- Type: FiNe
- Development: ll-l
- Attitude: Unseelie
Well, y’all know I’m down with some analysis. I’ve made a shared Google Doc with some percentages in them that’s easier to read than dumping results here.
I broke down percentage consensus for each signal (present vs absent) of raters versus Auburn. As @supahprotist has noted there’s an excellent split on the Fi/Te axis versus Ti/Fe. There was 100% correct rejection of all Ti signals, and 9 out of 10 Fe signals. Digging deeper, however, there isn’t consensus on signals present/absent within Fi and Te especially.
I’ll copy my observations here from the Google Doc:
Objective physiology signals are mainly more reliable: e.g. snarling, mouth asymmetry, snarling tension, taut cheeks, square cheeks, absence of affect (placid smile, neutral), pinching, stuttering, glitching, slanted edges, scowls, stares, indented eye-sockets, dancing brow, drifts, unblinking, some eye movements (wandering, staring, naive/hypnotic)
Signals with less reliability had more subjective qualia: unbridled radiation, giddy giggle, sassiness, contempt, sprite-voice, amped perkup, “relaxed vs taut” eye area, “brushstroke vs toggle” eye movements, body “awareness”, vivid realism.
Although Fi was identified, consensus was low within Fi signals on what signals were present/absent to rationalise Fi as the choice. It’s almost identified by chance, and by eliminating Ti as a possibility.
Although Se was identified, consensus was low within Se on what signals were present/absent to rationalise Se as the choice. It’s also almost by chance, and by eliminating Ne as the possibility.
Fi and Te has a high level of “subjective” qualia signals compared to other functions. Confusion around these signals affects accuracy of Seelie/Unseelie (i.e. no agreement on what constitutes sassy, contempt, radiation, sprite voice, and therefore agreement on Seelie/Unseelie).
Signal presence vs absence: comparison made by analysing Auburn’s results against the group. The raters as a group missed “giddy giggle”, “excess contempt”, “relaxed eye area” and “vivid realism” where Auburn marked them as present. The raters as a group saw “plateau velocity” as present where Auburn marked it absent.
The other difficult point that SupahProtist has pointed out is that even if there was 100% consensus on all signals, this doesn’t mean that the clusters of signals “prove” that (1) the cognitive functions are the cause of these clusters and (2) that underlying neural mechanisms are unconsciously driving the outward expression of the cognitive functions. Simply because we’ve named cluster 1 “Se” and cluster 2 “Ne”, and the presence of cluster 1 signals predicts the absence of cluster 2 signals, doesn’t add much evidence for Se and Ne being the driving cause. There might be another psychological dichotomy at play. Without extra data collected from the subjects about their behaviour, traits and temperament, and without brain studies (like Dario Nardi’s work), the links aren’t there.
It’s like inventing Phrenology 2.0 or creating a version of palmistry without it. As a parallel, bumps and troughs definitely exist on the skull and the hands. That’s un-debatable. Various metrics on the location, depth, frequency of the bumps etc can be defined and data can be collected from subjects. A set of patterns that cluster together emerges. You might make inferences about the personality of people with certain patterns. Other people can be trained to take these measurements accurately and precisely. But how do you know that these external physical markers are caused by particular brain functions and cause personality traits? That’s a much tougher ask, but academia may treat CT like Phrenology or palmistry without more solid evidence connecting metabolism to vultology, and vultology to behaviourism.