I want CT to work, but I don't think it's working.
The main point I address in this video is the lack of behavioral and mythological parallels between members of the same type.
This has the same energy as people complaining about Einstein being NeFi.
I see a crap load of my mannerisms in you. The delays in thought, slight forgetting of thought fragments, the innovative perk ups. The only difference I see is our degree of optimism, prioritization of the frontal lobe, and flat affect.
Some have asked me enough questions about this for me to no longer have any answers. My biggest pet peeve are members not seeing the separation and possible harmonization between vultology vs temperament / brain vs mind / function vs characteristic / genetics vs childhood. I mention something like this in vchat. I'd like to know if it does or doesn't makes sense to you now.
I think there is too much variation in the world for 16 boxes to hold. You'd need to see the 16 boxes as 1024+ boxes for CT to make sense the way seem to be wanting it to make sense.
On another note I think CT is going to be more effective and healthier for relationship development. I think CT is likely to be either harmful or less effective for self development. If it were to help your own self understanding I think you would have had been looking at CT from as many different shoes as possible.
I've watched most of your video, and I'm with you partially on the potential mismatches between someone's vultological type and their observed/reported behaviour.
But I have an alternate interpretation, particularly about typing celebrities or public figures in general. We really don't know much about them apart from what they're famous for. We're all multifaceted, multidimensional humans, but we have a tendency to treat people in the public eye as fairly one-dimensional. To borrow your examples, assuming DJ Khalid's interest in music and Neil De Grasse Tyson's interest in science is their sole raison d'etre. We really don't know what else they have going on away from the public eye. I think that's a limitation of building psychological profiles from vultologically typed public figures.
Like someone else (sorry can't remember) added on a different thread, it makes sense that younger YouTubers are making videos with a stereotypical Se-focus (make-up, skincare, grooming, fashion etc). That's the social trend, it's a popular highly viewed topic, there's a low barrier to entry and a potentially high monetary and status payoff with PR and sponsors etc. Sure, that might be their hustle, but not their core "essence". And we don't know what their true "essence" is without asking.
As a personal example, similar to the DJ Khalid vs Neil De Grasse Tyson issue of art vs science (to over-generalise), while both are Fe, I partially completed a Neuroscience degree then dropped-out to try being a professional musician. If I became a household name for science/research you wouldn't assume I was also a musician behind-the-scenes, and if I was a famous musician you wouldn't assume neuroscience was a passion without asking.
Point being, dualities obviously exist in people and hyper-focusing on the one thing that has brought them into the public eye while being ignorant to the rest of their personality/interests/passions/motivations etc gives one-dimensional and potentially inaccurate profiles, and potentially contributes to the poor behavioural matches (at least on the surface) between people of similar/same vultology.
I get this concern. This seems to be a common complaint. I agree with EpicEntity and Lady Nerdsky: Personality is multifactorial, and CT is one layer.
I take the mythology very lightly, and I'll explain why I don't see it as a 1:1 phenomena. The myths arise from the collective. They are formed from many instances of many people over a time span. It's from a collection of NeTi and NeFi individuals, for example, that the puer aeternus myth or theme may draw. Or it may be based on a single instance of a Ne individual.
The cognitive functions have to with information organization and synthesis, and in my opinion, there's little reason to expect that you'd get the same resultant behavior or story (myth) from that alone. Hence my not placing too much value on the correspondence between cognitive type and, say, occupation or area of interest. Though I have to concede that the correlation is higher than one would think could happen through chance alone. That is, similar processes might take you along similar paths. But we really can't - and shouldn't - simplofy personality to Jungian Cognitive Function alone.
Hmm.. I actually see the mythology pretty strongly. I don't type random famous people; only ones that I've followed for a long time. But I had an enneagram group on facebook long before we found CT, and we were unhappy with either Socionics or MBTI or this or that.... and we started putting a model together ourselves, which included still shots to show body language and ideally videos. The people closest to me, I typed correctly after much toil and often with help from the group. We (as a whole) were able to see the type structure, though we had not seen anything by Auburn... we put together similar things ourselves, but with less development and nuance.
Although I think some of the mythology and descriptions may need tweaking over time (and I've been examining the Se profile closely myself and suggested some tweaks and changes over time), I believe @Auburn is getting to the heart of things. I was attracted to this website because I saw he had typed Hitler and Trump as TeNi, which was how I typed them, and most of the world disagreed with me. Once we got here he typed several of my friends and group the exact same way we had typed them already , or very close. Some people we just weren't sure of (including me), but I had been dancing around SeFi for a long time.
