Just curious as to the evidence for Vultology being a reliable objective measure of one's type.
Welcome Light! 😀 I'm glad you decided to pop in.
Great question. Since you may not be the only one with this question in the future, I hope it's okay if I answer it more generally (and perhaps expanding the question beyond the original scope).
As I see it, there are two answers to this question, depending on the full nature of the question.
To expand upon these two answers:
If the question is-- what's the evidence "that supports Vultology signs as reliable", then that depends-- "reliable" relative to what? to the MBTI? which MBTI? Keirsey? Thompson? Berens? Beebes? Nardi? or to Socionics? Many people mistakenly come to CT with the pre-existing assumption that the "right" answer to what type is, is whatever they know of their preferred Jungian typing system -- which is more often a hazy self-made conglomerate of a dozen authors' works-- and they wanna "test" to see if vultology is a reliable way of getting the psychologically-derived answer they've spent months synthesizing together through their independent study and mish-mashing.
But there are so many errors in that framing of the argument. First of all, there is no reliable, scalable consensus on typing method in any other Jungian system I know of -- neither is there any reliable scientific proof for type's reality by any other existing system. So it's impossible to measure vultology's objective validity relative to any of their definitions, because these metrics of measure are themselves fluid, changing, unstable or unproven. If they can't get their definitions to scale up objectively in the first place, they cannot be used to gauge the veracity of a physical system like vultology. So, anyone who's intuited what the 16 types are, for themselves, is a one-person synthesized opinion in the end. Therefore, "objective" and "reliable" cannot mean agreeing with anyone's subjective perception of the 16 types, as harmonized from a personal experience. It has to be measured strictly against a fixed definition-set.
Which brings me to the second point:
In science, one needs to define their terms precisely (exactly what they're measuring), then test whether their experiment produces outputs that aligns with their terms. Since there is no agreement in terms across the typology community, a specific psychological definition has to be proposed, for it to be measured against. At this time, there's been experimental testing of the four energetics (using the following definitions: Je, Ji, Pe, Pi), but not the eight functions.
A psychological survey was extracted from those four profiles, 10 questions from each, creating this psychometric test. This test was administered to 60 vultologically typed individuals, to see whether their survey results matched the independently determined vultological typing. If the vultological typing matched the psychometric results, it would show support that the vultological typing system being used has a positive correspondence to at least this specific psychological definition-set. It doesn't generalize across other models and systems, but it does appear to support a non-random correlation between the two things, as of now, according to this study. There are certainly shortcomings in these studies, but I think they're some of the best proof we've had of any version of a Jungian system, getting empirical validation -- which is highly encouraging. 🙂
TL;DR - The only way in which vultology provides evidence for type, is for its own definitions of type. And it does seem to do that, when independently testing psychology and vultology. But it does not provide evidence of type for other system's definitions of type.