Everything CT

[Auburn]

Hello! As some of you may know, I've been involved in the creation of a new typology model for the past five years - with the help of Renee Bayard and a few other core developers around the world.

I've shared maybe about 5% of the theory on this forum some years ago, at most, as I've preferred to keep my research separate from my forum involvement. But I'd like to open the topic up with you all, for those who are interested in what I've been up to. ^^

I'll be containing all my cognitive typology topics in this single thread, as to not clutter the forum. Please feel free to ask questions if you have any.

***
​

I could start in many different places, but I start with some of the more succinct the evidence:

edit: First the signals, what they look like, and what they imply about the person's psychology at the moment.

• J-1: Rigid Posture
• J-2: Face Centric
• J-3: Angular Motions
• J-4: Exacting Hands
• J-5: Subordinate Perception
• P-1: Fluid Posture
• P-2: Eye Centric
• P-3: Ongoing Movements
• P-4: Casual Hands
• P-5: Subordinate Judgment
• Je-1: Head Nods
• Je-2: Head Shakes
• Je-3: Shoulder Shrugs
• Je-4: Pointed Emphasis
• Je-5: Projecting Hands
• Pi-1: Inertial Energy
• Pi-2: Fixed Gaze
• Pi-3: Diagonal Eye-Drifts
• Pi-4: Worldview Rambling
• Pi-5: Searching Scowling
• Ji-1: Receding Energy
• Ji-2: Disengaging Eyes
• Ji-3: Exerted Push
• Ji-4: Momentum Halting
• Ji-5: Meticulous Hands
• Pe-1: Alert/Wide Eyes
• Pe-2: Darting Eyes
• Pe-3: Perk Ups

And a listing of people's types:

FEB 2017:
https://atlas.mindmup.com/2017/02/1...fb1fb7830/database_sandoval_2_2017/index.html
​

The above list is a mind-map/web consisting of 347 personal samples, arranged radially in proximity to one another based on vultological similarities.

I'll get the scary stuff out of the way first. That's at least some 59 hours of footage, if we assume 10 minutes per sample, of which there are more than that. Each sample has a blue box on it which reveals one or more youtube videos, to demonstrate their vultology.

I don't expect any member to look at them all. o_o; I'll be highlighting some of them in future posts. But it goes without saying that this is a very data-driven model. Every concept in cognitive typology (CT) is quantitatively (and qualitatively) defined.

For CT, types are not defined as ambiguous profiles which are subject to interpretation, but as observable 'signatures' in body language, mental processing and how that processing evidences itself in the face.

It's not immediately obvious why this face-to-psychology correlation exists, and it may seem dubious or hard to believe at first, but I hope you'll hear me out and test these ideas for yourself to see if they hold water.

Here is a primer video to the theory:

https://youtu.be/Ozr4uE1U4Yc

 

[Auburn]

inb4 jumping to the TiNe part of the mindmap to look for personal correlations.

Starting with yourself is *not* the way to understand CT. This is because we have the most degree of bias involved in our own self identity. Oddly enough, CT is not a model designed to easily give people identities, nor is it a psychometric instrument.

How to Approach CT

You need to approach CT like science, if you're to understand it. And you need to approach it in a decentralized way; that is, without putting yourself at the center and comparing people/types to yourself. Instead, compare all people to other people. That is the only proper way to attain a cohesive and accurate context.

Ok, so because this is an INTP (TiNe) forum,

I'm gonna start this thread off deliberately with a polar opposite type; one I think the least amount of members will have personal attachments to. This is what an SeFi looks like via 3 samples:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKzAgTpk4F8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deXSDTr3LF4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNZNWj81vYo


I wonder if you guys can see the similarities in the above 3?

Tip: Try playing all three videos while muted, and scroll up and down the post to see them.

Do any of you know girls like these, or have you ever encountered girls like this before?

 

[The Gopher]

I wonder if you guys can see the similarities in the above 3?

Bobble head!

 

[Auburn]

Bobble head!

Gopher scores 5 points!

That's one signal present across Pe users. Pe adds a bubbly energy to the body, which manifests in a swaying body/head rhythm (proportional to its degree of strength in the psyche.)

Psychologically, "loose body swaying" demonstrates a relaxation of Judgment, a fluidity in the moment, and receptiveness toward spontaneity/change/transition. The mind is riffing with the present, dynamic and impressionable.

 

[Grayman]

The sample is all women and of the same age. Is that on purpose?

Their eyes and how they look off diagnally when they are remembering or thinking hard about somthing. Their faces really scrunch up when disgusted or anxious or remember being anxious. Their lips flex a lot like they are really pronouncing their words except it is less associated with the words and more about the feelings behind the words.

 

[Auburn]

(On purpose, yep, to help the pattern come out at first. until we've gotten the hang of it.)

@Grayman - pretty perceptive!
so to summarize your post...

* looking off diagonally when remembering
* scrunching faces (as if really pronouncing their words) in expression of disgust
* lips flexed, displaying, by this, their "feelings behind the words"
​

Looking off diagonally is indeed a signal of recollection, which is Pi (introverted perception; inner data searching). But this is relatively minimal in SeFi's compared to, say, Ni-leads.

SeFi's have strong Fi, which is what causes that disgusted look on their cheeks you mentioned. Fi is a function intimately connected to private feelings. Fi is closely tied to (though not synonymous with) the emotions of disgust and contempt, because it is a function that is characteristically internally judgmental (Ji) but in an emotionally invested (F) way.

