What counts as evidence?

Home Forums Model 1 Discussions What counts as evidence?

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #18150
    Cedar
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    @ladynerdsky @auburn I haven't been able to find anywhere the definition used on this site for evidence. What constitutes evidence for understanding type according to CT?
    I don't know how to create a new forum post, so I'm tacking in onto this thread since the term evidence is used repeatedly.

    #18151
    Bera
    Moderator
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Evidence =the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
    So, the available vultological and psychological data indicating that the proposed correlations between vultology and psychology exist, no?
    I didn't manage to read this whole thread, by the way, I'll come back later.
    It's awesome there is a list of doctors we have ! Maybe we could try to soft type them?
    Split the list between some people and do soft typings and see if there is a significant trend?
    If more people participate, in a couple of weeks it could be done.

    #18155
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    I haven’t been able to find anywhere the definition used on this site for evidence. What constitutes evidence for understanding type according to CT?

    Heya. 🙂
    This depends on what standard of "evidence" is being applied. So I'll answer this in two ways:
    1-Institutional Evidence

    If we're talking in the context of the most rigorous scientific protocols as carried out by academic bodies, then we haven't yet put together the "evidence." Two older attempts towards that, albeit far from acceptable, were the pilot studies ( https://cognitivetype.com/publication-vultology-and-career-statistics/ , https://cognitivetype.com/publication-vultology-parallels-among-identical-twins/ ) that support the hypotheses that...

    • 1) vultology is innate from birth and unchanging over time, and that...
    • 2) vultology is predictive of career/occupation in a statistically significant way.

    These were just two of the possible angles to test, and I'm excited to perform many more tests (and more rigorous ones) in the near future. These pilot studies have a lot of methodological holes, but the core premise of the argument is fully repeatable and testable under better controlled conditions. So if an academic body approached CT and wanted to conduct a study and were able to fund it, these tests could be performed with all the proper procedures. The hypothesis of CT has recently omitted most of its qualia descriptions, and is in a form that allows for repeatability both at the institutional level, or at the personal level to anyone who wants to try it out. Which brings me to...
    2-Personal Evidence

    In terms of more independently testable "evidence" here and now, the database of 500+ samples acts as a public resource of our evidence. For example, if a person wished to go through all our FeNi samples, they are publicly available and the codifier is too. With these two tools put together, the methodology is open. They could independently test, confirm, deny whether:

    • 1) The FeNi's listed are indeed vultologically linked, as per the codifier standards
    • 2) Run statistics on the FeNi's listed and see if facets of their personhood (occupations/political-beliefs/etc) are strongly correlated or not, in relation to the mean.
    • 3) Test this hypothesis with new evidence, for example by finding 10 new people who fit FeNi according to the codifier, and seeing if the psychological matches are there with the existing body of FeNi's.

    I think this ^ public angle/access is very important to have (now and in the future) because I'm not strictly a hard-nosed academic in my views of what is proper epistemology. I do see the institutionalized approach to knowledge as a very valuable path, and worthy of answering to (necessary, even), but the personal one is, to my mind, even more valuable. I am pro critical thought and independent investigation.
    So depending on what someone's personal epistemology is, a personal data examination method may be viewed as unacceptable as evidence, or quite oppositely, it could be viewed as direct of a supporting argument as one could ever ask for-- and CT is verifiable from a first-person view in a way that not all experiments allow. This direct testability is incredibly valuable and in this sense I think CT has a lot of immediate explanatory power.
    I have always sought to live by the phrase "Nullius in Verba" and CT is built from that perspective too. Thus, whilst CT is currently lacking the endorsement of an institution which a person could use as a surrogate for their belief, by proxy of the institution's credibility, those who wish to see for themselves already have a direct channel to test whether or not what we're presenting is evidence or not.
    And we have a lot of well educated people here (and on Discord) who have been persuaded by this angle, by seeing it for themselves.
    For the time being CT's grass-roots expansion will depend on these sort of people, so I'm very grateful of those who are willing to try out the model for themselves with an open mind.

