Vultology Code 2.0 & Attaining Repeatability

[Juan E. Sandoval]

Cognitive Type has needed to solve a problem; one of inter-rater reliability. That is, of consensus of measure within a given set of measurement standards.
If a method can be developed that successfully leads to the same answers, repeatedly, then that tool is reliable and can be scaled up indefinitely. It can be taught to others, it can be talked about meaningfully and refined. This is a key component necessary for CT to meet the wider world since CT is fundamentally a model rooted in tangible measurements.

Qualitative vs Quantitative

To that end, the need to be quantitative about type becomes the hurdle to overcome -- even though I personally see vultology as the net "qualia" radiated out by a certain underlying cognition. I believe type is a fact of a person's biology, and their vultological end-effects are secondary.
However... to "get to" that essential qualia; to identify it properly en masse... we need a robust lexicon through which to have the conversation. This is what gave rise to the vultology code; it emerged as a first attempt to quantify the qualia of type. But there were still a lot of gaps and ambiguities in its first rendition, so in the past 3 years since the book publication these have been ironed out through discussions with all of you. And I've just now finished putting all these lessons together into the new rendition of the lexicon for quantification:

Vultology Code 2.0

Codifier

The code has been reformatted so that most signals have their opposite pair across from them, making it easy to compare both side by side and see the contrast.

Most signals are ones you may be familiar with, and the new ones are things that have been in community discussion before.

New Team

I'm putting together a preliminary tutorial series for you guys; this is the first video covering J1-J5 and P1-P5 in detail:

(the other vids will come in the next few days )
As I hope will be apparent, the definitions of signals are now very direct-- and I'm looking to develop a small team of readers who can have 95%+ consensus among ourselves on type. This is not an easy task, and it may take some careful training, which is why I'm hoping to personally train around ~5 or so members in a very hands on way, and form a team that can scale up CT for the broader world.

How to achieve 95%+ Consensus?

In order to do this, I have the idea in mind to create another vultology quiz (but after Newyears of course), but this time it will be of 1 sample. (future quizzes may have more than 1 sample, but this one will be very targeted). The purpose of this quiz will be to see how much consensus we can achieve on a signal-per-signal analysis.
Now that the vultology code is defined in full detail, it's possible to very carefully discuss individual signal presence or absence, and see exactly where there is disagreement in the readings. This test will be composed of 110 points (one for each signal) rather than using the traditional set of 4 points.
I'm hoping to put forth this test sometime the first week of January (I'm open to suggestions that work best with member timeframes?). Between now and then I'll be on Discord, available for questions about the code and anything else. So--- ask away!
If you have any questions on the codifier now, let me know in this thread. 🙂

Long-term Goal - 99%?

The last few percentages are deceptively harder to attain than the first few. The difference between 95% and 99.9% reliability in a natural system is enormous. That said, if the signal-per-signal consistency hits 90% among the team, then by default the whole-type agreement should be way higher.
If this first experiment succeeds, stronger ones will follow (until we have an enviable level of reliability ). I'm excited to make 2020 the year that we create a typology that is fully repeatable and has the highest systemic fidelity.
What do you think of the codifier? Any feedback welcome!

[Connie]

I really appreciate this codifier as it helps me to better see the differences.

[Aletheia]

About time you got it to this level of accuracy ;p
lol nah this ROCKS! ?
I'm really looking forward to the quiz! Mondays or Thurs/Fri/Weekends are best for me, but if you let us know in advance when it'll be then I can schedule around it.
oh btw..

If this fist experiment succeeds, stronger ones will follow

is that a threat brah? ? ?

[Juan E. Sandoval]

@alerith lol! yes --its gonna be a biceps contest!
bring your Gatorade

I’m really looking forward to the quiz! Mondays or Thurs/Fri/Weekends are best for me, but if you let us know in advance when it’ll be then I can schedule around it.

Yeah, weekends tend to be a good idea overall. I think I told @elisaday that it would be a weekend too,
And there will be a multi-day window to send results, so we can start it on a Friday and have it go through the weekend? What about Friday through Monday, Jan 3rd--6th? How does that sound?
 

[LadyNerdsky]

Sounds good. I've been meaning to add the following comment on experiment design since the last Vultology Quiz. If possible, I think it would strengthen the evidence for demonstrating clear, unambiguous Vultology signals, where the team is unified in perceiving the same set of signals in the one test subject, if the person being analysed is a stranger.
The problem with choosing a celebrity or public figure is that you can't escape unconscious bias that might be informing/influencing the way some of the more vague or difficult-to-detect signals are being perceived. Especially if you're well-read on the function descriptions on the site. We don't have to know a celebrity well for this to happen. Knowing Billie Eillish is a singer/songwriter primes Se/Ne as very likely, Queen Silvia or a princess/royalty figures as Ji-leads, visionary film-makers and story-tellers as Pi. It then becomes hard to separate out where the group consensus on typing comes from: did we all detect and perceive the same clear vultology signals, or did we all form similar unconscious biases derived from pre-existing information about the video subject?
That's why I think stronger evidence for the veracity of vultology and the reliability of signals would come from consensus being reached on a total stranger's video. Whether that stranger agrees with their typing or not is a separate matter, but it would be impressive if a team can reach 95% agreement on the presence/absence of signals in someone they know nothing about.

