- Type: SiFe
- Development: l-ll
- Attitude: Adaptive
I have some more thoughts/observations about the process of typing.
It was silly of me to say that I only needed a minute or two to type Bart Ehrman (who, anyway, turned out to be TeSi after all)–the reason I spent so little time on him was actually just becuase he was the last sample and I was in a rush. I got lucky in that he was someone whose type I readily recognized. Yet I still frequently struggle quite a bit with breaking things down, signal-by-signal. Much of this is my own responsibility–I’ve never spent too much time deliberately learning the signals. But there’s a broader point I wanted to make with this.
Vultology is a kind of language. The VR code is a set of symbols that describes some specific patterns people tend to display when they’re speaking. On the other hand, I would say that the types, and the functions, are not a language so much. They’re less abstract; they’re more real than the signals are. At the end of the day, all of the vultology signals are a little bit conceptual–they are ways of representing the functions in an abstracted, delimited, parsed-out way. Sorta like how words like “mountain” or “field” denotes patterns of physical features that exist in reality, but not as the naturally bounded-and-defined phenomenon that the concepts suggest.
So my point with this is that when I begin watching a sample like Bart Ehrman, one of my first thoughts (as far as I can remember) was “conductor Delta.” If you asked me to justify this, I could probably point to specific signals–asymmetrical mouth, indented sockets, etc. (I don’t actually remember specifically). But that’s not really why I thought Bart Ehrman was a conductor Delta. The real reason I thought he was a conductor Delta is because he had the overall quality of a conductor Delta. The signals point toward these qualities, but the qualities themselves are something that just are. A conductor Delta is not a collection of signals. It’s an actual phenomenon; a type of person who tends to exude certain qualia.
I’d like to clarify that just because I recognized Ehrman as a conductor Delta right away doesn’t mean that that’s set in stone for me. It’s more of an opening hypothesis. If I’d watched several minutes of him and he really began to look different than what I’d seen initially, my opinion easily could have changed.
Of course, I know that CT is a nascent science, and it’s much better scientific practice to type someone inductively, signal-by-signal. Yet I have a few difficulties with this. One is that I’ve never been that good at moving from an abstract, symbolic language to concrete reality. When I used to regularly play an instrument, I was always more apt at listening and playing by ear than I was at reading written notes off a page. Having notes on a page was still helpful, but it was much easier if I already knew how the piece was supposed to sound. I once worked on an ecology project where one of my main jobs was to identify and measure plants in the forest. I always had quite a difficult time identifying a plant based on a plant-book (in many ways a similar process to using a VR code), but if someone pointed out an actual, live example of a plant species to me in the forest, from then on I was usually pretty good at identifying it.
I’m not suggesting that I don’t use the vultology code in typing, or that I haven’t tried to learn any of the signals. Of course I know some of the signals, and the ones I do know have dramatically improved my ability to type. It’s more that:
a.) even with the signals I know well, and can apply them in realitme, it seems like I often recognize the “qualia soup” associated with a particular type/function before I pick out any individual signals,
b.) I’m familiar with all the signals, but many of them I don’t have a “working knowledge” of. I.e. I’ve never, or rarely, actaully identified in realtime. A signal that I don’t have a full working knowledge of is like a word that’s not in my vocabulary. Even if I have a list of all the signals in front of me, I usually won’t immediately recognize such a signal when I see it,
c.) Gaining a working knowledge of any individual signal is challenging for me, because it requires making the leap from abstract concept to more-concrete reality. Animated GIFs help a lot with this, but GIFs are still decontextualized and don’t show the full range of it’s like to see a particular signal in action.
So, mostly I just wanted to share these observations, but I do have one concrete idea/suggestion from all this. The quiz was really fun and I feel like it helped me to develop a lot as a half-assed vultologist. I think part of it is that I learn more easily if the learning is framed as a game or a contest. (I’m guessing the gaming part might be a P-lead thing). I’m just not motivated to sit down and study something live VR–it makes it into too much of a chore rather than a fun learning experience. So my suggestion would be to incorporate a method like a signal scavenger hunt, either as a quiz or as part of the practitioner program. E.g. “Find the following signals in this 12-minute video.” Or “how many instances of tangent-hopping can you count in this Ne-lead video?”