# Objective Personality - thoughts?



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

'sup.

Keen to see what everyones thoughts are on this.

Here's a little background on the system, and a little info on subjective v objective testing.


Here's a few videos from the DaveSuperPowers youtube channel - I imagine this is where all the information that'll be coming out in the future regarding this, is where it'll be posted.


* *























I personally am massively excited for it, looking forward to learning more about it and I'm down with the methodology - if there's a way to track the cognitive functions objectively, I'm all for it.

Get rid of all the horseshit adjectives and stereotypes people use to rely on, get everyone on the same page.

I've synthesized some of the information into the blog in my signature - mostly for my own use but eh I've got it in my sig for now.

Would love to see what other people have to say, whether they're excited, think it'll never work, would rather stick to archaic dinosaur descriptors, whether they'd prefer to continue relying on a 'skill based' method of typing by functions (never works) etc etc.

Keen to hear any and all thoughts.

Already have some from some members in other threads and the resistance is terrifying.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

All I kept thinking was *"citation needed."*

I mean... I agree with their complaints about the users and descriptions and whatnot, but I don't see anything that proves I should trust their claims of (paid) objectivity over the other claims of (free) objectivity. They don't go into their process in detail, that I can find. At best they say, "So two people watch your video and if they decide on the same type then it's definitely objective!" They don't say how they know they're right or wrong, either. It reads as a business scam that thinks if they say "objective" enough times then people will buy it (which is probably true, but not proof of objectivity).

If you have access to it, you're very likely going to be better helped paying for some real psychiatric testing, not this stuff.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Turi said:


> Get rid of all the horseshit adjectives and stereotypes people use to rely on, get everyone on the same page.


Agree with this (all) quoted above; as I have _expounded _on via this thread (which unfortunately) did not get much friction:

Typology is currently devoid of it's much needed (neuroscience link), leaving The Big Five - and the dichtonomies next in line for "most reliable method," - And, rather being "heavily," reliant on test-taking, et al, it first begins with (study) of the original texts:


* *




I reckon a (better way of communicating Typology) - is first utilizing the most reliable methods (ex; reducing as much biases/heuristics/cognitive-errors) as much as possible; via utilizing a superior method, (demonstrated) overtime to be so, rather than relying on "Typology" texts (i.e., stories from users, idle speculations, 3rd party Psychologists, etc) that are of course, "meaningful with merit," and relatable/comfortng information, but ultimately devoid of sense and/or inconsistent with the primary texts; thus beginning on a faulty premise - (e.g., folk-psychology - fairytales - legends), and subscribing to the "meaningful" and sensible alternatives.

The first way is not (divorcing) the main author (e.g., Jung), from the primary writings/text themselves, and relying on secondary sources, and thus connecting the primary texts), the "secondary," sources should be utilized/examined [only in a way that addresses concerns, statements, commentary, add-ons), rather than the original text themselves.

One a specimen has done the former - I recommend (re-reading) ex; studying the main specimen(s) primary texts (&) then re-writing them themselves (ex; breakdown I/E - S/N - F/T - P/J) on a technical basis without divorcing (X)-terminology via the original Typology-texts; rather than relying on (other specimen(s)) to answer/do the heavy-lifting for you, thus relying on "desciptions," of cognitive-functions, rather than analyze what ea. function does on a deeper basis - 

Indeed, 

One can say - (45% S, 55% N); but what use are percentages if (X)-specimen lacks the knowledge of "Sensing/Intuition," in general, or is utilizing a error-prone/unreliable system - and the other specimen(s) utilizing another to discern the two: Which I reckon is why, 

"Typology is so difficult to communicate," now - as I talk about a bit in this thread when discussnig "Why are (NT)'s," often susceptible to the 'superiority,' bias so often:




There is perhap(s) extreme haste "break Typology," down into parts (e.g., cogntive-functions), which makes it all the more difficult + more prone to stereotyping, as I expound on this thread :: 

