Reply To: CT Constructive Criticism

Home Page Forums The General Hall CT Constructive Criticism Reply To: CT Constructive Criticism

  • Type: FiNe
  • Development: ll-l
  • Attitude: Unseelie

@cedar I see a lot of merit in the some of the critiques you listed. We’re also of very similar type so I wonder if our wavelengths are somewhat matching.

I came to CT around 6 months ago, assuming it was already a complete theory and system with valid data to back up the claims. Realistically, it’s just not at that stage. It was and still is frustrating, to my mind at least, to see very obvious gaps and flaws not addressed yet, and very slow progress being made. Sometimes I’ve communicated my critiques publicly, but I mainly prefer private message and email. Just because constructive criticism isn’t public, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening at all.

I agree with the methodological flaws and lack of truly solid empirical data like you’ve pointed out. Ideally, a project like this would have a very large volunteer pool with an equal number of randomly selected people representing each type. Their feedback would be solicited in great detail to build out an accurate profile of each function. There would be within-function differences examined, controlling for race, culture, age etc, because how else do we know what’s innate, and what’s culturally learned? And yes, I think the logic and data being used to justify the theory will not pass academic scrutiny, should publication and acceptance in the scientific community be one of the goals.

In the past I’ve lost my patience with the whole thing and temporarily walked-away. But I think that’s partly my high-standards and idealism. I’m expecting too much too fast. Realistically, the perfect study can’t be accomplished by one person with limited resources. This isn’t a professional Psychology research lab with lots of assistants, equipment, time and funding at the project’s disposal. I wish it was.

It takes a terrible amount of time and resources to get a single study from hypothesis and validly-designed experiment, to published form. Let alone an entire complex theory like CT. Why do I know this? Professionally speaking, I started in Neuroscience then switched to double-major in Psychology with 1st class Honours. I wrote a second thesis with Honours for my Masters degree. My research speciality is visual and auditory perception. I’ve several years experience working in academia doing Psychology research, specifically in a Face Perception lab. I’ve co-authored 6 peer-reviewed published studies. In that setting, with a Professor, a Post-doc, one research assistant, and millions of dollars in funding, we were lucky to get through 3 published studies per year. Our PhD students in the lab working for themselves got maybe 3 or 4 publishable studies after 4 years of research. And many tears. SO many tears.

CT is just one person with a vision doing their best. Doesn’t mean it’s beyond criticism either, but I’ve learned to chill my expectations.

© Copyright 2012-2020 J.E. Sandoval


The content on this site is not
intended for medical advice, diagnosis,
or treatment. Always seek the advice
of your physician or other qualified
health provider with questions you
may have regarding a medical condition.
For more information visit this link.