Cognitive Typology Wiki

Doing this has always been one of the main goals, but I've been trying to wrap my head around "how to make profiles" for like, ever. I think with a proper definition of the connection between types, subtypes and general attitudes.... that finally becomes possible in a way that I feel is most accurate.

I feel this synthesis (if successful) addresses everything MBTI offers, as well as the important Socionics overlaps, essentially allowing CT to potentially encompass everything they capture and more. At present CT lacks a lot of the practical detail and information which the former two bring.

I think the proper/full theory of typology has to be able to account for the entirety of the phenomenon... and it's become evident to me that CT needs to grow into the behavioral dimension, gracefully, in order to achieve parity with psychometrics (i.e. Big5), modern psychology at large, and to properly take typology forward.

I'm all for the motto of keeping things as simple as possible, but no simpler. It just so happens the human psyche is damn complex , and a 16 type theory simply isn't robust/thorough enough to capture the essence of humanity. So while it pains yet invigorates my soul, I'm going to be trying to shoot for quantifying the 64 subtypes into really rich profiles online.

The book elaborations series has been a good starting point for me, but as you're all aware I *definitely* lack the scope to catalog all these variations myself... so in a way I must extend out this project beyond my limit. And I hope that some of you guys will also feel impassioned to contribute your thoughts and experiences, if the inspiration comes. Collectively we have far more experience relating to what the types look like and behave like. I wanted this to be a collaborative project, as much as possible.

I think we can really do it, and give the world something really great.
The most accurate typological wiki of the phenomenon of type.
It's a long term project, but I'm in no rush. I think slowly building up this database can help us all create something lasting, but also evolving and expanding. And the journey is bound to very exciting on its own.

/NF moment c.c

If you don't mind my prodding, I'd like to know more about the behind-the-scenes of this whole website. I believe you do have this info posted in various places, sort of scattered throughout. You have a team of readers, correct? I'm asking because of all the Jungian theory babies, this is the one I believe in. I'd like to see it take off, and I believe it's going to take your directive Fe for that to happen (delegate, delegate, delegate). I see tons of opportunity for real research using CT. I have been thinking about doing some grant writing for some of this.

Yay, more ideas! And projects!!

I, for one, would love to help with the stuff you mentioned above, but I just can't train my eyes to see the patterns you see. I can pretty much only spot the same 3 or so types that I could spot natively before even learning about Jung. It's a very subconscious process for me. But it's also very real, and that's why I felt very energized when I first heard of Keirsey 15 or so years ago.

I think there is hope that I could learn to see what you see, objectively as you do. In the meantime, there must be something I could do that's useful.

Wow, I didn't know CT had embraced these attitudes. It's been so many years since I've paid attention to, say, ISF as a thing. But I can certainly look into it.

I'm catching up on your thread about attitudes.

Perhaps JCF-MBTI took the word "function" in the mathematical sense; hence the 1:1. Hehe.

You say your biggest downfall as a J-lead is is rejecting data that doesn't fit. Do you see Si and Ni leads also doing this? Or perhaps they just *look* like the do this so they may accomplish Je's goals.