[bimgx=650]http://imgur.com/fcbDFWh.jpg[/bimgx]
What this means is that Fi is making dozens of micro-moral-judgments (in real-time) about everything from their own thoughts/imaginations to observations of what's happening around them.

Every micro Fi judgment will cause an automatic contraction of the lip rising up toward the nose, seen above, as if making a judgment of disgust/contempt. It's a "snarl" of sorts, and indicates Fi activating. Fi users show these snarling expressions whether their inner judgment is positive or negative. For an Fi user, internally resonating with an idea/aesthetic/ethic will also cause a snarling expression to appear on their face because it affects them emotionally/internally all the same.

To give an example of this in action, in Dakota's vid at 0:27 she remembers a very embarrassing moment. The remembrance of the moment causes the left side of her mouth to rise up asymmetrically:

* (looking down diagonally = remembering)
* (asymmetrical snarling = deeply emotional/personal judgment)

These three women are filled with signals of Fi snarling tension, due to being aux-Fi users. The degree to which these micro-expressions are seen is proportional to the level of Fi judgment that is occurring in their psychology at the moment.

 

[Cognisant]

All the video evidence in the world isn't solid evidence of anything unless you've got unambiguous metrics, classifying different facial expressions is not an entirely invalid metric however it's not a very good one either. Facial expressions are very much open to interpretation, of course you could use special software to measure how much someone's head moves or use eye tracking to determine where their gaze goes as they speak. But there's going to be a lot of edge cases so you're going to need mountains of data to determine with any accuracy anything conclusive.

Even then the conclusions will be along the lines of: females aged 20-30 have a 23% higher likelihood of looking to the left when they speak about a past event. Anything beyond that and without unambiguous metrics (like age and gender) any further inferences are really just speculation, you're going beyond the data you have to assume that there's an underlying pattern.

Edit: I'm a bit face blind, not quite mistaking people for coat-racks bad but I often struggle to put a name to a face until I hear them speak or deduce their identity by their clothing/possessions/stance/etc, so suffice to say making any kind of judgement based off facial expressions seems very hokey to me.

 

[Auburn]

@Metrics

Yes, indeed. CT has such a thing. It's called the vultology code - although it's not yet completed online. (workin' on it) It's a codex of 110 signals that are unambiguously defined. Each signal has:

• A written definition of its visual constitution (down to facial muscle names)
• At least 10 visual examples of its manifestation (in the form of looping GIFs)
• A written description of what psychology is occuring during the event of that signal.

You can go to any signal's page and see 10+ looping GIFs precisely demonstrating the isolated signal in action across a variety of faces. The codex is designed to make quantification and testing of the theory unambiguous.

For example, you can try EEG testing on people to see what their neural activity is like at the moment they're making a certain expression. Since CT asserts a certain psychological experience is accompanying their expression, neuroscience can verify or deny this.

Statistics can be taken of a person's face, across these 110 signals to see what their "facial profile" looks like. And comparisons can be done to find people with very high statistical compatibility to them, to see if their psychologies are indeed a match as well.

Even then the conclusions will be along the lines of: females aged 20-30 have a 23% higher likelihood of looking to the left when they speak about a past event. Anything beyond that and without unambiguous metrics (like age and gender) any further inferences are really just speculation, you're going beyond the data you have to assume that there's an underlying pattern.

Well, to preemptively assume a pathway or hypothesis of exploration has no merit, will not produce statistical significance, or very little if any -- is biased to say the least, and unscientific. There's no way to know what the strength of the correlations is, unless the experiments are run.

Edit: I'm a bit face blind, not quite mistaking people for coat-racks bad but I often struggle to put a name to a face until I hear them speak or deduce their identity by their clothing/possessions/stance/etc, so suffice to say making any kind of judgement based off facial expressions seems very hokey to me.

Hehe, I think many others here spend their time actively avoiding faces (and the people they belong to!) But c'mon Coggie, give it a fair go. Dismissing an idea because its observations/data-source are something you don't engage in regularly, is fallacious.

Honestly..., the idea that people who look, act, and gesture identically also have very similar psychologies, is entirely obvious. At least in principle, to most people.

The degree to which that correlation is true, is what needs to be contended. As well as the specifics of what constitutes this similarity. But I haven't really met anyone who fundamentally disagrees with the premise of vultology, which is that facial expressions are a representation of inner psychological experience.

 

[The Gopher]

How long does it take to do a single person?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I would have typed Lorde as SeFi too, based on visual similarities to another person I have typed as SeFi. I also typed Tim Allen as TeSi and I believe you've typed him the same way. (my method pretty much is saying, like, Person A is very similar to Person B at least in some aspect, Person B is typed as X, so Person A is probably X as well - often based on how the face looks or on words spoken but not so much dynamic cues like you use)

That would lead me to believe that I'm looking at the same 16 types as you, but then you've typed me as TiNe, which I considered but I can't see it, I'm sure I must be NiFe, so the discrepancy there is strange. (I thought maybe the Ti was because it's my tertiary and I'm Ni-Ti loop or whatever, but to explain the Ne I have to suppose that we have decent use of up to 8 of the functions - which I do think, but it seems that CT doesn't incorporate that)

 

[The Gopher]

Okay I'm curious I have the same skepticism but also due to being familiar with similar psychology work it's potentially plausible. I want to know more but can't quite grab the questions to ask. I assume you took a top down approach borrowing from Jung and MBTI on the fact that there are 16 types and cognitive functions. Do you think you would have ended up with 16 types if you had simply studied clusters of facial expressions without prior knowledge of Jung and MBTI? are CT types linked completely to Jung/MBTI where typing with CT will tell what MBTI type you are or partly separate only borrowing the functions system?

