- Type: TiNe
- Development: l--l
- Attitude: Adaptive
I haven’t been able to find anywhere the definition used on this site for evidence. What constitutes evidence for understanding type according to CT?
This depends on what standard of “evidence” is being applied. So I’ll answer this in two ways:
If we’re talking in the context of the most rigorous scientific protocols as carried out by academic bodies, then we haven’t yet put together the “evidence.” Two older attempts towards that, albeit far from acceptable, were the pilot studies ( https://cognitivetype.com/publication-vultology-and-career-statistics/ , https://cognitivetype.com/publication-vultology-parallels-among-identical-twins/ ) that support the hypotheses that…
- 1) vultology is innate from birth and unchanging over time, and that…
- 2) vultology is predictive of career/occupation in a statistically significant way.
These were just two of the possible angles to test, and I’m excited to perform many more tests (and more rigorous ones) in the near future. These pilot studies have a lot of methodological holes, but the core premise of the argument is fully repeatable and testable under better controlled conditions. So if an academic body approached CT and wanted to conduct a study and were able to fund it, these tests could be performed with all the proper procedures. The hypothesis of CT has recently omitted most of its qualia descriptions, and is in a form that allows for repeatability both at the institutional level, or at the personal level to anyone who wants to try it out. Which brings me to…
In terms of more independently testable “evidence” here and now, the database of 500+ samples acts as a public resource of our evidence. For example, if a person wished to go through all our FeNi samples, they are publicly available and the codifier is too. With these two tools put together, the methodology is open. They could independently test, confirm, deny whether:
- 1) The FeNi’s listed are indeed vultologically linked, as per the codifier standards
- 2) Run statistics on the FeNi’s listed and see if facets of their personhood (occupations/political-beliefs/etc) are strongly correlated or not, in relation to the mean.
- 3) Test this hypothesis with new evidence, for example by finding 10 new people who fit FeNi according to the codifier, and seeing if the psychological matches are there with the existing body of FeNi’s.
I think this ^ public angle/access is very important to have (now and in the future) because I’m not strictly a hard-nosed academic in my views of what is proper epistemology. I do see the institutionalized approach to knowledge as a very valuable path, and worthy of answering to (necessary, even), but the personal one is, to my mind, even more valuable. I am pro critical thought and independent investigation.
So depending on what someone’s personal epistemology is, a personal data examination method may be viewed as unacceptable as evidence, or quite oppositely, it could be viewed as direct of a supporting argument as one could ever ask for– and CT is verifiable from a first-person view in a way that not all experiments allow. This direct testability is incredibly valuable and in this sense I think CT has a lot of immediate explanatory power.
I have always sought to live by the phrase “Nullius in Verba” and CT is built from that perspective too. Thus, whilst CT is currently lacking the endorsement of an institution which a person could use as a surrogate for their belief, by proxy of the institution’s credibility, those who wish to see for themselves already have a direct channel to test whether or not what we’re presenting is evidence or not.
And we have a lot of well educated people here (and on Discord) who have been persuaded by this angle, by seeing it for themselves.
For the time being CT’s grass-roots expansion will depend on these sort of people, so I’m very grateful of those who are willing to try out the model for themselves with an open mind.
I don’t know how to create a new forum post, so I’m tacking in onto this thread since the term evidence is used repeatedly.
When you go into a forum board (one of these listed https://cognitivetype.com/forums/ ) at the bottom, below the topics listing, will be a “Create New Topic” section, like so:
Hope this helps!