What’s happening to the site?

Index Forums The General Hall What’s happening to the site?

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

    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.

     

    • This topic was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    Delrake
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    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?

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

    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:

    ^ 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.

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Auburn.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© Copyright 2012-2020 J.E. Sandoval
SEE HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

DISCLAIMER

The content on this site is not
intended for medical advice, diagnosis,
or treatment. Always seek the advice
of your physician or other qualified
health provider with questions you
may have regarding a medical condition.
For more information visit this link.

SHARE: FACEBOOK, SUPPORT: PATREON