And I would say one aim is* to reduce * - not merely acknowledge, (as much biases/heuristics as much as possible; rather than fetishize the "perfect," system --) as some seem to suggest, and I dare say the "answer," is found via (neurological) outlets (which are, as of now, not particularily interested in the Typology domain - and function independently), but I do not think it is useful to "divorce," (X)-brain from Typology either ::

But first, we must recognize unique biases (that would be more clear, on the dichtonomy scale) :: Since (T/F) are the most potent of the dichtonomies - I will address (N)-T / (F): which I reckon also causes the most (frictions)



* N/Thinker biases 
*​

* *





One would think "(Ni)"-domming is susceptible to the most (biases); entailing the Halo Effect (of other NTs, that is an NT - therefore, they *must be *utilizing something_ factual/logical strategy to approach their conclusions/support of their beliefs, let alone, everything they say_, and Thinking types in general (which I contend, is not limited to the "thinking" function - but rather logical dominants/auxilieries), but towards "superiority" bias towards oneself if heavily reliant on descriptions of Type - rather than a more analytic evulation of what "NT" encompasses/does (as I do in a more technical-way to reduce common Type-related heuristics here) - although, in my reading(s) of Jung & his accuasation(s) that "The Jungian model," is the representation of all "consciousness", model pysche - I reckon we can make correlation(s) between 'general' intuition (&) ("Ni"), which seems (1) of the more perplexing malfunction(s) due to semantics - or the like, "whats the difference between 'general intuition' - and Jungian introverted intuition?" — however, I think divorcing such concept(s) in entirety from ea other _removes the coherence_ of "all of consciousness," (i.e., parts to the whole), in which Jung seemed to posit, and while Jung failed to make any interesting scientifically interesting (neuro-psychological) in seems we can correlate all the perceptive (functions) with Jung perhap(s) attempted to tap into - but died before his summa, [via] writing a more coherent, less vague release of his Jungian interpretation of cognition: 

http://www.thesap.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ModelofPsyche.pdf

It seems both (Inuition) - and (Sensing); can be attributed to "Intuition" in general, even down to to (Se) - which I explain here via 'space distortions', (which is widely related to general intuition-processing), but with substantially distinct outcomes from another in expression - (which may explain why (S/N) - perceptive dominants) may be more prone to these types of biases (i.e., feelings of superiority), and et al due the positioning of the informational processing unit - that "N/S" dichtonomous types are both more prone to *::*


*(A)* - Generate impression(s)/inclinations faster - thus, form beliefs/attitudes (with a stronger convinction) than say, (logical-dominants/auxs),

*(B) *- Appealing to associative memory (via patternization), faster than logical doms/auxs


*(C) *- Computing (more "irrelevant") data than one must necessitate; which is widely known as a "Ti" thing (however, I digress), while it seems "Ti" deal(s) with high-functoning irrelevant information - that is not what "Ti does," - which is the use of a more indepth technical analysis.


*(D)* - Is more prone to high-functioning 'cognitive-ease' than logical/aux dominants via illusions/delusions/"happy feels" (re: INFJ), and et al.

To then, perhap(s) we feel that our (N/S) dom-function have made some form of true analysis - or likely probability, which is demonstrably reflective in many (perceptive-dominants). (Ex; N-S dominant types more prone to conclusion jumping; and logical-doms more prone to "benefit of the doubt,"). 


______________


Although - such side-effects (Ex; superiority complexes), (seem less prominent within INTP/ISTP); et al, but not within ESTJ/ESTP (ex; as seen in subject(s) such as Trump), while being present on a seemingly opposing dichtonomous axis - and then agan escalated in INTJ/ENTJ/ENTP - I reckon this perhap(s) can be explained [via] the distinctions of outcomes. As seen here:

Rationality and irrationality - Wikisocion

_________________

And indeed, as trite as it may be - INTJs (and other S/N dominants) for that matter, that are suffering from "superiority & inferiorty," complexes in general - may have (severely) - undeveloped thinking functions (and/or logical-functions) & do not confuse this with "undeveloped brains," et al; assuming a correlation and/or casual-connectivity, I dare say - via certain areas of the cerebrum - which can be improved with proper discipline.





