Identifying NiFe Vultology

[@AnyaAnnika67]

I'd love to show this to lots of people who state they're NiFe when they're in fact not; they're generally FiSe. I'd say there's quite a strong correlation between vultology & psychology if CPT is anything to go by as most of your typings appear to be correct which is refreshing. The notion of thematic convergence is particularly strong here as I'm able to neatly synthesise CPT with vultology; it could be argued that the notion of telepathy comes from the NiFe's FeSe - essentially locking into a macroscopic portion of external reality as it relates to human data, giving a certain kind of '6th' sense. I will say the types of NiFe you've used are predominantly what's called divergent subtypes in CPT so FeSe as opposed to NiTi; NiTi has a much more philosophical/theoretical slant too it - more 'abstract rational' as opposed to 'mystical' - if I'm making any sense! I also liked how you much mentioned that you can't discern vultological type via personality traits...I think this is a mistake that MBTI makes in the same vain as generic type descriptions are predicated upon behavioural imbued characteristics superfluous to type. For this reason I like CPT as it focuses exclusively on cognition as opposed to behaviour or characteristics superflous to type.

[@farzanarimi2763]

Good job! Waiting for the NiTe, and the comparison between NiTe and NiFe.

[@lavlmoon]

Very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to go through all of this information in this way. I hope you'll be able to make it through all of the types. It's so interesting to compare.

[@CognitiveTypology]

thank you! and yep, i definitely will. :)

[@Universal_Cymbol]

Yes. You've captured NiFe very appropriately. You're work is very important. I love seeing it evolve.

[@thehikingviking2049]

This to me feels a lot like a theory in search of evidence rather than a theory that emerges out of an examination of the evidence. I would be interested in seeing examples of NiFe types who are younger and whose profession can not be summarized as "public intellectual". These people are interesting, sure, but their relative public prominence comes from the fact that they are, on the whole, atypical. Show me a NiFe fresh out of high school and working at Home Depot to make ends meet, or even someone interacting with the world who isn't just sitting in a chair giving an interview. I understand you are limited by the media you have available to you to analyze, but from your selection it seems like these people probably have more in common with a college professor who has a different cognitive type than any randomly selected average person who shares their type.

[@CognitiveTypology]

Hi! That's a totally fair point, and it's a problem I'm conscious of, and will address in the future. I understand the interpretation you posited (i.e. theory-->evidence, rather than evidence-->theory) is not an argument this video by itself disproves. Proving that it's evidence-->theory would take publishing studies which gather a series of randomly selected, normal civilians who happen to fit this vultology, and seeing what psychic correlations emerge from that. That is in the pipeline, but not part of our published studies yet. Keep track of nemvus.com - something like that may come out at some point because objectivity and falsification matters to us a lot, as it seems it does to you too. Anyhow, I understand I don't deserve the benefit of doubt, but in case it's extended out to me, I wanted to pose an alternative explanation to your hypothesis, besides suggesting there's a theory--to-evidence coercion happening. Consider perhaps that the celebrity sphere is naturally a restrained demographic and the concentration of themes is heightened by the selection pressure involved in a rise to fame. While this is a "bias" of a sort, which may be problematic in some sense, it is actually meaningful from a psychological perspective, and a positive thing in other ways. If you take any domain of study or fame, and you assess those who are at the top of it, you are hyper-selecting for a given set of traits, right? For example, top athletes. Now, what CT is showing is that rather identical vultologies cluster themselves in high concentration around those at the top of these domains. If you look at not just this video, but the series thus far, you'll see this concentration repeats itself in each one. And this is not insignificant. If we saw the opposite (i.e. no vultological clustering at the top of domains) that would be a problem for the theory. And so if you were to take an A-list of 50 most famous (lets say) gurus, only to find that 45% of them have this NiFe vultology, that is an astounding ratio relative to the normal population. It's observations like these that are being pointed out in these videos. I would encourage you, or anyone, to look for (lets say) 10 more famous people in X domain, and see how often the vultology repeats in that domain. My guess is you'll see the repetition of that vultology at a rate above the normal population distribution. That is what I'm trying to communicate in these videos - as well as the structural way in which these visual asymmetries exist. I hope that makes sense, but let me know if you have any other questions. Thank you for your feedback, Best, J. Sandoval

[@itsmeraz3008]

I have been thinking about this, and I understand just through observation of my young children the clear differences between fi-ne and ni-fe, there are differences in their responses to similar stimulus in the home. Although it's difficult to pinpoint what that clearly is to then scale it up to other ages and cultures. I guess then you have the issue of personality typing that looks and behaves like horoscopes, as many of us can relate to much of whatever is being said. But yes I have been thinking about the samples as they do seem almost unrelatable for the average person. I guess what is needed is samples of average people. But again I guess the behaviour becomes diluted and appears horoscopic.