[Juan E. Sandoval]

I really like that idea @ladynerdsky - I think you have a great point. I wonder how I'd get a video of a complete stranger. Like, finding someone on the streets and asking for an interview?
Since I'm in Israel right now, fluent english speakers are hit/miss, so this would be challenging. If someone would like to donate interviews of strangers, let me know! ;p
But at the very least I can try to pick an unpopular person from online; someone with a small channel and no real fame to speak of? Would that work too?

[Juan E. Sandoval]

Adding a couple more vids:

Je Signals

Ji Signals

I hope these tutorials are helpful!
Let me know if there's any more clarification needed on these.

[Juan E. Sandoval]

I realize this is a lot of content back to back, but I just wanna get it all done together (no time to waste) -- so here are two more videos:

Pi Signals

Pe Signals

[Aletheia]

@auburn
good thing I been working out.. I'ma win like Shia ;D

3rd through the 6th works for me too yepyep!

[Bera]

I have some questions...I keep trying to type people by looking at their videos and doing the sheets myself and after that comparing them to your sheets. And this way I keep seeing what I don't know...oh, dear, I don't know a lot. Anyway, I will try to organize the questions a bit.
1. Exacting Hands
Currently Exacting Hands are defined as - The hands will exact in linear and forward vectors.
And we have examples such as :

In the Code, the definition is - The hands and arms move with intention and exacting, angular precision. The head and arms come to a rigid halt after every swing, and don’t resume motion until motivated by another intent. The limbs become a participant in the person’s reasoning, acting as points of emphasis for their beliefs and ideas.
And we have as example :

View post on imgur.com

So, now only the first definition is correct for this signal, right?
Also, is the second example actually projecting hands?
2. Categories and subcategories and what to cross 🙂
Starting from the question above - is Exacting Hands a category and Projecting Hands...as well as Exerted Pushes or Pointed Emphasis subcategories of it?
So, if we cross Exerted Pushes, we have to logically also cross Exacting Hands...no?
3. We look just at the chin swivels for Te Sassy Emphasis, right? Which means you can have Sassy Emphasis without Pointed Emphasis..?
I guess you probably generally have Sassy Emphasis + Projecting Hands + Pointed Emphasis + all the Je and Te head shakes, head nods and shoulder shrugs together...but it looks like you can have the sassy emphasis without the pointed emphasis now...?
4. How come there are cases where you didn't cross eye centric or face centric? Like Sander...Is there a reason why you didn't cross eye centric for him?

[Bera]

Oh ! But I didn't mention I love the Codifier !!! It helps a lot with typing !
I also love all the videos and find them very useful.
I just started directly with the questions, horrible. :))) It was because I mentioned my opinion on Youtube. 🙂
Also about the time of the test...I want to fight sloth, so whenever you think. (we are screwed anyway :))) )

[Juan E. Sandoval]

great questions!
1. Exacting Hands

Spoiler

Yep, the new definitions take priority, although the one in the code 1.6 isn't technically wrong either. But the GIF of Neil DeGrasse is showing Exacting Hands + Projecting Hands, yes. So this is an example of how the new codifier tries to parse out "only" the signal in question. The provided GIF of Exacting Hands...

...is compatible with a Ji vultology and a Je vultology, so it is not biased in one direction. So a Ji lead can show exacting hands without them being projecting hands.

[collapse]

2. Categories and subcategories

Spoiler

Yes exactly, the signals bifurcate generally. So Exacting Hands branches into things like Projecting Hands, Pointed Emphasis.. but also Delicate Pinching and Exerted Pushes. And as you know, Pe Toggles branches into Ne Toggles and Se Toggles, for example. I like the idea of "subcategories" but I haven't explicitly mapped out the relationship between all the signals in a diagram. It might be something worth doing for clarity's sake.
...and what to cross
Which brings us to the next part of this. The idea of this codifier was that one signal does not necessarily oblige the checking of any other. However, there are some signals that will almost automatically be crossed if others are -- for example if Ne Brushstroke Toggles is crossed, so will Pe Toggles.
However, if Pe Toggles are crossed.. it doesn't necessarily mean that Ne or Se toggles have to be checked, especially if the quality of the movements of the eyes fits neither the Ne or Se motion-pattern. And in that way they are not necessarily 1:1.
One curious thing here is that.. you might really be amazed at how independent some of these signals can be! When I started doing things like this, it was surprising to me how sometimes.. we can actually have a Ji Exerted Push from a Pe-lead that does not follow Exacting Hands. It could be a "push" that goes horizontally with casual hands.

