What's happening to the site?

[Juan E. Sandoval]

Hello!
So, all of you have been so patient with me this past month or two, as I've given very little info on what's happening to the site and theory. I finally have some time to give more info. 🙂
So...
Q. What is Model 2 and what happened to Model 1?
Model 2 is a new theoretical scaffold under development and set to be officially released along with a new book publication. It is not yet complete and does not currently represent a full theory. You'll see threads about it popping up, but these threads are aimed to be explorations of the ideas with other minds here, to help get to that final production.
Q. Will Model 1 be destroyed?
I gotta emphasize is that I'm not intending to destroy the previous work or the CT theory that you've come to know (and perhaps love?). It took me years and lots of conversations with all of you to write up all of those articles and I'm certainly not going to destroy that content. All that content will remain permanently available here: https://cognitivetypology.com/index.php?title=Category:Model_1
Q. Is it wrong to use Model 1 now?
Not at all. Model 1 so far has reached about 95% completion.

The only thing left to complete are the dev level profiles, of which only 5 were finished out of 32. But other than that, it represents the most complete idea-set that we currently have. It's not wrong to use this model, and I encourage people to continue to use it until they are personally convinced that the upcoming model 2 is more compelling. It may be the case that model 2 is not as relatable or useful as model 2 for some members, and that's fine. You can think of this in a similar way to how Socionics has a Model A and a Model G, and different people are a fan of one more than the other. You can choose which one you fancy more. This page will continue to elaborate on their pros and cons as it grows.
What I personally hope is for people to naturally come to fancy Model 2 more, out of their own decision. I have it as my personal goal to make Model 2 more compelling, reasonable, robust and also applicable-to-life than Model 1, but that is not the case right now. Model 2 is less relatable right now because it's less complete, less explained, more cryptic, less applicable to life, and so forth. It's in a prototype phase and not done yet. So naturally there's no need to transition to something like that.
And I wanna make it clear, as I said before, that I am not 'pushing' for the new terms to be adopted. It's totally okay to talk about Model 1 and even try to improve Model 1. I will still use Model 1 terminology myself.
Q. Will Model 2 replace Model 1?
At first I felt that it would, but after considering it more, I've realized that this isn't the right move -- or even a necessary one. Model 1 won't be discontinued, but will exist beside Model 2 -- again like Model A and G in Socionics. Debates can be had about the differences in the models, too, which I think may even be healthy for a theoretical conversation and discussion in the community. 🙂 Model 1 is a Jungian-centric model, retaining parity with other Jungian theories, and I think that will continue to be valuable and useful. Model 2 is non-Jungian and is designed with academic testing in mind, so in a way the two are not exactly competing in the same territory -- thus allowing them to coexist for different purposes.

---

These are some of the questions that I think have needed to be addressed, but I'd like this thread to be an open Q & A thread.
So, do any of you have questions?
Feel free to ask anything related to this!
I will try my best to answer.
 

[Delrake]

What's the plan for the dev lev profiles? Are they being retired as part of Model 1? Poor Je's never got one...
Also could you talk about the Model 2 type "names" (i.e. PR-Ms-Gr) and how you will be using them and/or how the community should be using them going forward?
Lastly, a bit off-topic but what's the plan for your own Auburnian type names?

[Juan E. Sandoval]

Great questions!

What’s the plan for the dev lev profiles? Are they being retired as part of Model 1? Poor Je’s never got one…

The dev level profiles need to be finished. I plan to bring Model 1 up to 100%. So the Je I--- dev level will be written, as well as the rest.

Also could you talk about the Model 2 type “names” (i.e. PR-Ms-Gr) and how you will be using them and/or how the community should be using them going forward?

Sure. Well like I said, there's no immediate need for the community to use these terms until they actually start meaning something. This will happen naturally once readings re-open. Reports will look differently, and I haven't yet finalizes the design, but here's something I mocked up very quickly, showing the concept:

Spoiler

[collapse]

^ As you can see, a person will be measured against these 8 visual categories and will be given percentages for their degree of visibility in each category. Then, a classification will be given according to which bars crossed over a threshold. In this report above, we see Proactive Rigidity, Measured and Grounded all cross over the threshold. So the individual is classified as PR-Ms-Gr. This is strictly a visual classification, and this is important because it means that Hector here was 'typed' as PR-Ms-Gr, not necessarily "FeNi" or "ENFJ."
If a person comes to CT believing they are INFJ, and they get visually typed as Proactive Fluid, Candid, Suspended (PF-Ca-Su) then this will be their visual classification regardless of what else may be said about them psychologically. They can then debate with themselves or anyone here on the forum about whether their PF-Ca-Su visual type corresponds to NeFi, or INFJ, ENFP or anything else. That's the kind of fruitful debate that can be discussed, but the vultology classification would be its own thing. Naturally, CT would hold that PF-Ca-Su = NeFi psychology. But we'll now be able to talk about the visuals as standalone phenomenon.
I imagine that in normal forum conversation, people won't call themselves "PF-Ca-Su" as their type. That's far too cumbersome. I would hope a member would call themselves NeFi, but NeFi would imply having a PF-Ca-Su vultology, if that makes sense? 🙂 Mostly I see the vultology abbreviations being used to talk about vultology in a more targeted way.

