So I'm not in the class yet, but I plan on signing up this week sometime. I have however watched all of the videos on their YouTube channel (since updating their approach) and perused through their website and Facebook page. Here's my quick and dirty breakdown:
- They approach typing:
* in an educated manner (they've been around for years and took a long hiatus, from what I can tell, to work out the kinks and develop a strategy)
* objectively, meaning from a verifiable 3rd party angle (obviously there is some room for advancement here since they only have 2 instructors, but give it some time), there are static and strict guidelines for assessing type (clear stripped down definitions and a consistent process with linear steps), results are peer reviewed (again, room for eventual improvement via broader scale)
* honestly and ethically by sharing their knowledge and strategies for a relatively affordable price (compare them to the Fauvres and you'll see there is a lot more transparency and availability, and frankly they come across as less intellectually arrogant, which is impressive)
I actually have no problem with there being 500-and some odd types because people are fucking nuanced as hell and it was brilliant to divide into subsequent (not the word I want but it'll fucking do) groups of two.
Self-typing is incredibly inaccurate for many reasons. People are limited to assessing only their ego unless they have
really looked in the mirror and spent
y e a r s deeply introspecting and crawling through the spider-infested nooks and crannies of their cellars, accessible only through a sketchy locked door that exists outside of the comfort of their home, and generally speaking... people only do this when a major fucking storm threatens to send their world crashing to the ground.
There is also too much room for misunderstanding and personal interpretation for question-and-answer format testing. Being good at something and thinking you are good at something and wanting to be good at something are three different things. Plus, it's all too easy to read a question the wrong way.
As far as the whole "worship" of gurus, I say hogwash. Sure, intellectually speaking, it probably has little reason for being included, unless of course you take into account that it's beneficial to have real world examples of people overcoming their figurative demons when learning about a system intended to spark understanding and growth. Perhaps it'd be a good idea to sort of segregate that portion of the lectures, but I personally enjoy that it's included because I am a self-help whore (I own probably 30-ish self-help books and have finished precisely one of them, so I could certainly use a little focus).
Regarding cults and cult-like behavior, I would argue that ALL of typology is culty. And on that note, I leave you with this: