[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Objective Personality

[brainheart]

Anybody else checked it out? Objective Personality | Home

I have and reached some conclusions, hereby condensed into a rant-of-sorts I wanted to post on the Objective Personality Facebook Group page but I already officially left it because there is way too much groupthink going on there:


Remember that all personality theory is just a hypothetical construction of how our personalities function. It is not fact. It can be useful and provide insight, but it is contestable, just like all hypotheses.

Intuition operates as pattern gathering and organization from which insight can be gleaned. It is important and useful and necessary for us as humans. We grow via hypotheticals, and they lead to real innovation and life changes, as well as greater understanding. But they are also not set in stone and shouldn’t be treated as such. They may lead to future verifiable conclusions (Galileo hypothesized the earth revolved around the sun and was later proven correct) or they may not. (The Bible hypothesized the universe was created in seven days and was later disproven). In other words, it’s always best to be both open-minded and skeptical when it comes to hypotheses.

People with dominant Ni are insightful, charismatic and great leaders. People love to follow them. But it’s important to remember that what they put out there as truth is their subjective understanding of things. Their opinions are fallible, just like anyone else’s. Is there some truth in their insights? Sure. If there was no truth there, people wouldn’t follow them. But it’s essential to consider the viewpoints, perspectives, and info of others, including yourself. Don’t doubt other perspectives (including your own) because they differ from theirs. That’s how cults and autocracies are formed.

Dave (of Objective Personality) puts his hypothesis out there with the desired outcome that it will become mutually defined as objective. Maybe, as more data comes in (and more people come to the same conclusion through scientifically verifiable studies), that will eventually happen. But it isn’t there yet, and we don’t know that it will happen.

It would be good if Dave would be more honest and state, “This is how I believe we make personality theory more objective, and I am working on it,” rather than saying that it is objective. (You don’t have mutually agreed upon terms if you are the only one declaring them as such, for example, and he is still obviously in the testing stage.) Also, a scientist doesn’t require someone to pay to be part of an experiment. If anything, it works the other way around. When you are paying to be typed, and it is conducted by the two people who have devised the hypothesis, that isn’t conclusive scientific work, it’s people reaching the same conclusion based on their shared method of evaluation, and making money in the process. Maybe it will lead to something insightful, but it isn’t scientific.

Don’t get me wrong. I think Dave and Shannon are perceptive and they’ve got me thinking about personality theory in some different ways. I think they are motivated to do something life changing. But what they are doing should also be taken with a grain of salt. All scientific work requires scrutiny. I don’t see any evidence that theirs has had any yet.

(If you have any questions about the site, their methods, and their acolytes, feel free to ask.)

 

[rav3n]

There's a market for personality typing in business since corporations don't wish to waste time/funds on hiring and firing. They want a predictive typing system. That's why new typologies that trash MBTI, the market leader, keep popping up.

 

[brainheart]

They’ve expanded the types to 512. I think that’s excessive and redundant. I think they could streamline it back to 32.

What I think they have going for them are the concepts of animals (consume, sleep, blast, and play) and single deciders/double observers (IPs and EJs) vs double deciders/single observers (EPs and IJs). All of these components explain the spectrum from extreme introversion to extreme extroversion quite well, as well as the preoccupations/hangups of the four different orientations. But I would do it like this:

IXXPs, sleep or consume. The sleep would be the more introverted introvert (emphasis on Ji and Pi) and the consume would be the more ambiverted introvert (emphasis on Ji and Pe).

IXXJs, sleep or blast. The sleep would emphasize Pi and Ji and the blast would emphasize Pi and Je.

EXXPs, consume or play. The consume would emphasize Pe and Ji and the play would emphasize Pe and Je.

EXXJs, blast or play. The blast would emphasize Je and Pi and the play would emphasize Je and Pe.

