Reply To: Foundations of Vultology

[Rennie]

It does thank you.

And I agree with outside-in/ inside-out. We've taken a very similar approach. A logic that I arrived at which came from (likely similar frustrations to yourself): if the science is true surely then we should be able to see it...indisputably and clearly. 

This we've found evident in speech patterns. For example Juan's speech structure (I'm watching the video 'problems with the types') is very evidently (and measurably) on the conventional NeSi axis (with Ti hero) - this is embedded in the delivery of his entire speech structure - his references of experiences being thinly descriptive, very much conclusive as Si conventionally is an introverted judging function, thus those who have it do not elaborate on the objective details of the experience, but rather give the conclusive anecdote of the experience itself, just like Ni gives the conclusion of the intuitive pattern vs the elaborate objective explanation of one (like Ne).

We find these are because the judgement has already been made subjectively, thus the objective delivery is a tight conclusion (like an ice berg tip above a deep ocean). While the Se user virtually recreates the entire experience through speech, almost augmenting the scene through words.  An Si user can neither mimic nor attempt Se in speech & vice versa...it's not possible and very testable as a pattern is a pattern and can be very reasonably determined (& apparent) once the rules of definition are established & agreed.

This is the outside-in, indisputable foundation from which we observe & define type.

Given that an indisputable nature (we believe) does exist, it's always led me to conclude Carl Jung's work was a solid but early accurate observation that lacked the objective detail that we have the luxury of exploring today.

I think the outside-in principle via vultology is tricky because trying to find the point of in-disputability of physical movement & attributes can be very hard with the naked eye. I absolutely believe type manifests in 4 indisputable quadrants: pattern of speech, voice depth, facial movement, social behaviours. Each are their own world of understanding and complex observation. I found speech to be only one that cannot be mimicked and is the easiest to observe through a human lens.

The others are hard and in my opinion. I would imagine people can mimic some of the movement structures you've highlighted that are not native to that type, making it difficult for the naked eye to see the difference and therefore achieve tight definition between one and another. This makes adoption of the method in mass very difficult. I do think only machine learning technology can allow that outside-in method to achieve that level of adoption due to the data points required for accuracy.

(A project we're working on.)

That being said, I think your depth is brilliant and I'm looking forward to learning more from this alternative (re-defined) perspective.  I do think more ideas lead to better ideas! ??

• This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by Rennie.