Long thread, sorry, but hopefully worth your time.
There's an enormous amount of work still left to be done, but CT appears to be on a viable (albeit early) roadmap towards the establishment of Types as not only an objective reality, but a comprehensive psychology that can eventually have clinical applications superseding those of the current mainstream Diagnostic Manuals.
I should note, for those new to CT who may not know what this project is: The eventual ambitions of CT are nothing short of catalyzing a paradigm shift in how we conduct psychological research at the academic level, how we implement that in our education and treatment plans, but most importantly -- to discover the objective truth of human nature, outside of the generation of useful heuristics and psychometrics.
To this effect, CT is not truly pivoted against the Big Five, MBTI, Socionics or any such model, but has its eyes on the harder sciences. Here the question of type isn't one of personality categorizations, but one more closely approximating biology. The goal of CT is to elevate the field of psychology itself, which is currently still in a pre-scientific phase. The failure to include the phenomenon of type (and the reality that there isn't one standard human mold) into the equation of research and treatment plans, is in my opinion keenly responsible for much of our lack of advancement in the humanities. The aim is to illuminate humanity as to a higher truth of our being.
Now it may seem audacious to suggest a disruption of this sort could happen from such humble beginnings. A solo group like CT. But I believe this is possible precisely because psychology is in a pre-scientific era. For example, someone jumping into mathematics or physics at this late stage in the game, with their own from-scratch observations, would be silly. Mathematics and physics have matured in their concertizing of fundamental principles. But in psychology, almost everything is still up in the air.
There is no strong consensus on anything, and there is no model that has "won out" the competition or unified the field under a standard theory of the human mind. In other words, unlike math and physics, there are no cornerstones in psychology that are rooted in methodologies that have a high repetability rate / sigma value. And this is in part because there hasn't been a legitimate discovery made that illuminates the path forward. Breaking new ground is what creates standardized models. The field of psychology remains pregnant with potential, and this is why CT has a chance of being one such breakthrough - as I believe it is.
The methodology of CT, while still in need of vast refinement, is theoretically capable of being verifiable/falsifiable at every level (barring a few leftover qualia remnants that will dissipate in time). In theory, it can put forth evidence far exceeding most of what is presently accepted as proof in the humanities & social sciences. CT can present a methodology based on statistics for every psychological description, and be objectively traceable with the same level of fidelity as our classification of fauna and flora.
From this frame of reference and stated goal, it is of negligible importance, and only an afterthought of CT, to focus on giving people a resonant sense of identity; something they relate to which makes them feel more understood in their life situation and helps them plan for the future or pick a career, or some such thing. This has never been CT's main focus. Whether or not type, as it may exist in some objective part of our human nature, yields truths that are relevant to our day-to-day ongoings or our current predicaments is not the root concern.
Type, as it may truly exist in nature, is not there to satisfy these desires. And I would posit that any system which begins at that place, and attempts to satisfy these desires is doing so with a heavier dose of Barnum Effect than what an honest methodology would justify or warrant. When stripped of all its generalized decor, I expect any typology that truly reflects our collective reality to be far less flashy, catchy, and trendy.
That being said, CT does have tremendous potential even in this particular (personal) department, but only when it matures enough. Many root principles have to undergo rigorous refinement before something approximating that level of applicability can be created from a place of integrity. We can skip over the work and create relatable profiles now, but then we would only be adding to the mire of what already exists and is already able to evoke a "that's so me" response from the majority of the population. Doing so is not hard.
The difference between a Barnum Effect profile that one feels instant psychic connection with, and an objectively true profile generated from studies on the statistics of confirmed types and their life habits, is a decade or more of research. But to put this into perspective, hypothetically we can:
Imagine profiles written down to the resolution of 1/1024, created in such a way where every sentence in the profile (much like Wikipedia with its citations) comes from a statistical study done on those with that vultology. Imagine a future where each type has amassed 1000+ confirmed samples (database size of 16,000+) so that the troubles and hardships shared by those of that 1/1024 development as so meticulously understood, that a comprehensive profile can be written. Then we would finally have something concrete to put into textbooks and schoolbooks, and a child can be typed and described objectively through their relationship to the rest of humanity and the work that's been done to document the experiences of others like them who were born before them.