[@AnyaAnnika67]

"This seems to me like a theory in search of evidence,"...you're right, that's what Ni-Ti convergents (CPT) do - they are abstract rationalists; their Ti operates at the behest of an Ni experiential agenda. They are essentially constantly assimilating & reformulating FeSe data in their minds via Ni-Ti.

[@ac-jn1iq]

@@itsmeraz3008there’s a reason it’s considered a rarer type. Majority of regular run of the mill people are not going to share this type in the first place. I think there is a mistake in assuming this particularly vultology is more common than it actually is.

[@ac-jn1iq]

Hence why so many isfps and istps try to claim this type..it’s rarity which has a sexiness in the minds of people as we all deep down want to believe we are more special than the other

[@atomnous]

You got a lot to cover.. 16 types * 8 developments = 128 episodes on subtypes. 128 * 7 days = 896 days = ±30 months of contents. That's a long long time.

[@atomnous]

And to understand how all NiFe samples seem to be old, I wonder if there are clips of these samples in their youth.

[@cultivarcultivar]

Watching this video reminded me (INTP) that when I was younger, I was very attracted to Ni-type ontologies, and took some of them wholesale and incorporated them into my Ti-framework. I liked that they were coherent and creative, and eased my existential anxiety :) However, these Ni ontologies could not withstand the scrutiny of my Ti-Si. All of them contradict each other in their specific mechanisms, and almost none of them had good reality-testing results. I ended up ejecting them from my Ti-framework. I still do Ni-type things (connecting to some kind of source or essence for self-soothing) but I just could not adopt Ni ontologies like I did before.

[@calorlondo5323]

Exact same as me ! After 25 years old I cringe at anything vaguely related to ‘spirit’ after being the absolute opposite and thinking science was reductionist.

[@violet18]

So what do you believe happens after death?

[@Sept8th]

Thank you so much for making this video. Now I can have a more objective way of confirming my type instead of overthinking about all the overlap in theory descriptions which are very subjective.

[@RensRoom]

Hi Juan, interesting video. My 'concerns' remain essentially the same as those expressed in previous videos of mine. Roughly speaking I'm concerned whether there might be some hidden circularity in the vultological process. Let's assume, for the sake of example, that a certain vultological pattern is matched with Ni. Now the pattern is psychologically neutral, but Ni is not; or at least it is not obvious to me that it is. There is a whole epistemological baggage that comes with the term "Ni", which can be best seen by contrast with the example you use of the blood type. O+, A-, AB+ etc. don't really mean anything in themselves, and could be switched with simple integers: Type 1, 2, 3.... etc without any meaningful consequences. But it seems to me that this doesn't translate cleanly onto vultology. If you were to switch "Ni" with "1", "Ne" with "2", etc., something would be lost, which is a psychological description, and which is carried within the "Ni" term. Similarly for Fe, Te, and the other functions. The categorial names of blood types are pretty much arbitrary, which is evidence of their contentlessness. It is not arbitrary in the case of vultology, and so I would be tempted to question whether vultology is, strictly speaking, contentless. I keep referring to a 'circularity' issue because it seems to me the psychological baggage which is not eliminated from the vultological categories is precisely inherited from Jung. There seems to be a hidden assumption that vultological signals map onto thought contents (esoterism, hive mind, panpsychism etc. in the case of Ni) rather than the thought contents somehow 'emerging' from the purely vultological signals. So it doesn't surprise me at all that the psychology seems to fit the vultology very well in the end; it does so because it had been injected in the first premise (the vultology) from the very beginning. Anyway, these are just my thoughts and if you can remove them for me then I'd be most grateful hehe. Great thought-provoking work as always :-)

[@CognitiveTypology]