Point being, we were coming up with unconventional typings based on psychology - not signals. We had yet to figure out signals though we found some patterns in body language. Even the people we got wrong, the psychology made sense quickly and in many cases we had been very close to the right type. And once the type was adjusted the psychology made even more sense. Usually those were cases where we were less certain. The types we were pretty sure of were exact.
So from my angle there's a clear link between psychology and body language, and what Auburn is picking up with CT. I cannot imagine why anyone would not see it, but I try hard to put myself in others' shoes.. really... it just doesn't add up. What IS typology anyway, and what is the point of it, if you need so many words to explain it? Anyone can say words, and anyone can have any set of interests. But the underlying mechanisms should be clear to see or else what are we even talking about? There has to be a 'vultology' attached, or else it's meaningless.
One question really stood out to me:
"What is Neil Degrasse Tyson DOING that is Fe?"
Perhaps him being a major spokesperson for "science" who is intent on educating the public via entertainment and public discourse might be... an indicator of Fe? Think about it. His Fe is through the roof. He is always extremely emotionally engaged and is expert at controlling the emotional flow of conversations. He is the advocate for "science." Emphasis on advocate, as he is feeding his arguments with passion and zeal, and this is what runs the motor behind his popularity. It's his shtick, his default.
You must remember that type does not indicate interests or career path. This isn't like the MBTI where the "ISTP" is the "Mechanic" lol. Any type can find any subject interesting.
If we use Neil deGrasse Tyson's passion and advocacy for science as an example of Fe, it should never be the justification of why someone else has Fi, but that happens (I'm an example. My passion and advocacy for my local ecosystem was used to show why I'm Fi and Si). Why or what is the difference? It can't be both ways. One must be careful to not fall into confirmation bias. Do Neil and I have the same motivations or not? Can one know from the outside?
Additionally, @supahprotist was trying to find examples on the fly, not giving a well thought out example. Something is off when things can be attributed to wildly different people with very different intents. You can't use inductive reasoning when you want to make a point.
If this is all valid and true, it should stand without faulty reasoning. It needs to be standardized from the bottom up if you want to actually be able to suss out the difference between people. You also need to be informed about how culture values different behaviors in populations. How people evolve over time, what is human nature and what are authentic differences. Are motivating factors more important than the manifestation of the passions?
It's great that someone has been able to think this up. It will not go far if those who ask valid questions, provide constructive criticism or point out inconsistencies are shut down. This is not healthy.
I don't know your situation, Cedar. However, my assumption is you were typed primarily from your vultology and that the behaviourism you point to was fit into it. Advocacy is a Je activity and it can be motivated by either F attitude since it's a question of values (what is being advanced/protected in the advocacy). I'd be shocked if mere advocacy was used to justify your being Fi absent a whole lot of other things. I'm curious what you believe your type is.
@faex the point is people can't make a clean argument with faulty logic. Things can't be used to show motivations one way in one person and then in a complete opposite way in another.
As long as CT is a more accurate alternative to MBTI, Socionics, Flow State, C.S.J., Cognitive 8 then we and Auburn must be doing something exceptionally well.
@coralie-philips if you got a handle of Damon's style from Flow State I would wonder if you'd say he is better at handling conformation bais and faulty logic in comparison to most of us at CT. I'm not sure if he say he is TeNi or SeTi, but I believe uses Te to see a greater logical consensus in Socionics Model B or D than any other typology, especially after hearing about CT (hides it from his charts). If you believe the typing system uses is not as accurate as CT and you believe he would not easily fall for conformation bias then would you could comment on how someone who is so rigid about logical consensus can still be so relatively wrong? Also is there any reason everybody in CT should be more like him when conducting ourselves in CT, regardless about what he might be less correct about?
PS: I'd say it aligns better to see Neil as the representative or ambassador of science.
These are all distractions from the point. Am I correct in the following understanding of the mission of CT:
Is it true that the aim for CT is to be useful to a greater number of people?
Is it true that Auburn wants to publish a paper about CT?
Is it true that the hope for CT is that it help people develop themselves?
