Hello. As mentioned in this announcement, the website has undertone some improvements lately, as the theory is moving into the direction of a followup model. This thread will be dedicated to summarizing what is changing, why it's changing, and what it means for the theory moving forward.
If we call Model 1 the rendition of CT that came with the publication of the first book, then we have gradually existed in a kind of 1.5 state as the theory introduced development levels, and a way to measure the levels of consciousness of our functions. But we have been due for the next round of refinements-- as evidenced by the pending updates list and other matters. As CT is a data-driven model, it evolves in parallel to what is unearthed in the data, so Model 2 also will not be the end of CT, but it is the next stage that appears to contain a series of very necessary refinements. The two models are not intended to exist side by side, and Model 1 will be retired in due time once all of its content has been accounted for by Model 2 versions. But until that time, Model 1 will be kept open for the sake of having some reference frame for unwritten Model 2 articles.
The main differences between Model 1.5 and Model 2 are as follows:
...Which is modeled using a computational analogy. This means that Model 2 exists in a different class of theories than most other typologies, and is more closely allied to theories like the SOAR model and A.I. neural networks. In this sense, Model 2 truly is a cognitive typology if by that we mean a dissertation on typological differences in cognitive processing, where "processing" is very literally described at microscopic resolution. The first, and core, article of this new model is written here:
The design of the cognitive architecture in that diagram may change slightly by the time book 2 is published, but the essential structure will remain the same.
Moving to a new/clean terminology becomes essential for the formation of a cognitive architecture that can stand alongside others in that cognitive science class, as well as for scientific research. The terms used in a publication/paper need to precisely describe a phenomenon in question, and the existing Jungian terms are too vague and varied in their meaning to be useful in this technical regard. Therefore, the computational layer of CT will have no necessary dependency on Jungian terminology, and can be described entirely on its own terms.
We have already seen the use of the letters M and V in the computational metaphor series for Ne/Si and Ni/Se. The terms EDA and ALE have now been shortened to D for Fi/Te and L for Ti/Fe in order to make all four letters of the same length and style. This makes the four oscillations: M, V, D, and L. The different poles of these axes are highlighted using a + or - annotation, giving us M+/M-, V+/V-, D+/D-, L+/L-.
The notation of a type is described by the lead oscillation as a capital letter, the secondary oscillation as a lowercase letter, and the energetic orientation by +/-. For example, the TiSe type is Lv-, the FeNi type is Lv+.
I realize this will take some getting used to, and I apologize. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel or be presumptuous with these terms. I really think there just is no other way, moving forward, and one letter symbols plus one energetic charge (+/-) seemed to me the simplest solution. The specific letters chosen were selected in part to avoid overlap with Jungian terms. Here is a map of the available 'slots' to use.
(As you can see, the majority of letters are in use now.)
(I used M, V, D and L because they were available without Jungian overlap, and because they had already been introduced in Book 1)
Please note that I am not intending to force or pedal the adaptation of these letters and everyone here is free to keep using the Jungian terms, and I will be using them too. This is primarily a theoretical necessity -- as CT needs to have its own internal terms to describe precisely what it means by its processes, which are non-identical to most/all versions of Jung's terms.
We will inevitable come across more and more typological debates/discussions in which there will be argument about who's version of "Fe" (etc) is the right one. And far too many things are meant by terms like "Fe" and "Fi" within the existing field of typology ideas. It is not appropriate to be fighting over the same semantic territory with MBTI, Socionics and everyone else, when we mean such different things --especially with the recent N/S/T/F changes. At some point it becomes necessary to say: "What CT means by Fi is D-" and also to have others keep their nomenclature separate and capable of being compared against each other without necessarily being fully equated. This also makes it possible to enter CT without ever having to come through MBTI.
Now, surely, certain typologists may come to agree that CT's definition of D- is the same as what they means by Fi, in which case there's parity. But this will have to be approached on a case by case basis rather than being assumed. I hope this offers clarity and greater consistency in discussions.
I've just spoken about how CT will be giving the computational dimension its own set of standalone terms, but the same will also be done to the vultological dimension. Thus far CT has used the same terms to cover far too much conceptual territory which, especially academically, should be separated as concepts -- and then either correlated or not correlated to each other based on experimentation.
