Type, in CT, is hypothesized as being an objective reality– one at the same level of reality as biological sex and blood type. It is speculated to be a genetic component, given what we have seen of identical twin studies. It’s understood to be a reality non-contingent on the semantic speculations of personality systems, but discoverable and measurable as a physiological constitution of our personhood.
For this reason, CT aspires to provide evidence for their existences outside of self-reporting or self-perception since, from this objective vantage point, type is no more susceptible to changing, based on our concept of ourselves, than is our blood type. Therefore, the primary and most important way to describe what a type is– is by providing evidence of its reality outside of the confines of self report. If type is real, then the bar for proving it must be set high and be investigated through an empirical methodology. And like the existence of an exotic animal, the only way to show what a type is, is by demonstrating real examples of them in nature. We know that a cheetah exists not because we see paintings of it in old cavern walls, but because we can see and touch it.
Given this premise, the top menu section titled “Types” leads you not to a list of psychological profiles, but to a list of videos. These videos are intended to be a preliminary “proof of concept” for the existence of types. When examined carefully, they provide an argument for the existence of a natural phenomenon; one that requires detailed explanation according to how the phenomenon manifests itself organically.
The following is a list of the Type articles, in the order they were written, beginning in April 2018. You can think of this as a “crash course” on cognitive typology, approximating about ~10 hrs of time, if all videos are watched. Watching the types in the order below may be helpful, but by no means necessary. I recommend using Google Chrome to watch the videos, as some browsers struggle to load these many videos.
When you click on a type’s article, you will see a list of videos populate. These videos are organized into categories and sub-categories according to vultological similarities based on the core hypothesis of CT which is that: The more similar two people’s visual signatures are, the more similar their underlying cognitive processing is expected to be.
When watching, keep this principle in mind and evaluate its reality. Please observe the videos from a neutral perspective, not attempting to critique whether or not a certain celebrity’s categorization coincides with any previous notion you may have had about them, or types, but instead measure only whether or not the people being grouped together appear to belong to the same vultological category.
Some people have a natural eye for this, but you can visit this page and hover over the signal names to understand the metric that’s being applied to gauge similarity. It also helps to watch the videos playing simultaneously. If you see the similarities between the samples in the vultological group, that’s half of the battle. We can then at least say that they belong to an objective category — one of body language and mannerisms — even if we say nothing about their cognition yet.
The second point to look out for is to ask — do you see any cognitive similarities between those within this cluster? If the answer is yes, then we have the beginnings of a correlation— one that can be tested. By itself, one instance of correlation may not mean much, but when there is repeatability, the discussion changes direction.
If you come across another sample that matches the visual group, and find that they also match the group’s psychology, then we can at least say that, for whatever reason, it appears that this group of vultologically-similar people also share [x] psychological features, and that more people are expected to fit the pattern in the future. And we can further elaborate on what those features are, through exposure to more samples, rather than peg them into any predefined feature-set.
This is precisely the way Cognitive Typology has constructed itself over years; welcome to the club! In this model, we don’t dictate what a type means, we allow types to tell us what they are, by observing multiple copies of them together in nature, under the single assumption that people will cluster together via micro-expressions and body mannerisms as a result of cognitive similarities. But it’s up to us to find out which signal clusters are the most persistent ones, and what they evidence about psychology.
The data in this 16 part series is organized through our current model (1), according to what we see as the most clear visual clusters and what we think they mean. It has been organized in an attempt to make it accessible for others to review and to draw their own conclusions from the hypothesis being laid forth. Thank you for taking a look at our data, many hundreds of hours have gone into this project, so we hope you enjoy!
Read this next part after reviewing the 16 type articles listed above. Once completed, you may walk out of this experience feeling a few things:
- 1. “Okay, I saw the patterns, in vultology and psychology, but I don’t agree with the typings of some celebrities I’ve known before” :: That is entirely fine and to be expected. It is not our aim to harmonize with any other view of celebrity types out there, either Jungian or otherwise. If you see the connection between the vultology and the psychology, and agree that this connection follows across multiple samples, then you already agree with the core premise of CT, and what we mean by “type.” Remember that we are attempting to show you a real-world phenomenon, like the existence of an animal, and the point of this exercise is to be able to recognize said animal.From there, there are two paths we can take.
- A. Either we can understand that what CT means by “type” is now grasped, but this diagnosis will need to exist side-to-side with a preexisting view of a given celebrity’s psyche. For example we may say they are TeSi in CT, but are “ENTP” in MBTI. This divides the two systems from each other, which is an appropriate response. One might then choose to say that ENTP is that person’s psychic reality, but their body mannerisms fall under a category CT terms TeSi.