 

[Auburn]

@Gopher - There are potentially infinite types, depending on how granular you want to go in your compartmentalization. If you notice the mind-map in the OP has various "shades" (over 80 i'm sure), because even within types there are more and less similar people.

The amount of granularity you stop at is less relevant than the method itself. Because one principle always holds true; the more similar two people's vultology is, the more similar their psychology is also. Identical twins, for example, have almost identical vultology just about every time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gwnzW4jOMI

^ (separate at birth = no chance for imitation of mannerisms.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQMkjjvs6oQ

So 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.

 

[Auburn]

I would have typed Lorde as SeFi too, based on visual similarities to another person I have typed as SeFi. I also typed Tim Allen as TeSi and I believe you've typed him the same way. (my method pretty much is saying, like, Person A is very similar to Person B at least in some aspect, Person B is typed as X, so Person A is probably X as well - often based on how the face looks or on words spoken but not so much dynamic cues like you use)

That's exactly the right way to do it.

Notice similarities, and see if they cross over into psychological similarities. If there is no connection, break the association. Keep track of the degree of fidelity between signal-to-psyche associations you make, and drop any that aren't more than 50% consistent. Rinse and repeat.

That itself should lead people causally to come to similar conclusions, no matter what method they start out using. Via a type of natural selection process, the associations that remain consistent ( >50%) throughout your samples, will likewise have an equal level of predictive power. The key is to have a large enough sample size, because the larger it is, the more refined the conclusions can be.

***

Here's another one for you guys:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQGKhjjJFys

Especially note between 1:50-3:05, where there's a slideshow collage of the different expressions.

Psychologically:
All of these people are:

• Either very involved in business, politics, news, entrepreneurship, or similar sorts of enterprises.
• Productive, proactive, somewhat (or very) unfiltered.
• Often a bit mechanical/militant
• Have a witty or snarky sense of humor

The general personality of this shade (lets not call them 'type') for now, is that of a no-bullshit, straight shooter, logically and logistically minded, go-getter.

Visually:

Notice, how they have a similar sort of facial animation to the SeFi. There's a similar tautness to their cheeks, with a wobble effect happening on their lip, as it contracts rather randomly in asymmetrical ways. This is Fi.

Other qualities of this shade is a rigid body posture. Unlike the SeFi which has the "bobble head", these guys have a rather firm sort of head rattling going on.

-----------

So from this observation I would make the hypothesis (and please feel free to test me on this) that if I found another person with a similar vultology to these samples, they would likely also have:

• A probable interest in politics/business/entrepreneurship
• A rather blunt and no-bullshit character
• A focus on proactivity, efficiency and logistics
• A witty/sarcastic sense of humor

As with every claim made in this thread, I welcome rebuttals.

 

[The Gopher]

Auburn, where do I cluster? Facial expressions.

Spoiler

Honestly I'm curious where you would put me as well.

 

[Auburn]

Honestly I'm curious where you would put me as well.

Oy.
I really hope not to turn this into a member typing thread.
How about this... i promise i'll try my hand at member typings after the thread's reached 30 posts, if it gets there. That may give me a bit more time to explain the theory.

'Cuz the problem is, without an understanding of the argument I'm putting forth -- the only thing people have to compare my typing of them with, is MBTI. And so they immediately relate it to known MBTI profiles, then likely disagree with them. (which is to be expected, since they're defined differently)

It's important to understand what the types are all like, to know where one fits in, relative to the whole population.

edit: But any thoughts on my above posts/videos?

 

[The Gopher]

Oy.
I really hope not to turn this into a member typing thread.
How about this... i promise i'll try my hand at member typings after the thread's reached 30 posts. That may give me a bit more time to explain the theory.

'Cuz the problem is, without an understanding of the argument I'm putting forth -- the only thing people have to compare my typing of them with, is MBTI. And so they immediately relate it to known MBTI profiles, then likely disagree with them. (which is to be expected, since they're defined differently)

It's important to understand what the types are all like, to know where one fits in, relative to the whole population.

edit: But any thoughts on my above posts/videos?

Just make it a different thread once you've reached 30 posts or something. I appreciate that, it's good to know it's different from MBTI.

I watched the TeSi video and while I don't have any specific comments the clusters were creepily similar. I mean that said as far as miley goes (which sadly is the only one I actually have any data on) I'm not sure if she's like that all the time. It could be because she's sort of an entertainer she changes it up more than the others.

Can't view the second twin video but the first was similar as well.

So from this observation I would make the hypothesis (and please feel free to test me on this) that if I found another person with a similar vultology to these samples, they would likely also have:
A probable interest in politics/business/entrepreneurship
A rather blunt and no-bullshit character
A focus on proactivity, efficiency and logistics
A witty/sarcastic sense of humor

So as far as making assumptions after you have the data. How many outliers have you found? If you find someone who matches up with perfectly with the TeSi facial expressions who doesn't match with what you would expect them to be like based on the others what does that mean? What do you do with that information?

 

[QuickTwist]

(random: you remind me a lot of Animekitty, in the voice tone and phenotype. are you guys related? 0: )...

...I've having similar difficulties reading you down to 1 type, as I have with Anime. It's as though something is irregular...

...I've done some 600 or so typings at this point, but your vultology doesn't really fit that of many. The closest you come to is a few FiSe and TiSe I've read...

If I had to say, I'd say 45% chance of FiSe, 40% chance of TiSe, 15% chance of NiTe. But I don't see Fe much at all, so at most it would be an inferior function. There's an emotional 'pinch' in your throat that seems like Fi's private emotion.

Can you talk more about this? Especially the red.

 

[Black Rose]

Auburn,

How does Introversion and Extroversion map with facial features?

Specifical Judgment and Perception where direction shows orientation?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Can you talk more about this? Especially the red.

it's the schizo, it makes us hard to type ;D

That's exactly the right way to do it.

Notice similarities, and see if they cross over into psychological similarities. If there is no connection, break the association. Keep track of the degree of fidelity between signal-to-psyche associations you make, and drop any that aren't more than 50% consistent. Rinse and repeat.

I'm not really thaaat systematic, it's more just that when I see someone I'll often associate them with someone else, then find out a little bit about them to see if a typing makes basic sense based on dichotomies.

I also pick up on other similarities, I think I've even seen some zodiac based connections. Sometimes there will be associations where I KNOW at least one must not be the same type, because I'll form a chain of associations where the first and last are quite surely not the same type. Works pretty well. Plus, I had a friend tell me a lot of their typings of people we know and it really gave me anchoring with what type's who, but there's a lot that I don't know, e.g. I don't know many Si types, although I did meet someone not long ago and was quite confident that they would have to be ISTJ, and then once one person is put in place the rest are more likely to fall in too.

So yeah, so far I've agreed with the celebrity typings I've had an opinion of. Eminem as SeTi was interesting since his type seems so debated. He does seem very Se in a way which could possibly be explained if he were Ni dominant or similar with strong Se inferior, and people keep typing him as an introvert. I see no reason to question SeTi there. He said something in an interview like "oh, he might have a somewhat different reaction..." which sounded like the divergent way that extroverted functions operate and the appearance-based nature of sensing. So he was generating a sensory based imaginative response (his imaginativeness would be likely what leads to a lot of various typings for him). For the Ti vs Fi, I would reason it out something like: his emotionally driven songs are the exception - mostly his songs are more emotionally detached - so that Thinking is likely dominant over Feeling.

 

[QuickTwist]

it's the schizo, it makes us hard to type ;D

LOL. You could be on to something there. The weird part is that they have seen about 600 different people and no schizo types? Probability wise, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

LOL. You could be on to something there. The weird part is that they have seen about 600 different people and no schizo types? Probability wise, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Most of those people are celebrities, or a very high portion anyway, and I think being famous and schizo is a rare combo, outside of say famous intellectuals. For your hollywood/music bizz people, it may be rare. On the other hand, I actually would expect quite a few schizophrenic musicians.

Still though, at 1% of the population that would be 6 schizo people... and 16 types that they can fall into. If indeed it does result in abnormal physiology, there would need to be a higher sample.

 

[Auburn]

...I've done some 600 or so typings at this point, but your vultology doesn't really fit that of many. The closest you come to is a few FiSe and TiSe I've read...

Mhm.
I estimate I've done about 600 typings, personally, if I factor in all the private readings I've done, and that of family members and friends. But a lot of those are in my own memory or otherwise inaccessible to others. About 350 of those I actually have online videos for -- and that's the mind-mup in the OP.

As for you not fitting any of those precisely; that's pretty much still the case. I often can't really make a connection with a person's psychology until I see a pattern repeat itself across multiple samples of the same case.

Your specific psychological situation (I believe you mentioned a diagnoses or two?) is likely factoring into things in a specific way. Renee Bayard is currently exploring the vultology of mental disorders in more detail, to help account for these differences. But it's a work in progress at the moment.

it's the schizo, it makes us hard to type ;D

Pretty likely!

Several things can interfere with a typing; one of them being abnormal emotional or cognitive development. As you guessed, CT has mainly been focused on charting the vultology of more "normal" individuals so far. But we're making that plunge...

If indeed it does result in abnormal physiology, there would need to be a higher sample.

Exactly; a larger sample base is needed.

Currently the CT model is only in its 2nd phase of completion. Last year it finished the 1st phase, which was the initial publication of the full theory/hypothesis.

The second phase involves gathering statistics, expanding the database (I'd like to hit 1,000 for a start) and making predictions based on large data sizes. For example, what careers are most likely among certain types, political affiliation, gender identity, etc.

The third phase would be instrumentation (or application) of the theory into a streamlined form factor and clinical tool. And the development of software, handouts, learning packets, video tutorial series, etc.

 

[Architect]

Good work, I find it useful to compare various Personology systems as they all are effectively similar at the core, but have different insights.

However one of the videos compared the psyche to an algorithm which is a false analogy I think. A classical algorithm is like a recipe, what little we know of how the brain works indicates probabilistic nets rather than deterministic algorithms.

 

[Auburn]

I watched the TeSi video and while I don't have any specific comments the clusters were creepily similar.

Aren't they?
Yes, Miley is a different shade from most of the others. I couldn't really capture her shade in the vid properly. In any case, I'm glad you're seeing something!

Spoiler

So as far as making assumptions after you have the data. How many outliers have you found? If you find someone who matches up with perfectly with the TeSi facial expressions who doesn't match with what you would expect them to be like based on the others what does that mean? What do you do with that information?

If the signals and psychology don't match, psychology should always be prioritized above vultology. The signals are always given less priority here, since the signals are only ever useful if they help identify underlying psychology. The signals themselves cannot force psychology; they can only inform on what psychology is already there.

