Article: Some Vultology Guidelines
May 22, 2017 21:09:20 GMT -5 by Auburn
Amsterdam and taamer like this
Post by Auburn on May 22, 2017 21:09:20 GMT -5
Hello fellow readers,
This article is about the nature of vultology as a practice, the information we've presently gathered on how to approach it, and why it is that we experience it as we do. A lot of this may be obvious to some of you but I felt it deserved succinct articulation, especially for those new. These may be updated as time goes by and we all learn more about this phenomenon.
Humans are extremely multi-layered creatures.
It is difficult to isolate any one aspect of human nature, which does not blur with the rest. One may even say there are no such aspects, as we've yet to find any elements about being human that do not exist in an inter-dependent web. Vultology is no different in this regard and does not escape this layered complexity.
To the degree that the signals are obvious, the psychology will also be obvious.
As such, it is most appropriate to align one's readings to the available expressions of the person. If a person is an Ni-lead without very pronounced Fe/Te signals, it is because they don't have them conscious nor the psychology to go along with them. So they will far better fit the typing of Ni-lead than specifically the details associated with NiFe or NiTe. In this regard, it shouldn't be the aim to necessarily get at just one of 16 types. The aim should be to describe a person as accurately as their signals portray them. This includes the absence of signals, which actually is information itself about an absence of psychological consideration.
In other words, readings/profiles should aim to match the person themselves, not one of 16 types necessarily. The appropriate level of analysis must be gauged.
Speed reading is dangerous, because it over-relies on one instance of expression.
This does not mean type is not real because it cannot be identified in 5 minutes every time. It is in fact very presumptuous to assume such a thing, especially in any formal field of rigor/science. And in time, CT aims to be just that.
It's important to keep in mind that your own opinion may change within the course of 20 minutes analyzing a person. Sometimes it's possible to identify a person's vultology within minutes or seconds, but sometimes the whole pattern of a person's psychology isn't obvious from a quick glance. If you have been exposed to that flavor of a human for an extended period of time (say via family/friends) you will be able to grasp their pattern very quickly from the majority of angles they're presented in. But whenever you encounter a human that you haven't quite seen before, the state they happen to find themselves at the moment will be over-relied upon for information. Further exposure is needed to fully map their vultology. Preferably 2 hours or something approximating that.
How many types of humans are there?
Humanity is vast. And expression of type is vast. More vast than 16 but 64 comes pretty close at grasping it all.
The 16 types as we might define most typically when only the 1st function is prioritized, only account for a moderate percentage of the population. And while I don't yet have exact statistics (these will emerge in time) my current ballpark estimation is that four shades of each type account for some 90% of the expressions of that type in the human population. That's to say, if one has thoroughly grasped what the 16 types look like as well as when they are reliant on each of their four functions, then you can properly type 90%+ of people.
Again this is my own subjective estimate from where I presently stand atm. I believe I've cataloged some 50 or so of the 64 subtypes in some form or another, and my capacity to grasp types reliably (without changing typings later) appears to hover around 85%-90%.
And when we factor in positive or negative Fe/Fi and how that influences people, I suspect some 6-8 shades per type would be necessary to archive to reach a rate approximating 95%+. If we suppose a minimum of 3 samples are needed to establish or identify a shade, then 3 samples x 8 shades x 16 types = 384 samples at minimum to account for the vast majority of human expressions.
This is not something voluntarily chosen, or an arbitrary complication of type into further sections. CT is expanding as necessary to meet the demands of reality. The data itself has revealed that a sixteen category system is insufficient for the task of quantifying the human species. And I suspect that upon reaching 1,000 samples, the accuracy of typings will approach 99%.
As such, vultology accuracy is like a reverse exponential curve:
With only 50 visual signatures you can account for some 50% of the population.
With only 100 visual signatures you can account for some 70% of the population.
With only 200 visual signatures, you can account for some 90% of the population
With only 300 visual signatures, you can account for some 93% of the population.
With only 400 visual signatures, you can account for some 95% of the population.
Expect to be wrong
As such, if your database is still under 50 or so, the majority of the people you come across will baffle you. Even if you know the TiNe vultology well, you may only know it for the TiNe-Ti variety, etc. In the future resources will be available so that someone can do a 5 hour slog and absorb some 200 samples.
But bear with us as we create these resources. (or help us make them!)
This article is about the nature of vultology as a practice, the information we've presently gathered on how to approach it, and why it is that we experience it as we do. A lot of this may be obvious to some of you but I felt it deserved succinct articulation, especially for those new. These may be updated as time goes by and we all learn more about this phenomenon.
Humans are extremely multi-layered creatures.
It is difficult to isolate any one aspect of human nature, which does not blur with the rest. One may even say there are no such aspects, as we've yet to find any elements about being human that do not exist in an inter-dependent web. Vultology is no different in this regard and does not escape this layered complexity.
- Expect Vultology to be one aspect, not the whole answer.
Even in the best case scenario where vultology is scientifically verified at the highest rigor, it would not be the only relevant factor in the human experience or in the expression of personality. So avoid making sense of everything from a typological perspective. Know when to tell apart the effects of vultology from gender, race/anatomy, culture, and so on.
