Some members have asked about learning how to read others and I haven't yet made any formal learning resources on how to do visual readings, and this won't be formal either, but it may provide a start -- if only to inform people on how the process operates.
Naturally first there's becoming familiar with the material in the Wiki, specifically these articles in this order:
After reading the introductory material above, we can then see all these signals in action with Video/GIF examples found at:
From there, we move onto the reading process itself:
The reading process relies heavily on the tally sheet, which looks like this:
(you may need to right-click + view image to see it in full)
This contains all the signals that are used for the analysis. When a video is being viewed, the practitioner goes through all the signals and an "X" is checked over the signals that are visible in the video, then added up on the left hand column.
Now, since we're not yet trying to do formal science studies, some of these signals use psychological/language cues. This is because for doing a person's visual report, what matters right now is getting the type right -- more than proving it to a scientific body. And the accuracy is far higher when all available avenues of measure are taken into account. So the current Vultology Code 1.5 signals exist in 3 basic categories. These are:
And here is the tally sheet with the signals divide up into parts:
(you may need to right-click + view image to see it in full)
Yellow signals are identified by visual signals, and can even be seen with the audio muted. Green signals require audio in order to analyze voice tone/pitch/etc. And blue signals are an evaluation of the psychology of the person by what they say in a given context.
For example Ne-4: Tangent Hopping requires an analysis of the language used, to determine whether or not they're going off on tangents. This is not a visual or audio cue, but it's still a psychological cue that can be identified in real time. The same is true for Pi rambling cues.
It's fairly easy to find one or two cues that will seem amazingly predictive of type, and many who try visual reading will hyper-focus on that one marker for everything. For example, Fi upward tension towards the nose can be over-relied upon as the single indicator of Fi over Ti. And some people I've seen try visual reading use very loose qualia definitions, and again over-rely on them.
But after years of trying to put this in practice, I'm disappointed to say there is no one cue that has 100% consistency. There is no silver bullet. But when the 10 signals of a function are taken as a whole, the accuracy comes incredibly close to 100%. However, if you just rely on your favorite cues, your accuracy may be lower than half. Which leads to the first principle of reads:
Count to four means: "A function is not to be considered present unless the tally sheet shows 4+ signals checked." So if you see what you think is Fi's resting tension -- ok good-- but do we see unbridled emotional radiation? Do we see the mouth wobbling asymmetrically? If the answer is no, then the resting tension can be a feature of their anatomy.
Or for example if someone has upturned eyebrow edges ("Ni"), fair enough, but is their upper eyelid hypnotic? Is it lowered over their eyes in a sleepy manner? And so on. This principle has truly been revolutionary in mitigating errors.
Now the other point of this tally sheet is to allow for falsifiability. In theory, CT proposes that more often than not, signals will cluster across the 8 functions (i.e. finding one Fi signal should lead to others) but it also predicts the clustering of the other polarity (i.e. finding Fi signals should lead to Te signals). In order for this to be falsifiable, a practitioner must check the boxes of signals that are present, no matter what.
When this principle isn't honored, then subconsciously you'll try to ignore opposite signals, for the sake of preserving your guess of their type. I've had it happen to me and my gosh it's real guys. The psyche is prone to wanna hone in on what it's already determined that it sees. We need to fight against this urge by forcing a wider perspective that allows for the mold to break. This is a bulwark against mistypings. But this will also lead to some instances of signal mixing in the reports. Some reports may come out as "NeFi" with an alternative of "SeFi" because 1 or 2 Se signals were there. That's OK. Remember that vultology is a step removed from metabolism, and we're using secondary effects and also trying to fight through a lot of noise in terms of face shapes, learned gestures, etc.
Now I don't know the exact percent, but somewhere around ~15% of people show mild signal mixing, so maybe 1 or 2 irregular signals. And a very low percentage show "high" signal mixing like in @umbilicalsphere 's case. I'm very happy with this result, to be honest. If 85% of the time Fi/Te signals and Fe/Ti signals are seen separated from each other, even when given explicit chance for falsifiability, I think that's a true testament to the reality of the phenomenon.
The precise percentage of the code's consistency will depend on more formal studies, but in general anyone who tries out the code will see that the consistency is fairly high once the signals are all properly understood.
