Publication: Vultological Parallels to Psychology

Home Forums Model 1 Discussions Publication: Vultological Parallels to Psychology

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #30178
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Hi guys,

    Today I'm happy to announce the completion of a new publication, written in collaboration with @janie -- as a followup to the Energetics Survey data collection initiated here. This study is the first of its kind, designed to independently control for vultology and psychology, and to pivot the two against each other to see if indeed vultology and psychology correspond, or don't, under controlled circumstances. Since the energetic survey was used, this study looks only at the 4 energetics, not the individual types.

    I will post the abstract here, and further notes in subsequent posts:

    Abstract: Preliminary data obtained from 60 vultologically classified individuals, using the CTVC3, is compared against data from the Energetics Survey 1 (ES1), to test the degree of dependence between psychology and vultology. A chi-square examination was performed on the two groups to check for dependency, with no dependency as the null hypothesis. The results showed a critical chi-square value equivalent to p ≤0.005, leading to a rejection of the null hypothesis. The vultological classifications and psychological survey result data show a statistically significant dependency, evidencing that vultological type corresponds to psychological type designation via the ES1.

    Permalink: Click Here

    As you will see in the study, the correspondence between the two sources of data is well beyond chance, with a p value of p ≤0.005, compelling us to reject the null hypothesis. Thank you to everyone who participated in this survey! We now have a clear answer to this question. I believe this study is central to CT's claim, and it's one that can be used to communicate to others that the phenomenon being charted here is reproducible.

    Please feel free to share this with others, next time you are in discussion and they bring up a lack of evidence. 😉

    • This topic was modified 4 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by Auburn.
    #30179
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    A few methodological notes:

    • All names were anonymized in this study.
    • I went through the entire list of submitted survey results from everyone who could be identified-- via their user account. I have no way of knowing who the survey belongs to if the user is not logged in upon submission. So, the sample size could have been even larger. But that's ok because there will be more of these in the future. And I'll change the survey so that it requires login.
    • Some individuals had multiple survey submissions: I recorded the first submission's results, to avoid re-take bias. The first time is the only time the test is blind.
    • I had to remove 3 from the study due to ties in scoring.
    • This reply was modified 4 weeks ago by Auburn.
    #30191
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive
    This post chain was imported from the CT Discord server because it was considered valuable to future discussions. If one of your messages is here and you'd like it removed, just message @ Auburn and it will be removed.

    I've attached a modified version of the spreadsheet with the following: 1. To the "Data" worksheet, I added the columns "Energetic Stack" (which shows the four energetics for the Vultology Type in theoretical preference order), "Dev Energetic Stack" (which shows the "Energetic Stack" masked with "Xx" for each energetic that is not integrated according to the vultological development, so as to facilitate computation) and "Match" (which shows a 1 if the surveyed energetic appears in the "Dev Energetic Stack" string, and 0 otherwise). 2. I added a new worksheet ("Sheet 1") where I performed a quick-and-dirty simulative estimate of statistical significance of the finding that 53 out of 60 survey results produced an energetic that was at least integrated according to vultology. The first three columns simply contain 60,000 random numbers between 1 and 60 each. The column "Survey" contains a random survey result from the "Data" worksheet selected using the random number in the "Random 1" column. The column "Energetic Stack" contains a random string from the "Energetic Stack" of the "Data" worksheet selected using the random number in the "Random 2" column. The column "Developments" contains a random vultological development string from the "Developments" column of the "Data" worksheet selected using the random number in the "Random 3" column. Columns "Dev Energetic Stack" and "Match" are calculated identically to how they are calculated on the "Data" worksheet. I then create a 1,000 "buckets" of 60 simulated survey results from the 60,000 rows of the preceding columns and calculate the number of matches for each. As you can see, the average number of matches over the 1,000 simulations is about 37 (the number will vary slightly each time the workbook's calculations are refreshed due to the random number generation), and a value of 53 is almost never observed. In other words, the "p" value is well under 0.001. Message too long, to be continued...

    In other words, the "p" value is well under 0.001.

    Having said this, there's no such thing as a correct p value, which always requires some assumptions (which are almost never perfectly correct), so here are mine: Survey result, vultological type, and vultological development are all independent random variables. Assuming that survey result is independent of the other two is of course part of the null hypothesis. However, assuming the independence of vultological type and vultological development is a matter of convenience, and almost certainly false.

    wow, i'm still processing all this ^ but it seems you've found a way to put the developments data to good use!

    Yeah, it looks like the Energetics Ego Survey does exactly what it intends to, i.e., shows an energetic that is at least very likely integrated, and it's reasonable to suppose that it's the one the ego is currently fixated on.

    mhm, precisely
    although often the sheer strength of the lead process will still make it come out on top
    so i guess, in order, it might be: 1) the ego is most likely in the lead process, regardless of dev (this is what the study currently shows) 2) if the ego is not in the lead process, it's in an integrated process 3) the ego is rarely in a non-integrated process
    ^ these three can be calculated for, and i think your math would address points 2 and 3
    excellent. this would make a great expansion to the study-- if we can find a way to formalize it.

    Do you have plans to create a survey for the functional quadrants as well?

    woah, looks like you're taking our study to the next level, by incorporating development levels into the data.
    (sorry, don't mean to interrupt.)

    hey janie! please pitch in

    I also had one more thing I just noticed about your above observation, Auburn.
    A group I hung out in a few years ago, which was primarily MBTI-based, had the same conclusion--the ego is usually in one's dominant function, but not always.
    And it being in another function is a common cause of mistypings.
    Come to think of it, idk if they got that from MBTI or other sources, or if it was just a personal conclusion of the group's creators.
    But apparently they get some things right. >.<

    indeed. well it's easy to have these ideas but far harder to prove 'em :ehHappy: im excited to see some of this coming out in data

    me too!
    I'm also interested in knowing what lapis asked above--do you plan to create a survey for the functional quadrants? I imagine it might be trickier, though?

    yes, that's the goal. there are a few problems with that at the moment -- chief among them is that the distinctions between Ti and Fi are not 'airtight' enough at the behavioral level. I think the latest metabolic descriptions are correct, but the expected behavioral effects need adjustments. As a whole, we can see that Ti-Fe and Te-Fi are clearly real in the data, because of the net differences among TeNi vs FeNi, TeSi vs FeSi, etc. And Te vs Fe seem well enough defined to match most people. But the written differences between Ti and Fi need work.
    After the profiles are refined enough, I will do the same thing I did with the energetics survey. I took the 4 energetic profiles and essentially extracted out 10 questions for each of them, which represent the whole.
    I've also been collecting notes on the needed adjustments to Ti and Fi profiles, in several notepad files. But I haven't sat down to write up the new drafts yet.

    It sounds so difficult, come to think of it, when I think about how people with completely different functions, can come to the same conclusions on things. So how to test how they got there? I almost wish there were hacky questions to use, like 'do you experience frisson?' But idk if that's type-specific, either. lol.

    energetics are definitely more central to human differences. if energetics is the "what", then function axes are the "how", or the encryption method. it's a far more subtle matter. energetics, by comparison, are very visible as four different activities, not methodologies for the activities.
    yet, it's still there, i can feel it. but i'll have to up my game if i intend to solve this problem. (gtg but will bbl)
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy
searchhomecommentsenvelope