~ - Male and Female
Perhaps the most statistically robust and best researched difference between humans has been the subject of biological sex. And this cannot be understated in any attempt to understand any aspect of human nature. And while I won't be mentioning specifics in this article, it's sufficient to say gender offers biological, physical + psychological differences between people which are consistent even when accounting for culture. Together, the qualities offered by a person's type and sex create a much fuller picture of a human being. For example, saying an "NiFe-Ti male" already offers a magnitude of detail and predictive power, when all the info provided on male scientific literature is combined with that which will emerge from NiFe literature. Vultology signals down below:
Anatomically, male faces are wider, with a more square jaw, slightly flatter cheeks and generally angular features. Women's faces are rounder, with a more curved jawline, slightly higher cheekbones and a more narrow area between the mouth and nose. This means that female faces will have an anatomical effect that can be confused with Fi that should be corrected for. Likewise, male faces may appear more Fe when they're not, due to the greater distance between the muscles of the mouth and cheeks. This can cause a male's face to look more lax and tension-less even when Fi is prioritized.
Psychologically speaking, women will be more predisposed toward the ethical priority, while men more toward the logical priority. This means that dispassion and passion as signals may cross over. We may see many more NeFi males take to an NeFi-Te subtype because of this reliance on the logical function. As such we need to be careful not to over-type males as logic types if they appear dispassionate. Inversely, a TeNi female may appear more FeNi due to the energy they add into the vultology, and we equally must be careful not to over-type women as ethical types due to their added ethos.
~ - Mental Disorders/Conditions
Second to gender, the other prominent contributing factor to a person's vultology and psychology is of course their psychological health. As we've noted, states of depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, mania and others changes the vultology of a person. And there appears to be a general but consistent signal that tells us whether a person has or does not have strong mental conditions; the flat affect. A heaviness of the eyes/brow distinct from Ni, as well as a stupor around the cheeks and mouth where there is a downward pull/tension of the corners of the lips. Vultology examples down below:
- Layering
Sex and mental health are the two factors which I've seen as pervasive and very relevant to the practice of vultology, and conveniently they are also visually identifiable. As such a minimum level of consideration of this layering between vultology and the rest of the person includes factoring in sex and mental health/neuroticism.
To the degree that the signals are obvious, the psychology will also be obvious.
As such, it is most appropriate to align one's readings to the available expressions of the person. If a person is an Ni-lead without very pronounced Fe/Te signals, it is because they don't have them conscious nor the psychology to go along with them. So they will far better fit the typing of Ni-lead than specifically the details associated with NiFe or NiTe. In this regard, it shouldn't be the aim to necessarily get at just one of 16 types. The aim should be to describe a person as accurately as their signals portray them. This includes the absence of signals, which actually is information itself about an absence of psychological consideration.
In other words, readings/profiles should aim to match the person themselves, not one of 16 types necessarily. The appropriate level of analysis must be gauged.
Speed reading is dangerous, because it over-relies on one instance of expression.
This does not mean type is not real because it cannot be identified in 5 minutes every time. It is in fact very presumptuous to assume such a thing, especially in any formal field of rigor/science. And in time, CT aims to be just that.
It's important to keep in mind that your own opinion may change within the course of 20 minutes analyzing a person. Sometimes it's possible to identify a person's vultology within minutes or seconds, but sometimes the whole pattern of a person's psychology isn't obvious from a quick glance. If you have been exposed to that flavor of a human for an extended period of time (say via family/friends) you will be able to grasp their pattern very quickly from the majority of angles they're presented in. But whenever you encounter a human that you haven't quite seen before, the state they happen to find themselves at the moment will be over-relied upon for information. Further exposure is needed to fully map their vultology. Preferably 2 hours or something approximating that.
How many types of humans are there?
Humanity is vast. And expression of type is vast. More vast than 16 but 64 comes pretty close at grasping it all.
The 16 types as we might define most typically when only the 1st function is prioritized, only account for a moderate percentage of the population. And while I don't yet have exact statistics (these will emerge in time) my current ballpark estimation is that four shades of each type account for some 90% of the expressions of that type in the human population. That's to say, if one has thoroughly grasped what the 16 types look like as well as when they are reliant on each of their four functions, then you can properly type 90%+ of people.
Again this is my own subjective estimate from where I presently stand atm. I believe I've cataloged some 50 or so of the 64 subtypes in some form or another, and my capacity to grasp types reliably (without changing typings later) appears to hover around 85%-90%.
And when we factor in positive or negative Fe/Fi and how that influences people, I suspect some 6-8 shades per type would be necessary to archive to reach a rate approximating 95%+. If we suppose a minimum of 3 samples are needed to establish or identify a shade, then 3 samples x 8 shades x 16 types = 384 samples at minimum to account for the vast majority of human expressions.
This is not something voluntarily chosen, or an arbitrary complication of type into further sections. CT is expanding as necessary to meet the demands of reality. The data itself has revealed that a sixteen category system is insufficient for the task of quantifying the human species. And I suspect that upon reaching 1,000 samples, the accuracy of typings will approach 99%.
As such, vultology accuracy is like a reverse exponential curve:
With only 50 visual signatures you can account for some 50% of the population.
With only 100 visual signatures you can account for some 70% of the population.
With only 200 visual signatures, you can account for some 90% of the population
With only 300 visual signatures, you can account for some 93% of the population.
With only 400 visual signatures, you can account for some 95% of the population.
Expect to be wrong
As such, if your database is still under 50 or so, the majority of the people you come across will baffle you. Even if you know the TiNe vultology well, you may only know it for the TiNe-Ti variety, etc. In the future resources will be available so that someone can do a 5 hour slog and absorb some 200 samples.
But bear with us as we create these resources. (or help us make them!)