Publication: Vultological Parallels to the Grant Hierarchy

Home Forums Model 1 Discussions Publication: Vultological Parallels to the Grant Hierarchy

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #30184
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Hello all!

    Sorry I've been away-- and my presence will continue to be intermittent for the next few months, as I make a big "push" to create a series of videos dedicated to teaching CT from start to finish. But, as I am preparing this content and these videos, I will be periodically dropping off some content to share with you all. Today I wanted to share with you a paper I put together, to explain CT's view of energetics. It will be featured in the upcoming video (hopefully next week) with a more full explanation of its implications.

    Abstract: Preliminary data obtained from 583 individuals across the four vultological energetics of the CTVC3, reveals a bias towards one energetic process in the largest percent (35.65%) of samples. Equal distribution of energetics across the two axes is negatively correlated, with the majority of individuals having a skewing towards one energetic process, lending support to Jung's hypothesis of a dominant function. Additionally, we test the relationship the three non-dominant energetics have to the dominant energetic, finding parity with Harold Grant's hierarchy model. However, the gathered data shows asymmetry between extroverts and introverts (374 extroverts, 209 introverts), with all gathered samples also preferring extroverted energetics. We explore the possibility of a demographic bias arising by pooling from the celebrity sphere. A proposed adjustment for this extroversion is added to correct for this bias. When this adjustment is added, the four energetics re-organize according to a Harold Grant model. Further tests, in controlled settings, can verify whether this adjustment is valid, when a random sample of the non-famous population is taken.

    Permalink: Click Here

    This writeup/paper is based on a conversation I had with LadyNerd in a thread a while back, where I checked the proportions of developments in the database. Like all the papers put out so far, it is not written to the best academic standards, nor is that exactly the intent yet. The aim of these papers is to improve the level of rigor and the precision in language CT uses for describing the data, on our way towards formal publication with better methodological control.

    But having said that, despite the shortcomings, I believe this paper is one of the biggest theoretical developments to come out of the typology community in a while. There have been studies done before, trying to find something like cognitive function hierarchy in the data collected from Myers-Briggs, with no success. At the academic level, some marginal credence is given to the letter dichotomies -- although it's normally seen as inferior to the rigor of Big Five categories, and all mainstream bodies abandon Myers-Briggs's take on hierarchy.

    To my knowledge, no Jungian models out there have any data-driven justification for a belief in something like the Harold Grant hierarchy (Xi-Xe-Xi-Xe), or any hierarchy in general. In most typologies, function hierarchy is taken for granted, without anything beyond theory to support a preferred way of parsing order.

    But in CT we have ways of testing to see how functions organize themselves in terms of likelihood of showing up vultologically in samples. We do this by seeing the ratios of vultological developments across the population. This allows for a data-driven answer to function order to arise. Then if we take the likelihood of having a function's vultology developed... to equal its difficulty in developing it, then say that difficulty in developing a function comes from its distance from the primary function, then we can establish a hierarchical order which essentially matches the energetic toll that functions tend to have, relative to the lead process. And this is how we can, in principle, establish hierarchy objectively from a vultological perspective. Its quite exciting to me that we see a match to the Harold Grant hierarchy interpretation, at least when we look at the mean, and when we adjust for extroversion skewing in the data as well. I present my case for why this is the appropriate interpretation of the data, in the paper above.

    • This topic was modified 3 weeks, 6 days ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 3 weeks, 6 days ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 3 weeks, 6 days ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by Auburn.
    #30188
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    I also wanted to add that, while this paper supports the existence of the Harold Grant hierarchy order, there are several differences to take note of:

    1. Not Age-Related

    This does not support Harold Grant's original formulation that we develop, in sequential order, and roughly once per decade, each function after the other and each time compensating for what the previous function left unattended. Grant's original book, which I have a copy of, says that the lead process creates a compensatory tendency which is remedies by the auxiliary in both energetic direction (E to I, or I to E) and in J or P. So Ji is followed by Pe to counteract both of those elements. And then Pi compensates for Pe, and lastly Je compensates what's left. The evidence in this study isn't one that supports development across an age-specific timeline.

    However, it does support the order of the functions more generally, but for a different reason. The Grant order of functions is retained, except it's not prescriptive of what function a person will develop next in life -- but of how challenging or likely a function may be to develop. In CT, a person's second function to develop might be any of the other three-- but in the aggregate sense, we can see that on the whole, the general population will tend to develop function X second, Y third and Z last. And this forms a basis for setting a function "order" of X-Y-Z, while not contradicting the fact that people don't all develop them in that specific sequence. So we simultaneously get a global order and contextual flexibility; a typicality with allowance for individual variance, while not contradicting what remains, on the whole, typical.

    2. Not Generalizable to all Systems

    As great as it is to finally have some tentative anchoring for hierarchy's reality, I would like to highlight that this doesn't validate the constructs of all other model's out there. The results of this study are specific to the methodology employed by our typing method, and so it does not necessarily translate to evidence for hierarchy in other systems. But that said, I do think there are some variants of JCF and Socionics that are close enough in architecture to Model 1's point of view, that the translation holds fairly true. It's these variants of JCF/Socionics that I'd love to celebrate with, since I think we may be able to see a path forward from here into an eventual academic validation.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 6 days ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 6 days ago by Auburn.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy
searchhomecommentsenvelope