Vultology and neurodiversity

[Lucas]

Hi all. I was wondering how, and if, Vultology approach neurodiversity.  For neurodiversity I mean neurological/developmental conditions, such as ASD and ADHD, and learning disabilities.

 

[Sara]

I have the same question. ADHD especially can “look” like lead Pe, and ASD can “look” like Fi from the outside, even when Fi/Te is not one’s actual used oscillation and Pe is not one’s dominant metabolic process as outlined in the metabolic and behavioral theory part (though I know vultology is supposedly wedged between there in scale). ADHD and autism are talked about on the NeFi profile and that’s quite odd to me because it implies that getting an ADHD and ASD diagnosis is contingent upon Ne/Si and Fi/Te. When that’s literally not the case. Since when is having social difficulties with autism inherently an Fi thing? I had a professional evaluation and diagnosis of ASD (with subsumed ADHD since this was before the DSM-V) in early 2013, when I was 10.

I strongly find myself aligned to Se/Ni and Fe/Ti oscillations, from the very foundations, to all new facets Auburn is associating and introducing such as these. Ne/Si and Te/Fi (both foundationally and supplemental facets) are alien to my experience. I’ve pored over the theory multiple times but I can’t help but feel like I’d be wrongly typed in CT due to how I outwardly present from having autism and ADHD. I think the model should account for that. I love the theory half to bits, but I’m skeptical of vultology with respect to accurately aligning to the mental processes outlined in the theory for this very reason. If it cannot account for the variations outwardly presented by people with neurological differences, then that highlights an unseen factor sitting between the phenomenological part of the theory and the objective presentation of these functions. It exposes a giant hole in the system that has gone largely unseen and unaccounted for because most people are neurotypical. And for those that are neurodivergent, why are they overwhelmingly typed Fi/Te (according to what people have said in the Discord)? How do you know from the outside that Fi/Te matches their phenomenological experience of judgment as is outlined in the theory with utmost clarity? Vultology seems to muddy this a lot and it doesn’t seem airtight. The definition of vultological signals would have to be updated to accomodate for us.

It seems to go vultology → metabolism, not metabolism → vultology. If I strongly resonate with all aspects and facets of Se/Ni and Fe/Ti oscillation, why wouldn’t I be easily able to be typed vultologically as a beta type (whose descriptions I also strongly resonate with much more relative to the others) regardless if I’m neurotypical or not? That means something isn’t right in the movement from theory to practice. And it has nothing to do with me being neurodivergent, or that CT works on neurotypicals only (though it might as well be if vultology doesn’t work on neurodivergent people), because I can clearly identify my function oscillations in the theory half of CT with 100% confidence. They are very clearly delineated, speak exactly to my experiences, and I can clearly identify this psychological metabolism in others. But I don’t see this metabolism on the physical level, but the psychological one. It’s extremely hard to explain, but I know the function oscillation when I see it. I think CT relies too heavily on vultology’s physical cues and expressions (which are altered from the established norm with autism and ADHD as well as other neurodivergencies) and not the phenomenology that is outlined in the metabolism and emergent behaviorism to be considered consistent with the system and holistically valid. Not only to us neurodivergent people, but it exposes a flaw in vultology in general despite how much it’s peddled.

And when I mean resonate, I don’t mean it ideally as in like, “oh man I wanna be a beta type / Se/Ni + Fe/Ti”, but as like, “wow, this is describing exactly how I experience the world.” That one part about experiencing reality somatically and making sense of it semantically stuck with me, as one example, but there are plenty more that I can’t localize in the way that I experience it because it’s more than the sum of its parts in my head.

I sent an email about this a few years ago and never got a response. I didn’t want to pay a big sum of money for a test if I didn’t know the answer to how neurological differences that alter one’s presentation are considered in vultology. Since I never got a response to my question, I joined the Discord after a year to get a vibe typing and asked around. I was vibe typed NeFi. I know it’s not an official in-depth typing, but it was not encouraging either. It immediately confirmed my suspicion of the holes in the validity of CT metabolism to vultological practice (especially for neurodivergent people), since the Ne/Si and Te/Fi oscillations, as written in the theory, are alien to my experience. Without a shadow of a doubt my phenomenological experiences deeply resonate with the Se/Ni and Fe/Ti oscillations and everything that comes from them. If metabolism preceeds vultology, then that is closer to the core of the person than vultology, and should be weighed heavier than vultology with the person in question. According to the metabolism, I use Se/Ni and Fe/Ti oscillations. The behaviorism and mythology fully supports this. I am unsure of sure of my level of development, but I know that have a more intrinsic focus on my perceptions, wherein my judgments are formed to try to support those perceptions even if they fail to fully encapsulate what I’m seeing (which they frequently do). That means either Se(Ti-Fe)Ni or Ni(Fe-Ti)Se, right? For instance my jaw hit the floor when I read the IS compound function because that’s exactly what I do!