    I don’t know how to create a new forum post, so I’m tacking in onto this thread since the term evidence is used repeatedly.

    When you go into a forum board (one of these listed https://cognitivetype.com/forums/ ) at the bottom, below the topics listing, will be a "Create New Topic" section, like so:

    Hope this helps!

    #18163
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    edit: @cedar i split this thread off, hope that's okay. 🙂

    #18180
    Cedar
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    @auburn thank you for the response and tutorial on creating a forum post. The idea of CT excites me. I see some blind spots that make me have concerns and I believe they could be fixed with work. Not necessarily by only you either. I wouldn’t point this out if I didn’t think your concept was rooted into something true and useful to the population at large. I believe typing has tremendous value for many people and would love to see CT have a solid foundation so that it could make ripples throughout society. Creating credibility for typing is something that I hope happens as it creates opportunities for growth, if a person desires it 😉`
    Here are my concerns:

    • I think we all agree that there is a self-selection bias when it comes to the people represented on the forums and Discord. So that's a barrier to universal understanding of all of types.
    • I know that if we look at people available in the public view, artists, typologists, etc. who desire to put themselves onto YouTube that is another level of selection bias.
      • By nature, any typing of a person unable to respond is an assumption and potentially a projection of beliefs
      • We don't know how they would type themselves or how they manifest psychologically irl
      • We are looking at a very narrow window of behavior that may not be consistent with the person's ongoing behavior. One clip or video may be an accurate representation of a person as a whole, or just a snapshot of who/how they were in a moment with unknown circumstances.
    • If we look at people as their behaviors or preferences (external assumptions), we aren't looking at their motivations (internal states). For example: Wildlife Rehabbers. Some may be driven by the community's request for help, others by shame of how humans impact wildlife, others because they have to meet a requirement for school or drug rehabilitation, others because they love interacting with wildlife, others because they are looking for likeminded individuals, others because they see it as a notch on a belt to handle a Bald Eagle/you get the idea, others can't stand the thought of unnecessary suffering and need to do something about it, some like to control nature and on and on. So, if we make assumptions about volunteer rehabbers, we are not taking their motivations into account. I am using this example since musicians is well discussed elsewhere and I am very familiar with this group.
    • The model is incomplete in the area of Feeling. Until people of all types are represented and contributing, you cannot know that the theory is accurate.
      • I believe a lot of the information under Feeling is part of humanity. As humans, we have far more in common than apart. This shared humanity must be parsed out to have a cleaner model. Currently, one can read themselves into or out of several types. I do believe that Fe leads can have extremely strong convictions and live their lives according to them, so this would be healthy humanity, not just Fi.

    Potential remedies:

    • Have people go out and find willing participants to be interviewed and typed (colleges, pubs, stores, etc.). There will be a skew of results, but the goal would be to get as many different personalities represented both in video and feedback.
    • Find people irl that are willing to help fill out the all of the types information. At this point, some cognitive functions are well represented, but others aren't. Most people are looking for fleshed out ways to approach themselves and others. See this page as an example of where info is lacking https://cognitivetype.com/ctvc/
    • What percentage of people who have been typed feel mistyped? Is it due to the model, a lack of self-awareness, or new information?
    • @auburn you have seemed to be more open to help from others lately. One thing that does hamper CT is that it is intellectual, but not emotional. Though you find Calypso’s interpretation of typology infantile, she does have a connection to many people because of her Emotional Intelligence. This is something that is not currently in your toolbox and if you do hope to make a large impact, it would be wise to bring CT into balance between the head and the heart. This would be a great area for a healthy Fe person. Fi seems to focus more on the individual and not the collective.
    • Remember my intentions are positive and to add value, not poke holes. I see holes that are there and we all need a mirror held up to us when we are creating something this big and complicated.

