Cognitive Type Theory

[Sandoval]

This is cool. I already see your forum has been gathering impressions on famous types. Maybe a respective photo gallery of their different expressions, because people including me will find that to help learn the essential visual foundation and find more types, where a more limited selection of pictures and samples could not. Not only so, but a large sample would give this credibility. Keep up the good work on that aspect.

I'm getting the hang of mostly Fe vs Fi VI and the 4 function strengths so far. But I don't yet have down the reactive/proactive (I/E) orientations of the other functions. Need to read more.

Agreed. The celebrity tab of the website (here) provides a gallery/database of that sort, divided by groupings too. So you can see the general average of the four quadrants, or other categories at a glance -- but also, each thumbnail is a post with its own video of the celeb. Some have been broken down into time-stamped analyses, with the aim to eventually time-decode all of them and write up an explanation for each.

Currently we have a little over 100 celeb samples up, but there are some 300-350 total that are ready to go up. It's just a matter of doing the work and spending the time. But I hope to turn that into 1,000 samples eventually.

We also have video samples of actual volunteers which we're compiling on youtube. These volunteers are also offering bios of themselves which we are compiling to come up with new profiles that describe these like-typed people from firsthand experience.

Lastly (and this is extensive) I plan to eventually make a video composite for each of the 110 'basic' signals codex - as per this page. "The purpose of this codex is to provide fellow researchers, critics and learners with an unambiguous definition of the signals comprising CT theory in visual form – which is the form in which the signals primarily appears." That way, if anyone wants to know exactly what a signal looks like in a dynamic way, they can reference a page of GIFs or a video with multiple examples.

This would also act as a sort of "standard" or consensus measurement which can be used reliably to verify or critique mistypings - at least within the CT model. So within the CT model, most practitioners should be able to agree (at least on the basics) with a very high degree of repeatability.

I'm leaning towards a certain type for myself in this classification, but won't mention what that type is in the chance that you want to type me.

I can make time.
(Although it's gotten a bit busy for me lately.)

@Sandoval Within the confines of this system, is it possible to identify someone's type with still photographs exclusively?

Irrespective of its validity, which I will evaluate at a later time, I am interested in this system, though I do not endorse VI.

I think it's possible if there's a large amount of psychological material available. If that provides a strong estimation of type, then photographs can 'confirm' that reading in some cases. I've been able to do this with Isaac Newton, for example. And I have a fair guess about Abraham Lincoln.

Still this depends on what we might call "type-specific" signals, which are few. It's not always possible to tell between (say) FeSi and SiFe via photographs. Same functions, very similar order. They can look like each other on the ups an downs of their days. But some types have a look that is distinct and indisputable.