DV: What We've Learned So Far
Oct 14, 2018 18:27:09 GMT -5 by Auburn
faeruss, Amsterdam, and 5 more like this
Post by Auburn on Oct 14, 2018 18:27:09 GMT -5
What We've Learned So Far
Hi guys,
With 8 articles completed in the Definitive Vultology series we are at the halfway point of this enormous/exhaustive undertaking. But it has been so worth it. I can no longer imagine doing visual readings without the levels of clarity this new project has offered. Having been forced to define all terms to this level of precision has brought out all the lingering errors in the database and mandated a fine-tooth-comb review of each sample, down to the slightest of energetic differences.
And in order to not lose sight of some of the vultology insights that have come out, I wanted to make a list of them here. This thread also works as a TL;DR for those who don't want to go through these admittedly extensive articles. Here goes!
Vultology Updates
1) The Pe-lead baseline is lower energy than previously thought (not Je+Pe)
What was once considered "amped" Pe energy turned out to be a conflation of Je+Pe energy or l-l- developments. When we examine the l--- development of the Pe-leads, we find they lack the energetic "buzz" that was once seen as a Pe signal. Instead they appear more relaxed, easygoing, with ongoing movements but no necessary hyperactivity. This radically shifts our perspective of Pe in ways that also cross over into the next point:
2) Pi Inertial Energy =/= Inertial Swaying
Instead of the Pe lead baseline being Pe+Je, it's actually a lot more gentle and fluid, and resembles a lot of what the Pi baseline was formerly taken to be. As it turns out the subtle body swaying that happens in samples as they drift about like a "reed in the wind" is not a Pi signal but a Pe signal. To properly parse this out:
- Pe: subtle swaying, gliding rhythm, restless
- Pi: stumpy, heavy slowdown or viscous inaction.
The signal called "Inertial Energy" will be redefined to this new clarification. We see that the Pi process, like Ji, actually moves towards 'inaction' and this manifests like a weighted energy that is seeking always to come to a rest (I), even if it doesn't do so in a sudden halt (Ji). Movement of any sort comes from the Pe and Je functions, while both Pi and Ji seek to bring things to rest.
4) Seelie & Unseelie exist independent of high or low Te/Fi
5) Male & Female psychology does make a partial difference
Hi guys,
With 8 articles completed in the Definitive Vultology series we are at the halfway point of this enormous/exhaustive undertaking. But it has been so worth it. I can no longer imagine doing visual readings without the levels of clarity this new project has offered. Having been forced to define all terms to this level of precision has brought out all the lingering errors in the database and mandated a fine-tooth-comb review of each sample, down to the slightest of energetic differences.
And in order to not lose sight of some of the vultology insights that have come out, I wanted to make a list of them here. This thread also works as a TL;DR for those who don't want to go through these admittedly extensive articles. Here goes!
Vultology Updates
1) The Pe-lead baseline is lower energy than previously thought (not Je+Pe)
What was once considered "amped" Pe energy turned out to be a conflation of Je+Pe energy or l-l- developments. When we examine the l--- development of the Pe-leads, we find they lack the energetic "buzz" that was once seen as a Pe signal. Instead they appear more relaxed, easygoing, with ongoing movements but no necessary hyperactivity. This radically shifts our perspective of Pe in ways that also cross over into the next point:
2) Pi Inertial Energy =/= Inertial Swaying
Instead of the Pe lead baseline being Pe+Je, it's actually a lot more gentle and fluid, and resembles a lot of what the Pi baseline was formerly taken to be. As it turns out the subtle body swaying that happens in samples as they drift about like a "reed in the wind" is not a Pi signal but a Pe signal. To properly parse this out:
- Pe: subtle swaying, gliding rhythm, restless
- Pi: stumpy, heavy slowdown or viscous inaction.