I don’t expect anyone to understand this without more info. I would recommend checking out these videos:

Animals:

Deciders/Observers:

But to give you an example, let’s say we have two ISFPs. Both use Fi as their dominant function, and both extravert with Se, but the sleep tends to spend more time using Fi and Ni, while the consume tends to spend more time using Fi and Se, like the traditional MBTI ISFP.


EDIT: Actually I was getting crazy here, too, so I streamlined it.

 

[rav3n]

Perhaps the name should be 'speshul snowflake' system?

 

[Peter Deadpan]

They have by far the most objective/consistent way of typing people via cognitive functions. So far, I dig it.

I'm not sure exactly why you don't think it's more... measurably accurate (?). The MBTI is the most flawed test there is imo, for many reasons.

I'll come back to elaborate when I have time.

 

[brainheart]

They have by far the most objective/consistent way of typing people via cognitive functions. So far, I dig it.

I'm not sure exactly why you don't think it's more... measurably accurate (?). The MBTI is the most flawed test there is imo, for many reasons.

I'll come back to elaborate when I have time.

I agree MBTI is a crazily flawed test. And maybe they have the most objective/consistent way of typing but that doesn't make it either objective or accurate. That's a matter of degrees. My biggest issue/concern is when people think taking a test will be more accurate than a thorough, introspective self-typing with some insight from others who know you well. To be fair, Dave (of OP) does mention as much at some point, but he delivers a lot of contrary messages, which I've noticed (in his followers) sends them into this spiral of self-doubt, where Dave is the informational authority and only he can know it fully.

Basically, it goes like this:

1.We are ruled by our saviors (our top two functions), but what we tend to notice in ourselves are our demons (bottom two functions).

2.People tend to think their demons are their saviors and so they've got themselves upside down, because they are looking at themselves how they'd like to be vs how they really are.

3. Therefore, most people don't really understand themselves and can't be trusted to know themselves.

4. It requires the eyes of another person to type you. Objective Personality, especially, has the key. We can type you down to one of 512 types. No one else can do that. Pay $19 a month to enter our system, because only people in our system will be considered for typing. Then a typing will cost $160 and there is a waitlist until September.


Well, I am a curious beast so I paid the $19 to view their more extensive content (and cancelled it two days later). It's basically a mishmash of typing videos and videos of them answering the questions of their members. Nothing is written down or organized so you have to watch all of the videos to get the info. It is a drawn out, exhaustive process. (I like the written word because then you aren't forced to the same pace as the speaker. Most people talk way too slowly and about one topic for way too long and my Ne loses its mind because I made the connection what feels like hours ago.)

Most of the types they assign to people in the videos seem pretty straight forward and obvious to me, but they always end with the statement that most people would see them as something else because of x or y. Maybe if by 'most people' they mean those with superficial knowledge of MBTI, but if you've read widely and extensively and thought about it and know your shit, I beg to differ.

They say not to look at people's anecdotes, but the big picture of who they are (which I absolutely agree with), but then when they type Obama as an ESTP, they say it's because of how in an interview when he's attacked he defends himself with facts and figures. Their reasoning is that when people are in a stressful situation they will defend themselves with their saviors (top two functions). I think this is a specious argument, especially when you are dealing with someone who is a politician, seasoned debater, lawyer, and former law lecturer. Obviously he is going to present himself in a certain way, no matter the level of pressure. I'm not saying they might not be on to something with this idea, but I think it will always be nuanced, and you always have to take a person's life history and the context of the conversation into account.

All of us are tailored by life experiences and what behavior is encouraged or discouraged. From a young age it was reinforced in me by my parents that if I were emotionally expressive I would not be listened to, that if I wanted my opinions to be considered I had to state them dispassionately. God forbid I ever say, "I feel". When I did they would either leave the room or correct me. "Say I think," they'd say. "I feel means nothing." Does this make me less of an INFP? No, it just meant that I either didn't share my opinion at all or I got emotional and my parents rolled their eyes at me or I spoke in a very Te-like way and was listened to. It's become a habit now when I feel threatened. It's probably why when I first took an MBTI test as an adult I got INTP (and thought I was a 5w4).

