Vultology Quiz #3 : 5 Celebrity Samples!

[Nymph]

I should add that the director is so clusterB. I was distracted by that. What did he end up being?

[Animal]

I missed out - busiest week ever.  Sorry, I really wanted to do this (and tried to find the time!) but it was just the wrong time for me.  Awesome that so many people did well!  Congrats!

[blank boy]

Billie Eilish: SeTi
Queen Silvia: FeSi
Lars von Trier: NiTe
Marina Diamandis: TiNe
Bart Ehrman: SiTe
 
Hey Thread,
I wish I got to this soon enough to be included in the official results, but oh well. Above are the results I came up with before looking at this thread (I swear!).
Here are a few notes on my errors:

1. 1. Dah! I can't believe I missed Eilish's Te dismissive gestures and wobbling lips. I think I did something along the lines of looking at her flat cheeks and horizontal smile, got Ti/Fe in my head, and wasn't able to shake it. I especially got caught up with what seemed like meticulous wording, "close quarters" [no timestamp], and Fe shaming, "People say that? Ugh" [also no timestamp].
2. 2. Though I got Lars von Trier correct, I took the longest with him and thought he was the most difficult. I was initally going to say SiTe because I couldn't quite tell the quality of his Pi gaze. I was also having great difficulty with his judgment axis since he seemed to give off very few judgment signals, period. I pulled up some videos of each of the Worldview types for side-by-side comparison because of how lost I was. It sort of helped, but I eventually went with NiTe because I had in mind an NiJe friend whose gaze matched von Trier's reasonably well.
3. 3. I did not look for more videos of either Diamandis or Ehrman. I went with their seeming rigidity and eye-focus, respectively, and ran with it, though I had small doubts in both cases.

[sekundaer]

 
Sorry -  I posted a wrong link in my post 5 posts above this one....  Here are the two videos I wanted to show side by side.
No. 2 video is of a TiSe ll-l, as there is no examples of TiSe l--l in the database - the type that I had suggested Silvia to be.  I would imagine that Zoe would have a vultology very similar to Silvias if she didnt had developed that much Se....
 

 

 
 
 

[EpicEntity]

I know am too late... it don't count... but I got 80%  and 3 fully correct.
SeFi 4    SiFe 3     NiTe 4   FeSi 3   TeSi 4     16... feeling good anyway
EDIT: That was 90% with 18. Again doesn't count!
EDIT 2: That not the Queen... she got kidnapped... the King covered it up!
 

[EpicEntity]

I never imagined doing this would count as such in awesome hobby that also has the benefit of minimizing addictive habits.

[Hrafn]

I have some more thoughts/observations about the process of typing.
It was silly of me to say that I only needed a minute or two to type Bart Ehrman (who, anyway, turned out to be TeSi after all)--the reason I spent so little time on him was actually just becuase he was the last sample and I was in a rush. I got lucky in that he was someone whose type I readily recognized. Yet I still frequently struggle quite a bit with breaking things down, signal-by-signal. Much of this is my own responsibility--I've never spent too much time deliberately learning the signals. But there's a broader point I wanted to make with this.
Vultology is a kind of language. The VR code is a set of symbols that describes some specific patterns people tend to display when they're speaking. On the other hand, I would say that the types, and the functions, are not a language so much. They're less abstract; they're more real than the signals are. At the end of the day, all of the vultology signals are a little bit conceptual--they are ways of representing the functions in an abstracted, delimited, parsed-out way. Sorta like how words like "mountain" or "field" denotes patterns of physical features that exist in reality, but not as the naturally bounded-and-defined phenomenon that the concepts suggest.
So my point with this is that when I begin watching a sample like Bart Ehrman, one of my first thoughts (as far as I can remember) was "conductor Delta." If you asked me to justify this, I could probably point to specific signals--asymmetrical mouth, indented sockets, etc. (I don't actually remember specifically). But that's not really why I thought Bart Ehrman was a conductor Delta. The real reason I thought he was a conductor Delta is because he had the overall quality of a conductor Delta. The signals point toward these qualities, but the qualities themselves are something that just are. A conductor Delta is not a collection of signals. It's an actual phenomenon; a type of person who tends to exude certain qualia.
I'd like to clarify that just because I recognized Ehrman as a conductor Delta right away doesn't mean that that's set in stone for me. It's more of an opening hypothesis. If I'd watched several minutes of him and he really began to look different than what I'd seen initially, my opinion easily could have changed.
Of course, I know that CT is a nascent science, and it's much better scientific practice to type someone inductively, signal-by-signal. Yet I have a few difficulties with this. One is that I've never been that good at moving from an abstract, symbolic language to concrete reality. When I used to regularly play an instrument, I was always more apt at listening and playing by ear than I was at reading written notes off a page. Having notes on a page was still helpful, but it was much easier if I already knew how the piece was supposed to sound. I once worked on an ecology project where one of my main jobs was to identify and measure plants in the forest. I always had quite a difficult time identifying a plant based on a plant-book (in many ways a similar process to using a VR code), but if someone pointed out an actual, live example of a plant species to me in the forest, from then on I was usually pretty good at identifying it.
I'm not suggesting that I don't use the vultology code in typing, or that I haven't tried to learn any of the signals. Of course I know some of the signals, and the ones I do know have dramatically improved my ability to type. It's more that:
a.) even with the signals I know well, and can apply them in realitme, it seems like I often recognize the "qualia soup" associated with a particular type/function before I pick out any individual signals,
b.) I'm familiar with all the signals, but many of them I don't have a "working knowledge" of. I.e. I've never, or rarely, actaully identified in realtime. A signal that I don't have a full working knowledge of is like a word that's not in my vocabulary. Even if I have a list of all the signals in front of me, I usually won't immediately recognize such a signal when I see it,
c.) Gaining a working knowledge of any individual signal is challenging for me, because it requires making the leap from abstract concept to more-concrete reality. Animated GIFs help a lot with this, but GIFs are still decontextualized and don't show the full range of it's like to see a particular signal in action.
So, mostly I just wanted to share these observations, but I do have one concrete idea/suggestion from all this. The quiz was really fun and I feel like it helped me to develop a lot as a half-assed vultologist. I think part of it is that I learn more easily if the learning is framed as a game or a contest. (I'm guessing the gaming part might be a P-lead thing). I'm just not motivated to sit down and study something live VR--it makes it into too much of a chore rather than a fun learning experience. So my suggestion would be to incorporate a method like a signal scavenger hunt, either as a quiz or as part of the practitioner program. E.g. "Find the following signals in this 12-minute video." Or "how many instances of tangent-hopping can you count in this Ne-lead video?"
 