::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

*
Feeler biases *​

* *






Addressing [possibilities] via Feeler-dynamicism ::



Reflexive feeler [behaviors] (more common at a higher degree) - as implications / side-effects [rather] than innate fixations and/or 'common traits' ::


(X) Mood and/or Emotional Unpredictability (rather than instability):

(Y) More dual-hemispheric alternation/fluctation flexibility (T/F dynamicism):

(Z) People and/or persona ['interests' due to the presupposition of "subject-fixation,"]


& As to why "feelers," are more likely to type themselves as thinkers; it does not seem to be rooted within the (strong thinker/logic) bias, although, it may occur in less skilled-specimens within typology (&) be products of other personalized/psychological-malfunctions (e.g., insecurities), but this is not all it is.

"Feelers," may be more susceptible to high-functioning cognitive / psychological biases via the fixation on (congition / subject-fixation) in general, which is demonstrated to be 'unreliable' in scientific discourse, and other highly sound / reliable testing methods: (re: why 'ancedotal evidences / "experiences" / appealing to intuition over trial/error) and other subject-related abstractions are simply unreliable; which does not surprise me that 'feelers' may have more malfunctions typing themselves accurately than "thinkers" due to the the genetic / cognitive-disposition make-up to fixatue on less reliable "typing" methods when addressing themselves: - while 'thinkers' certainly have malfunctions typing themselves, and are susceptible to the same human-baises / hueristical reflexive thinking disregarding deeper analysis of the self: 

Futher, a specimen may say in defense of this oppsition, "feelers have deeper understanding of themselves," (and who they are), which indeed, may be true on (surface-value psychology (re: "emotions") and/or other reflexive conscious-outputs, but this does not seem to be case when devolving deeper into the subconscious to which (cognition / and/or the 'inner workers') of humanoids has yet to be accurately described as "what is," (and how the 'self-subject' operates), in the subconscious degree: meaning, the deeper the "feeler" goes into understanding themselves via typology (re: appealing to the anatomic / psychological-states of themselves), the more unreliable, dogmatic / hueristic - it becomes. Which may certain explain why we have more "confused" feelers typing as thinkers; than vice versa. The thinker, due to less subject-fixation (will have a small, however significant) reduction in susceptibility to such internalized-psychological / cognitive-biases due to appealing to (structures / things / objects), outside of the self - or the subject. Creating a more 'stable' foundation in typing oneself; even if the foundation is 'unstable', the accuracy of such typing increases - due to the reduction of psychological-bias implementation.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Paradigm said:


> All I kept thinking was *"citation needed."*


This simply _has _to happen for people to take it seriously.
I'm definitely going to give it the benefit of the doubt, but we _need _the numbers, _need _to see it working, _consistently_ to push it into the community.

I imagine they're aware of this.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Instinctive distrust.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

Turi said:


> This simply _has _to happen for people to take it seriously.
> I'm definitely going to give it the benefit of the doubt, but we _need _the numbers, _need _to see it working, _consistently_ to push it into the community.
> 
> I imagine they're aware of this.


Yeah, I totally agree with the idea, but I don't think true objectivity even exists outside of testing and measurements. In this case, I don't trust _people _to be 100% objective so I have no idea how they expect themselves to be objective. If they were measuring something more tangible (brain scans, blood tests, genetic things, etc.) then I would be on board; if they gave even a little bit of info on what their test covers, that would be more trustworthy as well (for example, the MMPI includes "validity scales" which are supposed to indicate if a person is lying or exaggerating). Instead, it's just a rambling mess of marketing and baseless claims*.
*Again, many of the claims I can agree with, but I'm not demanding money nor am I claiming to be a super logician, so I can make baseless claims because they're more accurately _opinions_.

So sure, their idea is nice and I agree proof/objectivity is something we / the community should strive for... But I'm trusting these guys as far as I can throw them (which is exactly 0.0mm, or, to be even more fancy, 0.0ℓ[SUB]P[/SUB]).

(And I found it really funny they basically admit to just wanting money [under "Our Assumptions"], which almost makes up for being disingenuous but not really.)
(Also their "paid internship" just _screams _scam somehow. I'd find an interview with an "Operator" who completed it very... interesting.)