    “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” George Box
    “We are not thinking machines that feel; rather, we are feeling machines that think.” Antonio Damasio

    #18196
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    I think we all agree that there is a self-selection bias when it comes to the people represented on the forums and Discord. So that’s a barrier to universal understanding of all of types.

    Indeed. Actually, one of the ways this manifests is in a demographic tilt-- where the majority of members are reviser types (Ji+Pe). This itself is very telling though. What I was trying to say to LadyNerd in the other thread is that even the narrowing of data into niches reveals information. We needn't look at it as aberrant information. Everything is information, including what sort of people would be attracted to typology, for instance.
    So if we understand what kind of context we're really measuring, then the data is nonetheless absolutely valuable. So for example, with the hundred+ member readings I've done in the past year or two, almost all of them have been Ji+Pe leads and the few Je+Pi leads that have come in have often been heavy in Ji+Pe functions, perhaps with the exception of a few Pi l--- types. I'm counting all people who submitted a video, not just those who stayed around.
    Our members list ( https://cognitivetype.com/members/ ) is sortable by types, by clicking these buttons at the top:

    And since every new order auto-creates an account, it also doubles as a statistical source for what kind of people find an enterprise like Cognitive Typology worthy of a reading. What this shows is fascinating. It says something about what kind of people are attracted to ideas of this sort. We can speculate, for example, that reviser types are "first on the scene" of fringe ideas, and are the most generous with entertaining promising trajectories of exploration, especially as they relate to self-knowledge.
    We can speculate that conductors (Je+Pi types) tend to be less represented in these domains because, as the name implies, they are more highly represented in the implementation of matters, rather than in the fringe exploration phase. So, in effect, the demographic tilt that constitutes this forum is itself a form of evidence (heh, there's that word again) for the tenants of the theory contained herein.
    Bubbles
    It's actually something I've seen called "Bubbles" before. Demographic bubbles are a thing, and vultologies cluster within them. As mentioned before, the political domain is absolutely dominated by Je types, to a ridiculous degree. Not just the politicians, but those who interview the politicians, those who talk about them in podcasts-- the news anchors too.
    Anyhow, my main point here is that-- yes, while it is true that having a wholly random selection process (such as a randomized sample of 100 civilians) for performing experiments-- that is only one type of experiment that is valuable. But looking at demographic bubbles and examining the statistical makeups of vultologies within them is completely valid too. In fact, if we see bubbles this way, it only further proves the point and expands our overall knowledge of humanity and psychology.

    I know that if we look at people available in the public view, artists, typologists, etc. who desire to put themselves onto YouTube that is another level of selection bias.

    Right. And we have some evidence of this selection bias already. For example, the under-representation of SiFe's from the public sphere, as well as (oddly enough) Ji-leads (and JiNe's in particular) is an oddity. We should be careful not to assume this means they exist "less" in the overall population. An agnostic approach would simply keep open the matter of "where are they."
    Once again I agree with your concern, but this is primarily a concern if the goal is to get statistics about universality, such as the absolute percentage of born types within the human population. CT has given no statistics about the general population yet, for reasons such as this.
    Regarding youtube (and media in general), this selection bias is again telling. As I think LadyNerd and I explored in another thread, another facet of the CT model shows up quite well if we look at "those who put themselves out there." There is a disproportionate amount of E-leads, and double-extroverted types. If we take into consideration that "the public domain" is the "domain of objects" (E), then this is in keeping with the model. So once again it is valuable to look at what the statistics look like in the public sector, so long as we don't mistake it for an absolute representation of humanity.

