# Vultology - What Are Your Thoughts?



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

I'm wondering to what degree PerC is familiar with Vultology.

Vultology is the study of microexpressions to pinpoint cognitive function usage. Stacks aren't fixed like in standard MBTI, instead the nomenclature is [Natural DomAux] - [Emphasized Function]. 
e.g someone could be a FeNi-Ti or roughly an ENFJ that uses Ti heavily

There is also more nuance concerning how each cognitive function manifests, leading to more nuance within the types. 

Has anyone else looked into this? What's the board's opinion on this? 
While I am quite comfortable with purely theoretical frameworks, I find having some sort of empirical element to a tool like MBTI to be a welcome sight, as a framework that is meant to accommodate billions of people into 16 boxes can be so flexible it's often self-undermining.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

I personally think it's a load of shit and won't put the tiniest amount of faith in it until I see a pattern of *multiple people* _consistently_ producing _the exact same results_ typing people via vultology in _separate rooms_ from each other where _no _communication is allowed.

..and even then, I would need whatever system they are using cross-referenced with the persons *actual *type - which itself needs to be the result of the same rigorous process for me to believe people can accurately type people in the first place using ordinary means yet alone via vultology.

If someone looks at me and thinks INTJ and another vultologist thinks ISTP then the system is broken and worthless.
Even if it's a one letter difference, ISTJ and INTJ, the system is broken and needs to have clearer definitions to discern either N from S or Ni from Si depending on how they're doing it.


As long as this is what vultology looks like, count me out.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Turi said:


> I personally think it's a load of shit and won't put the tiniest amount of faith in it until I see a pattern of *multiple people* _consistently_ producing _the exact same results_ typing people via vultology in _separate rooms_ from each other where _no _communication is allowed.


Does this help? It's only 500+ people though...




Turi said:


> ..and even then, I would need whatever system they are using *cross-referenced with the persons actual type* - which itself needs to be the result of the same rigorous process for me to believe people can accurately type people in the first place* using ordinary means yet alone via vultology*.


Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? 




Turi said:


> If someone looks at me and thinks INTJ and another vultologist thinks ISTP then the system is broken and worthless.
> Even if it's a one letter difference, ISTJ and INTJ, the system is broken and needs to have clearer definitions to discern either N from S or Ni from Si depending on how they're doing it.


I hear of people complaining about MBTI on the grounds of getting a different type if they change a single test answer, so this remark is curious. 
It could also be observational/understanding discrepancies. 









e.g In this picture, some people see an old lady, some people see a young woman. It doesn't mean something's wrong with our respective visual systems. 




Turi said:


> As long as this is what vultology looks like, count me out.


What seems to be the problem? Most typing threads here are rather similar in terms of dissent.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Nell said:


> Does this help? It's only 500+ people though...


Who typed all of those people?



> Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?


How can we be sure the results vultologists provide are consistent with functions or dichotomy and not in accordance with some other misguided system?
We need proof that say, when you type Will Smith as an FeNi-Se (which is what, an ENFJ who is predominantly Se?) then we need proof to verify that Will Smith is actually an ENFJ in the first place, and not simply in accordance with vultology.
He needs to either be verified as an ENFJ, for real, for an ENFJ typing via vultology to mean anything at all.

If he types as an ISTP and a bunch of vultologists say ENFJ, well there's a disconnect between what you're defining as indicators of "Fe" and "Ni" etc and reality.




> I hear of people complaining about MBTI on the grounds of getting a different type if they change a single test answer, so this remark is curious.
> It could also be observational/understanding discrepancies.


I don't know about them, I did the official test online and was provided with results in the form of a sliding-scale whereby I could see how strong my preferences were.
If one question would switch someone from say ISTJ to INTJ, then on the sliding scale they would be almost bang on 'slight S' and 'slight N' and that's okay via dichotomy, because dichotomy doesn't use functions so it's not measuring Si v Ni in this instance.



> What seems to be the problem? Most typing threads here are rather similar in terms of dissent.