- B. Oppositely, we can understand that what CT means by “type” is now grasped, but since this reality is not only a visual one but a psychological one, it infringes on the same territory as other type models which attempt to give a dissertation of the cognition of personhood. A choice may need to be made as to which model more faithfully represents the truth of the person’s psychology.If you believe in path “A”, both systems can exist apart, so long as no intermixing is done between the two since they have fundamentally different methodologies for describing types. But if you believe in path “B”, and that there is one core reality to the cognition of personhood, and would like more information about which model might be better approximating it, please feel free to look at this article, as it might help. Now, another response might be:
- 2. “I see the patterns clearly and I see how the people within these visual clusters really are different expressions/iterations of the same human equation!” :: Us too! When you see it for yourself, the experience is one that cannot be unseen. And just like it’s impossible to only read about what a cheetah looks like without ever seeing it, yet claim to understand them, after you’ve seen one for yourself, no amount of words can do it justice. As you learn the system in a more nuanced way, you’ll be able to track a person’s cognition at a second-by-second level, as their visual signals display the pattern of thought they’re having at each moment.There is a lot left to unearth. The field of vultology is very young and there are entire worlds still unpacked/untouched, pertaining to the correlation between vultology and psychology. Cognitive Type can provide for you a foundation, and a methodology, from which to continue exploring and learning about humanity. We hope to inspire the expansion of this field of study, and welcome collaboration. However, please do credit this website and the research being done by this group, as it represents thousands of hours of work. (re: Use Policy)
- 3. “I don’t see the patterns.” :: This argument suggests that no visual groupings can be recognized from the data provided, and that the criteria used does not naturally divide people into categories. This argument can be met objectively with a closer statistical analysis of the data. You can take a look at this thread ( https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/multi-timestamp-support-for-codifier/ ) as well as this thread ( https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/annotation-viewer-early-preview/ ) for more details. Avenues such as these exist in CT from which a group of samples can be analyzed, at a second-by-second level, across ~110 signals, and statistics can be run on whether or not they are both significantly correlated to each other. The long-term plan is to append a second-by-second signal listing, as a CSV file, to every database sample, but this is a considerable time investment and is still in process. However, a detailed analysis like this can be run on any two samples, upon request.
- 4. “I see the patterns, but I think visual groupings are irrelevant to cognition.” :: Another option is for a person to see the patterns being described, but believe they are not the cause of their cognitive similarities, or not related to cognition in general. To view a counterargument regarding the necessary conjunction between embodiment and cognition, visit this video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4w3tDChWTM ). You can also look at information online about embodied cognition ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition ) to understand the contingency that exists between one and the other.Cognitive Type presents a counterargument to cartesian dualism, and asserts that we cannot ignore the embodied expressions of people, in the analysis of cognition. CT suggests that the analysis of body mannerisms isn’t just optional, but essential, due to the way the mind evolved and what the mind exists to do (i.e. to be a bi-directional computer for sensorymotor inputs and outputs). The theory of embodied cognition has been gaining more attention in recent years, and I would defer such a person to the works existent on this subject.
- 5. “I see the patterns, but I think the specific visual groupings outlined are not the most central to cognition.” This position posits that a connection between cognition and embodiment is existent, but that the signals described by CT are not meaningful (or the most meaningful) when it comes to ascertaining personhood. This amounts to a discussion about what the signals each represent cognitively, and we’d be more than happy to discuss this on our forum. Feel free to make a thread in this board ( https://cognitivetype.com/forums/forum/vultology-learning-center/ ) and tell us what you think of the specific signals outlined, and what they do or don’t mean. If we are making an error we would also like to learn how to improve our methodology. And we encourage discussion around the refinement of signals and their psychological meanings. Your feedback would be most helfpul.
- 4. “Okay, I see the patterns for other types, but when I see the type I’m supposed to be, I don’t see myself in those samples.” :: Lastly, you may feel as though the signal clusters outlined generally make sense, but the typing you received through your video submission puts you with a group of people who you don’t relate to psychologically. There are a few things that may be happening in this case.
- A. The typing you were given may have a very small sample size. If, for example, your specific 1/1024 development has only one or two other people within it, the likelihood of not relating to the typing can be high, due to the low sample size. If you happen to fall into one of those samples with few others in your signal group, we do apologize sincerely. However, this also presents a great opportunity. We need your help in order to define what that category is. If you are the first, or one of the first, to have a certain visual signature, then CT’s methodology is to define what that category is via your testimony. Therefore, we are not actually telling you very much about your cognition, but are hoping you might tell us.
- B. If the typing you were given has a well established sample size in it, and you still don’t see the psychological resemblance to the general patterns and shades of that visual group, then we’d love to hear your feedback as well. It either means there may be further clarification needed on how you do truly connect with these individuals, at the metabolic level, even if behaviors differ, or it could mean that we have something to learn from you and your input will help disprove old assumptions. If you break the established pattern, then the theory will need to adjust to the new evidence, and the old concept of what that visual group meant will modify itself accordingly. But again, in either case, it’s not our goal to tell you who you are, but instead to learn from you who you are– so we can devise the most accurate map of human nature possible from the visual dimension of measurement. Please feel free to post on our forum with your questions, such as under this board: ( https://cognitivetype.com/forums/forum/the-general-hall/ )
Thank you so much for your time, and for giving this project, and its argument, a fair hearing. We wish to expand humanity’s awareness of itself, and are forever thankful for your contributions to this endeavor.