Reply To: Brainstorming Scientific Experiment Designs

[xaiouhs]

Okay, so I wrote a long post about this as I work in deep learning. Yet, I'm editing this after thinking about the subject for a few minutes. CT does not have the data for deep learning. You need probably 100 examples of each vultological signal in a short clip (1-3 seconds each?). With enough work, you could have the algorithm trace the right muscles and parts of the body. But without a whole lot of samples of each signal, you're not going to be able to get an algorithm to learn the appropriate quantitative measures. It's the best method to measure signals using an algorithm, but after some more consideration, I really don't think the data problem is manageable with the current team.
Your best bet is to have several people independently quantify each signal, then statistically measure how much their evaluations correlate. For instance, two people select Fi-2 within 3 seconds of the same time. That's a sign you're actually measuring the same thing.
I edited out most of the unimportant stuff from the original post, as it was mostly written humorously or as an offer to work on a project that I'm not sure is feasible. The remaining information is below.
---
A completely novel theory of human cognition is not going to fly for scientific papers. You're going to need to pick out something simple, such as the clustering of certain facial features. Then in another paper, you apply a cognitive assessment/test showing that there's a correlation between these facial clusters and psychological phenomena. I'm sure you have already considered this.
For the eventual psychological assessment, whenever it is utilized and/or published, you want to closely follow the systems used by other personality assessments, such as FFM (without using FFM itself of course). While the tests obviously have to be tailored to CT, the more you can use already tested material, the better off you are. This is of course, if your goal is for CT to be taken seriously in scientific literature. Obviously, you can just develop your own questions based on your own thoughts on accuracy, and quite possibly get better results. You just might not get published.
Funding for participants is generally acceptable, though there are standards for how much should be compensated. There are also methods for how to select a more or less random population, though most studies do primarily utilize college students or other limited groups.
Let me know if you want to discuss this more over voice chat, or if anyone has any questions in particular. I'm extremely familiar with deep learning and psychology.