    We don’t know how they would type themselves

    Well, I don't see how this is very relevant. ;p
    Type by what standards? What model?

    or how they manifest psychologically irl

    This one is a bit of a curious question. "What is the difference between public personalities on camera versus off-camera?" I get the sense that this kind of question is something that others might have already studied, and I haven't looked into the differences in any formal sense.
    However, from looking at thousands of people at this point, I very quickly came to the realization (within the first hundred or so) that the idea that people transform into personas when on-camera is a myth. Really, it's quite a silly idea and easy to disprove.
    Now, yes, if someone is on Ellen DeGeneres' show, or if they've got some 30 seconds of airtime to insert their soundbites, that alters the performance considerably. But if you listen to podcasts and radio shows, or long 40+ minute interviews, it's very easy to see that most people are themselves when on camera.
    Famous people are just people. Who are famous. That's it. They're no different than anyone else who sits on your couch and has a conversation with you. And not only is it the case that most people don't have formal training in oration, but it's quite a hard challenge to coerce one's own psyche and mannerisms into alternate shapes, in real-time.
    At least, so far with hundreds of people I have seen no meaningful difference between the non-famous, normal civilians and those who are famous. If the interview is any longer than 10 minutes, and there isn't a big crowd watching, you'll most likely get a real person.
    As for what they are like"irl" (if by that we mean at home), there are only a few avenues and methodologies available to us. We could distrust firsthand testimony and record people during a whole day or week, and draw our own conclusions from that. Or we can leverage the firsthand testimony they share. For example if NeFi Kristen Schaal says in an interview that she laughs at most anything (while laughing just then too), and lists several funny movies she finds entertaining and then goes onto a ramble about it, we have no reason to distrust in her affinity for comedy movies.
    That's one kind of information we can trust-- it's factual. She watched those movies, and so this is a behavioral variable we can track. What I've found is that people don't usually lie about facts, they only "lie" about their interpretations of information -- especially when it comes to relative and subjective terms.
    So for example, "are you a good person?" , "are you hard working?" , "are you caring towards others?" -- are precisely the sort of things that personal testimony needs to be skeptical of. "Good person" is subject to the ethical framework in question, "hard working" is relative to what is considered effortful or not, and "caring" may depend on whether it's being measured by the giver's sense of inner compassion or how much the receiver feels it translated into actuality.
    Celebrities, public figures and civilians alike give both factual and subjective/relative information. And although our database is largely composed of celebrities, they're real people and in interviews they talk about their personal lives in a way that's clearly not staged but quite specific. This is why I find it valid and correct to take personal testimony seriously, especially when it comes to facts.
    Subjective/relative statements reveal ego-placement, however, and this is the least reliable data. If it does not show in facts or actions (sets of actions), and is only manifested in the person's self-perception, regardless of a lack of behavioral match, that becomes unfalsifiable. So we can only confirm "inner states" by their manifestations; vultological and behavioral. Otherwise anyone can say anything about themselves. Which leads me into...

    If we look at people as their behaviors or preferences (external assumptions), we aren’t looking at their motivations (internal states). For example: Wildlife Rehabbers. (...)