I prefer not to spend time on this topic, since it's low-hanging-fruit to pick on MBTI, but feel obliged to make at least a brief mention of this, since it's quite relevant to our members. Many who are initially attracted to CT are motivated by the prospect of finding third-party confirmation about what they already suspect to be true of their MBTI type, and the type of those around them. They go to CT "knowing what their type is" and wanting "just to check" from an objective standpoint, as if MBTI was already properly formulated to begin with and they understood what the types really were. It's not well formulated. Not even close. And MBTIers don't know what the types are. They really don't. Hell, we are still figuring it out.
In the words of my then-rival Adymus.. wait, before this I have to briefly explain who Pod'lair was. I have been in silent competition against Pod'lair (a group that claimed to have discovered the empirical truth of types) from the beginning. And Adymus, a core Pod'lair founding member who has since left the group, challenged me to prove my ideas better than Pod'lair or to basically step off the plate. If nothing else, Adymus keenly understood the state of typology at present. And Pod'lair was not wrong in its criticism of typology, even if it wasn't entirely right in the solution. They were laughed out of the building, so to speak, and perhaps rightly so. But you will find a thank you at the end of the CT book towards them, for reasons that relate to my heroic journey and need for competition in order to refine. The challenge Adymus presented to me back then goes like this:
You have to understand what I am seeing, to get where I am coming from. I cannot unsee my perspective, there is a phenomenon in people that has become blatantly obvious to me, and that can't just disappear. Even if for some reason I had to go back to plain old MBTI, I would still be using Mojo Reading and Pod'lair theory, because it is the strongest, most reliable, and most logical thing I have ever experienced.
So right now, with what I have experienced and what I am aware of, there is absolutely no reason for me to concede that it is wrong. Not only are you guys incapable of proving this wrong, but no matter what you say I can still physically see that there is something there.
I can't just stop looking at it from that perspective, because I am now aware of phenomenon I was not aware of before. So even if I started using another theory, I would still see these phenomenon, and they need to be accounted for and explained. You would have to prove to me that there is no pattern or phenomenon there, which doesn't seem likely considering there are more of us that see it too in such a consistent way that we can all look at the same person and know what Mojo they are without even saying a word.
This is why I don't consider anyone's disagreement with me relevant, because it is like they are trying to tell me they are holding up five fingers when I can clearly see they are holding up four. I came from a Jungian/MBTI Background, so I already know the MBTI perspective, and now that I have this other (and what I would call "Higher") perspective, I can see there are important patterns in human behavior that MBTI and JCE are ignoring, or are blind to, rather.
And if like Jennywocky, you just don't understand how that could possibly work, well that's just too bad, because I can see that it is working that way. All your disagreement tells me, is that you have built your logic on a foundation that does not address existent phenomena. Phenomena that change the rules of the game so much that if you do not know about it, you will think there are paradoxes in places that there are really not.
Being able to actually physically see how a person is wired sounds unbelievable to many MBTIers, because their paradigm of what is and is not possible does not permit this to be true. But it is not logical paradigms that dictate what is true or false in the universe, and that is something humans never seem to learn, no matter how many times we have to update our paradigms.
I am actually not at all taking the strawman to MBTI or JCE, because these systems literally have no choice but to function in the flawed ways that I outlined. There is no, "Some of us are competent, and some of us are not" argument that you can use because as long as you have no objective control, as long as you are only using descriptive and subjective paradigms/archetypes/boxes to define your types, then are going to be looking at it from an extremely limited scope you are all allowing your limited understanding (and I assure you it is very limited no matter how experienced or competent you think you are) to inform you of what is and is not possible.
I know you guys don't like being lumped together with incompetence, and I know you guys think you are bypassing these flaws just because you might be a bit more clever then the noobies, but it is literally impossible for you to bypass these problems with the way you are doing it. You might have expanded your boxes just a tad, but they are still boxes.
In order to make a model that takes in account all of the possible variations, you need to do what we are doing, you need an objective control, nothing less will suffice.