I am not sure about a distraction, it's just one creative way to get more clarification on your claim about conformation bias. Still we can go with your way. Not speaking for Auburn, but the list sounds close enough to I have heard so far. That's say you have the correct understanding.
PS: Perhaps the codifier is like a conformation tool set. Seeing as the results from the quiz changes the tool set. You ultimately have the threat of conformation bias systematically dealt with. If it's not too much to ask I'd like to know if I am missing anything.
If you want CT to reach more people:
If the goal is to write a paper on CT:
If you want people to use CT to help develop themselves:
A lot of what you recommended shines light on issues I haven't thought about.
I feel motivated this to bring somethings to attention of Auburn, Ceder, and the CT community in specific ways for each.
If you want CT to reach more people
I got the impression that Auburn plans to expand the community's population, yet that was to be starting when the time was right. So what I am saying is a lot of your recommendations may already be in the plan once that rocket launches.
As far as population variation goes. It might be best to start on that before the expansion. I like that you bought that to Auburn's attention.
If the goal is to write a paper on CT
First thing for Auburn. I for one would to see CT get as far as it possibly can without the scientific community. What I'm saying is... are we thinking "how does CT help some elite brainiacs?" or "how do some elite brainiacs help CT and how CT helps the world?". How does science get CT's respect and how does CT with science get the people's respect? I'd see it through those lens then Ceder's recommendation on this topic can be used more effectively.
Jordan Peterson is not well respected and should not be the basis for anything you want to be taken with authority.
Are we talking about respect in terms of the maintenance of each others appearance and societal defense mechanisms? Are we talking about respect in terms mutual authenticity? If we and Auburn pander to the scientific community, especially on this level, they could pretty much tell us who to work with and who not work with all day long. Jordan Peterson should have equal voice.
Continued research by reading authors/researchers in the field is going to be more valuable than taking subjective feedback from people who want to please you.
I've personally thought about this for while. The pleasing might be somewhat true. However it is absolutely true that I've always wanted to please the truth. This is not true for everything, but when it comes to CT I've always seen myself an expansion of Auburn's weaponry. When it comes to the others I don't recall pleasing. At the same time I have not been trying notice this potential issue among the those others. Ceder you have been trying and perhaps you are right about others. I suppose we shall see what happens.
If you want people to use CT to help develop themselves
This section of your's might be my personal favorite.
I can imagine a lot more members contributing, but only if Auburn can be expected to take as little to none as he wants for each project. I don't know about copyright; I just make him and Alerith co-owners of my CT projects.
Ceder based on what you've told me about how neglectful other can be, it's very possible that posting this might have taking some bravery. Thank you for this valuable perspective! 😁
@Cedar - At the risk of being seen as sycophantic, I'll attempt to address most of your points.
I don't expect that what I've written here will convince anyone I haven't simply "drunk the Kool-Aid" and lost my sense of intellectual independence, but I am hopeful that my words won't be seen as an attack on your opinions, as that's not my intention. Strong criticisms are healthy for a community, and the inability to tolerate them is a harbinger of ill-health.
And with all that being said, I cannot speak for Auburn or anyone else directly, but I am desirous of a more direct way for community members to contribute to the CT orthodoxy as you say.
@cedar I see a lot of merit in the some of the critiques you listed. We’re also of very similar type so I wonder if our wavelengths are somewhat matching.
I came to CT around 6 months ago, assuming it was already a complete theory and system with valid data to back up the claims. Realistically, it’s just not at that stage. It was and still is frustrating, to my mind at least, to see very obvious gaps and flaws not addressed yet, and very slow progress being made. Sometimes I’ve communicated my critiques publicly, but I mainly prefer private message and email. Just because constructive criticism isn’t public, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening at all.
I agree with the methodological flaws and lack of truly solid empirical data like you’ve pointed out. Ideally, a project like this would have a very large volunteer pool with an equal number of randomly selected people representing each type. Their feedback would be solicited in great detail to build out an accurate profile of each function. There would be within-function differences examined, controlling for race, culture, age etc, because how else do we know what’s innate, and what’s culturally learned? And yes, I think the logic and data being used to justify the theory will not pass academic scrutiny, should publication and acceptance in the scientific community be one of the goals.