    Right! Exactly.
    And that is why we define types as information metabolism (this article is key: https://cognitivetype.com/metabolism-principle/ ). Cognitive Type is not a typology of behavior although the behavioral dimension is accounted for within the four layers. It's a typology of cognitive processing.
    The same action can have many different origins. And one solution to this dilemma is to look at a large set of actions, and aim to extrapolate a common (metabolic) motivation that would be coherent across all of those actions.
    For example, if the reason for why someone is a wildlife rehabber is because they can't stand unnecessary suffering to living things, this should show in other behavioral sets. They may be vegeratian/vegan, for instance. Leather-free. They may have an ideology that views all living things as in some way equal to human consciousness. At the extreme, perhaps they are into wicca or druidism.
    Now, if a person is motivated into wildlife rehab "by shame of how humans impact wildlife", that will show in other aspects of their life. They may have a keen focus on good stewardship and mentorship. They may have a pedagogical approach that teaches about our collective interdependence on one another (socialism?) and the environment (environmentalism?). But this may all be coming from a core consequentialist ethic.
    ^ The first case would align more with an Fi psyche, the second with an Fe psychology.
    Behavioral Triangulation
    Now, the behavioral profiles exist for this very reason; triangulation. Each profile has 6+ initial behavioral sections, followed by 1 to 2 under-stress sections, and 3 paragraphs of mythology. This adds up to 11 behavioral sections to triangulate between. So if a person jives with behavior #1 (lets say Fe Social Economy) but not with most of the others, then we can assume that this behavior is out of context, just like the wildlife rehabber who may be doing it for rather odd reasons.
    Maybe an Fe-lead is into economics and business (listed under Te behaviorism), but is doing so because of paternal pressure for a good, successful life in a financially stable career. For him honor and rapport (Fe) are motivating this behavior at root.
    This is how the behaviorism sections are intended to be analyzed-- as a whole, not as discrete parts to say "me too." If there isn't a holistic alignment across the sections contained therein, that's when there's a problem. And I'm certainly not saying the behavioral profiles are problem-free. Far from it. But I felt the need to explain why I feel that the net effect of the behaviors reveals the pattern and motive behind them, and which is truly core.
    Each of the behavioral profiles unfurls and elaborates in a cascading sequence from a central axiom/point. And to that end, the specific topics mentioned are only examples of information metabolism operating across statistical trend-lines in the current era.
    (oh man... this is deadly long already. I'll get to the other sections later! I'll stop for now. )
    (I'm attempting to take your inquiries seriously and answer earnestly, hence the long reply. But I hope this is okay. Thank you for reading, if you made it this far.)

    #18300
    Bera
    Moderator
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    There are so many points to be addressed here. I will start with the one that concerns typing. Auburn explained this very well but I would like to add something.

    @Cedar
    - you said :

    We are looking at a very narrow window of behavior that may not be consistent with the person’s ongoing behavior. One clip or video may be an accurate representation of a person as a whole, or just a snapshot of who/how they were in a moment with unknown circumstances.

    This seems to be true when you haven't yet watched many videos of the same people, made in different circumstances. I used to believe this too. But in fact it is not like this. We come from a place of inherent belief in the complexity of the human psyche and of its manifestations. And from a conviction that the mind has no limits in its power and versatility. This is why we naturally conclude that a person can be different in different situations and that the vultology can also dramatically change depending on the situation.
    But if we look at the data given, a somewhat different picture emerges. Yes, we are very complex beings, capable of creating a high diversity of thoughts, ideas and emotions. But each person has a natural repertoire of signals he consistently shows over time. If you take 5 videos of the same person, made on different occasions around the same period (!), you see the same signals, with very small differences here and there. Hence when trying to type the same person based on one video and then trying to type the same person based on another one, we tend to see the exact same signals in both videos ! I can say this is certainly true, as I have tried it myself several times. There usually is a difference of 2-3 signals at most that appears between the videos, that is indeed determined by circumstance. So maybe in an extremely serious talk a Pe lead would not show as many perk ups as in a casual fun talk. But still the Pe lead will have alert eyes and ongoing movements. Still the Pe lead will have casual hands in each video you watch and will at most manage to show some exact moves with a significant struggle, having subordinate judgement. A Pe lead will never project like a Je lead - not even when explaining a theory to a big group of people. His hands will never have those hits. His head moves will never emphasize his points in the particular Je fashion. No matter the situation, no matter how accustomed he is with talking in front of a crowd.  Je development will greatly enhance his general capacity of coordinating his moves in an exacting way and will provide the ability to maintain a rigid position, will improve his articulation and will give a more concentrated and directed energy, for sure, but he will never do the specific Je lead moves and will never maintain the specific Je lead posture for a significant period of time. Because his repertoire of signals is that of a Pe lead, Je lead repertoire of moves is not in the... script. 🙂
    Now I will share a more personal experience but only with the purpose of illustrating this issue. I have tried a couple of times to role play a gamma conductor and I discovered it is very hard to change your vultology even for a short time span, despite the change being to another type within your own quadra ! Some problems that come up when trying to role play a gamma conductor from the baseline of SeFi II--, that I encountered, are :