For example, terms like "Te" in CT have meant both the vultology and the corresponding speculated psychology. But this is theoretical conflation and is not how formal research is done. If we want to discuss whether or not the "signals of Te" are or are not equivalent to "Te psychology" we have hitherto lacked a separate terminology for this. It should be possible to talk about each of the four layers of CT separately and see whether or not the layers properly compare to each other, statistically or otherwise. This should have been done a while ago but it's finally become unavoidable to do so. The new terms are as follows:
Therefore, you'll see that we now have technical terms such as Dictating ("Te") and Handling ("Fe") which describe vultological clusters by themselves without any necessary ties to psychology. This allows us to have honest discussions about whether Handling, as a visual cluster, really corresponds to Fe psychology, to what degree and in what ways. This brings me to the next point:
A question that often comes up with newcomers to CT is "How do you know that your signals really correlate to the psychology you're postulating?" It is a fair point and one that needs to be properly addressed using controlled experiments. Model 2 will move towards compiling statistical data on the links between the two, and use that as a basis for the correlation between the two.
This one will take a little while to implement, but after we get to 1,000 database samples I will be running a statistical study on those thousand (understanding, of course, the methodological issues in the sample selection process). We will have the capacity to run career statistics on the types and have these results summarized as statements. For example, we may see that individuals that showcase "Proactive Rigidity" (i.e. Je) as their most highly represented signal cluster have 5x more likelihood of taking a career in management than individuals with their highest signal cluster being "Reactive Rigidity" (i.e. Ji).
This would allow us to say, in a very factual and straightforward manner: "I don't know your psychology, and I cannot assume what your inner experience is. But your vultology matches that of [this group of people], and they are [x]% more likely to be in management than the norm. Our model therefore predicts that your chances of being in management are [x]% higher than the norm."
(I really like this because it doesn't say "you have a management position" -- it only says you have a higher disposition toward it than average. This approach would still be behavioral, but it would be probabalistic rather than deterministic.)
When we have this pilot study data ready, getting a visual report will be a different experience. It will be a more agnostic process where nothing will be assumed about a person's psychology if it cannot be supported statistically. The report will be a report about the vultological dimension first and foremost. From there, "what it means" or corresponds to will be postulated alongside an asterisk with the pilot studies that support this assumption with data. A report in the future may look closer to this:
As well as a corresponding statistical spread such as:
However, careers are a rather limited domain to gather data from, and in order to flesh out more robust psychological profiles we need a more sophisticated instrument. This leads me to the next point:
The new protocol for readings involves sending in your video, taking a survey, then getting your vultology results -- and a comparison between the vultology and the psychological survey. This will do two things. It will provide a much more rapid error-correction mechanism for CT to see when its predictions are off-base (and how to correct them), but it will also act as a source of statistical data.
The psychological survey can ask more nuanced questions about beliefs, values, personality traits and so forth. This means that we can extract statistical data from the surveys and make profile statements such as "You're likely to be upset at not being productive with your time." The word "likely" here can have a superscript leading to a footnote as to what counts as likely, percentage-wise, and what study this is based on, and how many surveys/samples were used to come to that conclusion.
In the same vein, a visual reading will also come with a debriefing that explains whether or not the vultology and psychology survey matched. If there was not a match, that will be acknowledged with a pardon and a thank you for helping us refine the model.
There are many more changes than these, but these are the core ones I think. The aim of Model 2 is to really move into the domain of factual accountability, to try for strongest methodological rigor and support for all claims made. This doesn't mean the model is at that point yet, but with this new update the infrastructure is coming into place for that to happen as we proceed. For those who don't know, the new psychological surveys are now live and available for our members here to take -- and I'm very excited to see what you guys come up with!
Cool survey, makes a lot more sense than other self assays I've seen 😊 It's got me pegged as pretty much equivalent Ji and Pe dev, with Je next and Pi last which I think is accurate.
You gonna have one for emotional attitude as well? That'd be really useful in tandem with this one I think! This seems like the start of a really strong model and typing method, kudos 💯
I've been wondering how CT will be tied in with psychoanalysis. It seems like there isn't really a delineated line between cognitive type and the rest of the psyche, or maybe a better way to put it is that two people of the same type can manifest in drastically different manners depending on mental health status, emotional development, and even things like cultural background, ethical values and beliefs. I know v1 had 1024 variations of types, but will this be more specifically quantified in v2?
I'm very excited to witness CT moving further in this direction. There are great things ahead!
You gonna have one for emotional attitude as well? That’d be really useful in tandem with this one I think! This seems like the start of a really strong model and typing method, kudos
And yes, a survey for emotional attitude would be good to have too. Gathering data on all variables will be useful, really. The energetic survey is just the first I had in mind -- but if every measured vultological variable can have a corresponding psychometric triangulation point, that would be ideal.
I’ve been wondering how CT will be tied in with psychoanalysis. It seems like there isn’t really a delineated line between cognitive type and the rest of the psyche, or maybe a better way to put it is that two people of the same type can manifest in drastically different manners depending on mental health status, emotional development, and even things like cultural background, ethical values and beliefs. I know v1 had 1024 variations of types, but will this be more specifically quantified in v2?