In the past I’ve lost my patience with the whole thing and temporarily walked-away. But I think that’s partly my high-standards and idealism. I’m expecting too much too fast. Realistically, the perfect study can’t be accomplished by one person with limited resources. This isn’t a professional Psychology research lab with lots of assistants, equipment, time and funding at the project’s disposal. I wish it was.
It takes a terrible amount of time and resources to get a single study from hypothesis and validly-designed experiment, to published form. Let alone an entire complex theory like CT. Why do I know this? Professionally speaking, I started in Neuroscience then switched to double-major in Psychology with 1st class Honours. I wrote a second thesis with Honours for my Masters degree. My research speciality is visual and auditory perception. I’ve several years experience working in academia doing Psychology research, specifically in a Face Perception lab. I’ve co-authored 6 peer-reviewed published studies. In that setting, with a Professor, a Post-doc, one research assistant, and millions of dollars in funding, we were lucky to get through 3 published studies per year. Our PhD students in the lab working for themselves got maybe 3 or 4 publishable studies after 4 years of research. And many tears. SO many tears.
CT is just one person with a vision doing their best. Doesn’t mean it’s beyond criticism either, but I’ve learned to chill my expectations.
Please answer whichever questions apply.
What can you tell us about the end result of those co-authored studies?
Are you able to mention how those studies helped the end user?
Is it right to assume your work help doctors to help clients?
Can your work directly help people?
How much freedom does said client have?
How much freedom can the client have well still giving the distributor and/or author a fair amount of compensation?
[Insert related question here] ?
All of the research I was involved with was more about pushing the frontiers of current knowledge and understanding, within an academic setting. I worked for a University rather than for a private lab or in industry. Typical ivory-tower academia. We were expanding models and building evidence mostly around “norm-based coding” of faces using behavioural experiments to hypothesise how the brain works.
There isn’t an immediate or tangible impact in a concrete way on the general public, or in a clinical sense. And the research did not help doctors, clients or people in any real way. Partly why I got tired of it. It seemed meaningless compared to other “more important” research looking for cures for diseases, or successful therapy strategies.
I'd like to encourage this thread to continue, as an open commentary of anything. I find it very valuable. And it's not my place to represent myself or CT in this thread, but I just wanted to comment on one thing... that may require my personal clarification.
The model is very open to collaborative authorship, research and development. But nobody so far has come forward in that department with the time investment required to make such advances-- nor do I blame anyone for that, of course. As ladynerd alluded to, this sort of work is painstaking and arduous. It's not always fun to crunch numbers and make data tables. And from an ethical perspective I feel it's wrong to condone pay-less assistance anyhow.
Usually research is profit-less unless it is funded on the order of thousands or millions. And although CT isn't a professional research lab, its current R&D challenges at this stage are also not at the laymen level. It's somewhere beyond laymen but not quite academic. In the beginning, years ago, CT was in a more dynamic brainstorming phase where new ideas could be pitches by anyone and it made an immediate difference. Now, new ideas or write-ups require prospective contributors to put together dozens of videos, and present some objective argument as a counterbalance to existing understandings -- just as it does for myself.
Since this is beyond the scope of most member's time-investment, the contributions made by this community are almost always in the form of feedback on existing material, rather than the creation of their own. I've made many open calls for anyone to write a better Se profile, for instance, that could better fit the database samples, but none was made. I've solicited help on GIF creation and identification, for refining the vultology, but efforts quickly die out. Again, I'd expect nothing else and mean no ingratitude whatsoever. But I think this is part of the situation CT is currently in, rather than there being an active effort to exclude members from altering the orthodoxy.
But I'm also a problem solver, and I'm quite aware of the dangers of systemic decay if the situation remains this way, as a one-man project. Even surrounded by a team of brilliant people, humans barely manage to not fool themselves, and I'm no exception. And CT will be able to progress into a new phase of development when it can support a few people's full-time dedication, including those with expertise in the appropriate academic domains.
The next-step solution I've found is to come up with a financially feasible way for R&D to be supported for a team, so a wider group of contributors can add meaningfully and rigorously to the model without doing so absent of compensation. The nearly-ready practitioner program is my publicly-funded way of attaining that. The path I see towards that aim is to standardize a vultological practice and teach it fully to 3-5 people who can then earn an income from offering reading services. Once these 3-5 people and I are on the same page about the existing methodology, all further edits or updates to the methodology itself (and the model) would be done by all of us together rather than by me.