Hey Renaud! These are great questions and I'm happy to try my best to answer them in brief. (yikes not so brief!) Oh firstly, I may have been unclear in my editing, when I said "contentless", as I was referring to the cognitive seed which lies behind the vultology as being moreso 'platonic' in nature, and non-identical with specific behaviors, lifestyles or beliefs. In this context, "contentless" refers to the cognitive-root-cause being something other than any specific portrait that can be written and used as a stand-in for that origin. The main point of that part was to say that typing oneself by a psychological portrait is dubious because portraits mistake the anecdotal behaviors for the root cause. That said, I also understand that some Jungian typologies depreciate anecdotal behaviors and use more axiomatic definitions for their functions - and those are my preferred typologies. But yes, I don't mean to say vultology has nothing to do with psychology. Quite the opposite: vultology is the very intersection between body mannerisms and something of psychological significance. Naturally, not all mannerisms are psychologically relevant/significant. But vultology is a series of documented intersections between body and mind, that can be shown to be consistent/scalable. If a given visual signal does not match psychology in any way, it is discarded from the codex. Regarding circularity and potential unfalsifiability -- there's much to say, but --- if we are to be perfectly cautious, we can start simply like this: [X] visual signals seem to be statistically connected to [Y] contents. To be perfectly scientific, one could wholly limit CT to this bare bones element, and treat it as little more than a series of correlations between visual signals and behaviors that repeat reliably. But even so, that would stand firm, and it would not be circular in nature if it's possible to falsify the connection between X and Y. The statistical significance between X and Y can be measured at increasingly wider scales, until either enough confidence is gained, or until the correlation falters. -----------"So it doesn't surprise me at all that the psychology seems to fit the vultology very well in the end; it does so because it had been injected in the first premise (the vultology) from the very beginning." ^ If I understand your point properly, you mean the risk of, for example: Me looking among pre-typed, psychologically Jungian Ni users, for visually matched people, then restricting the category of Ni to those with said visual matches, right? That's a way to produce a group of people with a shared physicality, having started from psychology, while it being meaningless. If that is your question, I very much like it because it's an important point. It's an argument for the possible risks of cherry-picking the data so as to create the illusion of visual predictability by selection bias. I totally see why that'd be a concern, however, I feel you're missing the other half of the experiment. The initial psyche-to-physical observation did start out from psychology, but this isn't at all what makes CT meaningful. It's the attempts to *reverse-engineer* these connections, that are the most shocking/meaningful. It becomes meaningful when you really look completely randomly and unexpectedly in the population for people with X vultology, and then find out only afterwards that they have Y psychology. And the assertion I am making is that this is possible to do, for anyone else, from scratch. So what I would say to this point is that, whether or not the data is really cherry-picked can be verified or falsified with attempts to reproduce the experiment with completely new individuals. If for example, I were to ask you to identify the first 10 people you can find, which have what I'm referring to as 'Hypnotic' vultology, then my hypothesis would predict that they would share psychological matches. And not just psychological matches, but specific matches aligned to the aforementioned contents - at least in a way much greater than chance, in the general population. In this setup, there is no risk of inserting bias, especially if the experiment is strictly set up so that you look visually first, then analyze psychology only afterwards. I hope I'm communicating clearly enough. I'm partly having to infer your meanings, so I apologize if I missed something or addressing the wrong matters. Circularity is indeed something I strive to avoid, and I appreciate your own devotion to not be duped by circular arguments as well. If, despite the above you find some critical factor I missed, please let me know, thanks!

[@Mage_Chartreux]

> But it seems to me that this doesn't translate cleanly onto vultology. If you were to switch "Ni" with "1", "Ne" with "2", etc., something would be lost, which is a psychological description, and which is carried within the "Ni" term. Similarly for Fe, Te, and the other functions. The categorial names of blood types are pretty much arbitrary, which is evidence of their contentlessness. It is not arbitrary in the case of vultology, and so I would be tempted to question whether vultology is, strictly speaking, contentless. I wholeheartedly disagree with this. While I think vultology is more or less a sham, your statement here is not correct. When we say O+, we have a specific image in our minds of what that means. If we were to switch that with a number, we would be able to translate that specific image to the label, but that image itself, those associations, would still exist. This is much the same with the labels of the functions in vultology/Jungian typing/etc. The associations exist in exactly the same way as the associations between O+, AB+, etc and specific physical differences/meanings in the real world. The labels are arbitrary, but the content to which they refer is not; while the labels can change, they certainly are not *contentless.* They refer to specific things, even if the *way* we refer to those things is arbitrary. Ni, Ne, Se, etc -- these are all arbitrary. Calling Ni function 5 would be exactly the same as calling it Ni. To demonstrate why this is true, imagine that you had a classroom full of children that you were teaching Jungian cognitive functions to. Would you be able to communicate the same idea by labelling it 'function 5' as you would by labelling it 'Ni?' The fact is that yes, you would be able to. While the pattern underlying the convention Ni or Se or anything like that makes it more obvious what each label refers to, this convention also underlies why we call O+ blood O+. There are underlying patterns (markers on the surface of the blood cells themselves) that give rise to sensible/patterned/logical naming conventions, though the exact same information can be learned through rote/mere memorization (example: associating blood types with colors instead of letters and signs; we would lose an immediate understanding of the difference between 'blue' and 'yellow' (O+ and O-) blood, but through rote memorization, the exact same end result will be achieved). All labels are arbitrary. Good labels have clear structure to them, allowing you to understand at a glimpse the contrast/similarity between two terms under the same categorization system. Regardless, they're just a network for referring to certain things using symbols, and there are, therefore, all equally arbitrary. As to whether or not your conclusion ('There seems to be a hidden assumption that vultological signals map onto thought contents (esoterism, hive mind, panpsychism etc. in the case of Ni) rather than the thought contents somehow 'emerging' from the purely vultological signals') is even related to what I'm talking about here is not in question, by the way. I'm just pointing out that all labels have this 'issue,' as labels are simply intuitions (symbolic explanations of observations).

[@RensRoom]

@@CognitiveTypology Thanks Juan for the detailed reply. You did actually go a long way toward removing the concerns I had. It is now very clear how the theory is falsifiable, and I think I also understand the mechanism (reverse engineering, random selection, etc.) via which it avoids circularity. I would be quite interested to know how you proceeded with the initial psyche-to-physical observation; simply put, all the vultological patterns here associated with Ni-what framework did you use to map them onto Ni and not, say, Si? Did you assess the psychology on the basis of Jungian definitions? I understand this is not the core meaning of CT, but I am curious nonetheless. I would also be interested to know more about how CT would deal with cases of falsification, e.g. an individual's vultology showcasing NiFe, but their psychology showcasing TiNe. I understand the idea is these can be statistically shown to be outliers, but it would be interesting to have an account of what would explain the mismatch. And here again the question of the psychological framework becomes relevant: what definitions/criteria are being used for specific psychological contents correlated with functions, etc. I'll give an example just for fun. I saw that in the database, W.V.O. Quine was listed as NiFe. Presumably this is based on his vultology (?). But I think that listening to him and exploring his works, one could make a strong case for a TiNe psychology. (So much so that Quine might not have been a great example to use in your video; little interested in the esoteric, concerned with reducing philosophy to philosophy of science, etc.) Suppose someone comes forward and objects precisely this. What neutral matrix can settle the question? In other words, how is one to make the case in a language commensurable with CT? Here I think the temptation would be strong for CT to dismiss the objection as incompatible with its own, psychological and content-full, concepts. In short, how is falsification to be possible not just in principle but in practice. Cheers!

[@CognitiveTypology]