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Paradigm said:


> (And I found it really funny they basically admit to just wanting money [under "Our Assumptions"], which almost makes up for being disingenuous but not really.)
> (Also their "paid internship" just _screams _scam somehow. I'd find an interview with an "Operator" who completed it very... interesting.)


Re: the part where they 'admitted' to wanting money - what do you mean?
They say they learnt that by tailoring their sales tactics to suit the ISTJ personality type, they managed to increase their sales - so they knew there was something to this whole functions/personality game.

I'm not sure how this = admitting to wanting money.
I see it as proof, somewhat, of someone being able to capitalize on personality theory in order to make money in a business that isn't related to typology - that's a great thing, in my opinion - it means they identified specific things, that worked for people who they think prefer Si and Te.

That's a start towards extracting some truths from this whole 'functions' deal.
I can see where your skepticism would creep in, no doubt, I'd love to hear your argument for why it seems like they're 'admitting to wanting money', though.

In all fairness, if you can find a business, that's not non-for-profit, and openly admits to not wanting money, I'd love to peruse their business model, lol.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

Turi said:


> I see it as proof, somewhat, of someone being able to capitalize on personality theory in order to make money in a business that isn't related to typology - that's a great thing, in my opinion - it means they identified specific things, that worked for people who prefer Si and Te.


But what methods did they use? And how did they prove that it was ISTJ / Si-Te being pulled in? How do they know they weren't appealing to, say, Se/Ni types, or even NP types?



> I can see where your skepticism would creep in, no doubt, I'd love to hear your argument for why it seems like they're 'admitting to wanting money', though.


I didn't mean "wanting money is a bad thing," and of course you'd need money to actually do/prove anything worthwhile. But, put shortly, it (not just that part, but all parts as a whole) implies to me that they're not so much on a grand quest for objectivity in itself, they're marketing the perception of objectivity for their own ends of profit. It's loosely analogous to a company paying scientists to provide a study that says their product is healthy when it might not be as healthy as claimed. Or maybe more like those websites that try to claim supplements are somehow proven cure death (though obviously on a lesser/non-lethal scale).


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Paradigm said:


> But what methods did they use? And how did they prove that it was ISTJ / Si-Te being pulled in? How do they know they weren't appealing to, say, Se/Ni types, or even NP types?


Wouldn't have a clue - and because this was in the earlier stages i.e before they really refined their process, I imagine they were likely working somewhat with stereotypes initially.
I honestly don't know, though.

They aren't claiming to nail people's personal function preferences, rather they're claiming to be able to objectively track what they've defined/identified as functions.

Whether or not that lines up with how somebody self-types is up in the air - I personally am definitely interested in being able to consistently track something, it's a great start, imo.




> I didn't mean "wanting money is a bad thing," and of course you'd need money to actually do/prove anything worthwhile. But, put shortly, it (not just that part, but all parts as a whole) implies to me that they're not so much on a grand quest for objectivity in itself, they're marketing the perception of objectivity for their own ends of profit. It's loosely analogous to a company paying scientists to provide a study that says their product is healthy when it might not be as healthy as claimed. Or maybe more like those websites that try to claim supplements are somehow proven cure death (though obviously on a lesser/non-lethal scale).


Yeah, I think it's a little different because the classes etc are open to the public (admittedly, paid), though some of the material is free via the youtube channel - not to mention, I can't recall exactly where, but Dave welcomes all scientific-minded people etc to come and see it firsthand and interrogate the whole thing - he's not shying away from the methodology being questioned and instead seems to embrace it - which, he should, due to the nature of what they're trying to do, lol.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

DOGSOUP said:


> Instinctive distrust.


The natural response to snake oil salesmen.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> Instinctive distrust.


What about, specifically?