What you guys are doing is like having only a concept for the color red. No physical or objective sample of the color, just a descriptive concept. So you go online and read descriptions of what it means to be red, and maybe you took an online test that said you have a strong percentage of redness. But in all of your minds you will have your own personal and subjective concept of what you think is red, and all of you will be on going to be on Redforum.com debating on whether this or that is red. You will say things like, "My neighbor is so red" or "That is such a red thing to say!" but none of you really know if any of what you are talking about is red or not, because all of you have to go by are subjective descriptions or your own understanding of what it means to be red. Even if you convinced everyone in the room to agree with your understanding of what is red, you would still have no way of really knowing if that were true or not.
Now of course that is absurd, because we can all see the color red (unless you are color blind, but stop being a wise ass), so there is no debate, there is an objective standard. Without an objective standard, you guys can't actually know what it means to be any type at all. Even when you think you know, all it is is an idea in your head that may or may not match up to the reality of it, and you would have no way to make it match up to the reality of it. Certainly not know you are doing it.
Saying things like "That guy sounds soooo INTP" doesn't actually have any relevance what so ever, because not only can you not really know what an INTP sounds like, you also can't really know if that is something only an INTP would do.
That problem simply does not exist in Pod'Lair, there is no debate, we simply point to a person and say "That is a Nai'xyy" or "That is a Zai'nyy." The criteria that needs to be met to define any Mojo is an objective criteria. While Fukyo, Jennywocky, Auburn, Minued, and everyone else has their own different subjective perspective and understanding of what an INTP is, everyone in Pod'lair has the same perspective and understanding of what a Zai'nyy is.
So if you are not doing it like this too, that is, with an objective standard, then sorry guys, but your model sucks.
His point about describing the color red is particularly compelling to me. It is no surprise then, that people may come to CT with decades of experience in typology, and still get their type wrong. It is near impossible to get your type right in MBTI because nobody has actually discovered what the types really are. Seriously. The MBTI would have to do a lot of work to prove its own foundations, which it hasn’t done. So coming to CT to find out your MBTI type is a silly idea. CT can only tell you what type you actually are, and have been all your life, according to what we’ve uncovered of this new and more stable definition of type; stable across twins and lifetimes.
At present, CT is just getting to the point where it can reliably execute a typing methodology at scale. Using the ~30 or so typings done since the submissions reopened last month, the success rate of the new reading methodology (even to its own standards) is in the ~95%+ range, with a fairly low margin of error. This was not the case before, where the confusion caused by not including development levels/etc, caused mistypings and a success rate below ~80% (even to CT's own standards) when applied at scale. This is what caused the closing of submissions last time.
In short, more ground had to be excavated. A more complete digging-up of the phenomenon was necessary before vultology can be used reliably. This is what has taken years, and why CT has been highly conservative both in its advertising of itself, and intake of new samples. CT's been under-selling itself, trying to lay the groundwork first before going public.
But now that this methodology is able to handle scalability, the doors have been re-opened and the target now is to amass a wide volume of samples. The current target is to do visual readings en mass (targeting 2,000+) both of celebrities and submissions, to expand the body of data available and move onto the next phase of research. Things still left to be done in Phase 1 are: 6 type's development levels, the Fe & Je profiles, and the remaining vultology code pages. This will complete the first round of standardization.
The next phase of CT involves the growth of a stable community around the project, and to fill positions of importance for the model's fruition going forward. I am a researcher/theoretician, but I am not the best public speaker. In time I suspect an Articulator type, compelled by what we're doing here, may rise to the occasion and create a video channel relaying some of the more dense material found herein -- in such a way as to be digestible to a wider audience.
In time, I suspect CT 'experts' will develop who know the theory inside and out, and who can cross-reference CT against other fields of study (such as @teatime). As I think she said recently, the ground is wide open for the taking. There are lots of ways to get involved now, and more ways going forward.
And from the point of view of CT, this community is itself an experiment in inter-type dynamics. Much how Discord has been a type of "lab" for exploring differences across function axes, a community composed entirely of individuals appropriately typed (unprecedented!) according to the model, would produce the necessary information for the construction of profiles. So even if you only have time to contribute in the form of the occasional fun post -- all of it is slowly building CT up. To that end, I thank all of you for being here, and look forward to discovering with you all what it means to be human.
I don't mind being Tea's cross-referencing assistant. ?
There were many fitting frame selections from this movie, but this scene is for the collective.
Cool! I’ve always wanted to be a lab rat ???