Foundations of Vultology

Home Forums The General Hall Foundations of Vultology

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #30628
    Rennie
    Participant
    • Type: Unknown
    • Development:
    • Attitude: Unknown

    Hi all,

    I'm new here. I've been studying psychological type for a number of years and together with my wife are working on a few interesting projects as well as providing consulting services around type.

    We focus most of our typing around speech patterns which like vultology are inevitable and indisputable (observable) manifestations unique to cognitive type(s).

    Differently to you, we see the the types as cognitive types (based on 4 dominant cognitive ego functions), then break them down into sub types (personalities) based on which functions they use the most in interactions. This we've found to be a unique approach overall.

    I think what you do here is fascinating and brilliant!

    But I have to ask...where do you derive your benchmarks?

    I.e. in order to determine ones vultology, this must start from a confidence of their cognitive type first, no? Or is vultology the chief identifier of ones cognitive preference, then all observations are oriented around that?

    I ask because looking at your data list, the first two types Abby Martin and Ana Kasparian (for example) are very evidently Se doms - Ti/Se is for Abby, and Se/Ti for Ana. Of course...we can argue until the cows come home as to how I've arrived there, I'm not to convince but rather question how you evaluate each type in light of vultology and if there is something of an alignment with the native/ commonly known sciences.

    My only conclusion/assumption is that you have done away with the conventional benchmarks i.e. looking at behaviours > recognising functions to manifest > determining ones cognitive type > then using those confirmations as the base from which you build vultology.

    To instead use vultology as the primary mechanism for recognising ones type.

    Is that a valid assumption?

    (I'm curious more than anything else.)

     

    Keep up the great work!

     

    #30629
    Rennie
    Participant
    • Type: Unknown
    • Development:
    • Attitude: Unknown

    Ignore my comment, just did some reading and saw that you're pretty much doing away with the entire commonly known science.

    Very interesting...big task that will take ALOT of marketing dollars (and likely a lifetime of work) to get adoption.

    It's encouraging see people thinking this big!

    Kudos to you!

    #30630
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Hi!

    My only conclusion/assumption is that you have done away with the conventional benchmarks i.e. looking at behaviours > recognising functions to manifest > determining ones cognitive type > then using those confirmations as the base from which you build vultology.

    To instead use vultology as the primary mechanism for recognising ones type.

    Is that a valid assumption?

    The answer to that is--- neither one exclusively.

    In order for things to be comprehensive, we have found that outside-in and inside-out information both need to be triangulated with each other, to extract out meaningful and reproducible correlations between mind and body.

    The exploration of the body, starting from the mind (i.e. finding behavior clusters then looking for vultology matches) does give results. But so does looking first at naturally occuring vultology clusters, then examining what, if any, psychological traits emerge from people who share a vultological match. There is a sweet spot between these two approaches; a convergence that happens, and that is what CT tracks.

    In CT we don't ignore the psychological account of the person, and if there are vultology cluster matches among people, but they don't have meaningful correlations to psychology, then they are discarded. Over time, repeating this process, we are left only with the cross-section between vultology and psychology that meaningfully predict one another in a bi-directional manner. And that is was allows for predictability to be established between the two domains. I hope that makes sense. 🙂

    Welcome!

     

     

    #30631
    Rennie
    Participant
    • Type: Unknown
    • Development:
    • Attitude: Unknown

    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 1 week, 5 days ago by Rennie.
    #30633
    Ash Rose
    Participant
    • Type: TiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Hey Rennie,

    I'm very interested in learning more about your speech pattern findings. Where can I read about it?

    Feel free to message me privately, if you prefer.

    #30635
    Rennie
    Participant
    • Type: Unknown
    • Development:
    • Attitude: Unknown

    Hi Ash!

    We don't have a great deal of open info on speech patterns I'm afraid, but you can get a good grasp of some of our philosophy over at:

    https://www.instagram.com/mytype.social/ - it's rich with visual lessons and concepts.

    I'll DM you too.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
A forum exploring the connection between Jungian typology and body mannerisms.

Social Media

© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy
searchhomecommentsenvelopegraduation-hatbookearth linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram