment and perception, as well as for the combinations of judgment & perception with introversion & extroversion, so that would be the bottom part of this tree, we actually end up finding physical correlations that match these categories, to where we can fill in the blanks of what the objective criteria are, which we weren't provided with. So we can add check marks here and here and say: yes, now not only do we have physical descriptions of introversion and extroversion but we also have them of judgment and perception as well as the combinations of those four. Now, in this video we didn't go over everything in this tree, which is fine, we'll address the other half of this tree in an upcoming video, but what's of of critical importance in this video is that we have the possibility of establishing a fundamental objective and empirical reality to Carl Jung's psychological types, or at least a version of them which can be extracted from the text, never mind the fact that he said many different things. So, in other words, to some degree we have to restrict the definition set that we were given because Carl Jung was too vague and too broad in his categories, but within what he said there is a set of descriptions that he gave which does seem to have an empirical reality. And we can be more fine-tuned with our descriptions, as he said that in the future scientists would need to be, in order to grow it outside of the pseudoscientific realm. So this is great news for the Jungian community! At the same time there is a bit of a bitter pill to swallow along with this, because in discovering that there may be some of these definitions which have an empirical reality, we're simultaneously chafing away those other definitions which don't seem to stand up to scrutiny, and that refinement process is what happens in all sciences, as they evolve out of what they are. So, in other words, not all Jungian variant systems will comply with what I'm describing here nor do they get proven true by what I'm saying here. The only models that benefit from the clarifications that I'm outlining here are those which happen to share a very similar set of psychological descriptions to what I outlined in this video. Other systems, even Jungian ones, that choose different things to highlight about these - for example where they might see extroversion as a socialization metric - those systems are not getting verified but what we're discussing here. And it may be that we need to slowly move away from those systems that are not verified in some empirical way, and move towards those that are. So, I'd really like to encourage those in the Jungian community to look into this. We might be at the beginning of a paradigm shift, not only in Jungian typology, but in psychology overall. And with that I'll have to end this video here, and we'll pick up again next time. So, thank you all for watching if you made it this far, and I'll see you guys in the next video.

A forum exploring the connection between Jungian typology and body mannerisms.

Social Media

© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy
searchhomecommentsenvelopegraduation-hatbookearth linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram