# A Critique of Objective Personality



## hornpipe2

Hey, I wrote this thing several months ago about Dave and Shannon's "Objective Personality" theory, and then basically forgot about it until today. (This Dave is DaveSuperPowers, of YouTube fame).

Anyway it seemed it might be good to share here, so enjoy. Spoiler: I didn't like the system 

A Critique of Objective Personality


----------



## Red Panda

that's you? I've linked this in 2 or 3 threads already xD


now they've added the concepts of masculine and feminine functions


----------



## Handsome Dyke

The article is not written clearly. For example


> However, they go on to add the notion of “Jumpers”. This is a person who “jumps” over their second function and engages by using the third function. So, while their stack is “Ti, Ne, Si, Fe”, they may “jump” Ti -> Si, then Ne Fe… effectively, the second (invalid) stack above. In reviewing the published typings, they strike approximately a 50/50 balance between Jumper and Not-Jumper.


 Engages who or what? What does "_then_ Ne Fe" mean? Are you describing their Jumper model as someone _having_ the stack Ti Si Ne Fe or someone who is merely _behaving_ as if that were true? What does the 50/50 balance refer to? People being typed Jumper or not?


----------



## boblikesoup

In your review - you say the "objective" part is because it's not subjective. It's actually objective because people can independently come to the same conclusions about type. Considering 512 types and 90% accuracy it's far more legitimate than anything else I know of that exists. 
You call it "mind reading" because they don't take everything people in videos say at face value - but people aren't always acting naturally and we tend to "peacock" our weaknesses. In fact there's is a much much better way to do things because they're digging at the truth, not what people want you to think. 

Niko, the "jumpers" are basically the same as a TeNe or FiNi stack.

One things to note is they change some of the definitions a little bit. Specifically the designation between Ti vs Te for me has always been wonky.

Here's a video I just made explaining jumpers and the new definitions






In general I think their system is fantastic. They are bad at teaching the basics because they are very conversational and unorganized, but are good at teaching once you know them.


----------



## hornpipe2

Nicomendes Saiyedros said:


> The article is not written clearly. For example Engages who or what? What does "_then_ Ne Fe" mean? Are you describing their Jumper model as someone _having_ the stack Ti Si Ne Fe or someone who is merely _behaving_ as if that were true? What does the 50/50 balance refer to? People being typed Jumper or not?


Yeah, I did get kind of dense at times, and it was proofread by people who were familiar with the system so this made sense to them. Basically what this paragraph means is:

 D&S have committed to the Grant Stack (i,e,i,e or e,i,e,i)
 Then in the course of typing people they've found the Grant Stack limiting (e.g. about half the people they type would make more sense with the second and third functions swapped)
 Rather than abandon the Grant Stack, they invent a new layer called "jumpers", people whose path through the functions is 1, 3, 2, 4 instead of 1, 2, 3, 4.

Whether or not they *actually* have that or just *behave* as that, I'm not actually certain, this distinction was never very clear to me.

---



boblikesoup said:


> In your review - you say the "objective" part is because it's not subjective. It's actually objective because people can independently come to the same conclusions about type. Considering 512 types and 90% accuracy it's far more legitimate than anything else I know of that exists.
> You call it "mind reading" because they don't take everything people in videos say at face value - but people aren't always acting naturally and we tend to "peacock" our weaknesses. In fact there's is a much much better way to do things because they're digging at the truth, not what people want you to think.


The article I wrote goes into some detail on why "90% accuracy over 512 types" does not meet any real standard of Objectivity, and why introducing "Peacocking" into the system is a bad idea. If my reasoning wasn't convincing to you, I'm not sure what to say... thanks for reading I guess?


----------



## JosephZavala

The system is really imperfect.


----------



## Tarzrobe

boblikesoup said:


> It's actually objective because people can independently come to the same conclusions about type. Considering 512 types and 90% accuracy it's far more legitimate than anything else I know of that exists.
> .


Where is the evidence for this?


----------



## tanstaafl28

Tarzrobe said:


> Where is the evidence for this?


Unfortunately, this was written in 2019 and the person who posted it hasn't been on PerC in over a year, so you might be waiting a while (I'd say it's highly "_subjective_." ).


----------



## mia-me

Considering how the Grant stacking works as follows:

Dom (daily driver)
Aux (supports the dom and has no agenda)
Tert (relief function to the dom)
Inferior (in opposition to the dom)

The order of 1,3,2,4 isn't possible. 1 and 2 always pair unless they're looping and when that happens, 2 is ignored. When 2 is ignored, the individual has tunnel vision and is in mental distress. An example would be a looping INTJ who isn't using Te to support their dominant function so all their opinions are internally driven by Ni and Fi.


----------



## tanstaafl28

mia-me said:


> Considering how the Grant stacking works as follows:
> 
> Dom (daily driver)
> Aux (supports the dom and has no agenda)
> Tert (relief function to the dom)
> Inferior (in opposition to the dom)
> 
> The order of 1,3,2,4 isn't possible. 1 and 2 always pair unless they're looping and when that happens, 2 is ignored. When 2 is ignored, the individual has tunnel vision and is in mental distress. An example would be a looping INTJ who isn't using Te to support their dominant function so all their opinions are internally driven by Ni and Fi.


You are as a beacon of reason in a sea of ignorance.


----------

