Vultology Quiz #5

[fayest42]

Fayest, haven’t forgotten your questions! Will get to them next.

Hey @Auburn, I'm giving you a little nudge because it's been a while 🙂 As I reminder, here were Sander's questions:

• since the fixed gaze of Pi-2 excludes eye contact, shouldn’t Se-8’s locked on eyes also exclude staring into the camera?
• You described the pointing at 2:15 as as J-4 exacting hands, yet isn’t that actually a pointed emphasis? As the examples and description of J-4 exacting hands suggest repeated forward vectors, which isn’t happening around 2:15
• the name of Fi-7 Excessive Contempt implies contextual dependence while it’s description ignores this nuance; so is all contempt excessive?

And my questions:

• Why is what she’s saying at 2:41 persistence effect?
• What makes what she’s doing at 0:45 avalanching articulation?

[Juan E. Sandoval]

Thanks for the nudge!

since the fixed gaze of Pi-2 excludes eye contact, shouldn’t Se-8’s locked on eyes also exclude staring into the camera?

Yes, which kind of makes this sample a little sub-optimal because she appears to be directly addressing the camera in a predetermined format directed at an audience. Videos of people talking into the camera are less ideal than interview videos where the eyes can wander if they have an inclination to.
Given that, my own clicking of locked-on eyes was perhaps debatable, yes. Although I have noticed that even when a person is in a predetermined camera format like this, high Ne users still break that eye contact much more regularly. Here is NeFi l-l- Laci Green as a parallel example, in a similarly formatted video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ1ga8yuM50
When compared to Jane we see Laci does have wandering eyes and doesn't stay fixated for long on any points. This is because, unless a person is reading from a script in front of them, maintaining eye fixation is still harder for Ne's than Se's, all things being equal. But you're right to bring this up. I think these are the kind of points we need to talk more about.

You described the pointing at 2:15 as as J-4 exacting hands, yet isn’t that actually a pointed emphasis? As the examples and description of J-4 exacting hands suggest repeated forward vectors, which isn’t happening around 2:15

Hmm, I went back to look at the video Fayest provided ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imidL5dvW5Q ) and this is what I see at 2:15

Spoiler

[collapse]

^ This seems like J Exacting Hands to me, and might simultaneously count as J Projecting Hands if it goes far enough away from the torso. But I had already clicked Projecting Hands elsewhere, and this codifier only had 1 timestamp. 🙂
As for the pointed emphasis I note that at 2:07 like so:

Spoiler

And there's also another one at 2:17 (...maybe this is the one you're referring to?)

..but I don't see one at 2:15..

[collapse]

the name of Fi-7 Excessive Contempt implies contextual dependence while it’s description ignores this nuance; so is all contempt excessive?

No, I think I describe it in the tutorial video in more detail -- the difference being that a generic signal of contempt (which is a human signal, and not Fi) is connected to a moment of clear moral disapproval or disagreement. Like a "scoff." When a person scoffs alongside a contempt signal, for example when they're being smug, that's not Fi. Maybe we do need a better name for the signal, but in essence for Fi users sometimes they make this signal in a way that's unrelated to what is being said, nor to any real moral disapproval. Hence "uncoordinated."
Come to think of it, "excessive" is not a good word here -- it would be more like "accidental". Excessive implies dependence on number, but it's really a dependence on context, yes. I'll think about updating the short description too, to make this clearer.

Why is what she’s saying at 2:41 persistence effect?

Well, in a more broad sense the entire video is about mitigating the frustrations and discomforts that may come with a trip to Hogwarts. There are many points that I think would qualify, and the exact timestamp is kindof an artificial constraint because this signal has no "one" timestamp. But I was looking more generally at the timeframe between 2:34-2:42 where she says:
"It takes even longer than it usually would be to wait in line for the Hogwarts Express, and which can go anywhere from ten minutes to an hour or two hours, depending on how busy it is but usually it's about half an hour."
The real defining point for me was at around 2:39 when she says "ten minutes to an hour" and she makes a very amped+frustrated expression:

Spoiler

[collapse]

^ So I interpreted that expression, in the given context, as a Persistence Effect because she appeared quite affected by the notion of the potentially very long wait times (especially given how the subject is about how to maximize your time there).
That was my thought process when clicking the signal. Admittedly, this one has some qualia in it, and perhaps is one of those signals that might not make it to scientific testing since it's focused on the content of speech. But that was my reasoning behind it, nonetheless!

What makes what she’s doing at 0:45 avalanching articulation?

Again, this is one of those where picking out a timestamp is a bit silly, so there's nothing particular about 0:45 that is avalanching speech as opposed to any other part of the video. I think I probably was just going down the list of signals and got to that one 45 seconds into the video. I think this signal may be one of those candidates that, in an updated version of the codifier, would just have a yes/no marker. Same with the other voice tone ones like Fi sprite-like voice, Te's nasal monotone and Ti's faint/trailing articulation.
Hope that covers them all.
I like these questions a lot, they seem to cover edge cases that show the current failings of the reading methodology and also the software.  I have some solutions in mind for some of these -- next time I dip into reprogramming the tool.

[Author]

Posts