That said, I've found there's rarely a case when a typing is entirely off the mark. For example, a person whose appearance suggests TeSi may actually be a TeNi. Or, perhaps they're psychologically an NeFi with strong Te. But I've never had a case where, for example, a TeSi was actually an NiFe.

Why this happens

Whenever there's a difficult reading, it's usually caused by interference. Since vultology isn't the only factor involved in a person's appearance, there is "noise" that can interfere with a reading, such as:

• Discrepancies due to anatomy and general facial structure obscuring the clarity of signals.
• The presence of mental disorders or other emotional/cognitive complications. For example:
  • Depression causes higher signals of introversion
  • Mania causes higher signals of extroversion
  • Chronic emotional distress/anxiety in a person may cause a rather pinched/taut mouth area to appear, reminiscent of Fi's snarling signal. This is because "deep feelings" are constantly "on" in such a person -- even if they're an Fe user.
• Overuse of a persona or proxy; narrow scope of video footage showing them in an altered state -- not their native/default state.

How are they categorized?

If a type is odd in this way, and doesn't fit the typical visual+psychological categories in existence, then they create their own category. The point is that, whatever iteration of human they are, there are likely others out there like them.

So they'll be placed in a 'suspended' category, awaiting more information on what exactly is happening in their psyche, once more people like them are discovered. You can see some of these in the mindmap via the "shadow database" to the right. There are more than those listed here.

Outliers, Missing Data

From the data I've collected, somewhere around 75%-80% of people fit the visual+psychological correlation perfectly down to a single type, and some 90%-95% can be narrowed down to being one of 2-3 types relatively quickly.

The more samples you have, the more probable it is that a new reading will match the vultology and psychology of an existing reading. Hence, this percentage gap of uncertainty has steadily shrunk with time as more samples have been introduced. I expect that upon reaching 1,000 samples, only 1 in 50 will be an unknown or unpaired individual.

Human mannerism expressions are pattern-based and "typical" in nature, and I think that some 2,000-3,000 samples may suffice to account for 99% of the population.

 

[Auburn]

Auburn,
How does Introversion and Extroversion map with facial features?

Here's a quick primer on these two.

Introversion & Extroversion

These two psychic dispositions are excellently described in Jung's opening pages of Psychological Types as a magnetic attraction to the 'object' (E) or the repulsion of the external for a gravitation toward the subject (I).

But how would this redirection of attention affect our appearance?

Lets slow down time here and analyze people closely. When the body is engaging in a subjective process, the attention of the mind is turned away (shut off) from the objective world, and this creates a disconnect from the outer. To put it in practical terms, imagine for a moment what happens when a person enters a profound state of contemplation:

A man's attention ceases to be connected to the external world. They will abandon/neglect the outer for the pursuit of the inner. We intuitively and culturally understand this activity, as it's been the subject and representation of many of our most iconic statues:

This is where things like the MBTI get it wrong. "Thinking" is a term that can be used to describe just about any mental process, not just "logic" ---- what we see in the above two examples is essentially introversion. It is the active accessing of inner faculties of any variety. To reiterate what Jung said, we abandon the outer for a magnetic attraction to the inner:

When this association is accepted, it then becomes a reasonable gauge of someone's level of introversion. When we witness a person whose body is constantly receding into itself by the eyes looking down, diverting their attention from their surroundings, we know that this person is accessing internal content.

Another way to think of this introversion/extroversion duality manifesting in the body, is as proactive and reactive. The extroverted processes seek out, or have their locus of attention in some outward concept/substance. The introverted process then reflects and reacts to what the extroverted processes initiate, and mulls over it internally.

 

[QuickTwist]

Mhm.
I estimate I've done about 600 typings, personally, if I factor in all the private readings I've done, and that of family members and friends. But a lot of those are in my own memory or otherwise inaccessible to others. About 350 of those I actually have online videos for -- and that's the mind-mup in the OP.

As for you not fitting any of those precisely; that's pretty much still the case. I often can't really make a connection with a person's psychology until I see a pattern repeat itself across multiple samples of the same case.

Your specific psychological situation (I believe you mentioned a diagnoses or two?) is likely factoring into things in a specific way. Renee Bayard is currently exploring the vultology of mental disorders in more detail, to help account for these differences. But it's a work in progress at the moment.

Can you tell me what it is exactly that is different than people with a diagnosis compared to people without the diagnosis?

My specific diagnosis is probably not covered since it is quite rare, though it may be covered indirectly from the angle of the diagnosis of both depression and schizophrenia. Logistically it would be very difficult to figure out how to combine these I think without a decent sample size of people with the same diagnosis as myself.

 

[Auburn]

Can you tell me what it is exactly that is different than people with a diagnosis compared to people without the diagnosis?

I can try to convey what I presently know.
Here is one example:

These two are NeFi
(white+female chosen deliberately, to better highlight the differences)

Notice the heaviness in the eyes of the girl with depression.
The non-depressed girl (Quinn) has a sparkle in her eye; they're more alive, curious and animated. The depressed girl's eyes are dead-like, disenchanted and pained.

Here are two more with a more severe look. These two have schizophrenia:

Lowered eyelids, dulled eyes, limited engagement with environment even when speaking, and what's called a flat affect.

This is all independent of type.

 

[Auburn]

So I'm hoping to continue the trend of introducing 1 new type per day.