    • it is difficult to stop showing bodily presence, but this is a key component of being a conductor. A conductor does not constantly playfully touch her hair and face or play with accessories. She might at times but she will not constantly do this, as fidgeting is a sign of insecurity. Weakness. And lack of decisiveness. So, when role playing a Te or Ni lead, I realized a key factor is to constantly be aware of my natural tendency to show bodily awareness and to exert an effort in not doing it. The effort is major and it can be exhausting to keep up with it.
    • Je rigidity is different from Ji rigidity, because it also contains the element of forwardness. Shoulders must be rigid and you must face your opponent from that particular place. This creates muscle tension a PeFi II-- is not accustomed with and after a high Te modulation round I felt discomfort in some back and shoulder muscles. The jaws also become more tense with Te modulation and if you pay attention to the sensations, you can feel that area has become tense and there will be some new sensations when you do the release and turn back to your everyday self.
    • Ni zone outs with the unblinking stare are not something SeFi II-- eyes are used to do. When I tried to do them, my eyes started itching. This is nothing compared to the Ni posture though...
    • regarding the Ni posture - Grounded Inertia - I have to say I did not know how to even attempt to imitate it. Because it is correlated to being sure of your worldview, no doubt in your mind, this is what the world is. It is a security inside your body that is very hard to modulate. Here I faced emotional reactions - I felt anxiety when trying to do it. There is a fear of adopting a secure posture, because as Pe lead, your truth is that there might be no correct, fully fleshed out worldview...at all. You see what you see. You perceive what you perceive. You can not ground yourself in any particular system of thought or philosophy because what if it is wrong. Grounded Inertia is hard to tackle, you are on moving sands and heaviness feels like sinking. So, trying to adopt this posture can cause anxiety, though with some exercise the underlying security starts to come to the surface.

     
    I know this is highly personal, but you can try to do it yourself. For example watch some TeSi's and try to act exactly like a TeSi would and you will for sure also encounter difficulties on the way. Physical and emotional ones. You will be able to look more like a TeSi than the usual, but it will take effort and still an exercised eye will see that you are an FiNe, not a TeSi. By the way, this is just an example, anyone doing this will encounter these little blocks. Because they are there, they are in our minds and consequently also in our bodies.
    So, we all have a certain repertoire of signals, that consistently show in videos, in different combinations (that are patterned too). Of course, there can be mistakes in typing ! But the person still actually shows the same signals, only we interpreted them in a wrong way. The person's eyes are still toggling on their own rhythm...their own toggles pattern. But you may wrongly believe they are innocent looking when in fact they are sharp. Or you may believe the toggles are pointed when in fact they are brush stroke moves. The person still has the same toggles though, and if you compare the videos, the moves are the exact same in each video, the quality of the eyes is the exact same, if the person is a fixed gazer, he will be a fixed gazer in all the videos, he will never be a toggler, if the person is a toggler, he will be a toggler in any video made.
    There is no error in this, no break in the system, everyone consistently shows the same signals and this can be tested as many times as we'd like, on anyone, we can make reports separately, we will all see the same signals, the only differences may be in how we interpret them !
    But - functions can be developed in time and then the vultology changes. So if someone is now IIII, his vultology will be very different from the moment when he was I---. But - and this is very important - even IIII have their own repertoire of signals that tends to show in all of their videos. If you can confidently use a conscious function, you will tend to confidently use it...a lot. 🙂
    Another thing I would like to add here is about what Auburn said regarding Fe leads :

    Maybe an Fe-lead is into economics and business (listed under Te behaviorism), but is doing so because of paternal pressure for a good, successful life in a financially stable career. For him honor and rapport (Fe) are motivating this behavior at root.