First poster suggests three different types, there's like six different typings on that first page, and the thread falls into hell far enough that the OP winds up wishing he'd never posted anything.
No consistency.
If you get people saying 'TeSi' and someone else saying 'strong Fi' then I mean, the system is flawed.

I'm not suggesting all the randoms who post up suggestions are educated in 'vultology' it's just not consistent.

Has Juan produced a typing himself?
Because there's a member of the team in that thread suggesting strong Fi, if Juan produces anything else then there's an inconsistency amongst the more well-versed vultologists definitions as well.


----------



## spaceynyc (Feb 18, 2017)

Very intriguing in my opinion would like to see it more developed though

What’s the password to all the links on the site? @Nell


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

spaceynyc said:


> Very intriguing in my opinion would like to see it more developed though
> 
> What’s the password to all the links on the site? @*Nell*


What do you mean? Do you mean the vultology code expression cues? 
From what I understand, the database isn't complete. Blue links are basically "Not enough info" links. Yellow only have visual data, green have everything.


----------



## spaceynyc (Feb 18, 2017)

Nell said:


> What do you mean? Do you mean the vultology code expression cues?
> From what I understand, the database isn't complete. Blue links are basically "Not enough info" links. Yellow only have visual data, green have everything.


for instance: http://cognitivetype.com/2017/11/11/ne-metabolism-vultology-behaviorism-mythology/

gives me this message:
This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

is it because it isn't complete yet?


----------



## SpaceMan (Dec 11, 2014)

@Nell This is really interesting. How are the microexpressions determined and associated to (a) given cognitive function(s)? Do they apply some kind of machine learning method for classification e.g. scan thousands of expressions and apply supervised or unsupervised learning methods for classifying and associating data?

Or is everything subjectively determined based on what the people performing the study deem to be true? Do the people in the sample group take surveys and then have their "microexpressions analyzed"?

Empirical data is always welcome, but I would love to get my hands on their methods.

*Edit: I just saw your post mentioning 500 samples. I would also like to add that I am a bit curious and skeptical after seeing the price tags at the bottom of the page since I don't know their credibility. Would be interesting to see if someone checked out one of their reports.

*Edit2: I found this study of theirs (here). But it doesn't really say much, aside from using the "CTVC (Cognitive Type Vultology Code 1.1)" instrument for determining type. which I assume is this: CTVC. Interesting nonetheless.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Im curious by this also. These two ladies channel do some tentative typing based off of physical gestures and try to find a predictable pattern to it. They are only short videos though(no longer than a couple minutes).


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

And a few more.


* *


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Reproducibility is an important test here. We would want to check across a number of videos and determine that the same person produces the same or sufficiently similar facial expressions that conform to particular cognitive functions. Otherwise, there is little basis for using this as a means of typing.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

OK so, just to clarify. I am pretty much as new to this stuff as any of you guys are. I don't have all the answers, and the very reason I posted was to see if someone else was familiar with this and maybe could shed some light on this. 






Turi said:


> Who typed all of those people?


Presumably people affiliated with the site. 
They tend to type as a team, so as to account for incomplete individual perceptions. 



Turi said:


> How can we be sure the results vultologists provide are consistent with functions or dichotomy and not in accordance with some other misguided system?
> We need proof that say, when you type Will Smith as an FeNi-Se (which is what, an ENFJ who is predominantly Se?) then we need proof to verify that Will Smith is actually an ENFJ in the first place, and not simply in accordance with vultology.
> He needs to either be verified as an ENFJ, for real, for an ENFJ typing via vultology to mean anything at all.
> 
> If he types as an ISTP and a bunch of vultologists say ENFJ, well there's a disconnect between what you're defining as indicators of "Fe" and "Ni" etc and reality.


Presumably by "Real Type" you mean the result you get by filling a multiple choice test, right? Complaints I hear about that is that it doesn't allow for much in the way of nuance, and that sometimes it doesn't have accurate answers, so you are stuck picking the least incorrect options. I am not sure that is much better.