For #3, today's type is FiSe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAwRZ7kxIiI

Fortunately, MBTI and CT seem to agree on this one pretty well, as I believe Michael Jackson = ISFP, Marilyn Monroe = ISFP, Prince = ISFP, Kate Bush = ISFP, etc.

I wonder what you guys see when looking at these?
Do you see any similarities?

Have you seen people like this in your life?

 

[Black Rose]

Re: The Typology Domain

Auburn,

When you wrote that Introversion is accessing the inside and that thinking is not just logic, it was eye opening to me. (vultology) makes sense if you look at it from the point of accessing inside or outside. (vultology) works by observing the asymmetry of accessing your functions. Different systems (functions) are the direction of access.

At Pod'Lair they said I was Nai'Xyy which is INFJ in their system. I don't know the systems in the brain that correspond to each function but if I am Ni then I access the inside most of the time.

On a blog I wrote:

Theory of Mind is the ability to correctly associate intents (focus) with a mind.
High (g) is the ability to focus on multiple targets with high accuracy.
Intelligence is just the recognition of symmetries and asymmetries.

Since the face moves by the internal systems of the brain. We may be able to recognize different patterns for intelligence.

 

[Auburn]

Re: The Typology Domain

Since the face moves by the internal systems of the brain. We may be able to recognize different patterns for intelligence.

Yes, that's precisely right.

Most people know this, intrinsically, even though they never think about it too deeply.

For example, do a google search for "contemplating" and you get results like this:

Spoiler

What do we see? The posture is withdrawn (I) away from the environment, eyes often either disengaging down, or looking absentmindedly off into the distance --- in a way that suggets they're not really "seeing" whatever their eyes are pointing at.

This is because when the eyes are introspecting, what is visually in one's line of sight is actually temporarily invisible/ignored. The mental "attention" is completely retreating from the external/objective. Hence, we know this signals a moment of introversion.

And then if you do a google search for "imagining" you get results like this:

Spoiler

The eyes here are mostly looking upward, there is more of an alertness to the eyes; curiosity. Shown by a widening of the eyes, fantastical smile and expression of awe or novelty.

~~

Now, you take these very simple, universal observations, and you take the next step in deduction, and simply say:

A person who continually, and consistently expresses the mannerisms seen in the "imaginative" pictures, is someone who is continually and consistently imaginative.

A person who continually and consistently expresses the mannerisms seen in the "contemplative" pictures, is someone who is continually introspective.

That is really as straightforward as vultology is. It's the study of how observing people's facial expressions can tell us what kind of mental processing they're engaged in, and by extension what type of cognitive processing defines their "native"/default/regular state of mental operation (if we observe them for long enough to see their consistent/habitual perimeter of expressiveness).

 

[The Gopher]

At the start the eyes looked like they were drawing pictures or whatever earthquake detectors do. I'm afraid I don't notice anything specific apart from eyes when it comes to facial expressions apart from naturally picking up a general vibe that is.

 

[PmjPmj]

INTJs must be incredibly easy to spot using this model. Just look for the person who always seems to be silently seething. They might be walking on sunshine internally, but externally they'll still look as though they're about to flip a shit and murder someone.

Blessing and a curse in equal measure, I guess.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

How about this... i promise i'll try my hand at member typings after the thread's reached 30 posts, if it gets there. That may give me a bit more time to explain the theory.

Here's 30

get typing

 

[The Gopher]

More importantly you have.... four days worth of types to catch up on.

 

[cheese]

Ooh. Yeah get to typing Auburn! But also post more of your actual material.

How do you distinguish between extroverts and introverts of a similar type (eg ENTP vs INTP)? By dominant function or by E/I factors?

Save​

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

Ooh. Yeah get to typing Auburn! But also post more of your actual material.

How do you distinguish between extroverts and introverts of a similar type (eg ENTP vs INTP)? By dominant function or by E/I factors?

Save​

By my understanding it has to do largely with their "flow of energy" as it were. People with a largely receding energy (ie. their 'momentum' is directed inwards or whatever) would be introverts and vice verse for people with outward flowing momentum/energy.

Which isn't to say that an introvert can't have burst of energy focused outwards, but most of the time you'll see it very quickly recede back into themselves. Again, vice verse for extraverts.

So as for ENTP vs INTP it would be a matter of seeing whether a person's natural default tends towards Ne functioning or Ti. So someone who has trouble sitting still and keeps fidgeting around with a kind of bouncy, yet fluid and soft, energy while their eyes keep roaming the room and only occasionally slows down into the colder, more rigid functioning of Ti(or any Ji) would be a very obvious NeTi.


correct me if I'm worng, Auburn

 

[Auburn]

Here's 30

get typing

Err did I say that?

Ooh. Yeah get to typing Auburn! But also post more of your actual material.

D: ......

Ok fine, bring it awn.

Ah yes, the actual, tangible material. I started uploading the signals this week. So far I have:

• J-1: Rigid Posture
• J-2: Face Centric
• J-3: Angular Motions
• J-4: Exacting Hands
• J-5: Subordinate Perception
• P-1: Fluid Posture
• P-2: Eye-Centric
• P-3: Ongoing Movements
• P-4: Casual Hands
• P-5: Subordinate Judgment

I'll be using these links (and those to come) from now on whenever I make mention of a signal. That way, each signal mentioned will have a clear-cut definition and a few GIF's of the signal "in action". Err... the short term goal is to get 2 GIFs for each signal. More later.


@Cheese(umpuffs) - That's precisely right. And just to add a note, the signal P-5 (subordinate judgment) will show what Fe/Ti gesticulations look like when they're subordinate to Perception, like to Ne.

