That point about autism is actually very interesting, and I want to look into it now that you've raised it. That said IME Visual Reading is more than sufficient when you learn to read the macro patterns which are mirrored and enacted through micro scales. Essentially, the cognitive configuration phenomenon animates our entire being and tempo and way of moving and expressing, and an adequate understanding of it very much lends itself to, and is refined by, honing on signals on the level of visual reading.
IME the only 'typology' or similar with any real explanatory power has been visual reading. That said I still think that a much more conservative approach to
how much of a person configuration 'explains' is needed. I think that it is one operant and pivotal factor, but not necessarily one in terms of which others, or even identity, need to be framed.
For example, is somebody with both many/most characteristic 'Nyy'xai' energy patterns and also 'autistic' patterns a 'Nyy'xai with autism'? I'm not so sure. And I've found individual character and physiology and myriad other factors to be as vital to explaining and predicting behaviour as config.
What recognising config does do is give you a very good and accurate framework within/against which to place observations. It sets a basic standard of an incredibly coherent and useful pattern in motion which the rest of your thinking then kind of needs to measure up to-- if you're thinking right. It's basics-- basics that everybody's been missing. But... I'm not sure I've seen any linking up of those basics with a wider vision of the fullness of humanity and its many variations and patternings and fullness. IMO Pod'Lair's model acknowledges this variance at least in principle, which is a great start perhaps, but I haven't seen that filled out, and I'm also not sure I'd want to see it 'filled out' as some kind of after-thought to config. I'd want to see factors balanced and related with more nuance and complexity and less identity-based pre-determination of outcome. The five gears system is great in many ways, and the 5th ('how does this person hit me? etc.) gear kind of allows for this (the 4th as well-- 'riffs'/'playing-style'-- perhaps), but it pre-determines through the very fact of being called the '5 gears of Mojo Reading'. I..e What's your Mojo.
IMO @
Auburn etc. fail completely in this regard, not even integrating an avenue for expansion in the way other models do, and completely succumbing to naive causally attributive and mechanistic thinking that would shame anybody versed in basic philosophical problems and cognitive biases.