Reply To: Starshade Ti and Gnosis Ne; Traumatic Development/ Growth of an alternate functn

Index Forums Cognitive Functions Starshade Ti and Gnosis Ne; Traumatic Development/ Growth of an alternate functn Reply To: Starshade Ti and Gnosis Ne; Traumatic Development/ Growth of an alternate functn

Auburn
Keymaster
  • Type: TiNe
  • Development: l--l
  • Attitude: Adaptive

Here’s some preliminary evidence to justify on why we need to start thinking differently of cognitive functions and development in CT. The current theory/assumption is that cognitive functions are fixed in their cognitive space/architecture to one or the other (Ne or Se), (Fi or Ti), not both and not crossing each other. Meaning we only ever use 4 functions and if there is a mixed signal it is due to some kind of confluence of Se + Ni= Ne.

Right!

And this is one of the things that has changed in Model 2. One thing you’ll see is that Model 2 is not a closed-system type-wise –and scientifically it really can’t be. So heavy signal mixing cases are treated very differently. When completed, the new vultology approach will measure Measured (“Ti/Fe”), Candid (“Fi/Te”), Grounded (“Se/Ni”) and Suspended (“Ne/Si”) as four spectra that a person can be high or low on at the same time, down to a specific percentage that is unique to their signature. So for instance, it’s possible to show a lot of Measured signals and few or no Candid signals. Or it’s possible to show high amounts of both Measured and Candid signals. Or low amounts of both.

If there’s high amounts in one and not the other, then you’d fit squarely into the common types already known. But for people who have high signal representation in Measured+Candid at the same time, or Grounded+Suspended at the same time, more investigation is needed. The new vultology website is currently under development precisely because of this necessary reworking — and it’s the reason why submissions are closed.

New reports will look differently in the future and instead give you something more like a percentage bar for each metric, showing how much you have, rather than coming down hard on one axis or another, and explaining away the mixing as noise. I think that was a bit of a stubborn structure and not the most honest way to parse the data, and I contributed to that rigidity before. Took a while to break out of that binary mode of thought, but I think it’s for the better.

I was saying on Discord the other day that I believe CT is describing some biological phenomenon, but believing it to be rigidly binary doesn’t make much sense in the end. Because even the most literal and physical “binary”we have — i.e. sex — is not so straightforward. A percentage of people are hermaphroditic – showing properties of both, sexual orientation is different in 5%+ of people, and we know that genetic heredity is also complicated. So a person having one axis while never having the other would be quite a biological claim to make. It may be that a percentage of people do show visibility of both even though most people tend to side with one. That would be a more normal scenario, I think, from a biological perspective.

What that means, psychologically, is still an open question. Maybe high signal mixers are a different breed, or maybe they do have both circuits. My prior speculations of its “impossibility in principle” does not seem to be supported by the evidence anymore, since we do see some people that are almost 50-50 in signals. It just doesn’t seem the norm, and that’s still also true. The majority of people do land on one side or the other, and the reality of those 16 types is not really put into jeopardy by the presence of the mixers. The need to think in rigid binaries is unnecessary, since the acknowledgement of signal mixers doesn’t invalidate what we do know of the non signal mixers.

Anyhow, to answer your question– yes, this is one of the key adjustments in the new model.
We don’t yet know what it means psychologically, but at least in terms of vultology classification, that will be a change.

edit: Starshade is a candidate for an uncommon type, in terms of vultology, yes. I think he may be a prime examine of an edge case that represents a frontier. Our member Puffed is another one too.

I would like to review Starshade’s type videos after the new codifier works and is able to give a more accurate reading of what percentage of each bar he has. Right now it doesn’t work very well for that, so I have to do that first. I still think he sides more on Pe and Ne, but I would love to have harder evidence of each variable.

  • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.

© Copyright 2012-2020 J.E. Sandoval
SEE HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

DISCLAIMER

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.

SHARE: FACEBOOK, SUPPORT: PATREON