<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Cognitive Typology | The Doctor | Activity</title>
	<link>https://cognitivetype.com/members/doctor/activity/</link>
	<atom:link href="https://cognitivetype.com/members/doctor/activity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Activity feed for The Doctor.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2026 15:37:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>https://buddypress.org/?v=</generator>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<ttl>30</ttl>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>2</sy:updateFrequency>
	
						<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">30edf176ef6e1df38ce5e722c02a7fc9</guid>
				<title>The Doctor replied to the topic Verifiability, CT and Socionics in the forum Model 1 Discussions</title>
				<link>https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/verifiability-ct-and-socionics/#post-16150</link>
				<pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2019 09:10:22 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I understand and agree with the approach you're taking for internal validity.  But, without proof of the existence of the functions themselves, it's a catch 22.  CT makes the assumption of functions as a byproduct of the subjective interpretation of signals.  </p>
<blockquote><p>At which point, we must ask.. if the functions are real at all, what proof do we have&hellip;</p></blockquote>
<p><span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-4033"><a href="https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/verifiability-ct-and-socionics/#post-16150" rel="nofollow ugc">Read more</a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
									<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">e1e75aee1374a2c57003d24b0861024e</guid>
				<title>The Doctor&#039;s profile was updated</title>
				<link>https://cognitivetype.com/main/p/4031/</link>
				<pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2019 08:46:15 +0000</pubDate>

				
									<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">c44e9faaddd430f9da83d796158a0b2c</guid>
				<title>The Doctor replied to the topic Verifiability, CT and Socionics in the forum Model 1 Discussions</title>
				<link>https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/verifiability-ct-and-socionics/#post-16144</link>
				<pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2019 08:38:25 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In response to a question from:</p>
<blockquote><p><em>Crystal Waterfall&#x1f378;Today at 2:19 AM</em><br />
<em>I know you have good intentions...but what do you mean by another level of verification?</em></p></blockquote>
<p>What I mean is that while cognitive function theory wasn't invented by CT, CT has its own definitions of functions, even if they overlap strongly with Jung's original work. Because those&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-4030"><a href="https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/verifiability-ct-and-socionics/#post-16144" rel="nofollow ugc">Read more</a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
									<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">10f5bda4d611be563fdacabc34c4039a</guid>
				<title>The Doctor changed their profile picture</title>
				<link>https://cognitivetype.com/main/p/4029/</link>
				<pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2019 08:35:02 +0000</pubDate>

				
									<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
				
							</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>