Turi said:


> I don't know about them, I did the official test online and was provided with results in the form of a sliding-scale whereby I could see how strong my preferences were.
> If one question would switch someone from say ISTJ to INTJ, then on the sliding scale they would be almost bang on 'slight S' and 'slight N' and that's okay via dichotomy, because dichotomy doesn't use functions so it's not measuring Si v Ni in this instance.


So your qualm is the lack of mathematical precision? 



Turi said:


> First poster suggests three different types, there's like six different typings on that first page, and the thread falls into hell far enough that the OP winds up wishing he'd never posted anything.
> No consistency.
> If you get people saying 'TeSi' and someone else saying 'strong Fi' then I mean, the system is flawed.
> 
> I'm not suggesting all the randoms who post up suggestions are educated in 'vultology' it's just not consistent.


Are MBTI assessments in forums like this consistent? Or in tests? 




Turi said:


> Has Juan produced a typing himself?
> Because there's a member of the team in that thread suggesting strong Fi, if Juan produces anything else then there's an inconsistency amongst the more well-versed vultologists definitions as well.


One person won't be able to observe everything. Just like in performance-based events you have multiple judges assessing contestants instead of one. Sometimes cumulatively or sometimes, as seems to be the case here, by consensus. 
It doesn't need to be a flaw in the system, it can be perception incompleteness due to being human. 




spaceynyc said:


> for instance: http://cognitivetype.com/2017/11/11/ne-metabolism-vultology-behaviorism-mythology/
> 
> gives me this message:
> This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
> ...


Not necessarily sure, to be honest. I'm not part of the site. 




SpaceMan said:


> @*Nell* This is really interesting. How are the microexpressions determined and associated to (a) given cognitive function(s)? Do they apply some kind of machine learning method for classification e.g. scan thousands of expressions and apply supervised or unsupervised learning methods for classifying and associating data
> 
> Or is everything subjectively determined based on what the people performing the study deem to be true? Do the people in the sample group take surveys and then have their "microexpressions analyzed"?
> 
> ...


The code has a bit of a "Psychological rationale" for tacking each behaviour to each function, so it isn't completely arbitrary.

There seems to be a lot of subjectivity, I don't deny this, and I am as skeptical as I am curious. 

The reasons I don't completely dismiss it are: 

1) Subconscious cues rather than facial shape a la phrenology. 

2) Facial recognition tech has been able to pinpoint uncanny stuff in a similar fashion
https://www.technologyreview.com/th...redibly-powerful-and-ever-more-controversial/

It could be all nonsense, or maybe coupling facial recognition AI and vultology could lead to interesting results.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

I don't think it's related to mbti. The way people express themselves is very individual and is very related to how self conscious and aware they are. For example, that video comparing Kristen Stewart and Jennifer Lawrence - Kristen is quite socially awkward and it shows in the way she makes eye contact. She look down or where ever to avoid eye contact while thinking, not because of Ni! Jennifer Lawrence has the opposite personality, she's very expressive, seems quite confident, etc. 

Also worth considering this diagram;









This is more about eye contact and directions though, which I think is definitely not related to functions. Body language may have a link with MBTI types, who knows.


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

I submitted a video to the Vultologists and they typed me as SiTe (ISTJ) with Si subtype. I was surprised with the result, I had typed myself as INTP, usually scored as intuitive on tests, believed myself to have strong Ti and Ne. However, I also identified alot with Si and apparently what I had thought was Ti - the need for precision and classification was probably just my usage of Si. 

I do think Vultology has merit and potential but I wouldn't use it as a sole means for typing. I do think it's more reliable than the Visual Identification (VI) method used in socionics because it's based on dynamic microexpressions and gestures rather than just one's static appearance. 

I've done some reading on the website and purchased their cognitive typology book. I can definitely see myself as being on the Si/Ne axis and also probably on the Te/Fi axis. I didn't relate to their Ti description very much. I related to Fi more than Fe. Fe was something I learned to mimic through Te. 

However, I still go to other typology websites and I find myself fitting the INTP descriptions alot there. Hmmmmm


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

Here's the video I submitted if you're curious. 




They also used data from this video since the original video was somewhat blurry and lacked visible hand gestures (was doing it on my bed).


----------