You can download the tally sheet as a PDF via:
The need to use the sheet
Back in the day, we didn't use the tally sheet and just sorta went off of memory, and looking for what we could find. This is problematic though, because even if you know the cues well, you'll forget to look for some. And then you'll forget to ask "ok, but are the others present?"It's incredibly important because keeping all ~110 signals in your mind all the time is not feasible. And then the narrowness sets in.
Even I don't do readings anymore without printing out a new tally sheet. Yep, it's oldschool but printing it out helps me take it more seriously as a tactile event. And so I go through the list with my pencil in hand and ask myself (in my head) "do I see this?" / "do I see this?" Yes / Yes / No / No/ Yes / Yes. As I watch the video, I check things off as I go.
Now, determining hierarchy is very complicated for cases that have 3-4 functions conscious --so we'll leave those out for now. The main principle to focus on for hierarchy is that we use the Energetic signals for that. So if someone shows 6 of the Ni signals checked, but their Pi only shows 2 of the 5 signals, then it's been positively identified in the person's psyche, but it may not be at "fully-conscious" levels, or of highest priority.
In general, you wanna rely on the results of Je/Pi/Pe/Pi to tell you what the hierarchy might be. But even then, there's another factor involved: volume. The number (or volume) of signals of an energetic quadrant is different than whether or not they were ticked.
So for example, a person can have only 2 of the Je signals ticked, but their vultology may be comprised 80% of those two signals. Oppositely, a person may have all 5 Ji signals checked, but only use them 20% of the time. The way we account for volume is with the Energy Fields box at the upper-right side of the report:
This is used in tandem with the tally of the energetic signals to determine hierarchy. In general, more = higher. It's more complicated than that, but this principle should get you most of the way there.
I hope this sums up the basics for you guys!! Feel free to try it out for yourself. It's amazing when you start to see it, and how persistent it can be. It will become like a sixth sense, but it's something that's cultivated first. And like any skill it also grows dull with time.
In the meantime I'll work on fleshing out the GIF signals of the vultology code, but if there's a particular signal you wanna know about which doesn't have GIFs yet, make a thread in this board and tag me. Seriously. I tend to respond to pressure. >.> And otherwise I take longer to get around to things. ;D
Thank you very much, Auburn. This was really helpful, especially getting the rules of thumb
It also satisfied my need for a sort of test of the theory of polarities. When it really is so that 85% of the time the correlation between Te/Fi & Fe/Ti is seen (and this is something that everyone will see when they have understood the signals) its truly amazing! I remember reading the book and coming to page 20, until then every relation between constructs in the model had been explained and justified thoroughly but then suddenly the polarity oscillations were introduced like out of the blue. Since I hadn't skipped a page (like I initially thought) it made me suspicious. It have been in the back of my head ever since. This explanation in this post based on observed empirical data would have been sufficient (a tiny food note would do it), I feel a great relief and almost want to go back again and continue from page 20 with this in mind. Of course this information is by no means an evidence but it is good enough for now. And also now it makes it possible for me to explain the theory to friend, which I havent done yet, because I couldnt justify that functions were connected in this way. Yes, I have introduced it to a few that I knew only would be superficially interested anyhow, but not to the ones that potentially would develop a deeper interest in this well though out system, which makes intuitively sense in so many ways compared to e.g. MBTI. I have hesitated to introduce it to them, I knew they would come down hard on this "missing link", but now I look forward to discuss CT with them.
@sekundaer - Yes! It's the part of CT that I think is most astounding and supportive of function axes. Up until now function axes have been theoretical constructs and nobody has had any satisfying evidence for why --for example-- it has to be Ne+Si or Ni+Se. But in CT, the signals cluster together organically as a phenomenon of people (across countries) in a way that does not require cohesion. I expect that, in time, a computer algorithm could also be created that looks at faces/mannerisms and may come to independently verify how these clusters come together in a statistical fashion.
I wanted to make a note about your type, using an evident example. In your post above, we see the classic combination of Ti+Si in action. And I'm excited to share with you, as I think you might find it interesting. Let me explain:
There is first and foremost a need for accuracy/precision in the conceptual formulation and symmetry of the ideas (Ti). That's the starting premise. But there's also a need for a very traceable contextual pathway from one data point to the next (Si). This is a feature of Si's Backstory & Context, which says:
Whenever giving an explanation, the Si user will tend to append the appropriate information to each explanation which can then fully unpack it and give the desired understanding. Just as the Si user would expect to be mistaken if they extrapolated a trend from missing data, they will expect others to also misread their meanings if forced to fill in the blanks they leave in their words.