But this path of funding would also require:
This product would be the profiler writeups which, if this works, ought to automatically output tailor-made profiles, directly from the codifier inputs, that are compelling in their accuracy and which can be appreciated by most recipients for their truth-value, even if someone has little or no awareness of the methodology-- which (as has been noted) has a steep learning curve.
I realize this product would not be rigorously supported by evidence, but maybe it would act as a "proof-of-concept" and help drive R&D for a future in which profiles can more appropriately be auto-written directly out of raw data science. For now the profiler would be written from my own consolidation of the inputs of members from this community and the several hundred database samples. This is essentially a business model, like many others, where an imperfect product is used to fund R&D for a better next-gen product.
(I'm afraid I can't correct all the valid criticisms in this thread, many of which I'm aware of but some of which are also new and illuminating, without first building an imperfect engine to drive CT towards better perfection. One thing Je development has taught me is to do things badly at first, rather than not at all. ;p)
Oh dear, I didn't realize you still wanted the gifs !
I thought after you made the Codifier you didn't need them anymore.
I'll restart tomorrow with TeSi's.
There were other offers in the chat, it would be great to organize, split them between us and try to do some for every signal in the Codifier !
About other authors, I can't encourage the idea of posting any material on the site written in a different style and seen as part of the CT theory (for example an... alternative (?) function profile, heartitudes etc). Attaining perfect coherence and the same exact aesthetic would be impossible if other people wrote parts of it.
Anyone who has an idea or a wild theory is free to post it on the forum and many people have done it ! I think it would be wonderful to keep encouraging this type of participation, as well as typing, gif making and / or technical help from others but to keep the material itself fully yours, in order to keep it in the same style and to avoid the site becoming a hybrid ! 😀
Hey, maybe really good theories posted by members on the forum could appear in a" hall of fame" special place where they'd be easier to find by newcomers? Like there could be a link to threads started by members, that are really good (as in technically precise) and based on evidence like gifs, videos etc. Just an idea, I don't know if this would be ideal.🤔 It could for sure be organized in other ways too.
Exactly - I actually spent a lot of time trying to respond to the call for a better Se profile. I wrote two Se profiles of my own and several threads specifically critiquing the Se profile to point out exactly what I didn't like and could change. But I never came up with something as solid, concise and well-worded as @Auburn because it's not my field. I've been sick which is part of the problem; I was severely cognitively compromised and could barely write readable paragraphs even on subjects I know well like Enneagram. But even during better times , in this whole year I've been here, my attempts to rewrite Se on my own were arduous and still did not come out as perfect as Auburn's, especially his first half. Auburn is immersed in CT day in and day out. He meets every person, types every celeb etc - and has a much wider sense of what Se looks like. This is his work and he does it well. I also want to say I have not seen anything even close to compelling to challenge this theory, though I also enjoy challenges and have posed some myself. It's him who was able to write the Se description, not me - because this is what he does. He can compare the components to the components of other types and break down the essence of the type, where I'm going by my observations from a "layman's" (laywomans?) perspective. So I figured from the start that he'd be the one to finally word the description correctly.
And I know exactly how aggrivating it is when people come in to my enneagram forum and challenge the hard work we've done for years just based on their whims. I might ask: ok, so how do you type this person and what do you think this type means? And usually I get no answer beyond "well six is afraid and three is a big fat liar" or some shallow thing, because they have no idea what they're talking about. And our system is nowhere near as developed as Auburn's. So I honestly kind of cringe at the obvious noobs just claiming his theory is wrong without coming up with something equally compelling themselves. Note: I have studied Jung, MBTI, Socionics and now CT (quite deeply and attentively at times) for 8 years but I still consider myself a noob compared to him since I have not put in the cumulative hours that can even approach what Auburn has put in. AND IT SHOWS. I experience Se myself and have a lot of Se in my family and friends, yet still cannot come up with a Se profile that compares to his in the sense of accounting for all types of Se users, addressing the components that underlie the type, etc. I did try but I can recognize it's more for my own mind-exercise than to even come close to doing what Auburn does. And to his credit, he has no Se in himself, not even developed sensing, but he still went and made this profile based on the real experience of Se users here when he was able to wrap his mind around what they were experiencing from inside, and also found the time to do so. Let's be real about where we stand and how good he is. 😀 . I mean really, just try to come up with the groundwork for a new system and see how you do. Reality hits hard then.