The signal called "Inertial Energy" will be redefined to this new clarification. We see that the Pi process, like Ji, actually moves towards 'inaction' and this manifests like a weighted energy that is seeking always to come to a rest (I), even if it doesn't do so in a sudden halt (Ji). Movement of any sort comes from the Pe and Je functions, while both Pi and Ji seek to bring things to rest.
3) Ni Hypnotic Eyes =/= High-Ni type
We also clarified that although the Ni signals are not wrong or misclassified, it's incorrect to base function hierarchy exclusively on them without accounting for energetics. A very Ni-zoned-out expression does not signify Ni-lead unless the person also has Pi energy and Senex energy more specifically. An energetic Se-lead with Ni hypnotic eyes suggests that Ni is conscious, but not the first function. In short, hierarchy is best determined by Enegetic Quadrant signals and the specific function signals we see inform us as to the development of the functions within that hierarchy.
4) Seelie & Unseelie exist independent of high or low Te/Fi
It was originally thought that "high Te = more unseelie" and "high Fi = more seelie". But it turns out there are seelie Te-leads and unseelie Fi-leads. The attitudes of the F function are decoupled from the hirerachical order of the functions. This was really cemented across the Delta types as we saw seelie/unseelie varieties of all the types.
Seelie Fi =/= High-Fi
Along the same lines it turns out that Seelie Fi =/= High-Fi. Previously the placement of a person's Fi in their hierarchy was determined by their level of seeliness. This lead to the mistyping of a lot of very seelie NeFi's as FiNe's, because maximal seeliness was equated with being Fi-lead. It also lead to the mistyping of SiTe's like Fred Rogers as FiNe. But it turns out the best indicators of Fi-lead are again Ji-lead signals. The energetics are the right signals to go off of, when determining hierarchy.
5) Male & Female psychology does make a partial difference
Lastly, we are finding that --all things being equal-- there is still a slight difference between the male and female expressions of all the types due to how type intersects with male/female psychology. This is an unpopular view in some sense with the political landscape at present, but it aligns with our statistics so far. Even when people align in type, development and F attitude, a difference in biological sex affects personality in ways that are significant enough to warrant at least a passive notice. Males and females are more the same than they are different, but subtle differences are still there.
General Discoveries
1) Development Levels are Real
I wasn't completely sure when I started this if dividing up the samples this way (by function consciousness) would actually translate to noticeable differences in the psychologies of those who are grouped together under the same development. And it turns out samples really do cluster successfully/behaviorally around things as they are parsed out this way at a higher level of resolution.
This comes with a slew of sub-discoveries as well. It means that it really is possible to have lower functions be conscious. Categories like l-l- (NeTe, SiFi) which are only ever abstractly discussed in other typology circles as "Dom-Tert Loops" and other names... can be shown to exist in a *practical*, visible form. And it doesn't end at the supposed Dom-Tert loop but expands beyond what most models postulated, including polarization l--l and even the l-ll and ll-l developments which I don't know any system that even postulates them, let alone shows evidence for it.
So it's not just an abstraction to say "Ti-lead with conscious Se+Fe is a thing", it's something we can now point to. Likewise "FeNi with conscious Se+Ti" is something we can readily point to. The addition of development levels transforms our understanding of typology and also shows us that --yes-- we all really can develop each one of our functions. But despite this, "no", we don't change type because of it.
There's a fine line between saying a person is FeNi l-ll and saying they're TiSe, which would previously not be explicable without this additional understanding. A TeSi l-ll like Martha Beck would most certainly misclassify as NeFi in other systems because it's so counter-intuitive to say a TeSi can have conscious Ne+Fi. But it's true, as far as I can tell.
And this also permanently alters the "box" of what a type is. No longer can we look at a type as just one standard development with a set scaling progression of function strength. We're forced to acknowledge that while we each have an intrinsic type, our life paths can force us to call forth our latent faculties, to grow and change (yet from within a type structure) because "who we are" is a combination of Nature + Nurture.