I think that what you are trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong) is that CT goes to the physiological/physiognomical roots of typing, where the proof of a given type lies in the muscular structure and reactions of the face and eyes, which by nature can never be denied as evidence that one responds in a specific way. After all, the proof is in the muscular pattern, and hence, whichever muscles are active at given timepoints are signature fingerprints of a given type.
I can buy this for sure, since it feels akin to the type of signals that a lie detector test might evaluate for evidence that lying (or not lying) is taking place. The proof lies in the increased heart rate, sweat, etc. , and all those underlying sympathetic nervous system indicators. I see what you are aiming to do as being quite similar to this.
Contrastingly, you assert that in most other systems, approximations can creep in because even though one thinks that a certain type is exhibiting Fe, perhaps it is some additive combo of Fi and Te that when superimposed could look like Fe, when in fact a true Fe is absent. Also the signal comes from one's psychology (and how one subjectively perceives a given situation) rather than from the direct evidence of physiology/physiognomy. It also depends on the theoretical framework by which a certain function is understood and the times when one is actually using that function (in addition to the other 7). So much of this is based upon what our definitions (of say, Ne, for example) are, and when each function is apparent/not apparent in a given situation. All this has some subjectivity creeping in that you feel affects the validity of that particular typologies' effectiveness. I get what you are saying in this regard.
What I would LOVE to know is how you found out that (for example) Fi/Te can be seen in cheek muscular structure, how that penetrative stare is the domain of Ni, how the eyes toggling stresses Ne, etc. In other words, how did you deduce that the results of certain physiognomical reactions absolutely are a fingerprint of one function (or a set of functions, like Te/Fi)? Was it via your observations of other people and/or celebrities? Is there a textbook that lays out this material? I think that if I could see an undeniable cause-effect relationship between the typological and each muscular response, then I am very much on your side about this. I just need further explanation about this. Perhaps all that I need to see one more time is your intro video to derive each of these cause-effect relationships, and then I will get it (and I will watch again that video to hopefully have some gaps filled in this regard). Maybe I need a good textbook on this stuff. Nevertheless, I think that what you are doing has quite a lot of insight, and once these gaps are filled in for me, this will sell the point that much more to me.
I think that when it comes to theoretical errors, Socionics is really not bad at all in this regard. As LeaT nicely stated, you have to hand it to an ILE-Ti like Aushra Augusta to generate a theory that also feels pretty airtight theoretically and yet, generates so many areas of novel thought and discussion based on various nuances of the theory. (By the way, ILE-Ti, according to Socionics, is the type that Einstein likely was. I'm actually curious what you might find Einstein's CT to be. Would it be similar or different from say, Feynman? I'm kinda curious about this.) Sometimes, I wonder whether temperamentally each type matches it (like for example, is every ILE naturally an EP (with its chaotic information-gathering style), or can exceptions creep in? (Then again, I think that subtype theories may correct for this). But Socionics is not bad in any respect of being pretty sound theoretically on the whole. MBTI is way worse. The Enneagram may not focus as much on theoretical foundations as Socionics, but like LeaT mentioned, the Enneagram's strength is more in describing what one's general fixation happens to be as well as the way to help a person alleviate the effect of such a fixation. So I find it actually as a very useful personal growth tool (rather than a cognitive typing tool). (BTW, LeaT, I am either a 6-9-2 or 6-9-3 tritype).
But on the whole, erifrail, I like what you are trying to say. I do think that physiognomical/neurological manifestations are better than not having them. I also leave open the possibility that what you are seeing in my facial activities trumps anything else. The only thing missing (in my mind) would be that direct cause-effect framework between the typological and physiognomical. If we can take this beyond simple correlations (for example, between Ni and that penetrative stare, etc.) and get to higher causations (which I think that you may instinctively know how this is arranged), then your theory has very interesting possibilities.
By the way, is it definite that there is that 1:1 correlation between a given function and its physiognomic result? In other words, is it possible that someone could show some muscular activity on his/her face that has nothing to do with a given function or could be the result of an alternative cognitive function?
