Reply To: CT Constructive Criticism

[Animal]

Hmm.. I actually see the mythology pretty strongly. I don't type random famous people; only ones that I've followed for a long time. But I had an enneagram group on facebook long before we found CT, and we were unhappy with either Socionics or MBTI or this or that.... and we started putting a model together ourselves, which included still shots to show body language and ideally videos. The people closest to me, I typed correctly after much toil and often with help from the group. We (as a whole) were able to see the type structure, though we had not seen anything by Auburn... we put together similar things ourselves, but with less development and nuance.
Although I think some of the mythology and descriptions may need tweaking over time  (and I've been examining the Se profile closely myself and suggested some tweaks and changes over time),  I believe @Auburn is getting to the heart of things.  I was attracted to this website because I saw he had typed Hitler and Trump as TeNi, which was how I typed them, and most of the world disagreed with me. Once we got here he typed several of my friends and group the exact same way we had typed them already , or very close. Some people we just weren't sure of (including me), but I had been dancing around SeFi for a long time.
Point being, we were coming up with unconventional typings based on psychology - not signals. We had yet to figure out signals though we found some patterns in body language. Even the people we got wrong, the psychology made sense quickly and in many cases we had been very close to the right type. And once the type was adjusted the psychology made even more sense. Usually those were cases where we were less certain. The types we were pretty sure of were exact.
So from my angle there's a clear link between psychology and body language, and what Auburn is picking up with CT. I cannot imagine why anyone would not see it, but I try hard to put myself in others' shoes.. really... it just doesn't add up. What IS typology anyway, and what is the point of it, if you need so many words to explain it? Anyone can say words, and anyone can have any set of interests. But the underlying mechanisms should be clear to see or else what are we even talking about? There has to be a 'vultology' attached, or else it's meaningless.