Judgment is not only less frequent, but of a 'weaker force', per se.

 

[cheese]

I can't open those links! It says the account's been suspended. I was so excited!

 

[Auburn]

I can't open those links! It says the account's been suspended. I was so excited!

Waat? D:
Hmmm, works okay for me. Try:

http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/cognitivetype.com

Or wait, try a hard refresh of your browser (Ctrl+Shift+F5) when on the page.
Or maybe a proxy server? I swear I still have 10 days left before the next bill. Those bastards.

Spoiler

maybe i just like to tease

 

[cheese]

Working now. Cool signals. Clear differences between J and P.

 

[PmjPmj]

FWIW, some of those signals are the same yourself (Auburn) and Architect pointed out to me when looking at my video and offering up suggestions ~ 3 years ago. The both of you were almost spot on with my type, so I'm interested in all of this.

Good work. I look forward to reading into it further.

 

[Auburn]

Good work. I look forward to reading into it further.

Thank you. I'm glad you resonated with it, though I can't really remember what you looked like..! 0: It's been a long time.. But I'm sure your Te can find a lot of value in straightforward quantifications like these.

Here is some more content we just uploaded. The next installment:

• Je-1: Head Nods
• Je-2: Head Shakes
• Je-3: Shoulder Shrugs
• Je-4: Pointed Emphasis
• Je-5: Projecting Hands
• Pi-1: Inertial Energy
• Pi-2: Fixed Gaze
• Pi-3: Diagonal Eye-Drifts
• Pi-4: Worldview Ramblings
• Pi-5: Searching Scowling

And as a bonus highlight of Pi-4, but also all of these combined:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV7nPAyLf18

This video is also an example of a real-time analysis breakdown.

Analysis Verification

By doing these signal-breakdowns across multiple videos of a person, we can get a fair idea of the frequency of signals a person uses. Everyone prioritizes certain signals over others, and from those prioritized signals a personal "signature" could be written (or generated) that represents their unique vultology.

Now, as you know from the above, because every signal is tied to a psychological definition -- their "signature" would also simultaneously be a psychology profile of them.

The only element to verify/dispute is if the signals themselves indeed align with the psychological experiences CT claims are happening during the signals.

But I believe the correlation is quite self-evident and accessible via firsthand experience to everyone who has ever, or will ever, interact with another person. Nonetheless it can be double-checked against their speech/words, and in the future also against neural scans.

What do you think of the signal+psychological descriptions written up? Do you see the correlations? Do they align with your own experience with people, and what they seem to say or be experiencing during said visual signals?

Sometimes it takes some looking back into memory to reinterpret what was happening at a given time, or what a person's type was, way back then, but when you do this... suddenly mountains of unorganized floating data "clicks". And the people around you start making more sense

 

[kora]

Re: Everything C

When I was first introduced to mbti I would intuitively type people visually and often end up confirmed once I got to know them better and talk about the mbti with them, so this is fascinating to me.

However, i dismissed my typing as some kind of confirmation bias, coupled with the fact that the mbti typing system seems like a rather vague categorization of immense complexities, but the more I think about it again now, the more it seems plausible.

The main thing that seemed ridiculous would be that the actual facial features themselves would be indicative, as I find it hard to believe that the features themselves would relate to internal psychology, behavior sure, but the shape of the cheeks and eyes ? Nah.

The thing is that I failed to note that the use of the cheeks and muscle tension, which are behavior and therefore linked to psychological processes actually do determine the shape of the face itself over time and the general expression and appearance of the features in the moment.

I personally found INFP INTP ENTP INTJ ENFJ ESFP the easiest to type on sight or after very limited interaction. I think it's because I find them more interesting and notice them more.

I am also absolutely fascinated with the typing of mental disorders visually. I was watching an interview with ODB from Wu tang and typed him as schizophrenic, I did a search and saw that he had been diagnosed at one point. Do they tend to have heavier square jaw lines ? My own eyes creep me out when I'm in a depressive streak. Are there any other disorders that have been visually typed ? Have you looked at borderlines ? I have a friend who is diagnosed, her face is like Vivian Leigh's, there's something about a slight tension around the nose and narrowed eyes, i could be completely off. She's very interesting visually my friend, her expressions are rather exaggerated and large, coupled with a kind of resting haughtiness in her natural expressions.

Anyway I'm in the vague, but there's something worthwhile about this and you defend it quite well. Great stuff Auburn I'm impressed. Particularly how well my boyfriend matches up to the NeTi description, and others I know with others.

 

[QuickTwist]

• J-1: Rigid Posture
• J-2: Face Centric
• J-3: Angular Motions
• J-4: Exacting Hands
• J-5: Subordinate Perception
• P-1: Fluid Posture
• P-2: Eye Centric
• P-3: Ongoing Movements
• P-4: Casual Hands
• P-5: Subordinate Judgment
• Je-1: Head Nods
• Je-2: Head Shakes
• Je-3: Shoulder Shrugs
• Je-4: Pointed Emphasis
• Je-5: Projecting Hands
• Pi-1: Inertial Energy
• Pi-2: Fixed Gaze
• Pi-3: Diagonal Eye-Drifts
• (more being added)

• J-1: Rigid Posture
• J-2: Face Centric
• J-3: Angular Motions
• J-4: Exacting Hands
• J-5: Subordinate Perception
• P-1: Fluid Posture
• P-2: Eye-Centric
• P-3: Ongoing Movements
• P-4: Casual Hands
• P-5: Subordinate Judgment

• Je-1: Head Nods
• Je-2: Head Shakes
• Je-3: Shoulder Shrugs
• Je-4: Pointed Emphasis
• Je-5: Projecting Hands
• Pi-1: Inertial Energy
• Pi-2: Fixed Gaze
• Pi-3: Diagonal Eye-Drifts
• Pi-4: Worldview Ramblings
• Pi-5: Searching Scowling

Which of these do I have? I can't tell.