Or is it a fait accompli that the 'penetrative stare' is always Ni? (I apologize for over-utilizing the identical example...it just happens to be the first that comes to mind!)
I am trying to determine if mistypings can also inherently creep into CT or if it (unlike all other typological theories) is truly unmistypeable? (Is unmistypeable the correct word usage here?)
Last Edit: Apr 22, 2013 16:26:43 GMT -5 by mikesilb
I can buy this for sure, since it feels akin to the type of signals that a lie detector test might evaluate for evidence that lying (or not lying) is taking place. The proof lies in the increased heart rate, sweat, etc. , and all those underlying sympathetic nervous system indicators. I see what you are aiming to do as being quite similar to this.
Awesomeness! Yeah, 'lie-detector' tactics sorta relate to this. And as for how this was attained, there is no book out there for this - it's pretty 'fringe' I guess you could say. (as per this post: cognitivetype.boards.net/post/206/thread ) There's about a dozen people in the typology community who have picked up on this at varying degrees. I do have tentative plans to write a book or at least online-book/PDF on all of this, but it'll take some time. And also, I need to verify that more people can also see this. The plan would be to develop a solid pilot study and present it to the proper University which can conduct large-scale tests.
As for the question of how visual reading couldn't been developed properly (and know the connections were done right) if it didn't exist in the first place from which to measure or check itself by. The answer is:
## Basically, you really only have to be "precise enough" in your understanding of Jung's theory and ability to identify functions in people psychologically to let visual reading do the rest, and I'll explain how. If, per example, using nothing but jung-based psychoanalysis, you take samples of people of a certain type (say, FeSi) and say you're 70% correct about their type using just jung-analysis, and then you seek to identify visual gestures, you'll still see patterns. You'll notice the similarities they have as well as the differences. You'll form a template that says 'in general' these types gesture like 'this'. You can do the same for all other 15 types and soon you'll start noticing that what began as an 'in general' assessment of Fe+Si signals also hold true in types that have a mixing of those processes. And you'll see that in general Te and Ni users do cretain other things. Then when you go back full-circle to the first set of samples (FeSi) you'll be able to see that those 30% that didn't match were actually of a different type, and it'll make sense now what type that is.
## This is how Nardi's experiment/approach would work also. See, he starts out typing people via jungian analysis, then putting them in a brain scan. He has no empirical measure to know whether he types his initial samples properly, but more often than not they show the same activity and similar patterns. This supports that he did at least a decent job at identifying people with similar brain functionality. Nardi then formulates "templates" of brain activity from these patterns which quickly become more reliable than the jungian analysis itself. Say, for example that Nardi is EEG scanning someone who believes themselves to be NiTe, but the brain activity matches the templates of all the TiNe that have been scanned. Then this person's mistyping was revealed.
Nardi just needed to be more correct than not, and identify the brain patterns, then from there he can rely on the brain patterns instead of jungian guesswork. Over time and with more samples, more complete and accurate templates of the brain activity of the types can be developed, until the jungian ambiguity can pretty much be phased out. This is not to say it'd cease to be psychologically relevant since, after all, brain activity is psychological activity and when a person tells you you utilize these certain patterns of brain activity they are giving you information about your psychology. And truly knowing a person's type empirically would allow for a plethora of other forms of study to arise. Such as what about their genetics? Whose more disposed to certain mental conditions? Etc. The psychological profiles themselves can also be deeply enriched by being able to delve deeper into solid samples and get an understanding of the causality that leads them to all manner of psychic twists/turns.
I think that if I could see an undeniable cause-effect relationship between the typological and each muscular response, then I am very much on your side about this. I just need further explanation about this. Perhaps all that I need to see one more time is your intro video to derive each of these cause-effect relationships.
There's a link here: cognitivetype.boards.net/thread/35/ Which describes not only the cause, but precisely why the perception functions fold/move the eyes the way they do. (Post #3 especially) The same will be done for the judgment functions in time, but a lot of it can be inferred from the present material.