@@RensRoom Sure! For the sake of sharing, my wider comprehension of Jung's work was first informed by such writers as Naomi Quenk, Dario Nardi and Linda Berens. But also a few less known individuals such as Jonathan Rock and Thomas Chenault who worked on a project called Pod'lair over a decade ago. These scaffolds just had to be right 'enough' to guide my gaze to the right thing, before the thing itself took over and worked largely by itself to redefine and refine the terms in ways that align with organic start/end points not dictated solely by theory. As for addessing vultology-psychology mismatches, I touch on that a bit in my video "Four Perception Functions" at 43:37 - but I can repeat some of that here. If we consider the "expected psychological match" to be not Jung's Ni definition, or anyone else's version of Ni, but simply a statistical aggregate formed from the net similarities derive from everyone else seen beforehand who had that vultology -- then an unexpected psychology adjusts/modifies that aggregated profile. For example, if we have observed that out of 20 NiFe's, 17 of them are mystics by profession (not just interest), that is a considerable ratio which exceeds what could happen by chance. It is reasonable, then, to insert such a description into a summarization of the similarities between those with an NiFe vultology. However, if the 21st person with an NiFe vultology comes along, and they are not a mystic, but nevertheless a philosopher or something like that, then the ratio of NiFe mystics is adjusted from 17/20 to 17/21. It has been partially reduced, but it remains statistically significant nonetheless. This happens to every type and every possible occupation/interest/etc, everything is continually being refined and calibrated as more data enters. Hence why I mention the profiles are not static, but are continually being written by what we uncover. Naturally, it's silly to assume 100% of people of any type, belong in any given profession deterministically-- neither is that the point I wish to make. Free will in itself should allow all types to occupy a great deal of breadth, and yet also constrain that breadth to a perimeter. So, I believe that a legitimate typology based on physical facts would nonetheless honor free will enough to allow diversity of expression of types, while also having that diversity converge in "method" and cognitive approach, if not actual occupation/etc. As for legitimate mistypings: There are some things to consider. The instrument (called the Vultology Code) used to type, is itself subject to refinement based on how well it succeeds in predicting the vultology-psychology match. If for example one person like Quine shows up and cannot be mapped to the existing subjects in his visual category, the option does remain for him to be an outlier (for now) perhaps until more data reveals that he's actually a certain shade of his type that nevertheless can be shown to have psychic parity with his peers. Or, there is another option: If not just Quine but a few more samples visually typed NiFe continue to show disharmony with the rest of the NiFe samples, in ways that cannot be explained by shade-variation, then this can prompt a higher-order reconstruction of the instrument itself. We then look to see whether we can identify a visual difference between group A of NiFe samples and group B of NiFe samples. If we find a visual difference between the groups that also runs along psychological seams, a category split may happen. Perhaps group A were a variant of NiTe's and some subtlety in the way mouth signals (J-axis signals) are interpreted, caused this confusion. The code's signals would then be adjusted, so that, by this new implementation of the code, groups A and B are distinct types. This is not done ad-hoc though, because CT holds itself to a value of structural coherence. I believe you will see that the framework of signals described in this series is an array of interlocking elements. It's very hard to make changes like this without affecting the entire edifice of signals and also affecting other readings. If the signals for the J axis are adjusted in the NiFe-vs-NiTe debate, they would affect all other Fe/Ti vs Te/Fi typings. The new adjustment has to make more sense across the entire dataset, which has happened sometimes but we're also at a good place now with the code, so that adjustments are far more subtle nowadays. Now, if we cannot find a visual difference among group A and group B of a given type, despite psychological variation -- and if we cannot find a better way of parsing not just them but by extension all other types -- then that simply becomes the limit of the instrument. In some cases the instrument can get you into the general perimeter of (for example) philosophers/academics/intellectuals - but not more refined than that. It is still a successful instrument at that. However, there is also a possibility that, taking Quince as an example again, the categories may be correctly drawn, but one's Jungian notions of what fits or doesn't fit into a category need jailbreaking. Perhaps there's nothing really limiting a (potentially biologically) NiFe's from holding views like Quince does, and this view-specific typology that others use is an error in the first place. Typing by philosophical view is problematic when we can all change our opinions to some degree. Yet, CT does rely on similarity of opinions to initially calibrate its vultology. But after that initial calibration, there is fair degree of liberty in views types can hold. The introductory series I am filming now uses similarities in views in a moreso pedagogical manner, to help introduce others to quintessential shades of those types, while the full breadth of the types is of course wider. And now I've definitely exhausted your attention with this super long reply, so I thank you for reading this far if you have. :) Looking forward to any thoughts you may have to share about this. Best, Juan

[@timefortee]

@@CognitiveTypology Your samples in the video may _all_ have been misidentified as INFJ for all I know, what if you are latching on to pattern X that isn't NiFe and recognising it in other celebs and labeling it as NiFe and the cycle repeats... Also, most, if not all, celebs might be neurodivergent, meaning they do _not_ correspond to the average, or stereotypical, manifestation of type, subtype and CF. Gifted NeTi (especially of of the NeFe subtype) are routinely mistyped as INFJ, sometimes ENFJ, online. Anyway... If you want a pure representation of a type with correct samples, take "actual" people around you or from YT that are of said type, but of course it's easier said than done since most of them mistype their own selves as well. I think Ren here would be a good example of an actual NiTi INFJ, and Frank James of NiFe. But that's just me.

