Identifying TeSi Vultology

[@aisling0880]

I'm so happy you're making these videos and share them with us. Everything is so much more clear now. Thank you for your hard work :)

[@CognitiveTypology]

thank you

[@CognitiveTypology]

This is PART1 in a 4 part recording/session. PART 2, which focuses on the NiFe, will be released in a few days.

[@wanderingspirit7278]

This is so valuable! Thank you so much, I can't wait for the rest :3

[@atomnous]

Consistently continuing the series this way will keep vultology relevant to public. Honestly I think it has secretly gained traction in a sort of underground way. Just a feeling. Also, don't overlook audience from Asia, CT might be able to catch some curious eyes here (people have been starting to get into pop MBTI). Making the whole theory a bit more intuitive (and probably short) for beginners could widen the scope... probably. Maybe not the target audience exactly, but can't imagine widening the scope will hurt.

[@Whitespike77]

Would love to see NiTe mystics, scientists, and musicians.

[@FIowersInTheGarden]

Hey, Alex! You are the FeNi IIII from the database?

[@Whitespike77]

@@FIowersInTheGarden Yeah

[@chrisd.2831]

I love that you make a series of examples !!!

[@RetroXRicardo]

I work with a male and female ESTJ in a classroom as a team. These men and women in your examples definitely have the vultology you mentioned. This was a very insightful video! 👏👏

[@getoutofhere7817]

NiTe pls

[@Whitespike77]

this

[@ericnoble5194]

Will there be future videos describing what is meant by the various attitudes (N, S, T, F) or describing what each function, or function axis does? Or is that more Model 2?

[@CognitiveTypology]

Yep, there will be! And this will be extracted out directly from the samples as we continue and follow the vultologies of real people and what the say. The next video will already start to do some of that, which I'm quite excited to share with you guys in the next few days. :) Also, just some general info for those who are curious about why I'm doing it this way: Since CT is a data-driven model, the theory is derived from the data directly, rather than it finding data that fits an "a priori" theory. Most models start with a theoretical scaffold which isn't objectively justified but rather abstractly contrived as a set of symmetries -- and then they provide examples (people) who fit those conceptual boxes. This theoretical scaffolding could be done in infinite ways arbitrarily, and therefore I believe this is not the way to do science or uncover capital T Truth. So we have to let the data speak for itself and then summarize what it is we're seeing, after we've canvased reality enough. But what that means is that it takes having a lot of data before we can "extract-out" what is common/universal across people of a given vultology. So we're gonna look at data first, which is gonna take a while. But in the long term, what you'll have is a much more verifiable set of definitions for N/S/T/F etc - because you'll be able to justify them with data. That's the only way to move typology closer to the realm of science, which is my deeper desire.

[@ericnoble5194]

Thank you for the reply. I want to say that I have been following this for a couple of years now, and I love that you are posting these videos.

[@igormendonca4026]

note Brene Brown is not standard development, she is I--I (J polarized)

[@johnnymiller9622]

Please do 32 types!

[@CognitiveTypology]

if this goes well, i just might!

[@djgranville]

BRO DO ESTP NEXT

[@LilyandCats]

I’m watching every single Vultology video and still can’t find my own type… What would you recommend in this case ? Thank you.

[@amandagauthier-parker1399]

Let someone else do it. 😄

[@Whitespike77]

Tom Hans talking about himself...

[@atomnous]

How do you know that emotional attitudes change, but cognitive functions don't? I also believe this *should* be the case, but why is that? Because it isn't obvious, scientifically speaking. Has CT been able to observe this dynamics? There's this little suspicion that both of these (cognition vs emotions) are actually reversed in terms of flexibility to change, going against CT's belief. I mean, how do we determine that "this vultology" is cognition and "that vultology" is emotion? You get me? And I'm not doubting that CT is trying to be scientific... but for now it seems like a "belief". Also, if what CT has found psychologically is "literal/discrete" vs "figurative/continuous", then this doesn't actually seem to go against MBTI's interpretation of "sensation". And in this case, the use of the word "sensation" is outdated. It's simply carrying over a tradition from the way Jung framed the functions, which in Jung's case he seems to refer to actual sensation, as per dictionary. And this sensation is different from MBTI's, CT's, and even Socionic's "sensation". This is what I meant previously by equating CT's Pe to actual sensation, minus the quote. It's just technical linguistic issues, but honestly it seems like it would create unnecessary confusion in the long term.

[@atomnous]

Forget it. I know your answer would be the Twins Study.. for some reason I kept forgetting about it

[@ac-jn1iq]

People always type Tom hanks as an entp which never made sense to me bc his si is wayyyy too strong and apparent to be inferior. Te si makes wayyy more sense to me

[@annieperdue6140]

To me your facial/bodily mannerisms are similar to Stuff Made Here's.