@redbaron - Thanks for the feedback.
So, I know what you're saying. The phenomenon being described here actually needs no prior framework of reference to be observed. When you look at the videos (like the
TeSi one), you'll see that the clustering of visual qualities and cognitive qualities happens on its own, void of any specific language scaffold.
But it's only via language that we can really understand it; so a taxonomy gets applied. This is not unscientific, this is entirely to be expected. As I pointed out to Gopher earlier in the thread:
I would actually totally support a double-checking of CT theory starting from zero premise/models. In fact, CT started out
precisely that way (but it became far too tedious and time consuming for us to do it manually (i.e. we need computers/programming to really crunch statistics)).
In whatever case, I would hypothesize that such an approach would have to arrive at a similar conclusion/clustering, because these signals cluster themselves together without the need for a model to be applied onto them. And I'm not just saying this; I can demonstrate this organic clustering.
It does seem suspicious that I would affiliate an experiment like this with Jung's archaic concepts (btw, this isn't mbti this is a sister theory to mbti just like socionics is). This just happens to be where the theory came out; but it's long since taken on a life of it's own.
For example, the majority of the terms in CT theory are entirely new, and this is because they had to be created to describe things hitherto lacking terms. So it's really incorrect to say CT has just taken mbti and tried to reverse-justify it. CT has been following its own trajectory of research, following the evidence. But most psychology theories start out with a scaffold or hypothesis, then that is put to the test and what survives the rigor of testing is what remains accepted.
This has already happened, and CT abandons many concepts that aren't represented in the data; leaving only what can be verified. I kid you not, every concept in CT is simultaneously visual and psychological -- so that there's minimal semantic ambiguity.
But the same whittling-down process will certainly happen further to CT, as others test it in more rigorous ways. I don't expect 100% of it to pass the rigor of testing, but having tested these ideas myself and found them consistent, I do expect a fair bit of it to be verified and pave the way toward a higher understanding of psychic differences. But without a starting point --- and starting hypotheses --- it's often a lot harder to structure even the research itself.
So "CT" isn't a closed system/theory or an endpoint in itself, CT is a vehicle to deliver a new information medium to the world; aimed to be assimilated eventually into the rest of our (presently rather sparse) understanding of human psychology.
I realize CT is making a lot of claims all at once. But each claim can be succinctly delineated and independently put to the test. I'll try to explain what I mean.
#1: Hemispheric Dominance (Right/Left) and Closure vs Openness
[bimgx=300]http://imgur.com/FFaERYe.jpg[/bimgx]
There's been plenty of research that points to a legitimate specialization of brain hemispheres in our human anatomy. Added to that, certain people have higher brain activity in one hemisphere over the other, and this demonstrates in temperamental differences.
What CT would postulate is that the people that demonstrate the highest concentration of "J" signals would also demonstrate the highest levels of activity in the left hemisphere, and "P" types in the right hemisphere.
#2: Extroversion & Introversion (Brain Activity Levels)
I believe research also exists, which Nardi also points to, suggesting that introverted people show higher brain activity in a default state, and excessive activity in a stimulated state. Inversely, extroverts show low activity in a default state (i.e. boredom) and medium activity in a stimulated state.
CT postulates that those who show a high concentration of introverted signals (Ji & Pi) would show brain activity that matches this, and vice versa for extroverts.
----
These first two, if verified, compound to create four types of people which actually correspond generally to the four Humors. They would actually create categories of their own, which have predicted personality traits that can be verified further:
#3: Four Temperaments
a. Right Hemisphere + Extroverted [Pe]
Expected Signals:
* Alert/Wide Eyes
* Darting Eyes
* Perk Ups
* Bubbling Momentum
* Body Swaying
Expected Psychology: Unorganized, spontaneous, adaptable, creative, impulsive, artistic, improvisational, etc.
b. Right Hemisphere + Introverted [Pi]:
Expected Signals:
* Inertial Energy
* Fixed Gaze
* Diagonal Drifts
* Worldview Rambling
* Searching Scowling
Expected Psychology: Relaxed, referential, peaceful, open-ended, reserved, prone to think in narratives, etc.
c. Left Hemisphere + Extroversion [Je]:
Expected Signals:
* Head Nods
* Head Shakes
* Shoulder Shrugs
* Pointed Emphasis
* Projecting Hands
Expected Psychology: Organized, charismatic, methodical, articulate, controlling, leader-like, etc.
d. Left Hemisphere + Introversion [Ji]:
Expected Signals:
* Receding Energy
* Disengaging Eyes
* Exerted Push
* Momentum Halting
* Meticulous Hands
Expected Psychology: Withdrawn, analytical, serious, particular/finicky, reflective, precise, etc.
~~
So we can suppose that if 4 out of 5 signals are prominently present in a person, consistently across multiple video sessions, said person would be hypothesized to have the personality traits listed in that category. This can be verified or negated. If verified, then that means we can predict at least this much about personality from video footage alone.
So then if a new person shows all signals of Pe and P in general, then if put under a brain scan we would expect to see high levels of brain activity in general, and stronger activity in the right hemisphere.
And as you can see I'm making very specific claims, quantifiable down to individual signals/motions. So CT isn't lacking in the precision department, at least I don't think. I don't know how much more methodological vigor we want to insert.
I mean just to be somewhat helpful, the first problem that you should be tackling is really:
"How do we establish a control group?"
Even then it's still all very subjective and I don't even know how you'd go about establishing one... but if you could, it'd immediately make this the most robust and useful personality/typology method around.
But the only real way to establish control groups is to use brains and neurons... Which is why Dario Nardi does that, instead of this.
I wonder if the above adequately answers this, hmmm.
I do need help structuring an actual experiment though.
I did buy an EEG device, to do my own preliminary testing of this sort. And I finally have the funds to buy the missing electrodes too.
But yeah. When I actually read about the methodological procedures of most psychology studies, I find them laughable. o.O A lot of it is just questioning the subject, getting their interpretation of things, etc.
We need way more than that.
I might even be able to get through all of them eventually, I can be pretty stubborn.
