[Jungian Cognitive Functions] COGNITIVE TYPE by Juan Sandoval

[Entp/infjGal]

I haven't seen a discussion of this book here, yet, so here goes:

Full title: COGNITIVE TYPE: The algorithm of Human Consciousness as Revealed via Facial Expressions, by author Juan Sandoval

Much of it is available freely on the website and at the top of the discussion board, also linked on the typology central main wiki page

Cognitive Type is a theory based on the newly released book Cognitive Type: The Algorithm of Human Consciousness as Revealed via Facial Expressions (2016), which presents an empirical case for the existence of Types as first defined by C.G. Jung in his book Psychological Types (1921). In this theory we discover a direct connection between the activity of the psyche and the micro-expressions automatically elicited by the face during specific psychic activities. By mapping these signals to their corresponding psychic experiences, CT presents a framework for understanding psychology from an objective dimension. When certain signals are consistently seen manifesting within a person, they reveal to us their default manner of processing and constructing thoughts; a manner which is altogether native to their physiology and indicative of their cognitive type.

Cognitive Type represents a vastly different typological model from what has previously emerged from Jungian psychology, capable of unprecedented quantification as well as collaborative review. But more than that, it opens the door to a definitive understanding of ourselves and others – as our own type (the branch of humanity we belong to) can now be observed as a legitimate, physical phenomenon rather than a speculative psychology. A variety of applications soon begin to take root, as a definitive typing allows for a far more targeted education, journey into self discovery, approach to our relationships, career choices and development of natural talents.

Three short videos introducing the concepts to beginners:

 

[rainybisto]

Yes, it's really interesting. Finally more group who wants to collect the data...and redefine the functions with care and definite term. (if they really do).

I'm not sure what to think about the vultology method, though. There are possibilities that you're grouping the collected datas into something that doesn't correlate with anything personality-wise. And that likely means it's not cognitive functions. At least not how it's supposed to be according to our preconceived notions (which I know must be discarded anyway if it's meaningless). My concern is their new findings will find correlations in something that's completely different than functions, but they stick to calling it cognitive functions. I guess we'll see.

Personally I'd prefer to see some descriptive research, starting from creating a bundle list of definitive traits/cognitive traits, and then try to see which ones of them can be representative of the true dichotomy by analyzing the statistical dispersion (I believe it's called camel hump curve?). Just something that was crossing my mind lol.

Anyhow, as I said, more and more datas would be great, no matter in what's the correlation they're looking for. At least it's not dying, 'cause I see potential in it. IMO.

 

[Pionart]

Juan Sandoval has made a very impressive contribution in linking the physical manifestations of a person's behaviour (facial expressions, eye movements, body language) to their cognitive functions, however his conclusions about what type that means someone is often miss the mark. He is oversimplifying things by assuming people use only 4 of the 8 cognitive functions, and the assessments of which functions someone is using often go against what their actual dominant type is. For example, he may see an ISFP with considerable Si use as an INFP, because he is seeing the Si cues as trumping over the Se/Ni cues. Certainly quite a contribution, however could use some counter-claims.

 

[Dashy CVII]

I've studied his theory in-depth and must award it a C (75%) for effort, but it's a bit too focused on irrelevant relational identifiers. The magic formula has been found already, and I'm not sure we'll ever find a better Typing / Visual-Identification / Relational theory than it. I've been trying / investigating for years. Not only is it brilliantly accurate to relationships, it also matches the underlying meaning of Jung's Subjective/Objective types.