    Yes, people can do very similar things for very different reasons. And then they will also do their jobs with a certain coloring of their type. I am currently reading (listening to the audiobook actually) - Letters from an Astrophysicist. And here is a quote that caught my...ears 🙂

    Now think of a professor who faces you from the front of the room; who makes eye contact with the audience; who has invested time and energy thinking about how you think; who pays attention to your attention span; who is aware of what words you know and what words or concepts confuse you; who knows the demographics of the audience—age, gender, nationality, ethnicity, political leanings, cultural leanings, propensity to laugh, to cry; who carries some pop-culture fluency, for easy reference and analogy, but only when teaching the subject can be assisted by such references. That person is not lecturing to you. That person has opened conduits tailored to that audience in that moment, and at that time. That’s communicating.
    ― Neil deGrasse Tyson, Letters from an Astrophysicist

    This is an Fe view on teaching coming from an astrophysicist. 🙂 So...it is hard to even show the evidence with statistics because a simple information like the person's job/career/vocation is not always enough for the type connection to be actually made. Here the very first assumption would be the Universe is a system, astrophysics is a science, this person should be a Te lead if you think about his profession, no? But if you read what he is saying and compare it to the Fe profile, you can see it's all here - Social Economy, the Human Condition, Mentorship and Coaching. The subject of study matters less than the approach to it. (which by the way you can see above in my approach to what you said - which is based pretty much on Heightened Focus, Flow and Improvisation :))) and Persistence Effect. That I use to make a point about typology. Because actually any approach can be useful in any given field, it's just that some are better suited for certain fields, which might determine more people of certain types to work in those fields. )

    #18315
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    This seems to be true when you haven’t yet watched many videos of the same people, made in different circumstances. I used to believe this too. But in fact it is not like this. We come from a place of inherent belief in the complexity of the human psyche and of its manifestations. And from a conviction that the mind has no limits in its power and versatility. This is why we naturally conclude that a person can be different in different situations and that the vultology can also dramatically change depending on the situation.
    But if we look at the data given, a somewhat different picture emerges. Yes, we are very complex beings, capable of creating a high diversity of thoughts, ideas and emotions. But each person has a natural repertoire of signals he consistently shows over time. If you take 5 videos of the same person, made on different occasions around the same period (!), you see the same signals, with very small differences here and there. Hence when trying to type the same person based on one video and then trying to type the same person based on another one, we tend to see the exact same signals in both videos

    Yes, exactly.
    And as you said, without knowing the data, an agnostic mind ought to think it could go either way. Totally. But the data shows the opposite. This didn't need to be the case, but it happens to be the case. The more data we gather, the more it strengthens a certain pattern with finite borders.
    And inversely, the less data you have, the more random it "seems" on the surface. For example if you just take one short clip of a person, in a narrow context, you're just capturing a small screenshot and may misread them. But this becomes exponentially less of a problem with more data, because more data creates more redundancy in their vultology, not less.
    This reminds me of a diagram I had in my mind to share recently with Mahsun:

    At the lowest point of reliability, if we just have 1 pic of a person and wanted to read them, the chances of an accurate typing are very low. Like the points on a probability plot, a single data point can be rather random in its placement, and it might seem to support the argument that appearances are random. But if we have 1000 pictures (i.e. videos), the percentage of similarity across trendlines increases, and a single narrative emerges.
    And if we had 10 videos of a person, identifying their vultology is practically guaranteed. People don't get more random, the more you watch them, they get more predictable.

    Threshold for Acceptable Accuracy?

    Now, these values in the chart above are just for the sake of illustration-- not actual percentages. But as a reader, the pragmatic decision has to be made at some point to ask "At what point (of data collection) do we have acceptable accuracy?" Is a single picture enough? Is one 5 minute video enough?
    Right now the current vid submission process puts the bar at 2 videos (5-10 minutes each), after 1 video proved to be insufficient for consistent/reliable triangulation.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
A forum exploring the connection between Jungian typology and body mannerisms.

Social Media

© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy
searchhomecommentsenvelopegraduation-hatbookearth linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram