One thing I can't understand about the theory

As you know, it's a possibility we don't directly deny. But I suppose the reason it wasn't included in version 1.0 (current) of the theory, is because the evidence largely favored a single P axis and J axis for most cases.

There's some 5%-20% error in CT at present --(i.e. cases that display contradictions in signals)-- but I at least don't really know what it's due to. I do know part of this error margin is due to what the emotional world contributes, but i'm still trying to figure that out.

If there really were 8 functions in everyone (or even in just some people) they would fall under the minority (i.e. <20%) of cases. So, those 5%-20% of samples that seem to show both Ti and Fi could legitimately have both functions, or it could be that their genetics and anatomy make it appear that way, when they really just have Ti.

So, because the most consistent bit Alerith and I could tell was that everyone had at least 1 P and J axis ---and many showed absolutely no signs of the other functions, that's kindof the direction the model took. The CT model attempts to have every one of its principles verifiable via vultology, and an 8 function theory didn't have that support (yet). I hope that makes sense? But let me know if I left something out.



The theory prioritizes psychology. But in cognitive type, vultology is meant to be 1:1 with psychology. So VR and psychology should be synonymous. To see the signals is to see the evidence of a psychology unfolding. Without this, the whole theory is moot. And CT can also be falsified this way.

Though so far, I haven't really come across too many objections, as CTVR seems to usually approximate people's self-typings fairly well. Or, proportionally well to their depth of understanding of JCF. Someone just a few months into MBTI will likely type very differently in CT, but all JCF veterans I've visually typed have maybe only been off by like 1 thing.

p.s.

Even though CT prioritizes psychology, that is somewhat different from patient self-opinion. The MBTI community is itself an example of how people often initially mis-identify their own psychology, as evidenced by the many people who change and change their self-typings over the years, often to very different end conclusions. So it's possible for VR to "override" someone's self typing; to tell them they're something other than what they feel they are. That isn't to say we're prioritizing VR over psychology, though, as much as we're clashing against their own lack of self-knowledge of their psychology.

Some odd cases are in people like Taylor Swift, whose anatomy shows Fi tension, very vertical smiles, and a little bit of sass -- but her way of thinking, answering, and gesturing all indicate Ti-Fe heavily to me.

There's also Richard Dawkins who, in most videos, seems like a clear TeSi-Te. But in other videos could almost pass for a Ti-lead (possibly TiNe), due to how he gets really semantical and shows pausing, jittery hand motions, etc. His Je stops being as overwhelming and his Ji takes a more prominent role.

Then there's members here like The Doctor, who psychologically identifies more with FeNi and NiFe, but who looks more SeTi-Fe in vultology. This one is less "off" per se, but sometimes he can even appear NeTi-Fe. Which is a significant level of variability.

Then there's Michael Pierce, which in most videos looks Ni-lead, specifically NiFe-Ti. But he has an unordinary type of mouth shape (Fi-like), even though his mouth is more deliberate (Fe) than not. And at times he also shows what looks like Si concentrated brows and Ne toggling. So that sometimes he looks more like an SiFe or TiNe, even though his psychology is clearly more NiFe-Ti in nature.

~~

Alerith and I have a hypothesis about why this is (which may be posted in the next few days) and how it's related to a person's emotional level of pain/stress. And how even Fe-Ti users actually exhibit what we typically call Fi "pained expression" when they are just emotionally unwell or depressed or neurotic. We've been looking at videos of people with various neurosis and finding correlations in their vultologies. There's a "heavy" look in their eyes that isn't quite coming from Ni. And there's an upset/sourness in their mouth that isn't quite Fi.

Cases like Taylor Swift are almost certainly anatomical/genetic; as there's no discrepancy in psychology.

But as for people like Dawkins and The Doctor, we may be seeing evidence of ability to use more than the original 4 functions. Dawkins may likely show activity in the regions Dario Nardi attributes to Ti. And for all intents and purposes could be said to have Ti's abilities.

In either case, what's encouraging is that the level of overlap in contradictory signals has so far also had a pretty direct correspondence to ambiguity in psychology. i.e. Some people who, even after strong JCF familiarity, feels they definitely have Te and Fe, will indeed show a level of intermixing of Te and Fe signals.

In the pragmatic sense, one could argue that they do. If they operate through the psychology of it, so far as we can tell, then why not say they have the function - right? I know several typology theorists take that route, and that is one quite useful way of thinking about it.

But that pragmatism is also the foundation of so many psychometric tools and ultimately why there are so many of them, none of which (perhaps barring the Big5) are compelling in their objective credibility, as categories can be made indefinitely.

CT was originally conceived not really as a pragmatic or psychometric tool, but as more of an objective observation of human variations where, hopefully, the foundations of each categorization are empirical (or at least verifiably differentiated, statistically) rather than intuitively arrived at. So from that sense, the question of being able to have opposed functions is a serious one which can also be seriously addressed and tested for. It shouldn't be entirely up to theoretical opinion.

And so that's kindof a very real frontier for me, so I don't really know the answer myself.
It's very easy to slip into confirmation bias and rationalize it as being Te/Fi that just looks like Ti. And I wanna avoid that sort of slippery slope. If the data is ambiguious, then it should be acknowledged as ambiguous.

So if to me they aren't clearly a Ti/Fe or an Fi/Te user, then I sorta put them in another mental category in the meantime. And I periodically see new patterns emerge from this 'quarantined' category (which i sometimes call the 'shadow database') that sort of solves the mystery of why they were ambiguous. So maybe I realize that so-and-so group of people were all from Germanic origin and they have a different way of articulating which traces to their culture... and that solves the discrepancy by looking at how, contextually, their type would look in their culture. etc.

But, for those remaining in the quarantine, it could be that neuroscience can confirm if it really is Te/Fi that looks like Ti, or... alternatively, that it really is both. In any event, a solid neurological definition for the functions would be greatly beneficial (if not necessary, for the future of this model's wider adaptation)

Flawed as Socionics it, it does make room for the other four functions, the bottom two in the stack considered functions used extensively in private. This (thought I'm not sure it's the two that Socionics chooses) rings true to me. I can feel when I'm using Ne-Si and when I'm using Se-Ni. But I won't say more until I submit an official video for you all to type.

I would think people simply use their strongest functions when communicating with others. 

Is it possible that these people showing opposing signals such as say, Te and Fe at the same time are actually Fe users who have subconsciously picked up on the signals of successful Te users in their field and ended up displaying peeks of their inherent Fe but forced or assimilated Te?

As stated above, i'm certainly open to the possibility of this if it can be confirmed somehow without adding more ambiguity to things. Every model of 8 functions I've so far come across appears to be very subjectively isolated, or dependent on extensive rationalization, and it makes it very difficult to tell what is coming from what. So while it solves one problem, it actually creates others in the process. Even just problems of delineation/definition.


Like, one thing I wonder is... how would you guys solve the problem of 8 functions with the conflation of general attitudes? If we say a person can have Fi and Fe, then isn't it more appropriate to say everyone has "F" which can be either I or E? So... when someone is 'extroverting' their Feeling, it comes out as shepherding and coordinating (articulating) and when someone is 'introverting' their feeling, it comes out as tension in the mouth and asymmetrical snarling. But "feeling" could be conceived as one thing which can be either introverted or extroverted. It would seem redundant to say the person has two Feeling functions that they alternate between. And the oscillation between Fe-Ti or between Te-Fi would seem rather unnecessary, then. There's no need for Fe to be paired with Ti if Fi can also be a co-inhabitor.

And what of a person who says they subjectively feel themselves using Ni+Fi+Fe+Ne the most, in that order, and believe they have Te+Si+Se+Ti all in a rather unconscious place? At what point does a person's subjective experience get factored into the equation to determine the legitimacy of their cognitive apparatus?

Most NiFe-Ni will not feel themselves as having Feeling that is extroverted, because they are heavily introverted as individuals, and so they will subjectively feel that their ethical function is individualistic, subjective, etc (INF = IF attitude). And they would be accurate in saying so, because they are first and foremost introverted and their subjective experience of Fe is felt more as an "informer" and tracker of dynamics; something they muse upon introspectively even as it relates to larger human dynamics. So their ethics may be privately formed, but not because it's Fi but because it's Fe underneath Ni's introverted nature.

But if this is conflated, then we do see people say they have Ni>Fi>Fe>Ne, or both Ne/Si and Ni/Se because that's how it feels from a subjective or general attitudes perspective. What needs to be differentiated here is that CT means something very specific when it talks about "functions". It's not only about attitudes and a person's professed awareness of their own inner dynamics, or their self-identification... but about how their physiology can be externally seen to operate by the secondary effects the brain produces.

So if the external evidence is entirely clear (auxiliary Fe), and to the contrary of the subjective testimony (i.e. "i know i have Fi"), we're in a pickle. We can only say the evidence suggests their subjective experience would be something other than what they think it is. From there, it can always be denied since only they have the first-person perspective.


This is just one example problem of interpretation we run into. It's easy to see it either way; to say it's 4 functions compounding into multiple attitudes, or to just say it's 8 functions being present. I suspect it's probably the former, though I can appreciate both viewpoints. But an argument for either side is necessarily weak at this point, and thus should also be held weakly.

Still, what's encouraging to me is that, regardless of how different people feel about the lowest 4 functions... there are certain things we can see clearly in CT, while we can differ about the nuances and continue exploring them.

I think in general, most interpretations agree that the main personality is composed of the primary and auxiliary function, with other functions playing more supportive or nonexistent roles. That means that adjustments to type theory would likely not radically alter what we're setting up as a foundation here, but be more like minor tweaks and amendments. I can be happy enough with that.