As someone new to CT, I wanted to share what I have found most convincing about it: And that is, its explanatory power over the MBTI.
I don't know about anyone else, but I became disillusioned and frustrated with the MBTI community over what seemed to be a huge number of inconsistencies concerning type labels.
And what I mean is, there seemed to be too much variability within a given type label. Now some of this can be attributed to the individuals involved rather than the system itself, but given CTs objective connection, I absolutely LOVE how it resolves these inconsistencies through vultology.
And so, for the first time ever, I actually have a sense of my own Jungian type. At least, I very much know what I am not. (At worst.)
But the other wonderful thing is, when I take CT and map it onto the MBTI landscape, it's like a master-key that unlocks the hidden reality that for so long escaped me. And I see reality in a brand new way. It is exquisite.
In any event, I thought I'd share what I like best about CT, that is, its explanatory power. I am looking forward to exploring further.
"And when we consider how many people can fit the same semantic definition, as language is inescapably stretched and fitted by different audiences to suit alternate meanings, we understand that psychological definitions, however perfectly crafted by the author, are always fallacious due to their inability to universally communicate information. This complication has rendered Jungian typology largely unreliable and less popular than other models which offer a consensual means of quantification."
"In seeking to give Jungian functions a tangible form, Myers & Briggs formulated a behavioristic system that moderately approximates itself to the functions, accepting some of the discrepancies that come as a result."
"As we read in earlier chapters, a cognitive type can manifest the behaviors expected by their four-letter-code designation when their development is infantile. But because of this, the correlation between these two systems can only accurately type those with one-sided development. The MBTI, by its simplification of the functions to behavioral polarities can only differentiate people whose development is so outwardly unambiguous that the sheer overreliance on certain processes makes the type evident. In seeking to give Jungian functions a tangible form, Myers & Briggs formulated a behavioristic system that moderately approximates itself to the functions, accepting some of the discrepancies that come as a result. Such is the philosophy of the Je process, which is far more content with some form of imperfect application than a theoretically sterile but inapplicable system."
"The MBTI opens up the channels of typology to an affiliation with the preferences of the ego and persona."
"[Socionics] creates a rather unfalsifiable situation, and one which is far too dependent on theoretical math for its validity. Such rationality opens the way to confirmation bias, where otherwise extraneous and contradictory information is easily fitted into the existing model by the addendum of an annex for exceptions." Wow, couldn't agree more!
From "Cognitive Type" pp. 292- 304. And more follows. And the solution to this problem is why I consider CT to be the best answer that I have yet seen.