Yes. When it comes to psychoanalysis, there will be a greater resolution. This post (and thread) goes deeper into it. And this post explains the granularity a bit more. 🙂
Essentially, function integration will be seen as a four-aspects process. There is the independent integration of a function's ontological status, its purpose & value, its archetypal character, and its practical abilities/skills. People almost always have some of these but not the others. This is the level of granularity we've been needing, when knowing where a function sits in terms of development.
This can also be turned into a survey. Imagine for example a survey on Je, in which there are 40 questions, each divided into 10 sets per facet. 10 questions are about a person's practical abilities in the real world (i.e. getting-things-done, management, proficiency in logistics, effectiveness in rhetoric, etc). Another 10 questions are more philosophical and deal with how a person views abstract objects (i.e. platonic idealism (~Ji) versus pragmatism (~Je)). A person who's integrated Je's ontology will agree with "truth" statements that define "real" via pragmatic philosophy, rather than by conceptual perfection.
Another 10 questions can be about a person's relationship to the archetype of the King/Queen, to see whether they have ego-identified with the character. This will ask questions such as about fatherhood/motherhood, authority, and rule. About being a lion of a clan, or a tiger. It'll discuss the integrity of oneself as an authority, a self-view as an ethical mentor, a 'father'/'mother' to others-- a responsible agent with duties to fulfill in life which expand beyond themselves. Etc.
When this survey is complete, a person will be able to take it and it should account for complex situations where a person is over-identified with a function (i.e. ego fixated) while not actually having it conscious yet. They may score high on one metric such as purpose/value, because they conceptually "believe" and "agree" with the mission or statement of the function, but they also know that they do not "live" that out -- or manifest the values they hold.
The first survey doesn't differentiate this, so right now it's giving a lot of outputs that more properly map the ego-fixation, rather than the development itself. But when this Aspects of Integration survey's complete, people will be able to see precisely what aspects of their function they've integrated and which they haven't. 🙂 I think this can be very useful for psychoanalysis because it would give people a window into what exact facets they need to work on, if their goal is to move forward in their psychological journey.
Edit: And as a bonus, it'll also work as a better metric to compare vultology against. Because the vultology is supposed to match overall integration, rather than just their ego-fixation, which is what this first survey tracks best (putting aside its semantic shortcomings).
Essentially, function integration will be seen as a four-aspects process. There is the independent integration of a function’s ontological status, its purpose & value, its archetypal character, and its practical abilities/skills.
This is great development, and I agree this level of granularity has been needed. Awesome to see where you're going with this 🙂 I haven't read through all the posts, but it seems like there's something that's still not being addressed though.
From what I've observed, especially by comparing the different thought processes of friends of the same type (and yes comparing my own thought processes with the other TiNe and TiSe's), there seem to be different 'layerings' of function interaction. Sometimes you get the same results, but not all the time. You can have two people of the same type and function dev, with similar emotional attitudes, who have very different methods of expressing themselves, interpreting events and reacting to those events. In particular what I'm interested in is why functions take on different 'flavors' (eg. 'dark' and 'light' Ne and it's particular character, the 'vibe' Ti gives off in different ppl) and why the if:then cascades of people with the same developments vary.
I don't know if you're already forming an answer to this, maybe that's already part of your updates. It's the thing that boggles me about type at this point though! And I've begun to deduce it from the pov of archetypes, since it seems like parental relationships are somewhat predictive in how this layering forms. But idk, the psyche is a hot mess of overlapping wires influenced by so many nuances XD
This can also be turned into a survey. Imagine for example a survey on Je, in which there are 40 questions, each divided into 10 sets per facet. 10 questions are about a person’s practical abilities in the real world (i.e. getting-things-done, management, proficiency in logistics, effectiveness in rhetoric, etc). Another 10 questions are more philosophical and deal with how a person views abstract objects (i.e. platonic idealism (~Ji) versus pragmatism (~Je)). A person who’s integrated Je’s ontology will agree with “truth” statements that define “real” via pragmatic philosophy, rather than by conceptual perfection.
^ I looooooove this ^_^ That'd be so epic! God though you've got your work cut out for you with such detailed assays o.o
I think this can be very useful for psychoanalysis because it would give people a window into what exact facets they need to work on, if their goal is to move forward in their psychological journey.
Yes I imagine such data could be a very valuable tool. It's like what Dr's do with lab panels, but with levels of functions instead of antibodies or minerals, etc. It might also help in diagnosis and treatment of mental maladies as well. I've noticed that often maladaptive loops tend to be associated with specific functions, especially those that are unconscious. Function integration could be a tool for psychological healing.
How do you plan to account for things like ADHD, if indeed you do?
Asking for a friend 👀