[@itsmeraz3008]

I am still mulling over this, but I wanted add before I forget is that it would be interesting to see how the average person has been impacted by this cognition. what I have noticed with my ni-fe husband is that his primary mode is to think about the distant future and how he would like to impact that future. He has undergone steps in the local community and over a couple of years slowly working on tweaking systems. He has given himself goals on what he would be happy with if he made those changes. He does this voluntarily, and he has resistance from people who are reticent to change. But I am fascinated by how he does this.

[@justsomewisteria3051]

Hello, Auburn. You mentioned that Mbti is not congruent with the vultology that you practice. But then what does it signify? Mbti and Jung's theory offer insights into how the brain works. It's a cognitive theory. But your theory classifies by behavioural signals. What does this analysis offer? I ask because I'm interested.

[@CognitiveTypology]

heya~! sure, let me try the best i can to answer. As far as we can verify, MBTI and Jung's theory do not yet offer real insights into cognition, as much as they offer categorization systems which are behavioral (Keirsey/etc) or cognitive (Michael Pierce/etc) in nature, but ultimately circular. Now, when I say "do not offer insight" - I mean that in a technical sense, where if you measure X variable, it tells you something you didn't know about Y variable. Instead these systems appear tautological, in other words "X means X, and if you fit the definition of X, that means you are X type." In my opinion, this does not fit the criteria of 'insight' and is more of a circular definitional affiliation. Broadway avenue is Broadway Ave, because we've all decided to call it that. INFJ means X because that's what INFJ means. This circularity is just as much a problem with behavioral/Keirseyan profiles, as it is with cognitive-function profiles. And that's not even mentioning the problem of arbitrariness. The borders of the so-called functions can be (and are) parsed apart very differently by different authors, none of which can offer empirical justification for why they chose that specific parsing method. Are they insightful? Well, they can be, as meditative instruments-- in other words, as tools of self-reflection for you to help yourself better describe your thoughts. But do they inform you about a discrete, biological typology you have? ...not that I know of, because they don't offer justification for their discrete parsing. Thus, you can study dozens of personality systems and get a lot of juice out of it, because you use them to meditate on your own conscious experience. But they're not telling you something fundamental about you; it's fluid and exploratory. Actual insight would arise if consistently predictable claims could be made about Y, which follow from X, and which are not included in the very definition of X. And this is what vultology can offer. If we say your vultology is X, then we can say you have a statistical likelihood of matching to Y behaviors/lifestyles/habits/careers. This is significant and valuable. And in these videos, I am building an objective case of precisely that. With every video, I am doing little more that presenting a series of samples which match vultologically, and inviting you to see, along with me, if they match psychologically. If there are psychological matches-- then that psychology becomes what we use to make future predictions about the psychology of those we haven't yet looked at, but who would have a matching vultology. As for cognition -- is this theory cognitive? Well, the theory is composed of four domains called: Metabolism, Vultology, Behaviorism, Mythology. Of the four domains, two are empirical (Vultology + Behavior). In this series, so far I am showing only the Vulological and Behavioral domains of the theory, in order to establish an empirical definition of type. This is necessary before doing any cognitive speculation. It's suuuuuuper super easy to speculate about cognition and generate cognitive systems, but they mean nothing if they're not grounded in facts. So first we go over the facts, and then at the end of the series, we will summarize all those facts into the bedrock theoretical elements of the model, which is the domain of Metabolism. Without doing it this way, this model would be no different from all the others out there and would not solve, in any way, the problems Jungian typology faces in terms of scientific scrutiny and falsifiability. Also-- over time I've found that those who root for this model's success tend to be more focused on that more factual instantiation of type, because it matters. But I do understand others simply want something else from their system. They want systems that help give them ideas to mull over, and concepts to rattle around in their heads, whether or not they're scientifically valid. That's a different motivation, and within that motivation other models can offer far more "insights" than CT because they have basically complete conceptual liberty to generate anything they'd like -- with no accountability to facts. This makes other models much more "cognitive" appearing on the surface, because they're more speculative. CT is far less speculative, but I would say it's no less cognitive at root, when you learn how it is that all this information traces back down to consistent and predictable information processing styles. But that' something that I hope to touch on in future videos. I hope this explanation covers the basics! It'll get more cognitively-focused soon. :)

[@justsomewisteria3051]

@@CognitiveTypology thank you for answering, Auburn. This response was quite informative. I look forward to learning more. The approach you've taken seems reasonable enough, but vultology can easily get mixed with anatomy, which might make it trickier... But I'm sure with time we'll be able to resolve it! Also, I've attempted to join your server. It would be nice if you could grant me access to it:)

[@CognitiveTypology]

@@justsomewisteria3051 im glad it was helpful! yes, anatomy can obscure the type, which is a problem we address by tracking movement-based signals not just static signals, and together, the whole signal sheet reliably predicts type most of the time. It's not perfect, but I've been quite amazed at how often it works. And oh okay, what is your user name in the chat?

