Reply To: Vultology Quiz #6

[Rochelle]

I could be wrong about smile being labelled anatomical, but it seemed to me it was considered so. ?
Also, I know a bunch of redundancies were consolidated in Model 2, but I don't remember if split cheeks signal was totally removed.  I'll have to double check.  I know it can create a lot of confusion, so if you note it you still have to check to see that the other signals match up.  And so this is where the weight of vultological signals comes in to play.  If it's a toss-up because: Fe voice, Fe gestures, Te split cheeks, Te/Fi smile... Then disregard the physical signs, I believe?  Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.
I do understand what you are saying, and especially early on in discovering CT I was pretty big on simply looking for the physical indicators because as you say it should be impossible to fake, right??  Well, yes and no... I wish it were as simple as glancing at someone and seeing if they have Si eyes, etc.  But in reality those physical signals can be obscured...  Really good make-up can change the impression of eye anatomy, not to mention plastic surgery.  Things change with age, too, and not always in ways that make the native signal more "set in", haha.
 
Curious to be sure I'm understanding you, are you saying that the prevalence of "more gestures" makes them less authentic than other signals?  As in they are copied because it so common in the region?  It seems that each individual would put their own unique stamp to them, even if they were learned. ?  But then I do also wonder how much of communication style ends up parroted from others that we spend a lot of time with!!  ?
I'm also curious to see how these signal mixings come to play in any future theory of 8-function possibilities.  Maybe the super tricky people simply are using both!