 

[AndyC]

Have you thought about the implications of your research? Particularly the function of social expression in formulating thoughts, and the implications of this etc.

DUDE, I've been looking through this stuff and it is crazy accurate. Nice work!!
The Ji behaviors are definitely me, just have to wait for the Pe signals.

 

[AndyC]

Not sure if this has any relevance, but my skimming over the websites content gave me the impression it is
http://www.meru.org/Gestures/gestures.html

 

[PmjPmj]

Hmm yeah. Interesting.

The Je signals are very much me. Both Auburn and Architect pointed that out to me way back when. Heh.

If this thing pans out and it subsequently transpires that you were correct about my type all along (you suggested ENTJ) then congrats - you wiped the floor with two top-tier pros.

FWIW I do think you're on to something.

 

[QuickTwist]

Hmm yeah. Interesting.

The Je signals are very much me. Both Auburn and Architect pointed that out to me way back when. Heh.

If this thing pans out and it subsequently transpires that you were correct about my type all along (you suggested ENTJ) then congrats - you wiped the floor with two top-tier pros.

FWIW I do think you're on to something.

You CAN'T be an ENTJ because I think we actually get along. Every other ENTJ I have come across has been a royal asshole to me.

 

[Auburn]

(I've been off on spring break with family, but will get back to this soon)

I'll have the Pe signals done by the end of the weekend.

@PmjPmj - Thanks..
Though, I'm afraid typology experts are a pretty low standard to compete against. As it stands right now, typology has relatively little methodological vigor. It's strongest legs being perhaps it's statistical parallel to the Big Five, and the accuracy it has in identifying general attitudes (E/I/N/F/T/S) through that Big Five association.

What I really wish to contest against are aspects of the DSM, Personality Disoders, Big Five, neuroscience, etc. -- all of which have better statistical backings to them. But I need to standardize many elements of the theory still, so it can be properly tested in lab settings. It completely lends itself to that possibility (as well as to falsifiability) but it takes some work to put all the claims forward into a standardized testing format. The creation of the 110 signal profiles is the first step in that direction.

@higs
Facial Features --- Yes, exactly. For example, round lush cheeks are as much due to the skeletal protrusion of the cheekbones as they are due to the muscular tone of the zygomatical major/minor muscles. And the continual tone of muscles through habitual expression leaves fixed qualities on the face. Hence why mental disorders leave certain looks on people; it's the tone of their facial muscles.

General Skepticism --- Yes. I think the Cartesian divide has been largely contributive to the viewpoint that human nature is tangibly unknownable and certainly not through appearances/physicality. Such a view seems enlightened at first (ie. don't judge a book by it's cover) but it becomes quite absurd when you remove the topic from moral progressivism and just note the reality of our visual manifestation, which is inescapably tied to personality elements and always has been. Information leeks out from the visuals every second, which we all use (unless we are deficient in some areas of social processing) and see, and make note of personality traits.

The debate ought to be about how exactly the expressions relate to cognition, and to what degree certain ones do or don't -- not about whether they certainly do or not. It is, in fact, so common to conclude things about people based on behavioral appearances, that we consider the absence of ability to do so, a disorder (i.e. autistic spectrum). And yet, how is it that, paradoxically, we have so little, if any, formal research dedicated to the study of the connection between visual expression and personality/consciousness. It is generally only understood that one should intuit something from this visual dimension; the specifics of which are vague and perhaps chalked off to the learning of cultural contexts. As such, visual expressions are seen as entirely cultural fabrications.

Which brings me to...

Have you thought about the implications of your research? Particularly the function of social expression in formulating thoughts, and the implications of this etc.

So far the signals have shown themselves pretty consistently cross-culturally. The samples we've seen are spread across all major continents, although admittedly many more are English-speaking (UK or American).

We don't really condition people culturally to do things like look up when we're imagining something in our mind's eye. We don't really socially condition people to scowl at the ground when trying to remember something deep into our obscure memory.

If there's any conditioning that happens (I.e. poker players) it's in trying to deliberately remove these otherwise automatic expressions. And we humans are able to take control over automatic functions (some can take control of even their stomach muscles!) but that doesn't take away from the fact that we most typically manifest with certain autonomic muscular activities.

Also, evolution is a very conservative entity. It reutilizes and repurposes the same pathways for other applications, rather than generate entirely new ones. If we think from this perspective, it's entirely sensible to anticipate that our relatively new ability to mentally visualize information (i.e. imagination/dreaming) shares a cognitive pathway with our more direct line of sight.

And we see this in things like REM sleep, which is the stage of sleep where we have the most vivid dreams. Not by accident, it's also the time where our eyes are engaged in very eccessive motions (REM = rapid eye movements). This evidences the direct automatic neural connection that exists between the eyes and imagination, and cognitive (non-literal) perception in general.

But I suspect we'll find other such links to anatomy as we look deeper at this correlation.

 

[QuickTwist]

LOL.

I am uncategorizable. Not enough research in the world... LMFAO.