CT Constructive Criticism

Home Page Forums The General Hall CT Constructive Criticism

  • Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    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.

    Celeste
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    This has the same energy as people complaining about Einstein being NeFi.

    EpicEntity
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Directive

    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.

    • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by EpicEntity.
    • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by EpicEntity.
    • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by EpicEntity.
    LadyNerdsky
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    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.

    Tea
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Seelie

    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.

    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    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.

    • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by Animal.
    • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by Animal.
    Ivory
    Participant
    • Type: TiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    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.

    • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by Ivory.
    • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by Ivory.
    Cedar
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    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.

    Faex
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    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.

    Cedar
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    @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.

    EpicEntity
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Directive

    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?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6ZPOoUnK34

     

    PS: I’d say it aligns better to see Neil as the representative or ambassador of science.

    • This reply was modified 6 months, 2 weeks ago by EpicEntity.
    Cedar
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    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?

    EpicEntity
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Directive

    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.

    • This reply was modified 6 months, 2 weeks ago by EpicEntity.
    Cedar
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    If you want CT to reach more people:

    • Create an environment where people feel like they can contribute without having to adhere to an unspoken rule of sycophancy.
    • Discourage a clique culture where loyal fans attack anyone with a valid question.
    • Realize that word choice does matter. People will not be open to CT when there are judgmental words used to describe them.
    • Having people from all types represented and have their feedback create the template of what may and may not be seen in different types. For example, Fi is written in detail, while Fe is more like a stab in the dark. This is because there is an over-representation of Fi leads compared to other types. This leads to confirmation bias.
    • Having people from different walks of life, race, culture, abilities, ages, etc. so that there is a cleaner distinction between what is seen in types universally.
    • If the people won’t come to CT on their own, reach out and actively recruit more varieties of types.

    If the goal is to write a paper on CT:

    • Method must be taken seriously. Personality research is not respected scientifically and putting unchallenged ideas out will further reduce any ability for personality research to be taken seriously.
    • Having a system where there is no consistency between videos will not lend to a valid system of identification.
    • When you do write a paper, you will be challenged. If that cannot be tolerated now, how will you be able to withstand it from extremely well-informed professionals in the field? Don’t kindly asked questions help you to tighten up your argument while there is less on the line?
    • Currently there are several fallacies being used to work back into a structure instead of getting all the ‘data’ on each different manifestation of the types and then finding the margins around them.
    • Jordan Peterson is not well respected and should not be the basis for anything you want to be taken with authority.
    • 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.
    • If a typed person feels like their typing is inaccurate, why is it? Is it a lack of self-awareness? Or is there an error in your method that you were previously unaware of?

    If you want people to use CT to help develop themselves:

    • They should be able to feel like this is a safe space to contribute, question, and grow.
    • There needs to be more information available on how their typing will manifest in their lives. The typing on CT doesn’t always correlate to how people show up in the world according to other typing (MBTI, Socionics, etc.). Many others have given this feedback and it seems to fall back onto “Auburn is so busy and can’t do everything. We are fortunate that he has given us what he has.” You can believe that, but it doesn’t answer the issue that the information isn’t applicable to many.
    • Why is Auburn the only one allowed to create orthodox content? Shouldn’t there be a communal contribution where members can volunteer to create fresh and relevant content for new users? He wouldn’t have to give over editorial rights, but at least not silo the information.
    • As is, it took me over 200 hours to get a feel for what my type meant with CT. That assumes that people have a ton of free time and are focused primarily on learning exclusively about CT.
    EpicEntity
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Directive

    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!  😁

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 22 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
© Copyright 2012-2020 | CognitiveType.com
This website's articles, its reading methodology and practices are the intellectual property of J.E. Sandoval.
Animated GIFs, images and videos belong to their respective owners.