Personality Cafe banner

Leading Expert Psychologist on Personality Types/MBTI/ Jungian Psychology/Phrenology.

2K views 6 replies 5 participants last post by  Raichu 
#1 ·
#2 · (Edited)
@KevinClarkson
Alright, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you really mean it when in your video you say that you believe “everything has room for improvement”, and as such you will not be offended by what I’m about to say, because I have a very large amount of criticism for your video and your AMA.

I’m also going to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you’re not a troll. If this was indeed a trolling attempt, then it has to be one of the most time-consuming trolls I’ve ever seen, and congrats on wasting your time. If you’re not a troll, then my previous two sentences may mystify you, but you have to understand that you’ve made some statements that are EXTREMELY misleading and illogical.

I’ll be using spoiler tags to compress what would otherwise be a humongous wall of text.

 
First, about the way you present yourself: you call yourself a “Leading Expert Psychologist on Personality Types/MBTI/Jungian Psychology/Phrenology,” but I don’t see anything backing that up. On what basis are you making this claim? Have you been published? Has your work been subjected to peer review? If so, who reviewed it?

Perhaps this video and your AMA are supposed to be part of a “peer review” process, but if that’s the case you’re barking up the wrong tree. This is a loosely-moderated website where most are simply laymen interested in psychology, so if you’re looking for validation of your ideas from experts you’re in the wrong place. Also, even if this was some sort of legit peer review process, you cannot seriously claim to be the king of personality typing until after your work has been under some serious scrutiny.

You also look very young, and your profile says you are 19. It is perfectly possible that your ideas are correct, as correctness is not dependent on age. However, you simply are not old enough to have the kind of one-on-one experience with people that thinkers like Jung et al. spent decades accumulating. This experience was and is the foundation for the theory behind personality typing, and unless you can provide compelling reason for why your lack of actual hands-on experience doesn’t matter, no one here has any reason to believe your ideas have any basis in the real world.


 
Now I’m going to talk about the video:

At about 1:40 you give all sorts of ways learning the subject can help people. I don’t dispute the last four, but no logical or empirical basis is given for the first: “Figure out who is naturally attracted to you. (With whom you naturally have “Chemistry.”)” I’m not even looking for definitive experimental proof, just some sort of reasoning for this, but I don’t see any provided.

At about 2:50 you bring up a slide with information about all of the functions. For starters, I will say that while you *did* provide a link to your powerpoint in the video description, it is extremely difficult to read the text and it’s generally not considered good form to have your slides consist of a wall of text. Next, you never really go into any detail about any of the functions and quite frankly I have my doubts about your understanding of the functions; for example, when talking about Ni you say “it’s like taking this information and saying, ‘based off of this information, therefore this.’” However, your example is more descriptive of the cause-and-effect focus of thinking, not intuition. I’m sorry, but I just don’t think you have as solid a grasp on the functions as you think you do, and if you do have a good understanding of the functions you never establish your expertise at any point. If you stick around here and check out of some of the information provided here by the more knowledgeable members of the community, or read the works of people like Jung or Thompson, you might pick up a better understanding of the functions.

At about 6:10 you bring up the hypothesis of individuals being attracted to those with the same dominant function but a different attitude. I’ve seen this before, and while I can’t discredit it immediately I also know that a) there’s no real sound reasoning behind it, b) there are a number of competing hypotheses on inter-type attraction, and c) in my personal life and the life of others here on PerC the hypothesis you claim to be the truth has shown itself to be false often enough that I am 100% skeptical of its application in real life.

This would be a good point to ask where you’re coming from with your theory. Are you a Jungian purist? Are you basing this off of the original MBTI? Are you following Beebe’s model? Or are you taking bits of other people’s theories and coming up with your own, completely new system (in which case the burden rests on you to establish why your system is superior)? None of these are exactly the same, despite the fact that MBTI and its variants were developed from Jung’s work, and it would introduce much clarity to us viewers if you stated where you’re coming from in this regard.

At 6:45 you bring up a list of type pairs and their “needs and fears.” I can’t tell how you were organizing the types, because on the one hand all of the Ixxx types are paired by dominant function but on the other hand the Exxx’s are paired like ESxJ, ExFP, ENxJ, ExTP. If you are indeed pairing them by dominant function (and by extension inferior/aspirational function), then your description of each type’s needs and fears needs some work. For example, you describe the ExTP’s to need “emotional stimulation and love,” and that they “fear to be cold and unloved.” Sorry, but this has no basis in either inferior Ni (for ESTP’s) or inferior Si (for ENTP’s). At this point, I’m very convinced that you don’t understand what it means to have a particular function as the inferior. If you would like my take on that specific topic I’d be happy to explain, although people like LiquidLight, Functianalyst, and JungyesMBTIno could probably do a much better job.


 
Alrighty, now for the good stuff. Here are my thoughts on your Speech-to-Type formula. I am just as convinced as you are that personality type shows to some extent in the way we write and speak. However, your assertion that personality type can be determined based off of a few sentences is ridiculous. Sorry if that’s harsh, but this assertion betrays a profound lack of understanding of how factors other than personality affect our words and actions. While personality effects the overall way in which we communicate, a snippet here and there is much more prone to being affected by the mood of the moment. Your method of typing people is like trying to analyze the overall movement of a gas by examining the motion of a single atom for a fraction of a second. If you took words from somebody who had just ridden a rollercoaster, won a competition, or gotten laid, they’d probably look much different from the words of that exact same person after a rough night of sleep or an argument with a friend.

Next, the way you use the word “quantitative” throughout this video shows a huge misunderstanding of the word. Dictionary.com describes the word as follows: 1. Relating to, measuring, or measured by the quantity of something. 2. Denoting or relating to verse whose meter is based on the length of syllables as opposed to the stress. At no point does either of those definitions match what your method does. Claiming that you have “uncovered a quantitative formula” (8:50) for personality typing is completely false. You’re still making qualitative judgments, and you’re still making them based on incomplete information.

Finally, the way you establish J vs. P shows yet again that you do not have the depth of understanding you claim to have. While it’s true that the J and P in the four-letter type code is reflective of which function is extroverted, and not which function is dominant, and therefore that P’s are going to share outwardly share some characteristics with each other and likewise for J’s, you need to consider that things get complicated when analyzing things like this, especially in writing and especially for introverts. As an ISTP, I may be a perceiver but my dominant function is Ti. What this normally means is that the side of me that people are going to see the most will probably be my Se side, while I keep my judgments held inwardly. So if you observed my behavior long enough, I would really not be surprised if you were able to declare me a perceiver. However, the rules change when you’re dealing with writing, because in writing my use of Ti (judging process) is much more evident than it is in other arenas. I may be a “P” type, but I am a dominant judger; I just happen to orient my judging inwardly.

(side note: while I think Ellen Degeneres is hilarious and I’m flattered you would consider her an ISTP, I just can’t see her as one. I’m guessing ENFP.)


 
Now for the facial features.

“Each celebrity shown in the following slides was typed using the objective scientific speech to type formula described above. The following celebrities and their personality type are 100% accurate…You know, I found the speech to type formula, and then I did it enough, and then I started realizing that people that had the personality types have similar facial features. So yeah, I’m a genius but if you look at it from my perspective it was just the next causal step.”

Woah, dude. A reality check is in order. As I pointed out earlier, your formula is not quantitative, objective, or scientific, and you have not been using anywhere near a satisfactory level of information with it to analyze people’s types anyway. Secondly, I don’t even know what to say about your “I’m a genius” statement. Was it facetious? If it wasn’t I’ll simply suggest that you do an honest assessment of yourself and consider whether it might be worthwhile to refrain from telling people you’re a genius, even if it’s the truth.

“They all have these chipmunk-like cheeks, um, they do. That’s just the best way I can think of to describe their facial features. I’m not, you know, a super-expert on face structure.” Wait, what? You’re the one telling us you have an objective, scientifically valid method of correlating facial features with personality type, and the best you can do is “well, this type looks kind of like chipmunks, but these guys over here look like bears, and these ones look like frogs.”?! That’s like saying you’ve discovered a cure for cancer but you’re not, you know, a super-expert on cancer or anything.


Alright, so at the end you give your final conclusion:

“I have scientifically uncovered

1. The Speech-to-Type Formula
2. The Phrenology Behind Each Type

Leading Psychologist, Master, and Expert on Jungian Psychology, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, and Cognitive Science specifically Cognitive Brain Functions. “

You haven’t scientifically uncovered anything, and even where you’re correct you haven’t done anything except retread old ground already covered by people like Myers, Lenore Thompson, etc. You cannot claim any sort of title, period. Again, if you had high hopes for this, I am truly sorry if this is coming across as overly critical. But you very badly need a reality check; you do not understand typology, science, or logic enough to make any sort of significant breakthroughs on the subject. Keep an open mind and keep learning about the subject and I think you’ll go far. I know this is just the video, but I've been writing for a while and need a change of pace; perhaps I'll tackle the AMA later.

Damn, I just spent two hours writing that. I think most people reading this would agree I need a hobby. Time to diddle around outside for a while…
 
#6 ·
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top