----------



## psychologic (Oct 16, 2014)

I will say I like where this is going. He certainly illustrates concepts very attractive to my desire for concise clarity in explanation of ideas. I agree with much of what he says in his articles. Also, he's hilarious. I like the way he talks quickly, kind of brutally. But I'm left wondering how viable some of his claims are, such as the 4-part brain diagram with N/T in the front and S/F in the back, but as I lack a scientific background, I'm more uncertain than I am skeptical. But the claims would certainly be bolstered by a cross-check with biological evidence, which is what I'm curious about. 

And of course, there's the general vagueness of information, which did a great job at leaving me wanting more and even considering purchasing whatever he's putting down, so he's succeeding in that regard xD I'm always craving real-world examples to tie my understanding of the abstract to reality, because besides being terrible at thinking of them, theory can only amount to so much until it can be replicated and observed externally -- which he addresses a number of times. So he talks about hours and hours of memorization of facts/terms that require partner work, and I see the possibility of more expansive understanding of the functions which sounds great... but I have no interest in buying anything. So yeah, it is a bit sales-y. Which sucks, because I want to read more in-depth into his research and findings. 

However @Turi, aren't you a critic of the function stack system? What is your opinion on the direction this guy is going, in that regard, since he seems to be accommodating the stack into his work? Also, I've read of your opinion that IxxJ would more accurately be notated as IxxP because of being P-dominant. Is that a concern for you here? 

And perhaps if you have time and know of any good ones, could you link me some resources that discuss the validity and/or inner logic of the function axes?


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Turi said:


> What about, specifically?


1. anyone who wants money, especially in exchange for some type of information that has (at least to an extent) a limited access tends to appear either cultish or otherwise unreliable.
2. "Just like real science"... haha, yeah, I forget psychology is a _real_ science too sometimes, thanks for the reminder. Not really a proper point against it, just found it funny.
3. the text reads as if it's been written as a commercial or a funding application more than anything, so it comes off as one-sided.
4. suspicious contact page (i.e. can't contact them as a member of the general public).


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

bullshit for stupid weak minded people, all said before me, it's just so obvious.
also i have a problem with people coming all punk/hardcore with "let's cut the bullshit, blabla" has been said too many times already it is not transgressive anymore. it's boring. is it me now?
damn, life.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Some more info here.
Branches out to 32 types - accommodates for things we already know i.e Ni-Ti types, Ni-Fi, etc etc so on and so forth.

I'm interested in all of that shit.
Take my $$$.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Oh. It's "objective." That's ok, then.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

seems like an overhyped $$ grab
what they're talking about is not objectivity, de facto and definitely not building something objective "from the ground up"
this could potentially only be achieved using actual science, like brain scans

they make some claims about being able to objectively type 90% of the time, but what's the proof this is actually correct? if the original MBTI is supposedly not enough how do they reliably compare the results? And if the results are indeed the same then why pay 100$ to them and not 50 to get the mbti test lol


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

I understand everyones suspicion, but I find it _more _suspicious that people aren't receptive to the _possibility _of a new, consistent method of personality type.


----------



## Knave (Sep 9, 2017)

$99 to send them a 15-30 minute video to get typed "objectively" by TWO people? Give me a break. Send me $5 and I'll put 16 types in a hat and pull one out and, voila. Fate will decide "objectively".

Don't get me wrong, maybe they have a great interpretation of the theory, but who the fuck is going to pay them $399 for an hour phone call under the "Can you help me" section? Half hour is $199, so save a dollar and purchase two half hour sessions. And who are they? Here you go:

--LIABILITY. We are not doctors or medical professionals of any kind. You are paying to receive our personal advice. We are not held liable or responsible to any results or lack of results, including loss of finances, time, or loss of life from taking our advice. By using our website and/or services you are agreeing to our Terms and Policies.

A bunch of bullshit exploitation, taking advantage of lost, naive, or insecure souls looking to find themselves. It's like selling penis enlargement pills, or "lose weight quick" products. 

If they have insights into the field of personality theory, great! but it's outlandish what they're charging. And like @Red Panda pointed out, you can pay half of what they're charging for the official MBTI test.
​


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Knave said:


> And like @Red Panda pointed out, you can pay half of what they're charging for the official MBTI test.


But this is _objective_ man.


----------