Anyway, I don't think they take life experiences and context into account enough in their effort to be objective. They are looking at videos or listening to people's words exclusively for 'tells'. Maybe that will give you something that seems objective and accurate, and maybe they are right a good portion of the time. But they are definitely not right all of the time, and I don't think they are any more than a person would be if they read the info and figured it out for themselves.

EDIT: [MENTION=31348]Peter Deadpan[/MENTION], in my second post I did also talk about the ideas they have that I think are good. I think they are doing some positive things, too. And as human beings, based on their videos, I like them. I think I feel some pretty serious Fi vs Te bias about the whole thing, which is probably obvious to anyone reading this.

 

[brainheart]

I just watched a video of theirs (on their subscriber only site) where they state that their goal is to be scientifically validated, but that they have lots of work ahead of them, at least twenty years, and they are always changing things to see what's correct. Laudable.

So I guess I should say my primary issue with them is one of misrepresentation. As I said in the first post, they should openly state on their public website that this is a work in progress. They are in the development stage, they don't have anything finalized or scientifically validated. Meanwhile, suggestible people ascribe to what they say as if it's gospel truth (the facebook page, eg, where people are clamoring to be tested and spouting this stuff as if it's their bible, and in it resides their salvation.) Oh well, I guess there will always be sheep-like followers, no matter how much a leader tries to deflect them.

 

[LucieCat]

I agree MBTI is a crazily flawed test. And maybe they have the most objective/consistent way of typing but that doesn't make it either objective or accurate. That's a matter of degrees. My biggest issue/concern is when people think taking a test will be more accurate than a thorough, introspective self-typing with some insight from others who know you well. To be fair, Dave (of OP) does mention as much at some point, but he delivers a lot of contrary messages, which I've noticed (in his followers) sends them into this spiral of self-doubt, where Dave is the informational authority and only he can know it fully.

Basically, it goes like this:

1.We are ruled by our saviors (our top two functions), but what we tend to notice in ourselves are our demons (bottom two functions).

2.People tend to think their demons are their saviors and so they've got themselves upside down, because they are looking at themselves how they'd like to be vs how they really are.

3. Therefore, most people don't really understand themselves and can't be trusted to know themselves.

4. It requires the eyes of another person to type you. Objective Personality, especially, has the key. We can type you down to one of 512 types. No one else can do that. Pay $19 a month to enter our system, because only people in our system will be considered for typing. Then a typing will cost $160 and there is a waitlist until September.


Well, I am a curious beast so I paid the $19 to view their more extensive content (and cancelled it two days later). It's basically a mishmash of typing videos and videos of them answering the questions of their members. Nothing is written down or organized so you have to watch all of the videos to get the info. It is a drawn out, exhaustive process. (I like the written word because then you aren't forced to the same pace as the speaker. Most people talk way too slowly and about one topic for way too long and my Ne loses its mind because I made the connection what feels like hours ago.)

Most of the types they assign to people in the videos seem pretty straight forward and obvious to me, but they always end with the statement that most people would see them as something else because of x or y. Maybe if by 'most people' they mean those with superficial knowledge of MBTI, but if you've read widely and extensively and thought about it and know your shit, I beg to differ.

They say not to look at people's anecdotes, but the big picture of who they are (which I absolutely agree with), but then when they type Obama as an ESTP, they say it's because of how in an interview when he's attacked he defends himself with facts and figures. Their reasoning is that when people are in a stressful situation they will defend themselves with their saviors (top two functions). I think this is a specious argument, especially when you are dealing with someone who is a politician, seasoned debater, lawyer, and former law lecturer. Obviously he is going to present himself in a certain way, no matter the level of pressure. I'm not saying they might not be on to something with this idea, but I think it will always be nuanced, and you always have to take a person's life history and the context of the conversation into account.

All of us are tailored by life experiences and what behavior is encouraged or discouraged. From a young age it was reinforced in me by my parents that if I were emotionally expressive I would not be listened to, that if I wanted my opinions to be considered I had to state them dispassionately. God forbid I ever say, "I feel". When I did they would either leave the room or correct me. "Say I think," they'd say. "I feel means nothing." Does this make me less of an INFP? No, it just meant that I either didn't share my opinion at all or I got emotional and my parents rolled their eyes at me or I spoke in a very Te-like way and was listened to. It's become a habit now when I feel threatened. It's probably why when I first took an MBTI test as an adult I got INTP (and thought I was a 5w4).

Anyway, I don't think they take life experiences and context into account enough in their effort to be objective. They are looking at videos or listening to people's words exclusively for 'tells'. Maybe that will give you something that seems objective and accurate, and maybe they are right a good portion of the time. But they are definitely not right all of the time, and I don't think they are any more than a person would be if they read the info and figured it out for themselves.

EDIT: @Peter Deadpan, in my second post I did also talk about the ideas they have that I think are good. I think they are doing some positive things, too. And as human beings, based on their videos, I like them. I think I feel some pretty serious Fi vs Te bias about the whole thing, which is probably obvious to anyone reading this.

I think 512 types is a bit unwieldy. If in need of more types, it's better to combine systems.

They have some good points, but I don't agree that people will always defend with their first 2 functions. From what I've read and seen, the tertiary gets pulled in as a defense mechanism at times. It's more of a "bang" and done sort of thing. For example, let's take tertiary Te. ESFPs and ENFPs are generally known to be very kind, warm-hearted people. However, when someone steps on their Fi values in just the right way, they have a complete 180 swap. Te kicks in and it can cause them to be very cold almost, decisive and emphasize "This is how it is." I was involved in a political discussion with an ENFP friend and a classmate. The ENFP wasn't quite sure whether the other person was implying that all government aid was bad (which is turns out they were not). You could almost see the walls go up, they said very coldly "Just so you know, I would've starved to death as a child if not for food stamps." The use of facts and what works and creates tangible results (i.e. effectiveness) was a defensive barrier.

Tertiary Te can also come off as a brutal tearing down of another person, an almost uncharacteristic and explosive anger. I've experienced this. I've also seen it in my ESFP roommate. For both of us, it tends to come out when people insult and attack the people we love (or are perceived to have done so). Our internal value system has been so heavily violated, that we go on the offensive as a manner of protecting ourselves and others.

Plus, arguing with facts and figures can also be seen as Te. I've seen Obama popularly typed as an ENFJ. If this is accurate, you could make the argument that it's actually Fe at work. Fe takes in the information and unconsciously decides "Okay, based on the atmosphere and what's expected of me, how should I argue my point? What's the best way to convince those around me?" Thus, the facts and figures. So, Fe resembles Ti/Te. The functions, especially the judging functions, can mirror each other at times, which is why the underlying motivation and process is so important. Action only can take you so far.

 

[Turi]

I'm a member and think it's a solid system - my complaint with people like you, are that it's all talk no action - you say it requires scrutiny, too much group-think - this isn't actually the truth. People scrutinize it and the typings they receive all the time.

There is about 2-3 people that keep banging on the same dead-horse - which is essentially what you've posted, but they for reasons unknown will never accept that literally nobody has claimed the method to be infallible, nobody has ever said it should not be scrutinized.

This is where people like yourself become all talk no action - you rally against positions nobody took, and yet have nothing to show - if you want to scrutinize - then scrutinize the system, actually come up with some arguments against things, attempt to disprove portions of it or whatever - I'm just saying, instead of wasting energy fighting against a position absolutely nobody has ever taken (and you know, it's been pointed out to you and the other 1-2 people on numerous occasions) - why not actually do what you're rallying for?

Scrutinize it. Test it. Actually do something about it. Prove 'em wrong.
Don't just waste yours and everyone elses time by saying crap like "it's not fact" and "it's personality theory" everybody knows this, nobody has disagreed with this, and yet you and a couple of others refuse to relent on the same thing.

Nobody is fighting against you on this. It's in your head. Stop wasting time.
Stop talking and start putting your words into action - do something about it. You're fighting against a position nobody has taken.
Nobody thinks it's fact. Nobody thinks it's infallible. Nobody sees D&S as gurus. Nobody accepts it all as "fact". Nobody is saying it shouldn't be scrutinized.

 

[Jaguar]

You don't know you, we know you. Pay us money now!

 

[Turi]

I just watched a video of theirs (on their subscriber only site) where they state that their goal is to be scientifically validated, but that they have lots of work ahead of them, at least twenty years, and they are always changing things to see what's correct. Laudable.

So I guess I should say my primary issue with them is one of misrepresentation. As I said in the first post, they should openly state on their public website that this is a work in progress. They are in the development stage, they don't have anything finalized or scientifically validated. Meanwhile, suggestible people ascribe to what they say as if it's gospel truth (the facebook page, eg, where people are clamoring to be tested and spouting this stuff as if it's their bible, and in it resides their salvation.) Oh well, I guess there will always be sheep-like followers, no matter how much a leader tries to deflect them.

I'm not sure why you require this in such black and white, it's essentially noted here:
Objective Personality | Subjectiv vs Objective

It literally says it's their "personal assumption" that the functions are "real" and can be tracked using the scientific method.
They're not claiming this is "the way" or that it's 100% guaranteed and if you'd watched the classes you'd understand this as well, they're not even marketing themselves as any kind of guru or as if it's "fact" - they've taken so many precautions that it's somewhat concerning that you're actually of the opinion that they're misrepresenting anything.

They've even noted in a youtube clip that whatever typings they provide are essentially one source. Need more sources (outside of your subjective self) to get close to an accurate typing.

If you'd watched the videos you'd also understand that the whole system is in a "beta" stage. This has been noted.

I'm all for criticizing everything, everything should be questioned, everything can and should be scrutinized, I do it all the time to everybody - and this includes you - your position isn't actually supported by the facts. You perceive people that question you as sheep, blindly following a guru of sorts, never recognizing the flaws in your position (notably, that it's basically a strawman).

I agree, they've attempted to deflect people from taking the position you are rallying against - the problem is, it's worked, nobody has taken that sheep-like position, and yet you're still rallying against it.

 

[brightflashes]

[MENTION=22480]brainheart[/MENTION] Could you elaborate a bit more on "group think"? Do you mean that they sort of blindly follow Shave or do you mean something else?

I agree with Turi the most about this issue. As far as I can tell, they have not said that their method is infallible and they are very open to hearing feedback which makes me personally take them a bit more seriously than I might other people. Every time I've given them feedback, they've been open to it and respectful of what I suggest or critique. Then again, I think they might also see that I'm sharing to help; not to hurt. I respect their methods too much to give crappy advice.

 

[brainheart]

[MENTION=33869]Turi[/MENTION],

Obviously I have struck a nerve with you. For that I am sorry. Like I've said, I'm interested in many of their ideas. I joined the facebook group and was put off by the reoccurring theme of 'I thought I knew my type but I was totally wrong, therefore you can't know your type correctly either and you have to take their test.' And yet, as Dave says, MBTI types as-are are right for 50% of people (not sure where he gets that number). If that's the case, then it's quite likely that there are a sizable number of people who have their type right. So truthfully, and I think I backpedalled and presented it as such, I have less of a deal with them than I do with certain people I encountered on facebook. You can say I didn't encounter that sentiment, but I did.

I hadn't seen the article you sent, so thank you for that. (I'm not sure how you got to it on their website? Nevermind, I figured it out, but it is fairly hidden.) One thing I will say about it is... I find it odd that a Ni Fi demonizes subjectivity to the extent that he does. I don't know that MBTI ever claimed to be scientifically valid. I think it's what someone would consider to be an 'insight tool'- it gets you thinking about aspects of yourself that you might not consider otherwise, which can help you grow as a person. There are things which should be objective in their focus, obviously, like the hard sciences. But there is a greater value to subjective orientation in certain things, too. Who wants to read objective poetry, for example. As I've said before, though, if they want to try and prove they can test and determine personality in a scientific way, more power to them. I look forward to seeing what comes of it.

I think, ultimately, what it comes to is- what are you trying to get from personality theory? Are you using it for development or growth, or are you using it to reassure yourself that you are who you think you are, or just to get a number attached to yourself? If it's the latter two, it strikes me as pretty pointless. But if it's the former, I think it's a process which merits from introspection and self analysis.

Also, I believe I did present arguments against specific things in the system, as well as mention the aspects I particularly liked.

[MENTION=34748]LucieCat[/MENTION], I've seen Obama typed I think every single type, except maybe ESFJ.

 

[Norexan]

Knowing yourself is high correlate with introversion and intuition. It requires deepest introspective mind.

 

[LucieCat]

[MENTION=33869]Turi[/MENTION], Obviously I have struck a nerve with you. For that I am sorry. Like I've said, I'm interested in many of their ideas. I joined the facebook group and was put off by the reoccurring theme of 'I thought I knew my type but I was totally wrong, therefore you can't know your type correctly either and you have to take their test.' And yet, as Dave says, MBTI types as-are are right for 50% of people (not sure where he gets that number). If that's the case, then it's quite likely that there are a sizable number of people who have their type right. So truthfully, and I think I backpedalled and presented it as such, I have less of a deal with them than I do with certain people I encountered on facebook. You can say I didn't encounter that sentiment, but I did. I hadn't seen the article you sent, so thank you for that. (I'm not sure how you got to it on their website? Nevermind, I figured it out, but it is fairly hidden.) One thing I will say about it is... I find it odd that a Ni Fi demonizes subjectivity to the extent that he does. I don't know that MBTI ever claimed to be scientifically valid. I think it's what someone would consider to be an 'insight tool'- it gets you thinking about aspects of yourself that you might not consider otherwise, which can help you grow as a person. There are things which should be objective in their focus, obviously, like the hard sciences. But there is a greater value to subjective orientation in certain things, too. Who wants to read objective poetry, for example. As I've said before, though, if they want to try and prove they can test and determine personality in a scientific way, more power to them. I look forward to seeing what comes of it. I think, ultimately, what it comes to is- what are you trying to get from personality theory? Are you using it for development or growth, or are you using it to reassure yourself that you are who you think you are, or just to get a number attached to yourself? If it's the latter two, it strikes me as pretty pointless. But if it's the former, I think it's a process which merits from introspection and self analysis. Also, I believe I did present arguments against specific things in the system, as well as mention the aspects I particularly liked. [MENTION=34748]LucieCat[/MENTION], I've seen Obama typed I think every single type, except maybe ESFJ.

That's possible. People have lots of different types for influential figures.

Of course he was a very different person, but I am pretty sure a friend and I years back found Hitler typed as every single MBTI type. People will also see what they want to see.

 

[reckful]

I don't know that MBTI ever claimed to be scientifically valid.

Here are two official MBTI sources backing up the validity and reliability of the MBTI typology in its Step I and Step II incarnations:

Step I: MBTI Form M Manual Supplement
Step II: MBTI Step II Manual Supplement

And here's a post on the subject at the CPP blog.

