[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Objective Personality

[Coriolis]

Seriously though... while there are some valid points of interest here, I must say that it is overall a pretty shallow analysis of a complex (in breadth) system. It's also pretty silly to criticize any personality system for being unscientific because as it stands, all personality theories are pseudoscientific. I do think it's possible to get to a scientific point one day, and I think Dave and Shannon have that in mind as an ultimate goal, but I don't even think they expect it to get there in their lifetime. It is difficult to concretely define something as abstract as a personality, so other metrics need to be introduced in a way that will overlap with the system (DNA may need to get to a point where it can identify personality traits in a way which aligns with objective analysis of the functions, animals, modalities, or whatever).

The difference here is that this system claims objectivity in a way that the others do not. As such, it is fair to hold it to the same standards as any other scientific endeavor. As others have noted, this means publishing results that demonstrate the reproducibility of the method and its grounding in theory. Have they published anything like this? I did read where the researchers point out that it will take awhile to gather sufficient data to demonstrate the reproducibility of the entire system, as they will need to do. Limiting involvement to those willing/able to pay to join their group just makes this process harder, as well as insulating it from potentially constructive input.

Yes, I understand research takes money. They are hardly alone in encountering this reality. I usually see people in their position, however, casting a broad (and free) net to gather large amounts of data across wide segments of the population, and then either soliciting voluntary donations e.g. through some crowdfunding medium, patreon, etc,; or applying for research funds somewhere. Sure, CPP has MBTI locked down pretty tightly, but the very fact that that isn't considered scientific should be a selling point for OP in real scientific circles.

The merits of a system or theory should be independent of the flawed "business model" researchers employ to pursue it, but in this case, that model is working at cross-purposes to their efforts, and making it near impossible to evaluate it based on the objective standards they set for themselves. I will admit that I have just started finally to read upon this system, and like others who have posted here, was disappointed to see how much the information is essentially behind a paywall. I do plan to look at more of the public videos, and to read their website more carefully, the better to understand what they are trying to get at. I am doing my best to reserve judgment until I have done so.

Still, there there is something that feels very slippery about the whole system. The way the researchers are going about things suggests that they have something to hide, more than simply a limited budget. It is the same reaction I had to a system called Cognitive Styles, developed and promoted by Lorin and Lane Friesen, which claimed to relate the functions to specific neurological processes. There is (unrelated) research linking brain functioning to attributes that relate to the functions and/or MBTI dichotomies, but that is just beginning its infancy. I would like to see more of this.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I've been an Objective Personality class member for some time now, mostly because I love carelessly wasting my money, but also because I am borderline or maybe straight up neuroatypical with regard to my obsession with systems of classification of human behavior. Ironically, I never actually really participate in the weekly typing. I generally watch all of the informative weekly videos (four per week), and I will check out the person being typed for the week, but skip straight to the end to see the revealed type and decide if it's a type or person that I want to learn more about from an OP perspective. As such, I actually skip a large portion of the classes.

The way the class is set up, they announce a week ahead of time whom they will be typing. Members can then go to YouTube or what have you and research this person, attempting to type them according to OP definitions. Members can then, if they choose to, submit their typing to be tracked in an unofficial OP group setting, where data is collected and tracked.

Last week, I decided to take a stab at typing the person of the week: Joe Biden. It was only my second time attempting to actually type someone and submitting my results beforehand. The last time I had done so, I typed the person upside-down (I typed them NiTe when they were FiSe). Feeling discouraged, I guess I didn't really feel super compelled to attempt to type someone along with the class again after that, and so I just kept studying the system and reflecting, trying to build upon my own internal understanding.

Anyway... so on to the Biden thing. I only watched two interviews with Biden (not recommended... I probably should have taken the research bit more seriously and added at least a third). One was an emotional and personal interview with Oprah, and the other was a campaign funding video of a rather young Biden.

I decided on a type, and I submitted my guess before the results were announced, along with a detailed explanation of my reasoning for choosing said type. I was moderately confident in my analysis.

The type that I submitted was:
MF-Fe/Se-PC/S(B)

Now, it would take me a bit to explain what all of that means, and I'm sure that I will, but in another time at another place with another example. For now, just know that I selected that exact type for him out of 512 options. I went as specific as one can get in OP. I will say that a rough translation of this type is ENFJ, but a "jumper", so an ENFJ that primarily uses Fe and Se (uses more Se than Ni at baseline).

The type that Dave and Shannon landed on officially was:
MF-Se/Ti-CP/S(B)

So to translate, a standard ESTP in that his primary functions are Se and Ti.

Now, even though I landed on ENFJ and they landed on ESTP, when you look at what we selected side-by-side, you'll find that I was actually remarkably close. If you flip the "C" (Consume) around with the "P" (Play), you actually end with with all parts being exactly the same in the same order, with the only other difference being that he is actually an Observer (EP with Se first) rather than a Decider.

To land on a type that has literally all the same exact parts as the actual type, in nearly the same exact order, with the same exact modality (the "MF" part) out of 512 options... obviously it means that the system they have "built" (observed and labeled) is objectively logical in that it can truly be observed and identified once the parts are understood.

I know that a big argument against OP is basically groupthink or information brainwashing, but I can assure you that as much as I get a nerd boner about this system, I have approached it slowly with subjective analysis, making sure that to me, things line up in a way that makes sense. Also, by skipping many of the classes, I have essentially built my own approach to typing, using the definitions provided but not the methods. I have been critical of certain aspects of OP, particularly Dave and Shannon's teaching style and inconsistencies, and I was also rather averse to the inspirational/motivational side of things at first, as well as some of their personal beliefs and privileged ignorance spilling into the lessons at times. With that said, nothing is black and white, and I've seen them improve upon some shortcomings. I've also reflected upon why I would be put off my messages of self-improvement, and I think that is something that comes from within and isn't relevant for the purposes of this discussion.

In short, the system is working, and I hope to see them improve the clarity of it so that its application value can be further explored.

 

[The Cat]

I've been an Objective Personality class member for some time now, mostly because I love carelessly wasting my money, but also because I am borderline or maybe straight up neuroatypical with regard to my obsession with systems of classification of human behavior. Ironically, I never actually really participate in the weekly typing. I generally watch all of the informative weekly videos (four per week), and I will check out the person being typed for the week, but skip straight to the end to see the revealed type and decide if it's a type or person that I want to learn more about from an OP perspective. As such, I actually skip a large portion of the classes.

The way the class is set up, they announce a week ahead of time who they will be typing. Members can then go to YouTube or what have you and research this person, attempting to type them according to OP definitions. Members can then, if they choose to, submit their typing to be tracked in an unofficial OP group setting, where data is collected and tracked.

Last week, I decided to take a stab at typing the person of the week: Joe Biden. It was only my second time attempting to actually type someone and submitting my results beforehand. The last time I had done so, I typed the person upside-down (I typed them NiTe when they were FiSe). Feeling discouraged, I guess I didn't really feel super compelled to attempt to type someone along with the class again after that, and so I just kept studying the system and reflecting, trying to build upon my own internal understanding.

Anyway... so on to the Biden thing. I only watched two interviews with Biden (not recommended... I probably should have taken the research bit more seriously and added at least a third). One was an emotional and personal interview with Oprah, and the other was a campaign funding video of a rather young Biden.

I decided on a type, and I submitted my guess before the results were announced, along with a detailed explanation of my reasoning for choosing said type. I was moderately confident in my analysis.

The type that I submitted was:
MF-Fe/Se-PC/S(B)

Now, it would take me a bit to explain what all of that means, and I'm sure that I will, but in another time at another place with another example. For now, just know that I selected that exact type for him out of 512 options. I went as specific as one can get in OP. I will say that a rough translation of this type is ENFJ, but a "jumper", so an ENFJ that primarily uses Fe and Se (uses more Se than Ni at baseline).

The type that Dave and Shannon landed on officially was:
MF-Se/Ti-CP/S(B)

So to translate, a standard ESTP in that his primary functions are Se and Ti.

Now, even though I landed on ENFJ and they landed on ESTP, when you look at what we selected side-by-side, you'll find that I was actually remarkably close. If you flip the "C" (Consume) around with the "P" (Play), you actually end with with all parts being exactly the same in the same order, with the only other difference being that he is actually an Observer (EP with Se first) rather than a Decider.

To land on a type that has literally all the same exact parts as the actual type, in nearly the same exact order, with the same exact modality (the "MF" part) out of 512 options... obviously it means that the system they have "built" (observed and labeled) is objectively logical in that it can truly be observed and identified once the parts are understood.

I know that a big argument against OP is basically groupthink or information brainwashing, but I can assure you that as much as I get a nerd boner about this system, I have approached it slowly with subjective analysis, making sure that to me, things line up in a way that makes sense. Also, by skipping many of the classes, I have essentially built my own approach to typing, using the definitions provided but not the methods. I have been critical of certain aspects of OP, particularly Dave and Shannon's teaching style and inconsistencies, and I was also rather averse to the inspirational/motivational side of things at first, as well as some of their personal beliefs and privileged ignorance spilling into the lessons at times. With that said, nothing is black and white, and I've seen them improve upon some shortcomings. I've also reflected upon why I would be put off my messages of self-improvement, and I think that is something that comes from within and isn't relevant for the purposes of this discussion.

In short, the system is working, and I hope to see them improve the clarity of it so that its application value can be further explored.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I know. It's difficult to condense 512 types worth of information into one post. I'll come back and do a lesson.

 

[The Cat]

I know. It's difficult to condense 512 types worth of information into one post. I'll come back and do a lesson.

I hope you'll have lots of pictures and visual aides. Because:

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I hope you'll have lots of pictures and visual aides. Because:

Oh I will... because my modality is probably FM (visual). I was already writing something up.

I think I'mma take a short cut and look for some videos.

 

[The Cat]

Oh I will... because my modality is probably FM (visual). I was already writing something up.

I think I'mma take a short cut and look for some videos.

also snacks. The snacks are key.

 

[Peter Deadpan]