^ Ji Exerted Push + P Casual Hands
This is an exerted push with casual hands. Notice how the "struggle" and delay/release is there in the body and hands, but the hands themselves follow circular patterns and lack the definitive 'hit'.
It's actually important to exercise a conscious effort to not conflate signals, and to only mark the ones that are obviously there.

[collapse]

3. We look just at the chin swivels for Te Sassy Emphasis, right? Which means you can have Sassy Emphasis without Pointed Emphasis..?

Spoiler

Indeed you can have Sassy Emphasis without anything else. That's how the signals ought to be seen. Here's a good example of "just" Sassy Emphasis:

^ Sassy Emphasis
Notice that Kim Kardashian's head/chin swerves around, not following a straightforward vector. I might have a better GIF of it than this, I'll try to look for one.
EDIT: Found one!

^ I think this is the best one I've seen of just Sassy Emphasis.
I'm not fully satisfied with the ones I provided because I do think the Sassy Emphasis GIFs currently in the codifier are "also" Te Head Shakes, and I want to capture just the Sassy Emphasis alone. So I'll work on that. But in this GIF with Kim, we wouldn't even mark off Te Head Shake, because Te Head Shake is a more assertive gesture, with definitive accentuation, like so:

This sort of differentiation is more true to reality, because Kim does not have Te conscious, so it would be a mistake to over-mark her Sassy emphasis alongside Te head shakes. The Te head shakes can more properly be reserved for the heavier head shake signals like the one right above.
"…but it looks like you can have the sassy emphasis without the pointed emphasis now…?"
Yep, once again it's definitely important not to conflate the signals, and so instead of marking off a bunch of Te signals at once (like we kinda used to do intuitively ) we can now precisely measure just "how much" of the whole Te signature is present in a sample.
This is crucial (and I'll talk about it more in upcoming videos) because otherwise there's this sort of "bandwaggon effect" that happens.. where I/we see 1 or 2 signals and then our minds start to initiate confirmation bias. And then all the other adjacent signals are automatically tacked atop of it in a sort of fallacious cascade. I have to actively prevent this from happening because the mind "wants" the info to all fit. This is why science is hard.
When we don't do this, we have people saying "Yep! he's totally Te look at him at 1:13" and then when they look more carefully, they realize it was only one thing that was pushing them into the Te "camp", but overall they show way more Fe signals. But the mind sorta blanks them off, or downplays them as errors in the system.
This codifier essentially forces the checking of every visible signal, and not checking any that aren't there. So we can't write our own narrative into the data. The data speaks for itself - ideally. 🙂

[collapse]

4. How come there are cases where you didn’t cross eye centric or face centric? Like Sander…Is there a reason why you didn’t cross eye centric for him?

Spoiler

Mmhm, Sander is J-heavy, being NeFi lll-. As I mentioned in the J/P signals  video, it's possible to be missing one or two of said signals, especially if a person is strong in the middle oscillation pair.
One again, I am guilty of misleading here, by sometimes suggesting Eye-Centricity is the end-all to P-lead-ness. There are some cases where it alone is not enough. In truth, I do think that all P-leads are still steered by their eyes fundamentally, and I could try to explain some nuances of the neck and how eye-centricity is still there. (I do think it is). But from a "quantitative" angle, that sort of nuance borders on qualia too much and is not reproducible en mass.
In order for the codifier to work as a standardized tool and one that is scalable, the signals need to not rely on very subtle nuances (as much as possible), but instead to show things as clearly and unambiguously as possible. If it's too hard to tell eye-centricity in some fringe cases like Sander, without running into methodological fuzziness, then we can be agnostic about it. We will take the side of the most obvious. In other words, take it at face value.
And we then compensate with breadth of signals. Thus, the way we counter this fuzzy nuance border is with face-value checkmarks + wider triangulation. So we rely on the 5 P signals as a whole, and all the P signals in general, to determine his P-lead-ness. Because if a person really is P-lead, it ought to come from more than one signal. There should be an abundance of support for any assertion.

[collapse]

---

Btw, I love your questions Bera!
And I plan to talk about a lot of this in more detail in the next videos, but you're already a step ahead of me, hehe!
As for the test date, it seems we're good to go for Friday, Jan 3rd - Jan 6th.