Lastly, a bit off-topic but what’s the plan for your own Auburnian type names?

Eh? ;p you mean the spiritual names like Alemin and Edavin? Those won't be part of Model 2. I'm still not sure how to go about this, but in the psychodynamics domain I think they will be simplified to "alpha prince" and "gamma princess" etc.

[Anonymous]

Greetings,
I would like to ask what measures are being taken place to provide some legitimacy to Vultology? I have heard that proving this system scientifically is the goal, but I don't see any steps being taken. I care about this model (Vultology specifically) being proven in some way, don't others feel the same way?
TBH, I don't really like the person running this site, we have had some bad blood (at least on my part), and helping him in any way would be against my own feelings. But I believe in and support Vultology and its theoretical findings.
However, belief and support without evidence is no better than someone else's favorite theory/model of typology which equally has no evidence, like MBTI and Socionics. And I only bring this up because of how this theory as I know it can achieve a level of experimentation and falsification to prove it's merit, as I have suggested before in other posts in an effort to make the typing process itself more scientific.
Here: https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/proposal-for-a-system-of-collective-intelligence-for-vultological-typing/
and here: https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/project-testing-collective-probabilistic-typing-of-a-subject-need-volunteers/
I think something like the J and P dichotomy is able to be "proven" since it's the most elementary distinction that exists superficially in expression that denotes a biological and psychological difference. If it can't even prove that, then what can it prove?
Evidence in these fields comes from reproducible blind tests and agreements between random people and results and data.  And I don't see that here.
That's it,
Cheers
 
 
 
 

[blank boy]

Hi Gnosis,
I think I share a lot of your same sentiments. My primary interest in CT and vultology is scientific. Ever since I first discovered the site back in 2012 or whenever, my dream was scientific legitimacy. I think up many low-hanging-fruit-type of studies or experiments that would provide evidence backing some elementary piece of vultology. I think there are some hurdles in the way, but also some promising preliminary studies. I'll write about some here, let me know if you'd like any links to any articles I make reference to.
The simple genetic route is one way to go. Auburn's twin pilot study, though published through Nemvus, demonstrated real promise. Dr. Denise Cook is also going the genetic route, but I'm afraid she won't find anything since she's using self-assessment rather than vultology to determine a person's type.
There's experimental evidence for the "oral origins of moral disgust." Using EMG and Ekman Facial Action Units, you can see how much facial disgust is present in a moral decision. Those experiments aren't about personality type, but I would predict that one judgment axis tends to fall above the regression line and the other falls below the regression line (those falling above the line showing more moral disgust and those falling below it showing less).
Eye-movement research seems to be burgeoning. There are already clinical use cases for having a person move their eyes laterally over and over. Lots of interesting publications are coming out of that field, including effects on working memory and processing traumatic memories.
What's disheartening is the crudeness of an EEG. I heard an analogy that because it's outside the skull trying to "listen in on" electrical activity inside the skull, it can be compared to being outside of a baseball stadium and trying to parse a conversation going on in the bleachers.
Anyway, these are just some ideas on what's going on in related fields. Maybe some of those methods can be combined with vultology to demonstrate vultology's validity of measuring something more tangible than personality type.
Cheers

[Anonymous]

Hi blank boy,
you've been around since 2012, you are like an elder!
I looked into Dr. Denise Cook, interesting, but like you said she is using MBTI and not a more detailed model like Vultology (which we can't blame her, vultology would need to have some tests published to get attention of researchers).
I appreciate the other resources you listed. It's not what I was looking for, but thanks.
I think Vultology probably won't prove cognitive functions, but it could prove mind-body connection and discernible, physical differences in expression between people that suggest "cognitive functions" as the nexus of  their different behavior.
To "prove" the reality of cognitive functions and therefore differences in structures of cognition, we would need to get into the nitty-gritty of the brain and its processes, in my opinion.

[Mohamed Hamouda]

Hello there, my first post here I am afraid.
Must admit I am not a researcher, but I have bought the cognitive types e book and enjoyed reading it. Knowing what type I am (INFJ)  I enjoy applying the knowledge and you methods and findings help me greatly help others solve their problems.
 
Now I also have preordered (Cognitive Typology: Practitioner Manual for Psychodynamics) the big book that is yet to be released. Since I had no updates on the status of the book from the purchase date on the advancement towards completion I though I might ask.
Your response is kindly appreciated.

[Juan E. Sandoval]

Hello Mohamed,
Thank you kindly for your purchase. The status of the book is currently still in progress but it's most likely going to be a bit late. I still intend to finish it, but I may miss the deadline. If the delay is problematic in any way,  do private message me and I can offer a refund, that's totally okay too. 🙂 Thanks.

[Mohamed Hamouda]

No no refunds, I just wanted to know if the book would still be released. Thank you for your fast response. I am just hoping it was not too much work now that you have a second model along side this. I trust you will finish it eventually.

[Author]

Posts