Shouldn’t the phenomenological metabolism/behaviorism/mythology part of the theory be congruent with vultology? If I have Se/Ni and Fe/Ti metabolic oscillations, AND Se/Ni and Fe/Ti behaviorism, AND identify strongly with the Se/Ni and Fe/Ti mythos, why would I not vultologically be Se/Ni and Fe/Ti? Doesn’t that expose a big flaw in vultology and its congruency when dealing with people who have an abnormal presentation that doesn’t necessarily reflect their psychological metabolic processes, yet whose basic metabolic oscillations are still reflected at the behavioral level? Just not vultologically? That means behaviorism is not inherently dependent on vultological appearance and apparent micro-expression in the way you have documented it. That also means vultology parameters would need to be continually redefined since you’re never going to find two neurodivergent people who present the same way, so good luck. This is why vultology is so fundamentally rocky and unreliable in my opinion, but the rest is really damn good.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by Sara.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by Sara.

[Robert Mitchell]

I'm in the same boat as you Sara, NeTi psychology but displaying NeFi (although arguably mixed signals) In my case i suspect I have DCD, which is going to mess up coordination. Also giftedness with pronounced intellectual and emotional overexcitabilities. In may case I would argue I could be using both Fe/Ti and Te/Fi. However the nature of neurodivergence is different brain wiring. As a scientist I would absolutely excluded neurodivergent people from a study. One of the weaknesses of vultology is the lack of diversity in Fi signals, with many signals being emotional rather than cognitive judgement in nature. While that may work from being in opposition to the Ti end where the function is actively muting emotional responses, it can lead to many false positive if a person has a higher degree of emotional wiring. You really need to see traits in multiple cluster to be certain. That's why I like to do language analysis as well.  For me the Fi vs Ti lens is generally quite apparent. For instance your style is detached, which lead me to assume Ti over Fi. The different judgement functions have different value systems, and thus they emphasise different attributes when communicating.

[Dion]

NiFe user here.

 

You don't think that personality disorders are just traits and characteristics that are a result of cognition(function stack) that doesn't have the proper outlets, environment or system to thrive in?

 

To me depending on position in one's function stack:

Ni = Schizophrenia, Dissociative Disorders, etc. when not given the right outlet

Ne = ADD or ADHD again when not given the right outlet or forced into a stangant enviornment

Fi = can lead to BPD,  etc.

 

As a few examples so naturally the Vultology will match. Its a matter of perspectives, interpretation and reactions to the same phenomena occuring.

 

Further more:

 

Introversion = Avoidant, Schizoid, etc.

I have also thought:

 

Neurodivergent may = N types or I types or IN

Neurotypical may = S types or E types or Eas types being that those types are most common and so.seem to be "normal" I.e. typical

Again same thing is occuring just different interpretations(of the subject and the observer) and reactions which depend on ones belief about the same picture being witnessed/experienced

 

 

• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by Dion.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by Dion.

[Lucas]

Thank you all guys for the replies and sorry for the delay.

I agree on almost all of what you said.

 

Bye

[STYX]

I do not believe that Vultology should attempt to incorporate neurodivergency. If truly desired, a different model should be built, although realistically it will be easier to gather information from journals regarding the specific neurodivergency and use those concepts to approximate the individual. The difference is too large to bridge, it will simply harm the integrity and validity of the model for neurotypical people, of which it works consistently, whilst not achieving the goal of being accurate for neurodivergent people anyway.

There are larger variations between neurodivergent people, where there may be insufficient overlap to create a wholistic model. There are differences in neurotypicals, but you can still find the underlying pattern, so there are also stable commonalities. This is not a priori true for neurodivergent people.

I am diagnosed with High-Functioning Autism (Asperger) and will be getting evaluated for ADHD in the near future.

[Author]

Posts