User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 37

  1. #1
    Member brainheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    77

    Default Objective Personality

    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.)
    459
    Likes Luminous liked this post

  2. #2
    . bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,453

    Default

    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.
    Likes brainheart, Norexan liked this post

  3. #3
    Member brainheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    77

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by brainheart; 07-12-2018 at 12:45 PM.
    459

  4. #4
    . bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,453

    Default

    Perhaps the name should be 'speshul snowflake' system?
    Likes brainheart, Norexan liked this post

  5. #5
    Don't touch me. Peter Deadpan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    MBTI
    eNFP
    Enneagram
    458 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,601

    Default

    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.
    dead·pan
    /ˈded,pan/
    adjective: deliberately impassive or expressionless.

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


    Likes Turi liked this post

  6. #6
    Member brainheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Deadpan View Post
    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: @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.
    459
    Likes Luminous, LucieCat liked this post

  7. #7
    Member brainheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    77

    Default

    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.
    459

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/so
    Posts
    488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brainheart View Post
    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.
    Likes brainheart liked this post

  9. #9
    Senior Member Turi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/so
    Posts
    186

    Default

    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.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    13,710

    Default

    You don't know you, we know you. Pay us money now!
    Likes Norexan liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO