Horribly Inaccurate Vultology Typings

[Braingel]

People whose vult types would be wrong by mbti and beebe (based on vuktology’s own database):


Miley Cyrus (mistyped enfp, is esfp)


Kurt cobain (mistyped estp, is infj)


River Phoenix (mistyped estp, is infj)


Michael Jackson (mistyped istp, is isfp)


Madonna (mistyped isfp, is estp)


Juan Sandoval (is isfj, mistyped intp)


Britney Spears (mistyped enfp, is esfp/j)


Albert Einstein (was once mistyped istj, is now mistyped enfp, is actually an intp).


Chris Martin (mistyped estp, is XNFP)


Liam Payne (is mistyped entp, is isfj)


John Beebe (mistyped isfj, is entp)


Antonia Dodge (mistyped estj, ks entp)


Hit-ler (mistyped estj, is some XNFJ)


Enya (mistyped isfp, is infj)


Taylor Swift (mistyped istp, is esfj)


Harry Styles (is enfj, mustyped as estp)


Ariana Grande (is ESFX, mistyped as an entp)


Elon Musk (is mistyped istp, is actually entj)


Donald Trump (is estp mistyped as entj)


Lana Del Rey (is infj mistyped isfp, but this isn’t as obvious)


John Lennon (is ENFP mistyped as esfp)

C.S. Joseph (is ENFJ/ENTJ mistyped as ESFJ)

Dario Nardi (some ENTP or something, mistyped as enfp)

Some other people are def mistyped but who idk well enough to type, like aurora, Anya Taylor, Mia Goth, and Tom York or whatever his name..

I get that vultology is supposed to be about expression, but if you assume this to actual cognition.. Then like, a great fucking deal of these typings are wrong

[Braingel]

If the expressions don’t correspond any to actual cognition and the essence of one’s psychological unfolding, then it’s absolutely useless to render someone a type relative to said expression.. Unless the expressions have do with transience in loops, shadows, etc, but then this would have expand of..

This is one of those things of Si lead being about subjective sensory interpretation.. Much as you see in Qaz, it can be completely of base from someone’s actual process.

[CosmicCat]

@Braingel C. S. Lewis?

[The Reality Denialist]

Well, it is very clear that he does not even meet the basic premises of Jung. Counting and collecting data about everything seems to reduce type down to Te (valuing) as per Jung. So. I'd say ILI type seems rather obvious.

[Darth Cultis]

Well, it is very clear that he does not even meet the basic premises of Jung. Counting and collecting data about everything seems to reduce type down to Te (valuing) as per Jung. So. I'd say ILI type seems rather obvious.

Something occurred to me.

Jungian typology never got past the Ti philosophical/mystical/idea/hypothesis stage.

A physicist might Ti by mathematically modeling reality, but they can also demonstrate its relevance with repeatable experiments and objective data.

But we can't demonstrate Jungian typology. So we're left to pontificate.

Like I more or less agree with your analysis (minus the type conclusion), but can we even then really say that he is wrong? I mean I think 95% of pdb is superficial nonsensical things, but it's not any more scientific over learning the Jungian stuff really well and forming deeper explanations. Then we're still left to pontificate and no one is ever going to take that seriously, even if we have a good holistic metaphysical understanding of what's going on around us (unless they were already inclined to what's being said). And any value this has will be separated from Jung and turned into simple metrics that can be measured with repeatable and statistical methods, aka Big 5, because it must be to be taken seriously.

This is a bit of a problem. How do you take metaphysics and make it simple and demonstratable? Religion? (and that doesn't seem to have worked)
Or at least, in other words, how do you create objective or baseline metrics for something like typology, so people will know when they are off-base or not?

[The Reality Denialist]

Something occurred to me.

Jungian typology never got past the Ti philosophical/mystical/idea/hypothesis stage.

A physicist might Ti by mathematically modeling reality, but they can also demonstrate its relevance with repeatable experiments and objective data.

But we can't demonstrate Jungian typology. So we're left to pontificate.

Like I more or less agree with your analysis (minus the type conclusion), but can we even then really say that he is wrong? I mean I think 95% of pdb is superficial nonsensical things, but it's not any more scientific over learning the Jungian stuff really well and forming deeper explanations. Then we're still left to pontificate and no one is ever going to take that seriously, even if we have a good holistic metaphysical understanding of what's going on around us (unless they were already inclined to what's being said). And any value this has will be separated from Jung and turned into simple metrics that can be measured with repeatable and statistical methods, aka Big 5, because it must be to be taken seriously.

This is a bit of a problem. How do you take metaphysics and make it simple and demonstratable? Religion? (and that doesn't seem to have worked)
Or at least, in other words, how do you create objective or baseline metrics for something like typology, so people will know when they are off-base or not?

Actually, the point is not about redcutive. It leads you to an astray immediately. I think the most essential trick is to think about forming a common qualia which is not easily testable as it is an observation but a horridly complex one.

[youfloweryourfeast]

i thought harry could be istp idk how he acted in 2013

[Darth Cultis]

Hey, you passed my test I didn't even know I was giving. We should be Hell Friends in the afterlife.