[Juan E. Sandoval]

Vultology is a kind of language. The VR code is a set of symbols that describes some specific patterns people tend to display when they’re speaking. On the other hand, I would say that the types, and the functions, are not a language so much. They’re less abstract; they’re more real than the signals are. At the end of the day, all of the vultology signals are a little bit conceptual–they are ways of representing the functions in an abstracted, delimited, parsed-out way. Sorta like how words like “mountain” or “field” denotes patterns of physical features that exist in reality, but not as the naturally bounded-and-defined phenomenon that the concepts suggest.

@hrafn - That's exactly right. The code was made as a language or tool to "codify" something that exists in a much more holistic form. It's a sort of necessary evil, although I think there's a good argument to be made for both the holistic and the reductionist method, and perhaps a combination of the two yields the best results. (i.e. we compare the reductionist answer to the holistic picture and ask if it seems right or not?)

So my suggestion would be to incorporate a method like a signal scavenger hunt, either as a quiz or as part of the practitioner program. E.g. “Find the following signals in this 12-minute video.” Or “how many instances of tangent-hopping can you count in this Ne-lead video?”

Indeed! I've been working hard the past several weeks on solving the issue of the vultology code's learning curve, with some success. Coincidentally, later today I'll be posting a new thread announcing a similar method/game/etc to what you described - given several improvements in the methodology. I'm really curious to hear your thoughts on it.

[Supah Protist]

Quiz 3 Stats	BE	QS	LT	MD	BE	Average
J/P	.00001	.01690	.00001	.28628	.13380	.08740
C/R	.00001	.05248	.00001	.01690	.00012	.01390
SeNi/NeSi	.00001	.83181	.00086	.05248	.00001	.17703
TeFi/FeTi	.83181	.05248	.05248	.00434	.05248	.19871
Average	.20796	.23842	.01334	.09000	.04660	.11926

Here are the stats based on the original group typings.
These are the odds of obtaining the same results or stronger by chance.
11/20 of the probabilities are less than .05.
Conductor/Reviser was "easiest" to spot while TeFi/FeTi was "hardest".
Lars von Trier had the "clearest" signals while Queen Silvia had the "vaguest".
Edit: Average calculations are now the means of the probabilities.

[Supah Protist]

Statistically Significant Group Typings:
Billie Eilish: SeXi
Queen Silvia: JxPx
Lars von Trier: NiXe
Marina Diamandis: Ti
Bart Ehrman: Si
Members completely consistent with these typings: Septimus, Nadia, Staas, Heresy, Sekundaer, Bera, Bella, Rondo, Scientiam, and Auburn.

[Author]

Posts