Here's a 2003 third-party review of the MBTI that found that the MBTI was "on a par" with the leading Big Five tests in both the reliability and validity departments:

In addition to research focused on the application of the MBTI to solve applied assessment problems, a number of studies of its psychometric properties have also been performed (e.g., Harvey & Murry, 1994; Harvey, Murry, & Markham, 1994; Harvey, Murry, & Stamoulis, 1995; Johnson & Saunders, 1990; Sipps, Alexander, & Freidt, 1985; Thompson & Borrello, 1986, 1989; Tischler, 1994; Tzeng, Outcalt, Boyer, Ware, & Landis, 1984). Somewhat surprisingly, given the intensity of criticisms offered by its detractors (e.g., Pittenger, 1993), a review and meta-analysis of a large number of reliability and validity studies (Harvey, 1996) concluded that in terms of these traditional psychometric criteria, the MBTI performed quite well, being clearly on a par with results obtained using more well-accepted personality tests.​

...and the authors went on to describe the results of their own 11,000-subject study, which they specifically noted were inconsistent with the notion that the MBTI was somehow of "lower psychometric quality" than Big Five (aka FFM) tests. They said:

In sum, although the MBTI is very widely used in organizations, with literally millions of administrations being given annually (e.g., Moore, 1987; Suplee, 1991), the criticisms of it that have been offered by its vocal detractors (e.g., Pittenger, 1993) have led some psychologists to view it as being of lower psychometric quality in comparison to more recent tests based on the FFM (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1987). In contrast, we find the findings reported above — especially when viewed in the context of previous confirmatory factor analytic research on the MBTI, and meta-analytic reviews of MBTI reliability and validity studies (Harvey, 1996) — to provide a very firm empirical foundation that can be used to justify the use of the MBTI as a personality assessment device in applied organizational settings.​

 

[pmj85]

No u.

x ~ 1000.

 

[brainheart]

[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION], thanks for the info- unfortunately your first two links didn't work.

Something I'd like to add about testing is that the vast majority of times that I've taken MBTI tests, in all their various incarnations, it has typed me correctly. (That hasn't prevented me from considering all of the possibilities, of course, despite the fact that, deep down, I've always known it's the type most congruent to what's going on with me, I just love playing the game of "Who am I?")

I've probably only taken the official test once, in high school, years ago. I got INFP. (I then promptly forgot about MBTI for the next fifteen years.) At the same time, my husband (most likely an ESFP) has gotten a different result on every single test he's taken, although he always gets XXFP, but also I think he wants to 'prove' that it's pointless because he doesn't understand why anyone would be interested in personality theory. I'd be curious to see what he'd get on an official test, if I could convince him to take it.

I love this quote from one of the articles you sent: "To be clear, the MBTI instrument was never intended to be a comprehensive assessment of one’s entire personality, and it doesn’t claim that individuals of the same type are exactly alike. According to this logic any bit of insight into a person’s preferences for thinking, behaving, communicating, working and learning is useless because it doesn’t identify everything that makes them tick."

 

[reckful]

[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION], thanks for the info- unfortunately your first two links didn't work.

Fixed! Thanks for the heads-up.

 

[GavinElster]

It literally says it's their "personal assumption" that the functions are "real" and can be tracked using the scientific method.

Here's my comment -- there are lots of psychometric instruments out there, measuring various patterns in people's thinking. I think the only thing that worries me (and just note I'm not saying anyone is assuming this will work out, just my own humble comment/suspicion) is the idea of "THE" functions -- usually it's more like there are lots of ways you can differently define things resembling the overall theme of introverted/extraverted versions of F/T/N/S.

Just to give an example, every pair of Big 5 dimensions could be used to define a new scale (like Agreeableness and Extraversion could be used to define Agreeableness-Extraversion, which will consist of things most correlated with both simultaneously).

In this sense, there seem to be lots of mathematically equivalent ways of slicing and dicing personality, and we can choose among them depending on what we want to describe. So, while it's conceivable to me that one could make a psychometric instrument with some statistical validity using some of the ideas (cleaned up) people have about the function-attitudes, I suspect there will be a lot of possible such instruments.... and which one you use will depend on what you are more interested in describing.

I think there will always be a few interesting ways of taking the intuitive idea of NTFS and turning it into something precise, precisely because I think the very idea of NTFS (or offshoots like Ni/Ti/etc) is constructed based on conceptual utility, not based on it being found directly as some kind of irreducible building block of nature, akin to the fundamental physics particles.