The explicit need to understand the 'leap' from one thing to the other, before moving past page 20... is an example of Si's caution. Oppositely, heavier Ne use would (for lack of a better word) go with a guesstimation approach, a get-the-jist-of-it attitude, and will be hopeful that the missing gaps are there, but just unfinished.
And as it relates to sharing it with your friends:
They will be very thorough in this manner, taking the extra steps to make their personal story, argument, idea or thought relevant and meaningful by painting a fuller picture of the ideas that surround and embed it.
The need to have all ducks in a row, so as to be well informed and educated on a matter, and have the entire line of thought mapped out, is part of Si (in this case, working in tandem with Ti).
Ultimately this allows for a much more clear, thorough, and respectable scholarship. This is the great side of Si. It's a very scholarly function, as is Ni, and is also set on making sure things are mapped out fully before proceeding.
As an example of my own shortcomings in this regard (my Si is not fully conscious) I have some gaps in various places -- at least in the public presentation of the model -- despite the reasoning itself being well fleshed out in my Ti's paradigm. So for example, the unfinished Vultology Code is an example of my porous Ne. And certainly, the Senex (Pi) has reason to doubt the imprudence of the Puer (Pe) in this regard.
But I'm also quite glad you begin with Ti, as you can see the structural coherence of the CT model first, despite a few missing pieces. Oppositely, I've had the hardest time convincing most high-Si's that the model is legitimate, due to their need for the whole context to be available before their Si caution relaxes sufficiently (unless their development is polarized). But they certainly have a point! ..and CT does have a pathway from A to Z, but it's still getting fleshed out. It'll get there.
Spot-on! Although I HAVE to - for reasons of accuracy and truth 😉 - clarify that I am not always stuck in that mode. I can let go of the compulsive side of Si which is participating in a longing for ...truth. Isnt it so that Si (and all other functions for that matter) if it is not the dominant (or auxiliary) function will just color the more dominant function and its values (in my case Ti ), where as if Si is dominant, the values that are described in the Si Behaviorism will usually show up?
As you know I couldnt quiet come to terms with the Si thing, but seeing it in tandem with Ti, where Ti is the ruling function and Si the "servant" it makes sense. I guess that the other way around, putting a dash of Ti in a Si-soup, would maybe add reflection and precision to the Si, where we might see someone removing the dust from their dear collection of old LP's that are set in perfect alphabetic order, that kind of person that I see myself in almost straight opposition to. Since Si is not the main thing for me as an area of life. Certainly not. (All that is mentioned under the Ni Behaviorism is on the other hand ! - but thats another topic). And would it be so that the auxiliary function also to some degree points towards areas of life and values and its polarity function (tertiary) would be more about a mode of thought and action that moderates the auxiliary function? I understand that your position now is that having the 3rd function conscious will not wipe out the 2nd function, which still is somehow more primary. It would make sense to me that Si then moderates Ne in my case. That N(e) is still more "it" for me, but that Si is moderating Ne to a degree that it is constraining and inhibiting it (a little bit too much lately). N is such a lovely thing, but I have seen it run wild so many times in my life (for myself and others - both in thought and action) so Si comes as a kind of protector and it can sometimes be like a crusade against N, against that kind of N that lacks discrimination. Like today when someone asserted that all religions are the same. Certainly not! My reaction against it is partly because I once believed this and similar things myself and now want to 'save people' from exaggerated belief like the way an ex-smoker reacts to a smoker. And partly because truth is something 'holy' to me, although I dont know what truth is, only some criteria that nothing fits into. Internally this becomes a never ending fight between what could be called N and Si, this inner conflict is ever present in my consciousness.
PS. If looking for Si I found some in a store window the other day:
Does how people answer questions affect typing? As in, if they answer them and elaborate or if they just give small answers.
Hmm, yes and no?
There are some language analysis signals in the code above (marked in blue), such as Pi rambling which would be affected by a certain kind of long answer, but the length itself isn't the core identifier. Pi rambles have to do with the continuity of the information through a given schema, so that has to be there for a positive identifier.
Inversely, if someone gave a long answer but as a series of self-interrupting tangents then we'd have Ne tangent-hopping checked instead. And/or it could also be Te's Avalanching Articulation, if the answers are a series of brief, matter-of-fact statements stitched together snippily without taking much of a breath between them.
So cadence, voice tone and the nature of the information also play alongside length to give us a variety of possible signals.
Ok thanks. That helps clarify