- Type: Unknown
- Attitude: Unknown
In response to a question from:
Crystal Waterfall🍸Today at 2:19 AM
I know you have good intentions…but what do you mean by another level of verification?
What I mean is that while cognitive function theory wasn’t invented by CT, CT has its own definitions of functions, even if they overlap strongly with Jung’s original work. Because those definitions (even Jung’s) are not verifiable, they are subjective.
CT also created its own interpretations of micro expressions and body language. This can only be verified by subjective interpretation (at current). Therefore, both of these methods are subjective – even if they’re accurate.
What I am proposing is a third means of verification that is external to CT and objective. Nardi’s EEG scans might be a good choice as they don’t attempt to measure either method – personality traits or interpretation of body language.
But, any objective means that could provide solid correlation would work. The reason this is important is that it removes the counter argument that CT is inherently subjective, just with two steps, one of them including empirical interpretation of body language, which isn’t normally associated with personality. Removing this argument would go a long way toward setting up CT as a verifiable system – even if it’s something as simple as CT types people the same as Nardi’s scans 90% of the time.
(Note: I’m only going back to Nardi’s scans so often because I’m familiar with them, and I have no other ideas on what else could work… if I did I’d have suggested it.)