[Sander]

[quote]4. How come there are cases where you didn’t cross eye centric or face centric? Like Sander… (@bera)[/quote]
Apart from the Te consciousness @auburn already mentioned, I was also wearing small glasses. Although I'm used to moving my head a lot, it still feels confusing to start with my head (while wondering 'and where should I look in the meantime?'). The frame rate is usually not high enough to capture the difference, yet I managed to spot a few slow transitions in some older video and noticed that my eyes lead away, whereas my head leads back to the forward-facing position!

[Juan E. Sandoval]

Happy New Years!
It's Jan 2 already, wow! This sneaked up on me too fast.
I haven't gotten to do the tutorial vids for the remaining functions for you all... and I'm not gonna be able to put them all together by tomorrow. >_<
How about we postpone it one weekend? Would that be okay with you guys? (i.e. Jan 10-13?)
(I'm thinking some of you may also still be coming out of newyears holiday mode too, heh)

[Sander]

How about a trial run this weekend? Or something like taking the highest score of both tests?
The experience from the first run can help you improve the second test (facilitating your Si).

[Bera]

Happy New Year !
I can confirm it's much better for me next weekend and I think it would also be better for other members. I can think of at least someone who is moving today and someone else who will travel home soon...I don't think this weekend would be a great time for them either.
I also think most of us didn't have a lot of time to study during the Christmas holidays...I kept running from one relative to another, there was always someone to visit. ??
Sander are you with us or not? :)))
 
 
 

[Sander]

[quote]Sander are you with us or not? :)))[/quote]
Well, I'll practice regardless. Preparing a representative test isn't easy, though; so, I'd love to iterate on the test format to get it as informative as possible.
I'm very happy with @auburn's renewed attention to detail, so he may need some time to recover. And maybe this gap in my schedule pushes me to setup Discord... Although that feels so inefficient 😉

[Bera]

I wanted to say this might be because of your conscious Te. :))
Actually there are a lot of useful discussions on discord. You just need to set some boundaries if your main purpose is to learn the theory and how to type people, because there are also some conversations about other topics...:) But those are very interesting too !
I am all for encouraging Auburn to take the time to make more videos, because the ones he made until now are all very good and really helped me understand some signals better !
Of course, we will study anyway ! We should study even if there are no quizzes, no? ?

[Sander]

[quote]I wanted to say this might be because of your conscious Te. :))[/quote]
Apart from Te's ordering for efficiency, Ne is pushing me to multitask, Fi insists on active listening, and my Si only gets a chance in writing - although I feel that's changing...
Your nudge brought my aversion into the light, and now it will get overridden when I'm back home.

[Bera]

The SeFi nudge - we should have a signal for it ! :)) It's fast and snippy while also showing extraordinary bodily presence and an adapting to the environment in real time !
Now, seriously, I hope I didn't make you feel upset. I like Te,  I'd even develop it myself if I could !

[Becks]

Happy New Year!

@auburn, thank you so much or the codifier and the tutorials, they are amazing!
I just have an issue with the display of the codifier: the right side with the functions check boxes is on top of the left side with the video and database.
And I will be travelling 10-20 Jan with probably no or very little time and internet access. I will still try to make it for the quiz but I don't know if I will be able to manage...

[Sander]

[quote]I just have an issue with the display of the codifier: the right side with the functions check boxes is on top of the left side with the video and database.[/quote]
Scaling down the zoom level works for me (e.g. press Ctrl and -, or lower the percentage through some menu).

[Becks]

@sander, it worked, thank you!

[Sander]

[quote]Let me know if there’s any more clarification needed on these [Je & Ji video's][/quote]
For Ti, @auburn changed [url=https://cognitivetype.com/ti-7-technical-glitching]Technical glitching[/url] into "Technical stuttering" and added "Body glitching" (or is this just an updated [url=https://cognitivetype.com/ti-8-pe-momentum-clamping]Pe-Momentum Clamping[/url]?).
What do you mean with "robotic" body glitching? How is that different from Ji's exerted push in general? And from Fi's exerted push in particular?
In my report, for example, you called my glitching "Ji+Je Technical Glitching" ([url=https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/post-your-report/#post-13089]scroll up in this post[/url] for my report). How is this different? Or does it count as 'body glitching'?
 
 

[Bera]

In my report, for example, you called my glitching “Ji+Je Technical Glitching”

I noticed that too, yes. I'm glad you asked, I was curious too.
I have another question. And I'll get back to what you guys said above too after I solve something that needs a bit more time...
So, the Si diagonal drifts are always accompanied by a scowl? Because this is the definition now - "The eyes drift diagonally to the sides and the ground, while the eyes retain a concerned scowl".
But I think I saw in the database people who are Si users and who do diagonal drifts without the scowl.

[Author]

Posts