[@justsomewisteria3051]

@@CognitiveTypology Don't worry, I'm in now, even tagged you:)

[@farzanarimi2763]

@@CognitiveTypology, I think, not only anatomy, - a person's mental status (i.e., depression, recent failures or successes) could make the signals obscure. What do you think?

[@getoutofhere7817]

NiTe.

[@annieperdue6140]

I often had the experience of my ears pricking up before the phone would ring. I wonder what science will have to say about this phenomenon in the future.

[@atomnous]

can you mention a little about druidic FiSi, kabbalic TiNi, etc next time? These ones sound interesting.

[@anormalguy511]

I have an question for a pi types does the diagonal eye drifts only go to the right side or does it go to both right and left?

[@CognitiveTypology]

both right and left

[@djgranville]

I can’t watch all of this without wanting to debate them😂😂😂 must be my Ti and low Ni lol

[@aoeuable]

Reading up a bit on Sheldrake and his morphic field was kinda interesting. In the end I'd say that any falsifiable parts of the theory are worth investigating, and it'll end up with them getting falsified. Why? Because it'd be just too much of a coincidence that the fabric of the universe matches beta psychology's operational semantics, and I don't find it surprising at all when an INFJ confuses the workings of their mind with reality. Neat model, just applied to the wrong domain.

[@CognitiveTypology]

I think I'm with you on this. NiFe mystics tend to form their metaphysics around their own cognitive biases, so it seems unlikely that the universe would turn out to be the way their personal cognition operates. If anything, the fact that we can pinpoint these ideas coming from certain strains of the human population, by vultology, casts doubt on it being a universal truth. Other NiFe who develop their lower functions tend to break free of the initial bias of their Ni, and start to acknowledge more material truths. But the standard development ones are the most prone to be consumed in the view of Ni wholesale.

[@Itwasnme]

Infj vs infp Infp - soul searchin, who am I? Infj - I am the wind, I am indefinable as existence itself.

[@amalgamated333]

“The last guy is a futurist and trans-humanist” Me: Oh so he’s a psycho…got it. Lol Don’t get me wrong I think some of what they are noticing has truth to it to some extent. The problem I have is that they are using it to gain some sort of power over reality. We are co-creators biblically, however we are not to dictate the bounds of who and what we are. That is not good where their thoughts are at and where their thoughts are going to end up. All of that transhumanist stuff and digital I.D.s are Revelation type stuff…Not good in my opinion. Love the videos though! I definitely believe these are going to be successful.

[@dvl973]

Of course you know what INFJ means. NiFe just means Ni Fe Ti Se the first two functions of MBTI INFJ type. All your types adhere to this nomeclature. We all know what this is about. Let's stop pretending 😄

[@Heyokasireniei468sxso]

none of them were nife nor did they match up the way your attempting to describe they are all older men who skin drops eyelids drop because of the lack of collagen , no offence but you lack se so you really aren't the best to type people by vi your system may be good ,but doesn't mean you know how to use it . again don't be offended you wanted a peer review by posting it and you forget about phenotypes which can alter how the fear appears to move especially do to bodily memetics like culture some groups laugh according to the majority anyone can great a snarl or ear to er smile manic on lulled you do realize actors ,politicians and preachers and strippers do this all the time right . yes they do have baseline but your not gonna catch it when the cameras are rolling if they have a persona to maintain as far as regular people it can be the same too you cannot dismiss psychology or as you would use worldview of a person again great system but your not using it correctly but it does work a artist , an inventor , a writer a creators doesn't necessarily make you the expert if that was true you would have a bunch of abused kids growing up in this world unloved . to the point they have to do all these things just to be seen .

[@ac-jn1iq]

Lmao you gave no reasoning against nife. You only slighted him personally . That’s not a valid argument

[@Heyokasireniei468sxso]

@@ac-jn1iq this was a year ago